Lawful GOOD

[Deep Rot]

I have a player who is just about to kill an intelligent construct, that is in this case helpless, unless it will give a legitimate for reason otherwise.
Is that violating Lawful GOOD?
I am torn, she has been attacked by other constructs that were evil, but doesn't know whether this one is evil.
What should I do?

[Hiro Protagonest]

What has it done?

[Tvtyrant]

Does it look just like the others? Did you give her clues that is wasn't evil and about to attack her?

[Hirax]

I don't see destroying constructs, intelligent or not, as evil unless they are obviously built to serve a good purpose.

[hobbitkniver]

I have a player who is just about to kill an intelligent construct, that is in this case helpless, unless it will give a legitimate for reason otherwise.
Is that violating Lawful GOOD?
I am torn, she has been attacked by other constructs that were evil, but doesn't know whether this one is evil.
What should I do?

I wuld say, if she doesn't realize it isn't an evil creature, then it isn't an evil act. If she later is told that it wasn't evil, she should have to do her best to remedy the situation.

[Deep Rot]

It was possibly the source of a large enemy construct that attacked the PC, but it is possible that it wasn't.
In Its current state, it has no limbs.

[Flickerdart]

Why does it matter if the construct is evil or not? An evil alignment is not the solitary metric for whether or not something needs to be killed. If it attacked them, the Paladin is entitled to finish it off. The fact that he's allowing it to explain itself is Paladinly enough - it might not be practical to take the thing to legitimate authority, and so the Paladin has taken on the duty of judging and sentencing it himself. Very Lawful, at the very least.

[Deep Rot]

The good part is my question, lawful I have no question about.





The PC is actually not a paladin, but a monk.


She couldn't know whether it was evil or not, It was not clear, and if she left it alone it would've [put people in danger, even though it wouldn't have, she didn't know that.[/SPOILER][/SPOILER]

[Greenish]

It's an evil act to kill a sentient being that hasn't done anything wrong (to your knowledge). Just because you have seen other beings that were evil doesn't mean anything, you can't (or rather, shouldn't) judge someone for what others of it's kind have done.

So yeah, killing a helpless and innocent prisoner is evil.

[Edit]:
She couldn't know whether it was evil or not, It was not clear, and if she left it alone it would've put people in danger, even though it wouldn't have, she didn't know that.Alignment debates are silly, but I'll just point out that that justification works for every single being the paladin has ever encountered.

And how would the limb-less construct put people in danger anyhow?

[Deep Rot]

Well, the construct is attempting to escape now, It would've likely been killed 3 seconds later otherwise, now it gets to live about 6 seconds.

[Greenish]

So killing someone for a crime they might commit, on the basics that you can't be sure they don't commit it isn't an evil act? Gotta remember that next time I'm playing an exalted character.

It's actually brilliant, now I can play a good character in chaotic "neutral" party with no problems!

[Deep Rot]

Actually, the PC seems extremely reluctant to destroy it at this point, so you can disregard my previous verdict.
PS
Greenish, I get your point.
She actually in the circumstances had good reason to think it was evil.

[Safety Sword]

So killing someone for a crime they might commit, on the basics that you can't be sure they don't commit it isn't an evil act? Gotta remember that next time I'm playing an exalted character.

It's actually brilliant, now I can play a good character in chaotic "neutral" party with no problems!

/sarcasm

I like my messages short you jerkburger forum

If the PC KNOWS it's evil, then kill. If not: Welcome to Attonement City, population YOU

[Talonblaze]

If given enough reason, a Paladin can kill even another good creature.

Also Wizards noted that although Paladins are Lawful Good, they are not 'Lawful Stupid'.

Good comes before Lawful in the case of the Paladin. But this is only in extreme cases of debates. The Paladin should exhaust most cases of methods of reason before slaying a creature unless directly hostile.

[Deep Rot]

Conflict resolved, how?
Detect thoughts, Modify memory, and a spell I don't remember where I got, "See through my eyes".

[Greenish]

She actually in the circumstances had good reason to think it was evil.So? Being "probably evil" isn't grounds for executing a creature unable to harm anyone.

[Deep Rot]

Okay Huge Problem, The Character Has Confirmed That The Sentient Construct Is Nonevil, But Now Wants To Kill It "just In Case".
What!!?

[Callista]

Did she have good reason to think the construct was intent on murdering innocents? If so, then it was a mistake on her part, but would not affect her alignment, and was in character for a LG PC. LG characters are allowed to make mistakes--they're unrealistic if they don't.

However, you now have an interesting plot hook to work with. The PC did something which would have been evil had she done it knowingly. She mistakenly executed a creature who wasn't guilty. Once she understands that she's just executed someone who wasn't guilty, she may want atone for what she has done. Most LG characters would feel horrified to learn about something like that--even the most hardened ones would regret having done it.

Being LG and being fond of planning, most would also probably take steps to learn how to judge enemies more carefully. In her case, depending on her level and style, that could mean putting points in Sense Motive, learning spells like Zone of Truth, or learning how to subdue an enemy non-lethally so that he can be captured for trial.

The PC in question: Does she have character flaws that led her to judge the construct too quickly?

It's an interesting RP opportunity for you and the player. Talk to the player OOC and ask what the character's motivation and reasoning was, so you can be sure you know where the character's coming from.


Okay Huge Problem, The Character Has Confirmed That The Sentient Construct Is Nonevil, But Now Wants To Kill It "just In Case".
What!!?... Okay, scratch all I just said. They're not playing a LG character to begin with. Get the player to re-evaluate their character's personality and pick an alignment that's a better match; killing sentients "just in case" is not something a good-aligned person does.

Or if the character really is Good-aligned, it could just be that the player is metagaming and believes the construct may be dangerous, and is playing against their character's personality. If that's the case, tell them to knock it off and do what their character would do.

[Twilightwyrm]

It was possibly the source of a large enemy construct that attacked the PC, but it is possible that it wasn't.
In Its current state, it has no limbs.

Well at the current moment, unless it poses a credible threat without the use of its limbs (spell casting, special abilities, and the like), than if its good/evil status is in question, especially if it has already surrendered, you should not really even be contemplating killing it. If transporting it is impossible, or a liability (if, for instance, you think it will purposefully alert enemy sentries or otherwise draw enemies to your position). But hell, even if the damn thing is evil, unless it is of a particularly vile variety that must be killed on sight, (in which case, why did you bother cutting off its limbs?), and is not a liability, I would say you would be best serving your alignment by sparing it until judgement by a proper authority can be issued.
The thing is, unlike most moral quandaries of this type, here you have a prisoner of war. Being Lawful good, you are typically best suited by abiding by the ideals of the Just War Theory, even if in the most basic sense (and really, any variation on good will be doing something like this, lawful types will just be more likely to have a standardized set of rules or theories they quote from). As such, unless the enemy is of a particularly vile nature, all the rules for prisoners of war, for the harming of civilians, etc. should probably be followed, especially if you are a Paladin. Hell, the rules of Chivalry were quite bound up in the various tenets of the Just War Theory, and as such following something akin to this would not be unheard of.

[Deep Rot]

Conflict resolved, the PC didn't seem to understand the implications of LG.

[SowZ]

Actually, the PC seems extremely reluctant to destroy it at this point, so you can disregard my previous verdict.
PS
Greenish, I get your point.
She actually in the circumstances had good reason to think it was evil.

There is a reason in a trial you are innocent until proven guilty. By this Paladin's logic, every single murder trial should result in the execution of the accused unless there is a provable alibi. If there isn't enough evidence to show that they did kill the victim but just enough to make it a reasonable possibility? Give 'em the chair!


I don't see destroying constructs, intelligent or not, as evil unless they are obviously built to serve a good purpose.

Why is this? Humans brains are computers. A computers 'thoughts' are the results of electrical signals responding to certain events. A humans thoughts are the results of electrical signals responding to certain events. Because one brain is chemical it is valid while the other brains aren't? If sentience exists in both, killing either without proper justification is wrong.

[Psyren]

If given enough reason, a Paladin can kill even another good creature.

Of course he can; that's what Atonement is for.

[Knaight]

Of course he can; that's what Atonement is for.

Because, clearly, two good people have never ended up on opposite sides of a violent conflict.

[Psyren]

Because, clearly, two good people have never ended up on opposite sides of a violent conflict.

And clearly resorting to murder is the only possible resolution to such a confrontation.

[Knaight]

And clearly resorting to murder is the only possible resolution to such a confrontation.

Because there have never been violent conflicts outside of murder. Soldiers, for instance? Yeah, they just murder people. That's what being a soldier is.

[faceroll]

It's not necessarily evil to execute a non-evil opponent. The nature of any execution means the executed will be helpless, so that's not an issue.

It'd be very easy for a neutral creature to warrant execution by a lawful good paladin. The neutral creature must merely do equal amounts of good and evil. And if that evil it does hits too close to home, say, threatening innocents in the paladin's parish, then by all means, burn the heretic.

I hate how the playground thinks paladins have to be total ******* and play nice. Nowhere in the PHB does it say paladins have to be nice guys.


So killing someone for a crime they might commit, on the basics that you can't be sure they don't commit it isn't an evil act? Gotta remember that next time I'm playing an exalted character.

It's actually brilliant, now I can play a good character in chaotic "neutral" party with no problems!

Are paladins necessarily exalted?

[Larpus]

Step 1: Wait around in town until someone does something bad.

Step 2: Check which color of clothes that person was wearing.

Step 3: Kill everyone using that same color because "they could be part of some evil cult".

Step 4: Repeat the above steps for other colors until you are the only one left in the world.

Does it make sense? No.

Is it a LG modus operanti? No, I'd say that's very CE.

Point is, "good reason to think it'll do harm" is not enough to warrant killing a helpless being. There is a huge difference between a battle kill and a coup-de-grace.

[Psyren]

Because there have never been violent conflicts outside of murder. Soldiers, for instance? Yeah, they just murder people. That's what being a soldier is.

And war isn't Good either. Thanks for proving my point.

[hamishspence]

Are paladins necessarily exalted?

They're bound by the same limitation as characters with Exalted feats- that is, if they commit an evil act, they lose their class (or feat) benefits till they atone.

[Andreaz]

blahblahblah alignments blah blah evil creature blah WHATEVER

1) "but it's evil" does not make killing it not-evil. It must have done or definitely be about to do something worth resorting to killing. Again, pinging evil does not do it. And keep it to sapients if you want to remain sane.
2) Unless the character's class features rely on remaining LG, I see absolutely no problem in the player changing alignments. Really it may only add to the game as the character starts to change and people start to realize.

As to "Why different creatures enter in conflict, sometimes armed conflict", alignment plays almost no effect. Any conflict of interests does it, and no alignment is some big family. It's perfectly possible, feasible and sensical for two good groups to war and for one of them to be genuinely allied with an evil group and that group to help them, with no conflicts.

Really, as far as what the alignment system mostly intends to do, the only beings for which it is more defining than "a ping on the alignment radars" are hte beings made of alignments.

[Knaight]

And war isn't Good either. Thanks for proving my point.

So soldiers can't be good then? Through most of history, its not as if the vast majority of the people actually out fighting the war had any choice in the matter.

[hamishspence]

It may depend on whether they're the aggressor or not.

Fighting against an aggressor is not likely to put a ding in anyone's alignment.

Being the aggressor, however, may.

[PrinceParrot]

As to "Why different creatures enter in conflict, sometimes armed conflict"

I thought we established it doesn't have arms! ::rim shot::sad trombone::

[TurkeyBlizzard]

I hate how the playground thinks paladins have to be total ******* and play nice. Nowhere in the PHB does it say paladins have to be nice guys.

One word (actually, possibly two): St. Cuthbert


That said, killing a helpless, sentient being who hasn't done anything evil doesn't exactly sound like a Good move.

[Knaight]

It may depend on whether they're the aggressor or not.

I'd argue that in many wars, if two individual soldiers are in combat neither can really be classified as the aggressor. Both were essentially thrust into that situation by a third (and probably fourth) party. Hence two good people could very well be in a situation where they are trying to kill each other, even though they may well have been close friends had the situation not been so terrible.

[flumphy]

I'd argue that in many wars, if two individual soldiers are in combat neither can really be classified as the aggressor. Both were essentially thrust into that situation by a third (and probably fourth) party. Hence two good people could very well be in a situation where they are trying to kill each other, even though they may well have been close friends had the situation not been so terrible.

Except, short of some kind of domination spell, no one is actually forced to fight. Even if the choices boil down to "fight or die", "die" is always an option.

Of course, if D&D took the pacifist route, playing a good character would be pretty much impossible, so I agree that being a soldier isn't evil as per the rules as long as you aren't engaging in unnecessary brutality. From the information provided, it seems that killing the literally-unarmed construct falls under the category of unnecessary brutality.

Real life ethics are another matter, but discussing that would go against the forum rules, I believe.

[Knaight]

Except, short of some kind of domination spell, no one is actually forced to fight. Even if the choices boil down to "fight or die", "die" is always an option.

Of course, if D&D took the pacifist route, playing a good character would be pretty much impossible, so I agree that being a soldier isn't evil as per the rules as long as you aren't engaging in unnecessary brutality. From the information provided, it seems that killing the literally-unarmed construct falls under the category of unnecessary brutality.

I'd argue that in a "kill or be killed" situation, where one is effectively fighting for their life, "kill" is entirely reasonable. In the case of soldiers, it may just be that basically everyone involved is in the same "kill or be killed" situation. Really, that this can happen is what I've been arguing from the beginning.

Now, the construct. This is not "kill or be killed." This is "kill, or just continue living your life as normal, while there exists some chance of inconvenience". Killing that construct, off the possibility that it might maybe have done something, perhaps? That is the sort of thing an evil character might do.

[Strangedays]

Is it against the law to murder in your world?

IF YES: Then the LG character shouldn't be killing it.

IF NO: See below

Since the Character is GOOD, then regardless of the law, regardless of whether the Construct is good or of evil, then the character shouldn't be killing it.

if the Character has class abilities based on being lawful good, be ready to strip them! Hope the player enjoys playing his/her fallen paladin.

[hamishspence]

I'd argue that in many wars, if two individual soldiers are in combat neither can really be classified as the aggressor. Both were essentially thrust into that situation by a third (and probably fourth) party.

This might only really apply when both sides are using conscript soldiers and forcing them into battle.

Outside of this, if a soldier's being given orders to invade a neighbour, and they do so, there may be some culpability- just as if a crime lord orders one of his subordinates to commit a crime.

[SowZ]

Is it against the law to murder in your world?

IF YES: Then the LG character shouldn't be killing it.

IF NO: See below

Since the Character is GOOD, then regardless of the law, regardless of whether the Construct is good or of evil, then the character shouldn't be killing it.

if the Character has class abilities based on being lawful good, be ready to strip them! Hope the player enjoys playing his/her fallen paladin.

Lawful does not mean 'follows the law.'

[hamishspence]

It does tend to mean "respects legitimate authority" though. Disobeying laws enacted by a perceived legitimate authority- laws that are consistant with a LG system, might qualify as "chaotic behaviour".

[Yuki Akuma]

Killing a helpless prisoner is never a good act.

It can be neutral, though.

Although in this case, killing a helpless prisoner who might have done something probably isn't neutral.

[hamishspence]

Way back in Eric Holmes Basic D&D (with 5 alignments, LG, CG, N, LE, CE) it discussed acts "inappropriate for a good-aligned character"- and killing prisoners was one example given. Torturing them was another.

So, it's not like it's a new thing.

[Deep Rot]

I'm not really sure what the PC was thinking.

[Knaight]

This might only really apply when both sides are using conscript soldiers and forcing them into battle.

Or both sides have successfully used propaganda to bring soldiers into conflict, then force them in. Or when it looks like both sides are engaging in self defense. Or, really, and number of things outside of the "I can go kill them and bring glory" paradigm.

[hamishspence]

True- still, an "unknowing aggressor" can still be an aggressor, committing an "unwitting evil act"

And a person coerced into certain deeds, can still qualify as committing an "unwilling evil act".

Not all evil acts have to be "willing" or "willful".

[Knaight]

True- still, an "unknowing aggressor" can still be an aggressor, committing an "unwitting evil act"

And a person coerced into certain deeds, can still qualify as committing an "unwilling evil act".

Not all evil acts have to be "willing" or "willful".
Sure, but a Good person could also potentially commit an unwitting evil act.

[hamishspence]

True. The PHB does point out that people aren't perfectly consistant, and that Good people might do evil acts once in a while.

[The_Jackal]

Constructs aren't people. Just because it's intelligent doesn't mean it has feelings or deserves compassion.

[flumphy]

Constructs aren't people. Just because it's intelligent doesn't mean it has feelings or deserves compassion.

There is a real life mental disorder than renders people incapable of feeling emotion. Is it okay to kill them?

Actually, in my opinion, it's a fate worse than death, but most people who haven't experienced it tend to say "no." The justice system, at least, would agree.

Also, the construct wouldn't know what it was missing, so you probably can't even make the argument for mercy-killing...

[Knaight]

Constructs aren't people. Just because it's intelligent doesn't mean it has feelings or deserves compassion.

I'd define murder as the killing of that which can think at a human level without one of the reasons that would change murder into another form of killing (such as self defense). Emotions are held by just about every mammal, and yet hitting a squirrel while driving isn't manslaughter. Its the capacity to think that matters.

[koscum]

Conflict resolved, the PC didn't seem to understand the implications of LG.

Please tell us he's an Ex-Paladin now :D.



It's not necessarily evil to execute a non-evil opponent.

+1. My Rogue had to kill a very good Lathander Cleric to prevent him from raising as a Shadow. In fact, that guy begged him to do it. Certainly not a good act, but not very evil either. It was actually ruled as goodish, seeing that it freed his soul before transformation and the whole "tell me about this Heaven you're going to (so that your last though before you die in this world would at least be the one that could make you feel a bit better)". Rogue still gets a bit down if somebody mentions it (not even a ball of yarn helps him at such times).
Also killing evil characters for no reason other than "I don't care; they're EVIL!" is definitely evil.



blahblahblah alignments blah blah evil creature blah WHATEVER

"EVIL CREATURE WHERE?!? CHARGE!!!!!" If things were like that in my group, our little epic campaign would be over before lvl2.

[Yuki Akuma]

Constructs aren't people. Just because it's intelligent doesn't mean it has feelings or deserves compassion.

Sorry, but in D&D terms, they are.

Unless Warforged aren't people.


Please tell us he's an Ex-Paladin now :D.

He's a Monk.

[flumphy]

Sorry, but in D&D terms, they are.

Unless Warforged aren't people.

Now I kind of want to run a game with a party of warforged running from genocidal luddites. :smallamused:

I always knew Eberron was missing something...

[AureliusDuPrix]

I think we all need to keep in mind that alignment is a subjective system in the game. Though some classes are punished for going against their "Alignment" or a code, it is generally a subjective. The enemy of my enemy is Lawful Evil and I'm Lawful Good, am I denying/ going against my alignment? Not necessairily. Alignment is a relative thing. If the character believes it is a morally correct action for the benefit of everyone, then they're still playing to their alignment, and more importantly, the character. A new and scientific concept, I know.

[Cofniben]

Yes it is evil to kill a helpless intelligent creature that hasn't done any wrong, or at least can't be proven to have done any wrong.

Also this reminds me of someone in a game I'm playing in. In his first session we were at a Bar, past party members and myself own it, and he intimidated a drunk customer who then attacked him. The PC is a Dwarf Barbarian at around level 7 I think, so in order to justify his actions and to stay Chaotic Good, he challenges the falling down drunk to a duel before attacking and completely slaughtering the NPC. Let's just say that he is now Chaotic Neutral, and not the sharpest sword in our group.

[TwylyghT]

Though at what point is a magical construct, intelligent or not, considered alive. What level of awareness does an entity need to be sentient or sapient?

My computer has a camera, and with it can see the world around it. It can recognize my face and those of my family, greets us by name, and loads a desktop unique to each of us.

It has sensors that measure many things. If it gets to warm (has a fever) it tells me so I can adjust the fan speeds. When the battery gets low (its hungry) it tells me so i can plug it in (feed it).

Many A.I. programs put half the people I work with shame.

Yet even if an A.I. program came along that could simulate true human intelligence, formatting the hard drive would not constitute murder.

And as such, without some other seriously captivating influence to convince me otherwise, destroying a construct, no matter the quality of its magically granted artificial intellect, is no more evil than sundering any other weapon or tool.

Now an incarnate construct might muddy the waters a bit...

[Yuki Akuma]

It needs an Intelligence score of 3.

[flumphy]

Though at what point is a magical construct, intelligent or not, considered alive. What level of awareness does an entity need to be sentient or sapient?


In real life, this is a thorny question indeed. In D&D, we have a clear answer: sapience is INT 3.

EDIT: Swordsaged!

[Tzevash]

A Lawful Good should always avoid killing if there's a chance to solve the problem in another manner, especially if there are rules and laws to follow. Since we are talking about dealing with a SENTIENT being, the L/G can't just kill him if he can spare him also making that being unable to pursuit evil deeds, or convincing him that he should give up doing evil.

[koscum]

He's a Monk.

:smalleek: How the hell did I miss that.
Monk.alignmentChange.funFactor = Paladin.alignmentChange.funFactor / 10;



Though at what point is a magical construct, intelligent or not, considered alive. What level of awareness does an entity need to be sentient or sapient?

My computer has a camera, and with it can see the world around it. It can recognize my face and those of my family, greets us by name, and loads a desktop unique to each of us.

It has sensors that measure many things. If it gets to warm (has a fever) it tells me so I can adjust the fan speeds. When the battery gets low (its hungry) it tells me so i can plug it in (feed it).

Many A.I. programs put half the people I work with shame.

Yet even if an A.I. program came along that could simulate true human intelligence, formatting the hard drive would not constitute murder.

And as such, without some other seriously captivating influence to convince me otherwise, destroying a construct, no matter the quality of its magically granted artificial intellect, is no more evil than sundering any other weapon or tool.

Now an incarnate construct might muddy the waters a bit...

Cogito ergo sum.

[TwylyghT]

It needs an Intelligence score of 3.

True enough, lol.

Also from a purely mechanical perspective I'd ask if the construct in question is typed as a construct, or a living construct.

[Psyren]

It needs an Intelligence score of 3.

Thank you for nipping that particular bit of absurdity squarely in the bud.


I'd argue that in many wars, if two individual soldiers are in combat neither can really be classified as the aggressor. Both were essentially thrust into that situation by a third (and probably fourth) party. Hence two good people could very well be in a situation where they are trying to kill each other, even though they may well have been close friends had the situation not been so terrible.

Which makes what they're doing neutral at best. Both combatants always have the option of walking away, unless they're being dominated, which goes right back to Atonement yet again.

[Knaight]

Though at what point is a magical construct, intelligent or not, considered alive. What level of awareness does an entity need to be sentient or sapient?

My computer has a camera, and with it can see the world around it. It can recognize my face and those of my family, greets us by name, and loads a desktop unique to each of us.

It has sensors that measure many things. If it gets to warm (has a fever) it tells me so I can adjust the fan speeds. When the battery gets low (its hungry) it tells me so i can plug it in (feed it).

Can it create an idea? No. As such, is it truly intelligent? No.

[TwylyghT]

Can it create an idea? No. As such, is it truly intelligent? No.

That line of thought does not bode well for 99% of hollywood! :smallcool:

[Knaight]

That line of thought does not bode well for 99% of hollywood! :smallcool:

:biggrin:
Nah, all the individuals in it can create new ideas. They just can't as a whole.

[Deep Rot]

It's a Construct(Living Construct), It can therefore think; and therefore is. (wow, that's badly mangled interpretation of
"I think, therefore I am.)
lt can generate ideas just as much(if not more) as a living human commoner, who you wouldn't kill "just in case".
By "just in case" logic, you should burn down the whole village and kill everyone and everything in it so they never will commit an evil act again.

INT=10-14 or so.
AL:N


Monk.alignmentChange.funFactor = Paladin.alignmentChange.funFactor / 10
Pretty much; well said.

[Yuki Akuma]

Dogs can be resurrected. Mice can be resurrected. Plants can be resurrected (although that would require a Wish because they're objects).

None of these things are self-aware. They're just alive.

Vermin can be resurrected, and most of them are mindless.

[SowZ]

Dogs can be resurrected. Mice can be resurrected. Plants can be resurrected (although that would require a Wish because they're objects).

None of these things are self-aware. They're just alive.

Vermin can be resurrected, and most of them are mindless.

But Constructs aren't mindless. Honestly, an organic brain is just a computer, (with an astral element to it in D&D.) Thoughts from a machine as self aware as thoughts from a person are equally valid.

[Yuki Akuma]

A Construct is an individual when it has an Int score, and its a person when its Int is higher than 2.

Being resurrectable has absolutely nothing to do with a creature's personhood, is my point.

[SowZ]

A Construct is an individual when it has an Int score, and its a person when its Int is higher than 2.

Being resurrectable has absolutely nothing to do with a creature's personhood, is my point.

Ah, okay. Sure. But being resurrectable without wish does affect if it is alive. To play a Pit Fiends's advocate, a person can have an Int score of 2 and just be severely retarded. So I think sentience is more important than personhood, as said human is still a person. They just might not be fully sentient.

[Yuki Akuma]

A person cannot have an Int score of 2 barring magical ability damage - the absolute minimum for a humanoid is 3.

[Psyren]

That you can brain damage someone until they have the sapience of a table does not make it okay to murder other sapient beings.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Dogs can be resurrected. Mice can be resurrected. Plants can be resurrected (although that would require a Wish because they're objects).

None of these things are self-aware. They're just alive.

Vermin can be resurrected, and most of them are mindless.

So it's okay to kill animals?

[Psyren]

So it's okay to kill animals?

Of course not. *munches a burger*

[Safety Sword]

So it's okay to kill animals?

Only if they are delicious.

[Ravenica]

IIRC constructs (at least golems) can't be ressurected since their lifeforce was made in the form of bound elementals?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Of course not. *munches a burger*


Only if they are delicious.

For food doesn't count. I mean killing them "because they might get rabies", which seems in line with the "kill it just in case".

[Safety Sword]

For food doesn't count. I mean killing them "because they might get rabies", which seems in line with the "kill it just in case".

Killin' it because it MIGHT do something bad in the future. That's called adventurers evil. Bonus points if you can justify it to yourself.

You do have to take into account what the characters know.

If you don't stop to check however, then your actions are still your own damned fault. And I do mean damned.

To go back to your example Swiftmongoose, faced with killing the animals that "might" have rabies or letting them go rabid and wipe out a small farming community. Hello extra meat for the winter. Of course, this is only the "right" thing to do if you're certain they'll get rabies.

OK, now substitute drow for the above animals. You're certain they're going to attack. A preemptive strike is not evil.

Now substitute a collective of peace loving hippy drow minding their own business in the forest. You can't kill them just because they are drow. You might assume they are evil, but you need to substantiate that. If you kill them and they happen to be evil, score one for you. You make the choice there. Not after the swords have cut bits off the meaty guys.

[Callista]

True. The PHB does point out that people aren't perfectly consistant, and that Good people might do evil acts once in a while.Sure. Good characters wouldn't be realistic if they weren't tempted to do nasty things, and they'd have to be saints (or Saints, template and all) never to give in to the temptation. Good characters can do occasional Evil things. Most paladins probably have to seek atonement occasionally, at least in a realistic world.

There's another issue here, and that's the quality of role-playing, and keeping your character in-character. Sure, it's not "against the rules" to have your Good character kill an innocent (though whether he'd be Good afterward is another story). But you have to ask yourself: If I made a character whose personality can be tagged with "Good" as an alignment, why isn't it out of character for him to do this Evil thing? Most Evil acts are wildly out of character for most Good characters.

If you've got a Good character with a personality to match, there should be very few Evil acts that wouldn't cause his friends to start making comments like, "This isn't like you..." and worrying about mind control. The stronger the Evil, the less likely it is to be in character for somebody who's Good-aligned.

[Yuki Akuma]

For food doesn't count. I mean killing them "because they might get rabies", which seems in line with the "kill it just in case".

You are aware they kill animals who bite humans in order to test them for rabies, yes.

[Callista]

Animals aren't sentient, though. INT 1-2, unless there's something magical going on.

So, it would be more like killing a human because he might, say, spread Ebola or something.

[Strormer]

Intent and personal opinion do not dictate good and evil.
This proves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) my point. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html)
That is all.
That being said, I force alignment to serve RP, not mechanics. If a player can truly prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the ends do justify the means (in this case the means being murder of a helpless foe) then I'll let it slide, but if it happens twice, regardless of reasoning, I tend to give them an RP visit from some divine messenger telling them off and letting them know that they will be officially kicked out of the good-guys club if they keep it up. Just my style.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You are aware they kill animals who bite humans in order to test them for rabies, yes.

:smallsigh:

Unprovoked. The animal has shown no sign of rabies. Its just that animals can get rabies. So they decide to kill all of them. That doesn't make it non-evil.

[Psyren]

True. The PHB does point out that people aren't perfectly consistant, and that Good people might do evil acts once in a while.

Yet some evil acts are bad enough to change your alignment in one fell swoop. (No pun intended.) Murder is one of them.

[Infernalbargain]

Yet some evil acts are bad enough to change your alignment in one fell swoop. (No pun intended.) Murder is one of them.

Yes, swooping is bad.

Back on topic though, I think the PC's alignment shouldn't change from this. There shouldn't be any question if the construct surrendered mid-battle from the debilitating injuries. Sparing it would be morally praise worthy but not morally obligatory. If it was debilitated before the PC's arrived, things are a little murkier. If the enemy is known for trickery and similar ploys, then it's reasonable for someone to remain skeptical enough to kill it with impunity. If the enemy has been shown to be honorable, then they should get a warning about their alignment.

[SowZ]

Yes, swooping is bad.

Back on topic though, I think the PC's alignment shouldn't change from this. There shouldn't be any question if the construct surrendered mid-battle from the debilitating injuries. Sparing it would be morally praise worthy but not morally obligatory. If it was debilitated before the PC's arrived, things are a little murkier. If the enemy is known for trickery and similar ploys, then it's reasonable for someone to remain skeptical enough to kill it with impunity. If the enemy has been shown to be honorable, then they should get a warning about their alignment.

You misunderstand. They came across a crippled sentient being with no sign of hostility and no evidence of any wrong doing. They murdered it for what I can only assume was the lulz or bat-guano insane genocidal mania.

[Knaight]

You misunderstand. They came across a crippled sentient being with no sign of hostility and no evidence of any wrong doing. They murdered it for what I can only assume was the lulz or bat-guano insane genocidal mania.

Based on the principle that it may possibly have been behind someone else earlier. Possibly. Its not like there is actually any evidence, but it was, you know, a possibility.

Yeah, they have no case.

[Infernalbargain]

You misunderstand. They came across a crippled sentient being with no sign of hostility and no evidence of any wrong doing. They murdered it for what I can only assume was the lulz or bat-guano insane genocidal mania.

Reading through all the OP's posts, I don't see any mention as to the circumstances in which they met the creature. Any of the possible stories that I have given would fit in with what the OP has said.

[SowZ]

Reading through all the OP's posts, I don't see any mention as to the circumstances in which they met the creature. Any of the possible stories that I have given would fit in with what the OP has said.

As Knaight reiterated, the OP stated there was no evidence that the creature was evil and it never attacked them.

[Lord Ruby34]

Context (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214313)

[Lord.Sorasen]

Though at what point is a magical construct, intelligent or not, considered alive. What level of awareness does an entity need to be sentient or sapient?

My computer has a camera, and with it can see the world around it. It can recognize my face and those of my family, greets us by name, and loads a desktop unique to each of us.

It has sensors that measure many things. If it gets to warm (has a fever) it tells me so I can adjust the fan speeds. When the battery gets low (its hungry) it tells me so i can plug it in (feed it).

Many A.I. programs put half the people I work with shame.

Yet even if an A.I. program came along that could simulate true human intelligence, formatting the hard drive would not constitute murder.

And as such, without some other seriously captivating influence to convince me otherwise, destroying a construct, no matter the quality of its magically granted artificial intellect, is no more evil than sundering any other weapon or tool.

Now an incarnate construct might muddy the waters a bit...

But I could say the same thing about you. The only one for which I can guarantee actual sentience is myself. Everyone else could as easily be robots as sentient life, for all I am capable of recognizing is input -> response. Therefor, the point in which a construct gains sentience rather than what appears as sentience is not something in which we can judge.

I could just as easily refer to slaves as tools. It would be easy, using the same analogies, to say that we have no real evidence to say they have real sentience. But killing them would be an evil act. Even if the person/construct/whatever proved to be without a soul, certain people would argue that the fact that you intended to kill something that might have a soul is still evil.

The serious evidence you speak of simply doesn't exist. It could eternally be a simulation or even an illusion. When one attempts to be good, it is important to realize that decisions must be made with the knowledge that we don't have all the answers.

[AureliusDuPrix]

My point was completely disregarded, so allow me to jump in again.
A trio of characters, mine among them, were adventuring with another person (an NPC). After an (CR 3) encounter, he was missing his limbs, and demanded enough alcohol to numb his pain completely. After much in character debate, asking among ourselves weather or not it was morally correct to kill this man or not, we eventually decided that yes, while possible to at some point in the future to magically heal him, he would be in utter agony, and still displeased with life until then. We were all Lawful Good characters. None of us suffered any alignment penalty, and niether should the character in this scenario. If the creature has the potential to cause massive death asnd destruction, it should be put out *if that's what the party and characters find to be the best course of action*. We have ALL forgotten that in the first pages of the Players Handbook, it is stated that the rules are a guideline, and should be viewed and respected as such. They can be altered, changed, and in some cases, ignored. It would be ignorant of any of us (including myself) to think otherwise.

[Yuki Akuma]

*twitch*

Sentience = the ability to sense your surroundings. Plants are sentient, to a limited degree.

Sapience = metacognition. Thinking about thinking. 'Human-level' intelligence.

Okay? Okay.

[AureliusDuPrix]

Sapience = metacognition. Thinking about thinking. 'Human-level' intelligence

Actually, sapience means "having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment". It just means your ability to judge, and do that soundly. Human-level doesn't factor into it. Most humans are incapable of even that. :P

[Dr.Epic]

Well, before we answer that question I think we should ask ourselves...

Do constructs dream of clockwork sheep?:smallwink:
And if so do they eat clockwork oranges?

[AureliusDuPrix]

Depends. Has it ever seen a sheep? Clockwork sheep? Was it actually a lamb? Or perhaps a goat? How do we know? Is there some way to detect the thoughts of a construct? :P

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm)blahblah

[AureliusDuPrix]

Obviously, sarcasm is a lost art form.
*Edit* Lost, as far as appreciation/ detection of it is concerned.

[Sparrow]

Hello, obviously this sparked a conversation. If you clicked Lord Ruby's link you know that I am the one who played the lawful good monk//swordsage. I am here to defend myself. This construct was apparently the power source of a larger construct that tried to kill me and innocents. Obviously, that has an evil act because it was attacking random citizens as well. It gave me no viable reason to let it live, and then ran away. My character was trying to make sure that it didn't escape and get others killed. If that is evil, than I need to rethink this whole alignment thing. It finally gave me a reason to let it live, so all is well now.

[Psyren]

Actually, sapience means "having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment". It just means your ability to judge, and do that soundly. Human-level doesn't factor into it. Most humans are incapable of even that. :P

Some humans aren't, but humanity in general is. Whereas the majority of animals and plants can never get that far.