[Ethical Dilemma] Indiscriminate Use Of Chemical Weapons
- Thread starter Anabstercorian
- Start date
Shard O'Glase
First Post
ThirdWizard said:
yes he would. Someone poking ahead out from behind a illusionary wall lends it self so much more towads a scout(even when not a drow) than an innocent, that in the incredibly unlikely event they were an innocent would be seen as an unfortuante accident and an acceptable loss.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Ehhhh... An exalted character would rather die than let an innocent die. That's an ends versus means thing. It being preemptively killing those who are enemies so that they don't hurt you first, but sacrificing a few innocent lives in the process. Nuh uh. If this is repeated behavior, someone innocent is going to die.Shard O'Glase said:
Lord Pendragon
First Post
The innocent child who accidentally found a use-activated token of Illusionary Wall and decided to play peek-a-boo with the passing adventurers?ThirdWizard said:
Mm-hm. That's when it's time to find a new DM, I think.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Exactly.Victim said:
Or good adventurer who happened to also be in the dungeon. If this is repeated behavior, over the course of 20 levels, just attacking anyone and anything you see in a dungeon because they might be enemies, then you're going to kill someone who is not an enemy eventually and inevitably. Unless the DM runs a game where everyone in a dungeon is always an enemy, in which game the meta-game takes over and the situation becomes moot.Lord Pendragon said:
Rel
Liquid Awesome
ThirdWizard said:
I think you're right about that but you assume that behavior takes place in a vacuum. If the typical session goes like:
DM: "You see someone up ahead at the edge of your torch light."
Wizard: "Cloudkill!"
...then yes, somebody who is "innocent" or at least may not have had ill intentions toward the party is going to get Cloudkilled. But that is not what happened. Nor did the OP imply that the Wizard has made a habit of arbitrarily Cloudkilling everthing in sight.
If the DM had described the Dark Elf as having peeked through the wall and looked on in horror as if just seeing the Retrievers for the first time, then yes, it was rash. If the Dark Elf had been described as looking pleased that the party was fighting the Retrievers or motioned to the party that he wanted their attention or aid, then yes, it was rash. But we have no indication that any of that happened.
It seems at least as likely that the Dark Elf was one of the Bad Guys who peeked out and saw what was happening, said to himself, "Crap. They're killing our Retrievers out here. I better get some help." and went to get that help. I'm not saying that that scenario is certain but I think that's where the smart money is, all else being equal.
I think it is perfectly fine for the Exalted character to require a greater burden of proof for someone's vileness before HE goes performing an action that is potentially fatal to them. But if he's going to mandate that his code of ethics must be adhered to by all party members then that's what I call a "problem character".
silentspace
First Post
Wow this thread is still going!
ThirdWizard - excellent posts about how the Exalted would feel about the wizard. I agree. If a standard paladin would object, then an Exalted would do more than object. He would take action by investigating, as you said.
Seems a lot of people still think this is acceptable behavior for an Exalted, given the specific circumstances, and of course it's up to each gaming group to have the final say.
Just wanted to add, however, that in my mind at least, the fact that the party was fighting retrievers makes it more likely that this was an ethical boo-boo, and not less likely.
"A retriever specializes in recovering lost or desired objects, runaway slaves, and enemies, and bringing them back to its master."
When I first read the post, I thought it was more likely that the drow was a runaway slave or enemy than the retriever's ally. I wouldn't expect retrievers to have any allies when they are on their retrieving missions, but you never know.
And that's the point. You never know.
ThirdWizard - excellent posts about how the Exalted would feel about the wizard. I agree. If a standard paladin would object, then an Exalted would do more than object. He would take action by investigating, as you said.
Seems a lot of people still think this is acceptable behavior for an Exalted, given the specific circumstances, and of course it's up to each gaming group to have the final say.
Just wanted to add, however, that in my mind at least, the fact that the party was fighting retrievers makes it more likely that this was an ethical boo-boo, and not less likely.
"A retriever specializes in recovering lost or desired objects, runaway slaves, and enemies, and bringing them back to its master."
When I first read the post, I thought it was more likely that the drow was a runaway slave or enemy than the retriever's ally. I wouldn't expect retrievers to have any allies when they are on their retrieving missions, but you never know.
And that's the point. You never know.
Shard O'Glase
First Post
ThirdWizard said:
so a exalted character isn't just lawful stupid he's lawful(probaly chaotic alowed as well) absolutly moronic, brain dead, slack jawed yokel stupid. There's a big difference in letting an innocent die, and turning such a blind eye to the most likely by far scenario there by endangering all your comrades in the incredibly unlikely event someone might be an inncoent.
Similar Threads
