Was this wrong?

[Henry]

Killing someone who surrenders to you is well within chaotic good behavior now?

It certainly shouldn't push you into CE on the basis of that one action, but it's definitely a bit of an impulse in that direction. Of course, it sounds like most of your other actions are pushing you towards CG, so you don't have too much to worry about on that score.

Actually, I think he was saying that this part was Chaotic Good:

The rest of my group was kind of shocked, since my PC is the type who usually gives extra coin to poor townsfolk and feels bad about slaughtering baby owlbears and such.

and the part about killing a guy who surrenders right after he attacked you and several other people was a Chaotic Neutral action.

Now, killing him without provocation would be an evil action (but I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that statement).

 

[Talon5]

To me-

CN is not the type to give of himself. CG would however.

Having seen this man murder a number of innocents, then the guy surrenders.

LG surely would have taken his surrender, placed him on trial- perhaps right on site as all the wittness are right there, judged and exicuted him for his crimes. Of course that in the extreme of a city or providence where laws are slim and far between- should the area have a fair legal system then its more then likely probable that Mr LG would hand Mr Bad Guy over to the authorities.

As to your question- play it out, you can't take the arrow back, the guy is dead. Let it go. Feel guilty about it and play that out- confess to the others that you think you did the wrong thing, that you should have abidded the surrender, but you were POed because he killed those people.

 

[baradtgnome]

But....would a chaotic neutral (but mostly good) PC ever have a reason to kill a guy who was surrendering?

Now reverse the tables and a NPC shoots and kills a character...
What are the characters going to do to that NPC later if they get a chance? How are they going to view the shooter?

As a DM I have no issue with the action and alignment. I wonder how the other characters are now going to behave differently towards your character in the future.

Lots of role play opportunities

 

[S'mon]

Killing someone who surrenders to you is well within chaotic good behavior now?

Assuming a 'state of nature' or 'battlefield' situation, killing a murderer who attempts to surrender to you rather than accept his surrender is, I would say, well within LG but not paradigmatic CG since CG tends to focus on the individual & the immediate situation. It's a bit towards Neutral (if done thoughtlessly/impulsively) or possibly towards Lawful if done as a considered execution-for-crimes.

In a state under the Rule of Law the murderer should be arrested, especially if the PCs are the legal authorities, killing him is non-lawful and possibly non-good, but certainly not evil. IMO.

I'm not sure where people get this idea that there's an obligation to accept a surrender? Unless the PCs are the police force, they're in a war situation, not a law-enforcement situation.

 

[S'mon]

Killing someone who surrenders to you is well within chaotic good behavior now?

Assuming a 'state of nature' or 'battlefield' situation, killing a murderer who attempts to surrender to you rather than accept his surrender is, I would say, well within LG but not paradigmatic CG since CG tends to focus on the individual & the immediate situation. It's a bit towards Neutral (if done thoughtlessly/impulsively) or possibly towards Lawful if done as a considered execution-for-crimes.

In a state under the Rule of Law the murderer should be arrested, especially if the PCs are the legal authorities, killing him is non-lawful and possibly non-good, but certainly not evil. IMO.

I'm not sure where people get this idea that there's an obligation to accept a surrender? Unless the PCs are the police force, they're in a war situation, not a law-enforcement situation.

BTW what do NPC CG elves do in your campaign if orcs & goblins offer to surrender to them? Are they evil if they don't accept the surrender?

 

[reanjr]

Wrong? Morally? Yeah. Legally? Probably. Outside of character? Possibly. But CN is sort of an alignment for acting out of character occasionally. If your actions become predictable, you're not really chaotic. CN characters are ruled by their passions and gut. Seems like you acted fine to me.

 

[kolikeos]

So Saturday night, we're playing our regular game and my character shoots and kills a guy who was trying to surrender. This guy had just shot at us and killed some seemingly innocent looking guards and a seemingly innocent looking woman.

The guy had been part of a group and was likely a hired fighter who was just there for the money.

My chaotic neutral PC who has never shot at or gone after a surrendering NPC before sees him drop his bow and try to surrender and decides she does not like him and shoots (and gets a critical) and kills him.

The rest of my group was kind of shocked, since my PC is the type who usually gives extra coin to poor townsfolk and feels bad about slaughtering baby owlbears and such.

It was totally out of character...

But....would a chaotic neutral (but mostly good) PC ever have a reason to kill a guy who was surrendering? I tried telling my group that I just didn't trust that he was really surrendering, which I suppose is one reason...

Have you ever done anything totally out of character like that?

first, you seem more good then neutral.
second, i see nothing out of character with a chaotic character killing someone surrendering.

 

[reanjr]

Assuming a 'state of nature' or 'battlefield' situation, killing a murderer who attempts to surrender to you rather than accept his surrender is, I would say, well within LG but not paradigmatic CG since CG tends to focus on the individual & the immediate situation. It's a bit towards Neutral (if done thoughtlessly/impulsively) or possibly towards Lawful if done as a considered execution-for-crimes.

In a state under the Rule of Law the murderer should be arrested, especially if the PCs are the legal authorities, killing him is non-lawful and possibly non-good, but certainly not evil. IMO.

I'm not sure where people get this idea that there's an obligation to accept a surrender? Unless the PCs are the police force, they're in a war situation, not a law-enforcement situation.

I'm pretty sure Geneva Convention indicates an obligation to accept surrender. I might be wrong, but it is still considered a pretty international big faux pas to not accept surrender in war. U.S. soldiers are not allowd to fire until they are fired upon. Doesn't matter if they are outnumbered 2-to-1 and surrounded by guys pointing guns at them and ready to shoot. U.S. policy dictates that their troops will not be the first to fire. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I think they would have to come down from higher up the chain of command than your average field commander.

 

[S'mon]

U.S. soldiers are not allowd to fire until they are fired upon. Doesn't matter if they are outnumbered 2-to-1 and surrounded by guys pointing guns at them and ready to shoot. U.S. policy dictates that their troops will not be the first to fire. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I think they would have to come down from higher up the chain of command than your average field commander.

Uh, either you're thinking of peace-keeping rather than battle-fighting rules of engagement, or you're just plain wrong. Hm, considering what I know of US army "force protection" doctrine, I'd say you were just plain wrong.

There are plenty of cases where it's not practical to accept a surrender, and might well be suicidal to do so, eg for troops operating behind enemy lines. During war, Geneva Convention has extensive rules for treatment of prisoners (plus lots of other stuff on eg protection of noncombatants), but AFAIK does not in any way obligate taking of prisoners of enemy combatants, though this is certainly widely regarded as a 'good' thing to do.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Doesn't the PHB include some language about alignment being a guide and not a straitjacket? I think that applies here.

I don't think it was wrong in any sense considering what we know of the situation and the character.