[Ethical Dilemma] Indiscriminate Use Of Chemical Weapons

[Thresher]

ude, the PCs haven't read that adventures of Drizzt. To them (or at least to your standard adventurer), Drow = Evil. The thought that a drow might not need killing is probably pretty darned alien to them.

For if they had read those examples of what is supposedly literature they would have dumped a cloudkill down there mixed in with an acid fog and a few walls of force to stop the bastard getting away.


Slightly back on topic.
It was a tactical manuever to save your arses, at least youre alive now to ponder what may have been rather than sucking dirt. Perhaps thats a bit pragmatic of me to say that in a heroic fantasy setting but it was a correct choice on the part of the caster's behalf.

Oh yeah, Drizzt is dead.

2004 is year of the Bi-Polar half fiendish anthromorphic baleen whale men.

 

[silentspace]

If we can move beyond the modern warfare comparisons for a moment, I believe a better analogy is the concept of 'chivalric' combat. By this I mean the concepts of honor and fair play that you see portrayed time and time again in movies, by knights, cowboys, samurai etc. Preemptive strikes are not part of this conduct. The preemptive strike is always done by the villain. The very act of striking preemptively is perceived as evil by those following such a code of conduct.

'Suppressive fire' implies a response to something an aggressive act. The drow made no aggressive act. He merely existed.

 

[silentspace]

Another thought (and sorry for being so verbose): If the killing of creatures is considered a good act solely on the basis of them being evil, then the killing of evil non-combatants should also be good, ne? Yet the killing of noncombatants is often cited as an evil act in D&D sources! It's not just anti-exalted behavior, it's anti-good behavior! That's why you see all those scattered references about how killing evil children and other noncombatants is a no-no.

 

[Rel]

If we can move beyond the modern warfare comparisons for a moment, I believe a better analogy is the concept of 'chivalric' combat. By this I mean the concepts of honor and fair play that you see portrayed time and time again in movies, by knights, cowboys, samurai etc. Preemptive strikes are not part of this conduct. The preemptive strike is always done by the villain. The very act of striking preemptively is perceived as evil by those following such a code of conduct.

'Suppressive fire' implies a response to something an aggressive act. The drow made no aggressive act. He merely existed.

I think the part that your position overlooks is that it wasn't the (ostensibly chivalric) Exalted character that did this. The question then becomes whether it is within his ethics to allow others to deviate from the high standards he has for himself. I'd like to think that if this information comes to light that the Exalted Rogue would say, "I frown on what you did back there."

Then the Wizard could say, "Frown away buddy. But they won't be attacking us while we get the Ranger back from the brink of death."

 

[silentspace]

True. I mentioned the fact he doesn't know as a mitigating factor in my first post.

It's a good question. What does he think of others not following the exalted path? Somewhere it says that regular paladins can't abide being in parties with creatures more than one step removed from them alignment-wise. What would an Exalted Paladin abide by? What about a chaotic good exalted?

Add alignment to the list of broken stuff, next to hp and ac

 

[Kahuna Burger]

hrm, I'd just like to throw in that the constant foxhole references aren't that accurate. A foxhole is a small space, holding one person who usually wouldn't have made it that far if he weren't a combatant. By making the space behind the illusionary wall a "foxhole" you are begging the ethical question...

we don't know it was a foxhole, or a duckblind, or anything of the sort. We don't know how big the space behind it was, or what its purpose was. It could have led to a whole other section of the complex, it could be a specific place to hide the noncombatants when adventurers arrive, it could have been where the prisoners are hidden to avoid their recapture. You don't know. To compare it to a foxhole on a (pre)modern battlefield is not going to give you a good ethical comparison (which sadly may have been the point). If you have to compare, it would be more like finding out that a seemingly disused building in a city you are invading has at least one occupant... You don't know who is there or why or what they are doing. Ordering an bombing run on it on the basis of mere occupation is not equivelent to suppressing fire or anything of the sort.

I'm not with the wizard on this one, personally. But even if you are, don't let a misleading analogy direct the conversation.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Shard O'Glase]

'Suppressive fire' implies a response to something an aggressive act. The drow made no aggressive act. He merely existed.

As far as I know scouting and spying are indeed seen as aggresive acts. Yeah sometimes a person you beleive to be socuting you out is just some dumb scmuck who wanted to see what all the noise was, but a person poping there head out of behind a illusionary wall is much more likely to be a scout in a blind than some random farmer looking to see what the comotion is about.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Re-reading the BoED, I couldn't find any passage that states this. Perhaps you are interjecting your perception of Exalted characters and what is required of them, and perhaps you are correct. But it's important to note that it is a projection on your part. For my part, there are evils in my world that are, indeed, beyond redemption, and I wouldn't penalize an Exalted character for recognizing that fact.

You are correct, I took this too far considering the current circumstances. Demons and Devils, for example, will not be the object of most Exalted characters' endevours to save. However, it does have this to say about redeeming evil:

"... a good character approaches every encounter with orcs, goblinoids, and even the thorouly evil drow with heart and a mind open to the possibility, however remote, that his opponents might someday be transformed into allies."

Yes, in a situation where the Drow attacked the characters, an Exalted character would be one of the first to despense with unfettered justice because the Drow is an enemy and is acting as such. Trying to save an enemy while said enemy is lobbing fireballs at you and your friends is only foolish. But, attacking a previously non-combatant preemptively without even trying to ascertain whether this individual is a friend or foe is something that an Exalted character frowns very heavily upon, and if the character found out about this infraction, he would be justified in making the party (at least him and the wizard) go back to investigate the situation that the wizard had created.

I think this is a case of more than a slap on the wrist for the wizard if he finds out about it. Attacking unprovoked is just not something that he should have to put up with from other party members.

 

[ThirdWizard]

As far as I know scouting and spying are indeed seen as aggresive acts. Yeah sometimes a person you beleive to be socuting you out is just some dumb scmuck who wanted to see what all the noise was, but a person poping there head out of behind a illusionary wall is much more likely to be a scout in a blind than some random farmer looking to see what the comotion is about.

If the Drow turned out not to be an enemy, would the Exalted character then consider his death "acceptable losses?"

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You are correct, I took this too far considering the current circumstances. Demons and Devils, for example, will not be the object of most Exalted characters' endevours to save. However, it does have this to say about redeeming evil:

"... a good character approaches every encounter with orcs, goblinoids, and even the thorouly evil drow with heart and a mind open to the possibility, however remote, that his opponents might someday be transformed into allies."

Yes, in a situation where the Drow attacked the characters, an Exalted character would be one of the first to despense with unfettered justice because the Drow is an enemy and is acting as such. Trying to save an enemy while said enemy is lobbing fireballs at you and your friends is only foolish. But, attacking a previously non-combatant preemptively without even trying to ascertain whether this individual is a friend or foe is something that an Exalted character frowns very heavily upon, and if the character found out about this infraction, he would be justified in making the party (at least him and the wizard) go back to investigate the situation that the wizard had created.

I think this is a case of more than a slap on the wrist for the wizard if he finds out about it. Attacking unprovoked is just not something that he should have to put up with from other party members.

I can agree with this.