Savor the Kill... Avoid the Fight?

[Ozfer]

Thinking about some moral conundrums commonly presented in RPGs, I wondered what people would think of a character who enjoys killing, revels in it really, but avoids violence to the same degree a normal person would. Essentially, acts like a normal person, but enjoys killing.

Personally, I would say this person is clear cut good. What do you think?

[Slipperychicken]

Avoiding violence is a matter of self-preservation, not alignment.


It's a question of the degree to which the person respects life and human dignity. If he's willing to violate those things for minor boons, then he's definitely not Good-aligned. If he slaughters/humiliates people needlessly and for fun, then he's most likely Evil. We'd probably want more information (including example-scenarios, ideology, and details if possible) to pin down his alignment, though.

[Ozfer]

No, I'm imagining someone who respects people just as anyone else would. He just smiles as he pulls the trigger. Of course, maybe it's impossible for a human being to have that aspect of their personality and not be negatively abnormal in other ways.

If he was a normal person, he probably wouldn't ever pull the trigger.

Imagine, for instance, a Paladin who helps people, protects the innocent, and is a paragon of good. He just happens to enjoy stabbing bandits :smalltongue:.

[Slipperychicken]

No, I'm imagining someone who respects people just as anyone else would. He just smiles as he pulls the trigger. Of course, maybe it's impossible for a human being to have that aspect of their personality and not be negatively abnormal in other ways.

You're making the character, you decide how it works. As long as it isn't inhibiting his respect for life and human dignity, or causing him to act without regard to those things, it's not going to have a serious impact on his alignment.

We will want more details if you want to accurately pinpoint this person's alignment.

[Ozfer]

I guess you're right. I was doing this as a mental exercise, rather than an actual character I'm creating. Perhaps I'll use this for an NPC. It's late where I am. I should probably go to bed, then look at my posts in the morining and wondering what I was thinking :smallredface:.

[Rhynn]

I think some professional soldiers IRL do enjoy combat/fighting, even if they don't necessarily viscerally enjoy the moment of ending someone's life (but they probably don't mind it, at least at the time or consciously).

It's probably only fundamentally Evil when you get to the actual serial killer stage: sexual gratification from killing people. (And sometimes only from that.) That's so messed up I doubt you'd ever find it in someone who's not Evil-aligned.

FWIW, in The Deed of Paksenarrion, Paksenarrion (a "paladin done right"), in her first career as a mercenary, gets a kick out of being in battle, although possibly mostly afterwards and beforehand... during is, realistically, a horrifying chaos of killing and desperately trying not to be killed.

But the (semi-)berserker joyfully laughing in battle is a fine archetype for Neutral and Good characters, IMO. I'd say Conan (a classic "relishes in combat") character is Neutral with Good leanings (he's too selfish and hard to be entirely Good, but he does regularly go out of his way to help the weak and unfortunate). The Greyhawk deity Kord is CG, I think? And definitely seems like the kind of deity whose worshippers would relish in (fair) lethal combat.

Edit: Oh, also, John Carter (of Edgar Rice Burroughs's ... of Mars novels, or Barsoom) loves fighting and lethal combat, and is definitely a Good character.

[kardar233]

I think some professional soldiers IRL do enjoy combat/fighting, even if they don't necessarily viscerally enjoy the moment of ending someone's life (but they probably don't mind it, at least at the time or consciously).

It's probably only fundamentally Evil when you get to the actual serial killer stage: sexual gratification from killing people. (And sometimes only from that.) That's so messed up I doubt you'd ever find it in someone who's not Evil-aligned.

FWIW, in The Deed of Paksenarrion, Paksenarrion (a "paladin done right"), in her first career as a mercenary, gets a kick out of being in battle, although possibly mostly afterwards and beforehand... during is, realistically, a horrifying chaos of killing and desperately trying not to be killed.

But the (semi-)berserker joyfully laughing in battle is a fine archetype for Neutral and Good characters, IMO. I'd say Conan (a classic "relishes in combat") character is Neutral with Good leanings (he's too selfish and hard to be entirely Good, but he does regularly go out of his way to help the weak and unfortunate). The Greyhawk deity Kord is CG, I think? And definitely seems like the kind of deity whose worshippers would relish in (fair) lethal combat.

Edit: Oh, also, John Carter (of Edgar Rice Burroughs's ... of Mars novels, or Barsoom) loves fighting and lethal combat, and is definitely a Good character.

I disagree with some of your points. In my opinion, as long as you're not seeking out victims you can feel whatever you like about the act of actually killing someone. Sure, someone who gets a positive when they kill someone is more likely to go out and kill people for that rush, but the difference between Good and Evil is that you have to make the choice about whether you're okay with other people dying for your gratification. As you'll see later, Paks wrestles with this at one point.

[Rhynn]

I disagree with some of your points. In my opinion, as long as you're not seeking out victims you can feel whatever you like about the act of actually killing someone.

Well, I guess what I'm saying is more that you are probably not going to find someone who gets, specifically, that serial killer sexual pleasure from ending a life who will not, eventually, start doing it for the gratification. It's part of a very deep, complex, and pretty over-arching pathology that usually goes back to childhood (there's no single easy answer; some serial killers suffered a personality altering head trauma, others suffered horrifying, often at least indirectly sexualized abuse at the hands of caregivers, but others don't seem to have any "triggering" events in their pasts, and were apparently "just born that way").

I think there's definitely a separation between "enjoying lethal combat" and "enjoying killing someone," and that the latter is at least likely to go with an Evil alignment. Not necessarily, and it's by no means a requirement - someone who just callously murders for a living, with no regard for who the victim is, is probably Evil-aligned too, even if (especially if?) they feel nothing at all about it.

I do subscribe to a "why you do it matters" approach to alignment, though. Killing someone who attacks you in self-defense is neutral; leaving them alive is probably a little good; killing them because you like killing is probably at least a little evil, even if it was the exact same action.

And I figured it was inevitable that Paks would have to wrestle with the morality of killing, especially for a job... I can't wait to get there!

[tomandtish]

I think there's definitely a separation between "enjoying lethal combat" and "enjoying killing someone," and that the latter is at least likely to go with an Evil alignment. Not necessarily, and it's by no means a requirement - someone who just callously murders for a living, with no regard for who the victim is, is probably Evil-aligned too, even if (especially if?) they feel nothing at all about it.

I do subscribe to a "why you do it matters" approach to alignment, though. Killing someone who attacks you in self-defense is neutral; leaving them alive is probably a little good; killing them because you like killing is probably at least a little evil, even if it was the exact same action.

Sounds like Rhynn and I are on a similar page. There’s a big difference between someone who enjoys combat (even one that can end in death) and someone that enjoys the death itself.

A barbarian who laughs during combat can be good, even if he kills his opponent. But the difference is, he’ll still be laughing if his opponent surrenders once clearly defeated. The joy was in the fight, not the death. Kardar gives some good examples of people who relish the combat (but not necessarily the death).

On the other hand, take Showtime’s Dexter. He avoids combat whenever possible (as per your requirement), but his pleasure is in the death. In fact he requires the kill. And he’s definitely not good. At best (and I’m not saying I agree or disagree) he’s a neutral since his chosen targets are evil themselves. However, his primary reason for choosing those targets is to make sure he keeps the first rule: Don’t get caught.

In short, it’s hard to say someone is good if what’s making them smile is the actual kill itself and not the fight instead. For good characters, killing of a sentient should always be an unpleasant means to an end, not the end itself.

[NichG]

D&D alignment tends to break down when you get to subtly nuanced or atypical characters. The answer is likely that such a character could pretty much fall under any alignment, or more likely, their alignment would constantly be fluctuating all over the place as their actions aren't going to be chosen for their consistency with D&D's cosmic morality, but rather some internal pattern of behavior.

Relevant points to nail down the behavior though:
- Once violence breaks out, is he more likely to take it to a kill than others? E.g. where others might accept surrender, use non-lethal force, or flee, will he still kill?
- Will he put himself in situations/careers where he's more likely to have to kill?
- When he kills, does he do it in a different way than 'normal' in order to produce or prolong the gratification?

If basically he isn't modifying his behavior at all because of this quirk, then it really isn't going to impact D&D alignment - its like someone who is laboring under a (biological) curse, and has it under ironclad control. 'Always Evil' creatures that end up with good alignments are likely dealing with the same problem all the time. Outside of D&D, I'd probably consider pulling this off enough to call him a 'good person' even if otherwise he's pretty lackluster - he's displaying the same personal strength that a successfully recovering alcoholic or someone who quits smoking has to have.

If he modifies his behavior in ways to indulge his quirk, then it could be all over the place in D&D. If he's killing instead of sparing or knocking people out (e.g. he's the guy who brings a knife to a bar brawl) then thats when he'll start dipping towards evil. If he just says 'eh, I'll become a paladin/adventurer and kill orcs and demons all day long but leave Neutral and Good beings alone' its probably okay D&D-wise and he won't drop below neutral at the worst. Outside of D&D morality, anything that indulges this behavior would be a concern as far as whether he could exist in society, as it suggests he's losing control over it and in times of stress it might get worse; there'd also always be the question of whether or not that fight really was self-defense, etc. He's not Hannibal Lecter yet, but if he doesn't change something then he might be going there.

And of course if he's just eschewing initiating violence because of self-preservation and to hide his addiction, while indulging in it at every 'safe' opportunity, then I'd say he's pretty much a high functioning sociopath at that point. Even if he does so in some state-sponsored way, such as being a career soldier, his reasons make him very dangerous. On the other hand, as far as D&D morality goes he can still do this without being evil if he picks his targets from the 'cosmically approved' list of evil outsiders, villains, monsters, and the like.

[Water_Bear]

This is a bit pedantic, but if he avoids violence "to the degree a normal person would", how does he know he enjoys killing? To paraphrase Celia, most people don't kill.

As for a character who likes killing but doesn't seek out fights, I'd say it depends on the context. Is this just a pragmatism thing, where he loves murder but knows that it's dangerous and so waits for the opportune moment to indulge himself? Is he satisfied with the killing that already seems to come his way and just doesn't bother looking for fights? Is he constantly battling with instincts to kill, restraining himself out of some sense of moral obligation?

The difference between Evil Neutral and Good is usually as much about why and how you do something than just the fact. Killing a goblin priest summoning a demon, killing a goblin soldier in a battle, and killing a random goblin who just happened to be nearby are all "killing a goblin" but have vastly different implications.

[Tengu_temp]

Enjoying killing is an evil trait, but good characters can have some evil traits to them, just like evil characters often have some good traits.

[KillianHawkeye]

Enjoying killing is an evil trait, but good characters can have some evil traits to them, just like evil characters often have some good traits.

Tengu pretty much hits the nail on the head here. I agree 100%. A good character who enjoys the kill is no more impossible than an evil character who loves his family.

[Ozfer]

Yea, I think Tengu pretty much sums it up.

Water Bear- No, I was envisioning someone who realizes killing is wrong. And you're right, in most situations, this person might not be involved in violence... But if we're talking Dnd, pretty much everyone gets involved in a physical altercation at some point.

Interesting thoughts guys.

[Jay R]

Enjoying something is not an evil trait; it's an emotion. In moral terms, it's a temptation. Evil comes from giving in to the temptation.

This person is no different from the student who loves to go out and play, but is indoors doing her homework, or the teenager treating his date with respect when he'd rather not, or the woman who loves to lay around the house watching television, but goes to work to make money instead, or the guy having polite conversation with somebody who bores him when he'd rather be watching the game.

It's absolutely normal human behavior to enjoy things that you know you can only do in certain circumstances.

[Roderick_BR]

Ok, the guy is not a full psycopat that doesn't respects life, and is not full fond of direct violence, but enjoys the act of being able to kill someone.
Seems more a case of enjoying the power and control. It's not really the violence in itself, it's not the killing, or even disconnection to other people, but knowing he has the power of life and dead over other people.
This kind of character could also show signs of being a control-freak. A chaotic character may see it as extending his will unto others, while keeping himself free of being controled.

[ExtravagantEvil]

Interesting question...

If he is just an average joe who enjoys the act of extinguishing life, without actually getting into conflict, I'd say we would have to know about how he behaves in other aspects, because Average Joes are never as average as you think they are.

It could be anywhere from Patrick Bates to Mr. Rogers, if this is the only detail we have.

I also feel as if we can't tie down this one act of dominance as Lawful or inherently chaotic. Since we have someone who is 90% Morally decent, but when given the need to kill, would enjoy it, is more an evil relish onto a Good Aligned hotdog.
The major question is if he does go out of his way to acquire victims.

If he just enjoys killing as a passive response the kind of thing where he tells his wife later.

"Honey..."
"Yes Dear?"
"The bank robber this afternoon... The one I shot..."
"Yes dear...? What's wrong?"
"When I saw him there, laying on the ground, blood pouring out of his head..."
"You're scaring me, please don't talk about that."
"I... I think it felt too good when I saw him there."
"Well he was crazy! It was adrenaline because you were safe!"
"No! It was a dark part of me there, kind of holding onto that image, and feeling proud of the bloodied, brainy mess on the floor..."

If it is a reaction akin to that, I'd say that it is simply a personality trait that needs to be developed and set into comparison of the others due to the multitudinous nature of the "Every Man".

[Raimun]

Avoids violence/fights but enjoys killing? That sounds like a serial killer to me and I think we can all agree being one is Evil. Someone already mentioned Dexter.

I'd imagine true Paladins would regret killing even Evil people but do it any way to protect the weak and innocent from those Evil People. However, a Paladin might enjoy destroying the undead and slaying demons, as they are quite literally made of Evil.

But if you enjoy violence/fights but avoid killing, you could still be Good by D&D alingment... like this guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoisterousBruiser).

[Reaver]

It's probably only fundamentally Evil when you get to the actual serial killer stage: sexual gratification from killing people. (And sometimes only from that.) That's so messed up I doubt you'd ever find it in someone who's not Evil-aligned.


I'd actually disagree with this to some degree. Sex and violence have always been intertwined to a degree, to the point that weapons often have many sexual connotations and theories surrounding them. I believe the Greeks actually had Eros and Thanatos as related gods, which speaks a lot for how they understood the interplay of sexual release and combat.

[Traab]

This reminds me of the character Saeko from High School of the Dead. She seems like this calm cool collected person, but later on we learn that while she doesnt seek out battle, when she gets the excuse she LOVES it. She loves the power she feels from beating her enemy to death or to the brink of it. She doesnt go around picking on people, or starting fights, but if you are dumb enough to attack her, she WILL do as much damage as she can get away with doing and love every second of it.

[russdm]

Based on what you have said, my alignment vote is this: Neutral at best, Evil at worst. Avoiding combat doesn't make you good, and savoring the kill falls more under neutrality/evil than good. Conan savors the combat, not the killing; while dexter savors the kill. Savoring kills is not the behavior of those with a good alignment. Paladins don't savor their kills, it is not proper paladin behavior.

It takes one more than kill to start savoring them. You have to recognize the feeling, i.e. experience it, to be affected by it or to notice it. Savoring the fact that you get to beat up evil-doers is one thing, savoring the fact you get to kill them is something else.

Also, be aware that the D&D alignment system suffers from Protagonist Centered Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality). In regular society, alot of what an adventurer does can be considered technically to be criminal acts to be punished for under the law.

[TuggyNE]

NichG, Tengu, and russdm have some particularly good thoughts. I don't have much to add in general, other than to note that creepy and evil are not synonymous.


I'd actually disagree with this to some degree. Sex and violence have always been intertwined to a degree, to the point that weapons often have many sexual connotations and theories surrounding them. I believe the Greeks actually had Eros and Thanatos as related gods, which speaks a lot for how they understood the interplay of sexual release and combat.

Hmm. And you consider the Greeks good role models/examples in this because why…?

[Traab]

I forgot to include my view on alignment. I would say someone who does not go out looking for fights, would even avoid them till they have to be fought, but when they Do have to be fought is giggling like a little school girl in joy as they cut their enemy to pieces would probably be lawful neutral to lawful evil. Closer to neutral. If the person actually arranged the scenarios so he/she could fight more often, it would be evil. But since they recognize that part of themselves and go reasonably out of their way to avoid getting into it, I say lawful neutral, lawful because they are only willing to fight when it is generally accepted as ok to do so.

[Rhynn]

I'd actually disagree with this to some degree. Sex and violence have always been intertwined to a degree, to the point that weapons often have many sexual connotations and theories surrounding them. I believe the Greeks actually had Eros and Thanatos as related gods, which speaks a lot for how they understood the interplay of sexual release and combat.

Right, but I was talking about serial killers, for whom murder and death are the main sexual release. That is absolutely abnormal and pathological. That's not philosophical or allegorical or metaphorical or sublimated, that's medical.

I'd also avoid any Freudian/Jungian treatment of Eros and Thanatos, because they... well, you know, they just made stuff up, and a lot of it is patently metaphysical.

And I'm not entirely convinced by the "connection." AFAIK death became commonly represented by a certain version of the Eros/Cupid "angel," but that's about it. It was artistic shorthand. "Death is life reversed" or something.