Old Gumphrey
First Post
Wrong + Wrong = Right in your game? Sawing someone's head off because they killed a neutral NPC is...also evil.
How many times...?
- Thread starter werk
- Start date
Numion
First Post
Felix said:
IMO it doesn't require law to enact just punishments. Like if adventurers encounters bandits in a lawless area (say, a tract of land unclaimed by any authority), I would find it just and lawful to execute any surrendees (is that the right word?) on the spot.
That is if the campaign is a normal pseudo-medieval place where highway robbers, bandits and rustlers have nothing more than the gallows waiting for them according to most laws. Even though such laws aren't technically in effect in that area.
as a DM I wouldn't care if you did it. If you did it in town, you would be charged with murder, found guilty and probably burned to death in penalty for your crime. If she didn't die, she would become your worst nightmare.
Having the DM change your alignment to evil isn't a fit punishment. Having the authorities come along and burn the flesh off your living body is.
Now if I was a character in your party, depending on how I viewed the world, I would either turn you in, kill you myself, or refuse to adventure with you altogether.
Having the DM change your alignment to evil isn't a fit punishment. Having the authorities come along and burn the flesh off your living body is.
Now if I was a character in your party, depending on how I viewed the world, I would either turn you in, kill you myself, or refuse to adventure with you altogether.
Numion
First Post
cmanos said:
I think they are the authorities.
Got damn, PC types need to stick together!
EDIT: I would've killed her on the spot in the most efficient manner, or maybe just humiliate / incapacitate her via magical means - like hold person, command, dominate or the like. Maybe turn her to stone statue (if such means was available) and then restore her when the city was in order.
Or curse her, that would've been nice. Disintegrate would've made for most efficient crowd control ("Um .. she's been . . um, teleported to the jail, yeah, that's the ticket. Who's next?").
Last edited:
Imperialus
Explorer
in my games I only use alignment in a few situations.
1) if a PC/NPC is an outsider or undead (archon, demon ect.)
2) If a PC/NPC has devoted themselves to the "ideal" of an alignment. Paladins, Monks (though only on the law, chaos axis), most Clerics ect.
I prefer more real world consequences to actions than the rather fuzzy "punishment" of an alignment change. I'd be more concerned about the reaction of the mob. Mobs arn't very predicable and Werks character could soon find himself facing a lot more than offal on his surcoat. In this situation I would probably require an immediate intimidate check on the part of werk's character.
If he passed the mob would likely be cowed by this display of brutality and flee the streets though the PC's reputation in the town would suffer.
If on the other hand he failed the mob would get enraged and set upon the entire party with stones and clubs rather than garbage and insults. Depending on how desperate the populace is the PC's may be able to disperse them after killing a few but it's also entirely possible that if the mob was starving or could otherwise project their problems onto the PC's that they wouldn't give up until they'd smashed some skulls. Best example of this I can think of is during Storm of Swords (I belive) where a mob attack's King Jofferies retinue at the docks. Even the heavily armed and armoured knights serving escort were hard pressed to get the retinue back to the safety of the keep and even then weren't able to save everyone.
As for how the PC's would react? I'd leave that to them.
1) if a PC/NPC is an outsider or undead (archon, demon ect.)
2) If a PC/NPC has devoted themselves to the "ideal" of an alignment. Paladins, Monks (though only on the law, chaos axis), most Clerics ect.
I prefer more real world consequences to actions than the rather fuzzy "punishment" of an alignment change. I'd be more concerned about the reaction of the mob. Mobs arn't very predicable and Werks character could soon find himself facing a lot more than offal on his surcoat. In this situation I would probably require an immediate intimidate check on the part of werk's character.
If he passed the mob would likely be cowed by this display of brutality and flee the streets though the PC's reputation in the town would suffer.
If on the other hand he failed the mob would get enraged and set upon the entire party with stones and clubs rather than garbage and insults. Depending on how desperate the populace is the PC's may be able to disperse them after killing a few but it's also entirely possible that if the mob was starving or could otherwise project their problems onto the PC's that they wouldn't give up until they'd smashed some skulls. Best example of this I can think of is during Storm of Swords (I belive) where a mob attack's King Jofferies retinue at the docks. Even the heavily armed and armoured knights serving escort were hard pressed to get the retinue back to the safety of the keep and even then weren't able to save everyone.
As for how the PC's would react? I'd leave that to them.
Last edited:
Old Gumphrey
First Post
Execution (that is, killing someone) is not "good" in any fashion; it is lawful. Problem is most people equate Law and Good to mean the same thing. Generally if you perform an evil act for a good reason it could balance to neutral. I don't mean a justified reason; I mean good.
The way I see it, OP was acting within the bounds of neutrality. I don't believe that being an old lady distinguishes you from being a young man with a sword on the moral scheme of things when we're talking about swift justice (whether truly just or not). Why is killing someone in self-defense any different morally than killing someone because they are a threat to your authority? At the end of the day, you still took someone's life. I think it is well within a party's power to neutralize a hostile target without killing them; thus the fact that 95% of people who would argue alignment in the first place feeling that self-defense is justified, non-evil killing means OP's scenario should be, as well. For all intents and purposes, that hostile level 1 warrior is just as helpless as a noncombative old woman. This is D&D we're talking about, where a single mid level character can wipe out an entire town. Even if this were not the case, are we comparing alignment to individuals or to the world at large? If wiping out threats to one's authority by any means necessary allows one to act in the capacity for greater good, does that not by definition make one neutral? It certainly doesn't make you good, and by progressive reasoning it wouldn't make you evil, either.
There again I could argue that any kind of killing is immediately neutral, further modified by motive and personality and all that. I simply refuse to agree that a group of people turning on their friend and slaying him because he slew someone else is "good". It reeks of vigilante justice, which is almost by definition Lawful Neutral. The entire concept of punishment is an ethical realization and has nothing to do with goods and evils. As a matter of fact, the entire concept of the paladin class is silly, as a truly good individual would not mete out harsh justice to any living creature on sight.
Executing a murderer isn't a "good" thing, it is a "lawful" thing.
I hate alignment so much that it makes my face hurt, but it's fun to debate. In our games, races that aren't outsiders, undead, or paragons of an alignment are neutral. Trolls? Neutral. Orcs? Neutral. Dwarves? G...Neutral. In a world of angels and demons it is very easy to assume that human (read: mortal) capacities for alignment axes simply cannot contend with the extent to which outsiders can go. Characters are people, whereas outsiders define the concepts to which mortals adhere.
The way I see it, OP was acting within the bounds of neutrality. I don't believe that being an old lady distinguishes you from being a young man with a sword on the moral scheme of things when we're talking about swift justice (whether truly just or not). Why is killing someone in self-defense any different morally than killing someone because they are a threat to your authority? At the end of the day, you still took someone's life. I think it is well within a party's power to neutralize a hostile target without killing them; thus the fact that 95% of people who would argue alignment in the first place feeling that self-defense is justified, non-evil killing means OP's scenario should be, as well. For all intents and purposes, that hostile level 1 warrior is just as helpless as a noncombative old woman. This is D&D we're talking about, where a single mid level character can wipe out an entire town. Even if this were not the case, are we comparing alignment to individuals or to the world at large? If wiping out threats to one's authority by any means necessary allows one to act in the capacity for greater good, does that not by definition make one neutral? It certainly doesn't make you good, and by progressive reasoning it wouldn't make you evil, either.
There again I could argue that any kind of killing is immediately neutral, further modified by motive and personality and all that. I simply refuse to agree that a group of people turning on their friend and slaying him because he slew someone else is "good". It reeks of vigilante justice, which is almost by definition Lawful Neutral. The entire concept of punishment is an ethical realization and has nothing to do with goods and evils. As a matter of fact, the entire concept of the paladin class is silly, as a truly good individual would not mete out harsh justice to any living creature on sight.
Executing a murderer isn't a "good" thing, it is a "lawful" thing.
I hate alignment so much that it makes my face hurt, but it's fun to debate. In our games, races that aren't outsiders, undead, or paragons of an alignment are neutral. Trolls? Neutral. Orcs? Neutral. Dwarves? G...Neutral. In a world of angels and demons it is very easy to assume that human (read: mortal) capacities for alignment axes simply cannot contend with the extent to which outsiders can go. Characters are people, whereas outsiders define the concepts to which mortals adhere.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Old Gumphrey said:
What about executing someone for being mildly annoying?
green slime
First Post
Evil acts done for a good reason are still evil, not neutral.
The path to hell is lined with good intentions.
Warning sign on: "greater good..."
The ends do not justify the means.
The terms "wiping out", and "any means necessary", is counter to "the greater good". Whose good is greater in this case? Apparently it is the authority, and not the populace. You can cover misdeeds, and depraved acts in all sorts of fancy words and convoluted reasoning. They are still evil.
The path to hell is lined with good intentions.
Old Gumphrey said:
Warning sign on: "greater good..."
The ends do not justify the means.
The terms "wiping out", and "any means necessary", is counter to "the greater good". Whose good is greater in this case? Apparently it is the authority, and not the populace. You can cover misdeeds, and depraved acts in all sorts of fancy words and convoluted reasoning. They are still evil.
Similar Threads
