How does redemption ever happen if those that are evil are simply put to the sword for it? And i never kill the last guy, until we pump him for information, if the information is good i let him go. I will usually kill about 80% of the surrendered persons my groups come across, unless it's obvious they AREN'T evil. I know this, because i am often one of these types as i usually play chaotic neutral. Neutral is just that, middle of the road. Neutral good kind of has a skinny little leg to stand on, where they generally follow "rules" but are not 100% beholden to them, so in theory, he could kill in the way a chaotic good would, but if he does it all the time, then he risks a shift towards chaotic. He didnt torture them, and drag it out, he killed them in combat while, yes helpless, but evil. Chaotic good is willing to and going to do good, regardless of "rules". If the enemies were undoubtedly evil, and the group KNEW it, then the Chaotic Good was spot on. I would not change their alignment just yet, but I would let them know it may change later if they continue to behave that way.įor the most part the alignment change wont matter much unless they are certain classes, but if they go evil and detect as evil later, that could be an issue. Evil kills because it is easy or convenient way out.Įven if they were cops in real life, if the bad guys surrender after a shoot out they can just keep firing and kill them anyway. ![]() The second one is more understandable, but it is still an evil act.Ī good person kills because they have too. The first excuse is just that, an excuse. They cannot just go about killing someone on the off chance that they may be evildoers, even if they turn out to be. The fact that the people they murdered were Rakshasa didn't matter, since the group didn't know about this, it was still murder. I had the Sarenrae cleric go blind for that one, everybody else got the choice between an alignment shift or a permanent negative level until they atoned in some way. I once took this even further, group was breaking into a house and murdering the inhabitants as they defended their property. Even if the lackeys were all bad, unless they make certain that this is the case slaughtering them is not okay. The players cannot possibly know all the background. The bosses death released them from their bond (the magic ended or now the boss cannot threaten their families anymore). Throw in another counter argument: maybe the lackeys were intimidated or mind-controlled into service. I'm with you, but I think the topic is better placed in "Advice" as there are no actual rules on how to handle those issues. Just within the narrow confines of this scenario, is an alignment shift from Good towards Neutral warranted? I've read through some alignment threads that get down some big time rat holes in terms of interpreting the Alignment system in general, and I'm not looking to do that here. Since we're mostly relatively inexperienced, I thought I'd throw it out to the PF community to get some feedback. I say neither of these arguments holds water. They have 2 counter arguments - 1) they're in the heat of the battle and can't just turn off the combat "juices" like a light switch, and 2) the fact that these bad guys were just trying to kill them justifies continued hacking, even after they've surrendered. ![]() ![]() I tell them this is inherently NOT a "Good" act and they could suffer alignment consequences if they proceed. The two melee characters in the party - 1 Neutral Good and 1 Chaotic Good - indicate they will keep swinging at their surrendered foes. The cronies left alive throw down their weapons and fall to their knees in surrender. Eventually the BBEG and his henchman go down. I'm looking for general opinions regarding a situation that recently arose in my campaign.īig fight.a Big Bad Evil Guy, his almost-as big and bad henchman, and a large number of lower level cronies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |