Rykion said:
So saying they are known to eat intelligent humanoids seems to be an accurate paraphrase of that to me. Intelligence is usually assumed with most humanoids in D&D, and the part about captives and slain foes reinforces it. I actually pointed out in post 194 that lizardfolk eating humanoids wasn't actually as common as is believed.
Only if you completely ignore the part that says that it is largely unfounded. Furthermore though, even if some may be known to do that, there is no guarantee that *this* one did, and a pretty fundamental tenet of lawful and goodness is that one isn't guilty of things that others may or may not do.
It actually doesn't matter that it was a lizardman, but believing that capture probably equals getting eaten tends to motivate people. The lizardman stopped being a captive when he broke the terms of his parole and actively aided the party's enemies.
No, he continued being a captive who was trying to aid his own people. When he was captured, he wasn't suddenly anointed in the party, given a share of party treasure and welcomed as an equal.
I find that few parties actually have people with the heal skill. Low skill rank equals possible fail and more time eaten up retrying.
So what? First off, the OP made it clear that the lizardman was unconscious, so this entire line of discussion is really a red herring in the first place. Second off, that's a convenient response to rationalize the actions of the CN warlock as being the appropriate response. Under that line of logic, you can dismiss any alternative action to killing the prisoner as not valid.
In all my time of playing 3/3.5 I have never seen a party with a cleric that didn't have the heal skill, and have enough points to make checking the status of someone (alive, dead, unconscious) a trivial matter...
The OP doesn't mention how the info was gained. If it was the DM just saying "you knocked him out" it can still be seen as at the metagame level rather than at the character level.
For this discussion, those are the facts as presented. He was knocked out. Period. I can't help but feel like you are switching between metagame/not metagame as convenient to rationalize the murder of a prisoner as being a lawful good act. It's simply not one.
Because intent is 9/10ths the law, and depending on motivation the exact same act can fall under different D&D alignments. I've never said the act of killing the lizardman was good, but with the right intent it could fall under the LG alignment.
Perhaps, but the circumstances presented aren't that broad. I think we may be talking past each other here. I'm only referring to the circumstances presented by the OP. In no way, in those circumstances, do the actions taken or the results obtained fall under a LG action. If it went down as described, the LG characters should rightly have taken issue for any number of reasons ranging from the killing of the prisoner, to the removal of his gag, to the unilateral actions of the warlock.
Now, broaden it to generalities and I can absolutely see how something similar (but not the same) could be considered appropriate by a LG character.
Notice the "closemindedness" and "judgetmentalness" of lawful. There is also a specific section of the PHB just for LG. The one word summary for the alignment is "crusader." LG can describe anyone from a do no harm pacifist to a self righteous paladin who has no time for mercy for those who cross him on a mission.
Sure.
This will be my last post on this thread because I've made my position pretty clear. We just disagree on what actions may fall under specific alignments in D&D. Personally, I generally find all killing to be an evil act, even if it is justifiable. I was responding to character actions in a make believe world and my interpretation of RAW of that world.
Actually, I think we largely agree (maybe). I think the issue is that you are trying to extrapolate the situation into a general scenario whereas I am trying to stay exclusively to the situation as presented. Either way, good discussion. Thanks!
