Exalted Character killing helpless foes

[olejars]

Here's the setup...

All books, except Eberron, were allowed for a Forgotten Realms Campaign.

In the Underdark we have...
LG Human Exalted VoP Monk/Pious Templar of Ilmater
LG Human Cleric/Pious Templar of Tyr (My character)
LG Human Paladin/Pious Templar of Torm
CG Halfing Rouge
LN Duergar Barbarian/Dwarven Defender
LG Starelf Ranger
CE Half-Dragon templated Lizard folk Fighter

Going further into the Underdark, we come to a city that happens to be having an open slave market going for the next few days. While wandering through said city, the Monk and a couple of the others spot some humans wearing Red robes with tatoos. A couple of us make the connection that these guys could be Red Wizards of Thay. The monk, through backstory and worship of Ilmater, despises Red Wizards, and views them as irredemablem, and slavery. After a couple of days, the monk finds an oppurtunity to sneak over and kill two of the four "Red Wizards" that we know of in their sleep. Keep in mind that these men haven't done anything except exist in this city.

The monk player insists that this act isn't evil and isn't against being exalted because killing them stops tyranny and all the evil that they could do if allowed to live. And the DM is siding with this thought.

I believe that this was, though justified, murder and made the argument that he should lose his exalted feats until an atonement occurs.

Thoughts playground? Am I being too strict in my interpretation or what?


Edit: The GM just let me in on that the four guys are Red Wizards of Thay and the monk recognized one of them as one he dealt with when he was imprisoned in Thay. Most of you may change your minds, but it still doesn't sit like an exalted act to me. But I digress.

[Mordokai]

Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind.

Killing a helpless foe, even if they are evil, even if they did do horrible things, is not good by any definition. Not even neutral and certainly not exalted.

Yeah, those exalted feats should go bye-bye.

[hamishspence]

According to FC2 (and BoVD) Murder is very Evil.

According to BoED, "Execution" is not evil.

The question is- what counts as "Execution"?

BoED has a class- the Slayer of Domiel - with the assassin-type skill set, that uses those skills in circumstances where it would not be Evil to do so.

So a case could be made that, such a character, is "Executing" their foes- even if it might not be legal in the place they are in, for them to do so, since they are not a state-sanctioned executioner.

Might still require the character to collect evidence that their victim has committed offences warranting death, and convince whatever authority they answer to (Ilmater?) that the only way the Red Wizards can be brought to justice is via vigilante action.

[Malimar]

Even if the red wizards really were Evil, killing them in their sleep is still quite possibly Evil, probably not Good, and definitely not Exalted.

[Gray Mage]

Although I agree with the posters above, if the target was made helpless in combat and/or in the course of stopping them from doing evil, I feel that'd be non-evil.

[Crake]

The ends justify the means is not a good line of thinking, even if the ends are good. You should mention to your DM that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[INoKnowNames]

Rather than look at Exalted Deeds, let's look at Vile Darkness:

The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair
to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an
objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it
from doing further harm is not an evil act.

If the Monk -knows- that the wizards it was planning to kill were Evil, then slaying them in their sleep, rather than trying to fight them (and potentally get themselves or even more innocents killed by the now alerted wizards) might not be the -nicest- move, but isn't technically an evil act under these conditions.

That aside, from Exalted Deeds,

Violence is a part of the D&D
world, and not inherently evil in the
context of that world. The deities of
good equip their heroes not just to be
meek and humble servants, but to be
their fists and swords, their champions
in a brutal war against the forces of
evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a
blue dragon is not committing an evil act:
the cause of good expects and often demands that violence
be brought to bear against its enemies.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence
that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name
of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means
primarily that it must be directed against evil.

The second consideration is that violence should have good
intentions. Violence against evil is
acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts
from being done.

[...]

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an
acceptable practice in the D&D universe.


Good doesn't mean harmless. Assuming the Monk hasn't taken Vow of Non Violence or Peace, sounds like they're in the clear. And if the Dm agrees, this seems like a pretty open/shut case.

Edit: The alternative that seems to be suggested is that the player is supposed to have woken up the slavers and get into a "fair" fight with them. ... you guys are -seriously- recommending that a Monk is supposed to get into a fair fight with Multiple Mages, and that "Sneak Attacks" are Evil? There's no way I'm reading that right.

This doesn't peg as the most holy of actions, of course, but if they were the right targets (and the Dm doesn't seem to have called him out on killing someone who just happened to enjoy wearing a Red Hood, or else this thread wouldn't have been made at all), I'm not seeing what was Evil about his choice of actions. Not the nicest move, not Exalted, not Good, but also not Evil. Exalted Characters fall for being Evil, not Neutral. Pragmatism shouldn't be kept out of a Good character's arsenal so long as they don't do evil to achieve it.

[Lord Haart]

I do believe that killing helpless (e. g. sleeping) foes is a neutral act at worst. It's pragmatic; it's what you expect your non-lawful neutrals to do if it will clearly save them trouble, and a great lot of chaotic goods won't shun from it as well (and vice versa — i can easily picture a LE character who woudn't ever consider the possibility). Remember, the "no dishonorable killing and fighting dirty" part of paladin codex goes on top of their goodness, not as an explanation of it. As to exalted status, i don't quite remember how much dedication it requires (and, again, exalted isn't limited to LG; if taking stupid risks has anything to do with being exalted CG, then exalted status itself wasn't written with CG characters in mind), though if the enemy does not pose an immediate threat to innocents, there is probably a gooder way.

However, in this case monk clearly did an evil act, that of murdering not in self-defence a non-evil subtype not-proven-evil not-intentionally-threatening-someone… basically, of killing a bunch of random people, motivated solely by prejudice and judging book by it's cover without even checking. For all he knew, those were undercover Harpers.

Believing you're slaughtering right people doesn't make you right. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist)

[Slipperychicken]

Yeah dude, Exalted isn't just your regular old everyday goodness, it's saintlike behavior at all times, all places, to everyone, no matter what. The hatred he feels toward the red wizards was probably enough to disqualify him from it anyway. Killing people in their sleep on mere suspicion of beloning to this organization is definitely not exalted.


Honestly, I'd probably just drop his [Exalted] alignment down to Good, and maybe let him switch the feats around. By the rules, IIRC you lose [Exalted] feats forever if you fall from that alignment, but letting him respec the feats is fair in my opinion.

[Particle_Man]

The monk, through backstory and worship of Ilmater, despises Red Wizards, and views them as irredemablem, and slavery.

Isn't having that prejudice, much less acting on it, the textbook definition of Lawful Evil?

"Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

Also, what is an Exalted character doing hanging out with a CE character?

[Angelalex242]

The monk should not be doing ANYTHING until he confirms they're actually red wizards of thay and are actually evil besides. He needs more proof of guilt then that.

The main thing that makes this a bad thing for exalted to do is the prejudice involved. When I heard the monk having it, I'd go, "You feel a need to cleanse your thoughts from such unworthy things as prejudice. You are beyond such limited thinking. Transcend it."

That said, if the monk wants to kill a held demon, Exalted's perfectly cool with doing that. Off the helpless evil dragon? Again, that's cool. To kill a helpless evil human, just ask yourself, "If an Astral Deva were standing here, what would he do?"

[Mordokai]

The hatred he feels toward the red wizards was probably enough to disqualify him from it anyway.

I wouldn't go that far. Not every exalted character can be Ghandi.

However, acting on those urges... most definitely more than enough to knock him down from exalted throne.

[INoKnowNames]

Isn't having that prejudice, much less acting on it, the textbook definition of Lawful Evil?

There've been issues over some of the alignments easily reading as other alignments by textbook definition, actually. I will say that simply hating a group just for being a group is one thing, but despising a slave trading cartel doesn't sound unreasonable... again, the Dm didn't seem to mind... though that does get a bit close to uncomfortable territory, admittedly.


Also, what is an Exalted character doing hanging out with a CE character?

I did raise my eyebrow at this, but an Exalted PC isn't -required-, just merely recommended, to avoid the presence of Evil Characters unless said characters are trying to go back onto the straight and narrow.


The monk should not be doing ANYTHING until he confirms they're actually red wizards of thay and are actually evil besides. He needs more proof of guilt then that.

That's really the biggest question here. If he straight butchered a few people just because of their clothing, you better believe he should fall straight through the earth's crust and come out the other side for it. It's really just a question of how much knowledge is at hand.

[olejars]

Rather than look at Exalted Deeds, let's look at Vile Darkness:

The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair
to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an
objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it
from doing further harm is not an evil act.

If the Monk -knows- that the wizards it was planning to kill were Evil, then slaying them in their sleep, rather than trying to fight them (and potentally get themselves or even more innocents killed by the now alerted wizards) might not be the -nicest- move, but isn't technically an evil act under these conditions.

That aside, from Exalted Deeds,

Violence is a part of the D&D
world, and not inherently evil in the
context of that world. The deities of
good equip their heroes not just to be
meek and humble servants, but to be
their fists and swords, their champions
in a brutal war against the forces of
evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a
blue dragon is not committing an evil act:
the cause of good expects and often demands that violence
be brought to bear against its enemies.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence
that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name
of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means
primarily that it must be directed against evil.

The second consideration is that violence should have good
intentions. Violence against evil is
acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts
from being done.

[...]

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an
acceptable practice in the D&D universe.


Good doesn't mean harmless. Assuming the Monk hasn't taken Vow of Non Violence or Peace, sounds like they're in the clear. And if the Dm agrees, this seems like a pretty open/shut case.

Edit: The alternative that seems to be suggested is that the player is supposed to have woken up the slavers and get into a "fair" fight with them. ... you guys are -seriously- recommending that a Monk is supposed to get into a fair fight with Multiple Mages, and that "Sneak Attacks" are Evil? There's no way I'm reading that right.

This doesn't peg as the most holy of actions, of course, but if they were the right targets (and the Dm doesn't seem to have called him out on killing someone who just happened to enjoy wearing a Red Hood, or else this thread wouldn't have been made at all), I'm not seeing what was Evil about his choice of actions. Not the nicest move, not Exalted, not Good, but also not Evil. Exalted Characters fall for being Evil, not Neutral. Pragmatism shouldn't be kept out of a Good character's arsenal so long as they don't do evil to achieve it.

But is it really an Exalted Good act? To sneak in to the bed chambers of people you believe to be of an oppossed organization/nation/alignment/etc. and kill them in their sleep when all you know is that they wear red robes, have tatoos, and are possibly from Thay for justification is an example of Exalted Lawfull Good?


We don't actually know that the Half-dragon is CE. I only know he is Chaotic becasue of my Axiomatic Storm. He has an item that gives him non-detection and the pally didn't beat it.

[INoKnowNames]

But is it really an Exalted Good act? To sneak in to the bed chambers of people you believe to be of an oppossed organization/nation/alignment/etc. and kill them in their sleep when all you know is that they wear red robes, have tatoos, and are possibly from Thay for justification is an example of Exalted Lawfull Good?

The biggest question is what was underlined. If that's really all he knows, and it turns out he's wrong, it's not even remotely defendable. Otherwise, it's still certainly -Not- Exalted Lawful Good, but it's also not Evil, and I haven't yet read in the rules that that would be enough for a fall just yet. It seems like his motivations are part of his backstory information/knowledge, which isn't something I have on hand to judge with.

[Angelalex242]

I, playing a Fist of Raziel, once asked my GM if I was clear to kill an evil outsider trying to surrender.

The response there was, "Raziel's pretty no quarters asked or given against evil outsiders. You're free to gank him, just state why you are doing so as you smite him out of existence. Same for undead."

"If that's the case, why'd it try to surrender?"

"He failed his knowledge the planes roll, and figured you had to accept his surrender."

"Oh..." :smallbiggrin:

[INoKnowNames]

I, playing a Fist of Raziel, once asked my GM if I was clear to kill an evil outsider trying to surrender.

The response there was, "Raziel's pretty no quarters asked or given against evil outsiders. You're free to gank him, just state why you are doing so as you smite him out of existence. Same for undead."

"If that's the case, why'd it try to surrender?"

"He failed his knowledge the planes roll, and figured you had to accept his surrender."

"Oh..." :smallbiggrin:

.... That's pretty funny, actually. Although Exalted Characters are -supposed- to accept someone's surrender, defeating a foe faking it is also entirely inline.

Gray is for nitpicking, right?

[olejars]

The biggest question is what was underlined. If that's really all he knows, and it turns out he's wrong, it's not even remotely defendable. Otherwise, it's still certainly -Not- Exalted Lawful Good, but it's also not Evil, and I haven't yet read in the rules that that would be enough for a fall just yet. It seems like his motivations are part of his backstory information/knowledge, which isn't something I have on hand to judge with.

Exalted Deeds, Under Violence, 2nd Paragraph, Line 6
In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs in not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation-the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

Edit: The same priciple can be applied to the situation. These "Red Wizards" weren't doing anything to our knowledge except existing in this city while we were there as well. We suspected they might be behind summoning demons and abberations but had no proof. /Edit

The character spent a lot of time in Thay attempting to free slaves in his backstory and took alot of suffering away from fellow slaves. And he claims to have tried redeeming Red wizards in the past but to no success.

[Angelalex242]

In that case, the fact it was a Fist of Raziel, most warlike of all Exalted Classes, against an evil Outsider, what they're devoted to purging, is what tipped it against surrender. An evil human, that's different. Emissary of Barachiel can fix that. But even Sanctify the Wicked can't fix outsiders, so...

The thing is that an evil outsider is by nature always faking it to save their own hides. They literally can't surrender genuinely, because the innate evil that they represent means sparing them just causes more evil later. Even Devils, so very lawful, are faking surrender, if only because they literally can't reform.

(what about that succubus Paladin? Didn't exist in this game...)

But the key here is, Red Wizards of Thay are NOT beyond redemption! A competent Emissary of Barachiel could and probably would be able to redeem one, if he tried. Just because the monk's never succeeded at it doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Phelix-Mu]

Exalted Deeds, Under Violence, 2nd Paragraph, Line 6
In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs in not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation-the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

Edit: The same priciple can be applied to the situation. These "Red Wizards" weren't doing anything to our knowledge except existing in this city while we were there as well. We suspected they might be behind summoning demons and abberations but had no proof. /Edit

The character spent a lot of time in Thay attempting to free slaves in his backstory and took alot of suffering away from fellow slaves. And he claims to have tried redeeming Red wizards in the past but to no success.

Firstly, love me a good morality discussion!

Now, this bit about the orc tribe gets at the bigger question. While the game does set alignments up to somehow be objectively true (Exhibit A: the detect x spells exist), it more than behooves a good character to not make assumptions based on broad prejudice, sketchy evidence, or hearsay. It's not just a real-world axiom that "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be unjustly punished." The persecution of the innocent is a terrible crime, and even the vague possibility of it is cause to avoid jumping to conclusions.

So, my view is

1.) Yes, the monk needs to atone. I'm not 100% clear on Ilmater's dogma, but I don't see ganking helpless strangers fitting in with the rest of this god's schtick. The monk really should atone as a matter of course, regardless of if he falls; I'm not sure if I'd make the player get the spell cast on him, but he should be contrite for not pursuing the most upright course of action available.

2.) The DM needs to make the monk aware that, even if this instance didn't cross the line, that the line is there. As a devotee of a good god that is Exalted, the monk really should know better, even if the player isn't clear on the ramifications. There really is no point in Exalted goodness if one ignores the lines; being good is all about observing the rules, while it's the evil people that get to flaunt it and do whatever they feel like (like murdering someone out of hatred).

3.) The monk should get Knowledge(religion) rolls to tell what is acceptable behavior, or maybe meet with a superior of his order who can instruct him on the finer points of morality (Yoda!). LG should not be murdering people, period. At least without some special dispensation from their church (like the aforementioned Slayer of Domiel).

[Slipperychicken]

They literally can't surrender genuinely, because the innate evil that they represent means sparing them just causes more evil later. Even Devils, so very lawful, are faking surrender, if only because they literally can't reform.


Surrender is different from reform. Both evil and good creatures can offer legitimate surrender, even if they have no intention to change their ways. I think demons might fit what you're saying, because they're beings of pure chaos and malevolence, so honoring any agreement should be anathema to them.



"He failed his knowledge the planes roll, and figured you had to accept his surrender."


I like this. It's good to remember that a fiend who spends all his time in Hell/The Abyss might not know how the material planes work :smallbiggrin:

[INoKnowNames]

Exalted Deeds, Under Violence, 2nd Paragraph, Line 6
In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs in not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation-the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

Edit: The same priciple can be applied to the situation.

Let me comment on this with a bit from the comic that is incredibly relevant. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)

Belkar: We have a goal?
Roy: Sure. Why did you think we were here?
Belkar: Well, I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they had green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.
Everyone else: :(

It is the demonstrated mindset that the clause you are citing calls out as evil. Most of the creatures in the monster manual like orcs and goblins and such are given an alignment of usually evil just because the game is hand in hand with Lord of the Rings like mythos, where all of those races were evil.* Just because someone exists who is different than you, thinks differently than you, and might not agree with you, doesn't mean you have the right to persecute them. Leads to real life racism and bad ethics in fiction.


These "Red Wizards" weren't doing anything to our knowledge except existing in this city while we were there as well. We suspected they might be behind summoning demons and abberations but had no proof. /Edit

The character spent a lot of time in Thay attempting to free slaves in his backstory and took alot of suffering away from fellow slaves. And he claims to have tried redeeming Red wizards in the past but to no success.


Here's the setup...

Going further into the Underdark, we come to a city that happens to be having an open slave market going for the next few days. While wandering through said city, the Monk and a couple of the others spot some humans wearing Red robes with tatoos. A couple of us make the connection that these guys could be Red Wizards of Thay.

The information you provide above, however, seems to lay the context that the Red Wizards of Thay are enslaving other people and what not, and that the Monk has dedicated at least a portion of his life fighting said slavery and trying to deal with these kinds of bad guys, knowing full well what they're capable off and seeking to continue preventing their evil. They aren't just existing; their is indeed a train of thought that they are responsible for the aforementioned open slave market.

This is the question that you don't seem to have answered: Was. He. Right? Was this your last adventure in this campaign so far? What happened next? Because as far as I can tell, what with even the Dm not calling him out on doing anything evil, the Monk recognized an enemy (the Red Wizards), one responsible for one of the most heinous of evils in the world, and an enemy he has committed himself to fighting. If that's indeed the kind of people he just killed, then I'm still not at all seeing where he did anything worth falling for. Certainly not the most exalted option: freeing the slaves, capturing the Red Wizards, or learning more about the situation before jumping in seem like better choices, but you don't fall for neutral, you fall for evil.


(what about that succubus Paladin? Didn't exist in this game...)

I was -so- going to call you on that. :smalltongue:

*on this, I am speaking entirely out of my ass. But I know I heard that argument used against usually and always evil races, and it sounds pretty legit to me.


LG should not be murdering people, period.

This is the one thing you said that I outright object to, rather than consider the possibility of. It's this same kind of straight jacket that many people try to fit on non Chaotic-Greedy Rogues. If there is no chance of forgiveness, no chance of surrender, and attempting things the nice, or even fair way, will lead to more damage done to yourself, your cause, and those you seek to protect, then Good might just have to stop being Nice. It doesn't mean Good has to stop being Good, though.

I agree entirely, that without more information, you're very well to be surprised at him appearing to jump to conclusions and commit indescriminate murder. But if he's been trained to recognize this enemy and genuinely did recognize him, and slayed this enemy, I'm still not seeing the Evil in the act, the belief, or in the end. What all has the Dm said?

[Raven777]

(what about that succubus Paladin? Didn't exist in this game...)



In a thread last month, we proved that Eludecia indeed worked because even though fiends always succeed on the save against that one spell / ability to redeem them (I forgot which), RAW still allows them to willingly fail that save like any other save in the game. Which is what Eludecia probably did. For love. Which is wicked cool. Literally. And this generalized Eludecia's case by showing that any fiend can go through it.

In turn, this proved that slaying fiends outright being a good act because they cannot be redeemed is not, in fact, true.

Wish I could find that thread. Can't seem to be able to find my post history or search on these forums, though, which is quite annoying.

[Angelalex242]

Surrender is different from reform. Both evil and good creatures can offer legitimate surrender, even if they have no intention to change their ways. I think demons might fit what you're saying, because they're beings of pure chaos and malevolence, so honoring any agreement should be anathema to them.



I like this. It's good to remember that a fiend who spends all his time in Hell/The Abyss might not know how the material planes work :smallbiggrin:

A:Alright, fine...what terms of surrender could a Fist of Raziel possibly take from a Devil (say, for sake of argument, an Erinyes) that wouldn't eventually lead to more evil? For that matter, what terms of surrender could the tome archon Raziel himself possibly accept from a Devil? In his case, let's say Mephistopheles (or other Archduke of Hell.) In the game I was playing, we couldn't think of any terms of surrender binding enough to keep the fiend from doing more evil, lawful or not.

B:On the Knowledge the Planes thing:He actually failed his roll to know how Fists of Raziel worked, which is knowledge:Mt. Celestia, technically. Tome Archon, and all. ;)

[Raven777]

A:Alright, fine...what terms of surrender could a Fist of Raziel possibly take from a Devil (say, for sake of argument, an Erinyes)

Well, for one, killing surrendering women in cold blood should give him pause. You monster.

[Angelalex242]

And the Tome Archon of slaying fiends cares about gender why?

Outsiders actually practice equal rights! Mortals just think we do. ;)

(Also, I doubt Raziel is going to say 'wait, spare that fiend, it could be the 1 in 10 septillion chance it's going to redeem itself!')

[olejars]

Let me comment on this with a bit from the comic that is incredibly relevant. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)

Belkar: We have a goal?
Roy: Sure. Why did you think we were here?
Belkar: Well, I just figured we'd wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they had green skin and fangs and we don't, and then take their stuff.
Everyone else: :(

It is the demonstrated mindset that the clause you are citing calls out as evil. Most of the creatures in the monster manual like orcs and goblins and such are given an alignment of usually evil just because the game is hand in hand with Lord of the Rings like mythos, where all of those races were evil.* Just because someone exists who is different than you, thinks differently than you, and might not agree with you, doesn't mean you have the right to persecute them. Leads to real life racism and bad ethics in fiction.





The information you provide above, however, seems to lay the context that the Red Wizards of Thay are enslaving other people and what not, and that the Monk has dedicated at least a portion of his life fighting said slavery and trying to deal with these kinds of bad guys, knowing full well what they're capable off and seeking to continue preventing their evil. They aren't just existing; their is indeed a train of thought that they are responsible for the aforementioned open slave market.

This is the question that you don't seem to have answered: Was. He. Right? Was this your last adventure in this campaign so far? What happened next? Because as far as I can tell, what with even the Dm not calling him out on doing anything evil, the Monk recognized an enemy (the Red Wizards), one responsible for one of the most heinous of evils in the world, and an enemy he has committed himself to fighting. If that's indeed the kind of people he just killed, then I'm still not at all seeing where he did anything worth falling for. Certainly not the most exalted option: freeing the slaves, capturing the Red Wizards, or learning more about the situation before jumping in seem like better choices, but you don't fall for neutral, you fall for evil.



I was -so- going to call you on that. :smalltongue:

*on this, I am speaking entirely out of my ass. But I know I heard that argument used against usually and always evil races, and it sounds pretty legit to me.



This is the one thing you said that I outright object to, rather than consider the possibility of. It's this same kind of straight jacket that many people try to fit on non Chaotic-Greedy Rogues. If there is no chance of forgiveness, no chance of surrender, and attempting things the nice, or even fair way, will lead to more damage done to yourself, your cause, and those you seek to protect, then Good might just have to stop being Nice. It doesn't mean Good has to stop being Good, though.

I agree entirely, that without more information, you're very well to be surprised at him appearing to jump to conclusions and commit indescriminate murder. But if he's been trained to recognize this enemy and genuinely did recognize him, and slayed this enemy, I'm still not seeing the Evil in the act, the belief, or in the end. What all has the Dm said?

I won't know until Thursday since this was our latest session. What I'm really debating at the core is: was the act in line with being exalted? I can accept that the act wasn't [Evil]. But I'm really hard pressed at calling it [Good] much less calling it exalted. He's also not a paladin, so he won't fall from divine favor for this type of act.

*On a side note: I purchased all slaves that I could and set them free via a Mirror of Mental Prowess.*

[INoKnowNames]

I won't know until Thursday since this was our latest session. What I'm really debating at the core is: was the act in line with being exalted? I can accept that the act wasn't [Evil]. But I'm really hard pressed at calling it [Good] much less calling it exalted. He's also not a paladin, so he won't fall from divine favor for this type of act.

*On a side note: I purchased all slaves that I could and set them free via a Mirror of Mental Prowess.*

Oh. That's straightforward. Hell freaking no it was not a good act. It was neutral at best and definitely not something the exalted hero should make habbit (unlike forgiveness and mercy and redemption): he only gets away with it because it wasn't an evil act (if he was wrong, then it was, and he better have fallen), and even so, you certainly have the rights to look at him funny for it.

[Deophaun]

There's a difference between an orc and a Red Wizard of Thay:

An orc didn't choose to be an orc, and can hold a wide range of philosophical views and goals even if its alignment is evil.

A Red Wizard of Thay, on the other hand, is a willing member of an organization devoted to subjugation. The wearing of the red robes shows that they actively support Thay's goals of conquest, whether by summoning demons or running the weekly bake sales.

Provided the red robe and tattoos are distinctive enough, it is essentially a uniform that labels them as valid combatants to anyone who has declared war on Thay. If that is the case, the Monk did not commit an evil act by stalking them and killing them in their sleep, even if they were in the city for purely innocent reasons.

[Alabenson]

To me, the key issue here is that the monk didn't actually know they were red wizards, he merely suspected it, and killed the wizards in cold blood based on that suspicion. If he had gotten actual confirmation that they were in fact evil slave-taking red wizards, or if he had coup de graced them after a battle with them, then I could brush it off as a neutral act.
However, for all the monk knows, he just killed two innocent wizards for the crime of making some questionable fashion choices, or a rare neutral red wizard who could have become an ally, or even a pair of escaping slaves disguised as their masters. Therefore, if I were the DM, I'd probably require him to seek out an atonement spell.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
I'm not 100% clear on Ilmater's dogma, but I don't see ganking helpless strangers fitting in with the rest of this god's schtick.

Ilmater is the god of mercy and compassion, humility and patient suffering. I can't think of a single divine power in all of Faerûn that's less likely to approve of murdering a person in their sleep based purely on prejudice and suspicion, with no actual evidence and no threat presented.

Now, there's this from Faiths and Pantheons, under the dogma of Ilmater: "Stand up to all tyrants, and allow no injustice to go unchallenged." Given the PC's prior involvement in succoring and freeing slaves, he could potentially argue that he's following Ilmater's doctrines against tyranny by destroying known slavers, thus preventing future suffering.

The problem is, from what the OP has described, they weren't known slavers; the Exalted PC didn't actually see these people involved with the slave market, and he made several assumptions, apparently without making the slightest good-faith effort to verify them. For all the Exalted PC knew, these could have been Grey Guards who were deep undercover, working to disrupt the slave caravans of Menzoberranzan. By killing them, the Exalted PC could have been making the sum total of subterranean suffering far, far worse--but he never bothered to check beforehand.

To me, that's not an Exalted character; it's someone abusing their status and philosophy to commit unaccountable murder. Losing his Exalted status should be automatic, and I'd throw a pack of Inevitables on his trail.

[Spuddles]

But is it really an Exalted Good act? To sneak in to the bed chambers of people you believe to be of an oppossed organization/nation/alignment/etc. and kill them in their sleep when all you know is that they wear red robes, have tatoos, and are possibly from Thay for justification is an example of Exalted Lawfull Good?


We don't actually know that the Half-dragon is CE. I only know he is Chaotic becasue of my Axiomatic Storm. He has an item that gives him non-detection and the pally didn't beat it.

Is pooping really an exalted good act?

You're asking the wrong question.

[Phelix-Mu]

To clarify what I said before:

1.) Murder. Murder is when you kill someone outside of combat, usually with no justifiable reason. In many places, it's a crime to murder people; just so happens that Menzoberranzan is one of the few Prime cities not likely to have a law like that, but the monk would still consider it unlawful (since he doesn't ascribe to the code in effect in Menzoberranzan). Murder is bad, evil by definition, as it lacks justification. Murder is also dishonorable, but that is another matter altogether.

2.) Was this a case of murder? The problem here isn't whether it was actually murder or not. The problem is the monk did it without being certain that it wasn't murder; acting without regard for the consequences of ones actions is evil. He hoped he was doing the right thing. That is entirely insufficient. Suspicion is not proof.

You can't wear the benefits of Exalted and then flaunt the rules. If you want to flaunt the rules, try evil; they do it better anyway.

[georgie_leech]

1.) Murder. Murder is when you kill someone outside of combat, usually with no justifiable reason. In many places, it's a crime to murder people; just so happens that Menzoberranzan is one of the few Prime cities not likely to have a law like that, but the monk would still consider it unlawful (since he doesn't ascribe to the code in effect in Menzoberranzan). Murder is bad, evil by definition, as it lacks justification. Murder is also dishonorable, but that is another matter altogether.

They have laws. Lots of laws like that, actually, mostly to preserve power for those at the top of the heap. The entire city just runs under the interpretation of "It's only illegal if you get caught." :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

They have laws. Lots of laws like that, actually, mostly to preserve power for those at the top of the heap. The entire city just runs under the interpretation of "It's only illegal if you get caught." :smallbiggrin:

The relevant clause was the "justification" bit. No drow worth his/her salt (likely her) is caught without justification. Because, as you note, "justification" exists at the whim of those in power.

Otherwise, thanks for reminding me of the truly awesome grade of CE at work in drow society. Ah...good times.

[AlltheBooks]

Was not Exalted behaviour period.

I do not understand why ppl continually play Exalted characters only to turn around and try to justify their very much not Exalted behaviour.

Good or Evil? Don't care really, but not Exalted.

[Deophaun]

In many places, it's a crime to murder people
It's always a crime to murder people, otherwise it wouldn't be murder, it would be something else. There's a reason the phrase "everyone agrees murder is wrong" is a tautology.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
The problem is the monk did it without being certain that it wasn't murder; acting without regard for the consequences of ones actions is evil.

This is really the essence of it--that the monk didn't stop to consider whether his wild impulse to kill was justified.

In fact, an Exalted character who doesn't meditate on sudden murderous impulses--or, much worse, deliberate and premeditated murder--has far deeper issues to confront, and a monk of Ilmater should certainly have pondered and communed and outright prayed for guidance before taking a single step.

I'm afraid I have a far different view of Exalted behavior than either the monk's player or his DM.

[Mr Beer]

Seems definitely evil to me, problem is if the GM is happy with "ends justify the means"-type explanations for actions like "I murder them in their sleep on general principles" then there's not a lot you can do about it. I guess point the GM at this thread might be worth a shot?

[Raven777]

Why don't more people buy that talisman of DM-tells-me-if-this-act-is-ok? (I forgot the name of the real thing).

Seems like most does-my-guy-fall discussions should be settled when within the rules there actually exists a trinket whose exact purpose in life is answering that very question unambiguously.

[Malimar]

Why don't more people buy that talisman of DM-tells-me-if-this-act-is-ok? (I forgot the name of the real thing)..

Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).

And probably people don't buy it because they hope they can argue the DM into submission whenever alignment questions come up, and thereby save the 1000gp and the head slot.

[Red Fel]

Was not Exalted behaviour period.

I do not understand why ppl continually play Exalted characters only to turn around and try to justify their very much not Exalted behaviour.

Good or Evil? Don't care really, but not Exalted.

This. Exalted is more than just Good. Exalted is Ubergood. It's Good with the G in caps, underlined, and boldfaced, in a larger font. Exalted isn't just about being Good, it's about being so Good it literally hurts. (Look at the Exalted feats if you don't believe me.)

Even assuming you could justify killing these guys in their sleep in order to prevent future evil - and I'll acknowledge the above posters who comment that, at the very least, that's a stretch - that would justify it for the average Good character. It would not justify it for an Exalted character, who would need much more than mere suspicion of the possibility of future evil to commit a merciless act like summary execution.

Yes. An execution, pursuant to a valid fact-finding proceeding resulting in a guilty verdict, is not Evil; it is Lawful. However, a summary execution, where a single entity stands as judge, jury, and executioner, without actually having witnessed or seen evidence of the crime committed, is certainly non-Good, and definitely not Exalted.

Exalted means going above and beyond merely Good, not merely being non-Evil. Even if you can argue this wasn't Evil, it certainly wasn't Exalted.

All that said, the DM is the DM. Even if he makes a bad call, there is no appeals process; you can either accept his rules and keep playing at his table, not accept his rules and leave the table, or burn bridges and leave the table. That's just how it goes.

I would, however, point him towards this thread for future reference, and encourage him not to allow Exalted feats unless he's willing to enforce a higher-than-Good standard.

[Deophaun]

Exalted means going above and beyond merely Good, not merely being non-Evil. Even if you can argue this wasn't Evil, it certainly wasn't Exalted.
Which is fine. But all that "not Exalted" means is the character is not going to find a patron to give them any more Exalted feats. The only thing that causes them to lose the Exalted feats they do possess is committing an evil act.

[olentu]

Hmm, is the exalted character practicing discrimination (which is evil) against red wizards.

[olejars]

Ilmater is the god of mercy and compassion, humility and patient suffering. I can't think of a single divine power in all of Faerûn that's less likely to approve of murdering a person in their sleep based purely on prejudice and suspicion, with no actual evidence and no threat presented.

Now, there's this from Faiths and Pantheons, under the dogma of Ilmater: "Stand up to all tyrants, and allow no injustice to go unchallenged." Given the PC's prior involvement in succoring and freeing slaves, he could potentially argue that he's following Ilmater's doctrines against tyranny by destroying known slavers, thus preventing future suffering.

The problem is, from what the OP has described, they weren't known slavers; the Exalted PC didn't actually see these people involved with the slave market, and he made several assumptions, apparently without making the slightest good-faith effort to verify them. For all the Exalted PC knew, these could have been Grey Guards who were deep undercover, working to disrupt the slave caravans of Menzoberranzan. By killing them, the Exalted PC could have been making the sum total of subterranean suffering far, far worse--but he never bothered to check beforehand.

To me, that's not an Exalted character; it's someone abusing their status and philosophy to commit unaccountable murder. Losing his Exalted status should be automatic, and I'd throw a pack of Inevitables on his trail.

That's his reasoning exactly. We initially saw them around the slave market which was in the town square essentailly. They weren't not involved in it by all of his accounts. Heck, even I was involved in the slave market. I guess the best thing I could do is when I find out about their deaths to offer to raise them from the dead. Not sure if they'll accept it from a LG cleric of Tyr, but it's worth a shot.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do believe that killing helpless (e. g. sleeping) foes is a neutral act at worst. It's pragmatic; it's what you expect your non-lawful neutrals to do if it will clearly save them trouble, and a great lot of chaotic goods won't shun from it as well (and vice versa — i can easily picture a LE character who woudn't ever consider the possibility). Remember, the "no dishonorable killing and fighting dirty" part of paladin codex goes on top of their goodness, not as an explanation of it. As to exalted status, i don't quite remember how much dedication it requires (and, again, exalted isn't limited to LG; if taking stupid risks has anything to do with being exalted CG, then exalted status itself wasn't written with CG characters in mind), though if the enemy does not pose an immediate threat to innocents, there is probably a gooder way.

However, in this case monk clearly did an evil act, that of murdering not in self-defence a non-evil subtype not-proven-evil not-intentionally-threatening-someone… basically, of killing a bunch of random people, motivated solely by prejudice and judging book by it's cover without even checking. For all he knew, those were undercover Harpers.

Believing you're slaughtering right people doesn't make you right. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist)Nailed it.


There's a difference between an orc and a Red Wizard of Thay:

An orc didn't choose to be an orc, and can hold a wide range of philosophical views and goals even if its alignment is evil.

A Red Wizard of Thay, on the other hand, is a willing member of an organization devoted to subjugation. The wearing of the red robes shows that they actively support Thay's goals of conquest, whether by summoning demons or running the weekly bake sales.

Provided the red robe and tattoos are distinctive enough, it is essentially a uniform that labels them as valid combatants to anyone who has declared war on Thay. If that is the case, the Monk did not commit an evil act by stalking them and killing them in their sleep, even if they were in the city for purely innocent reasons.
This isn't necessarily true. The socio-political structure of Thay demands that anyone who wants to get ahead in life is stuck with the choice of joining one of the organizations under the red wizards, the red wizards themselves if you have the magical talent, or flee the country. In nations run by Big Brother you're either with the power group or you're a victim.

To clarify what I said before:

1.) Murder. Murder is when you kill someone outside of combat, usually with no justifiable reason. In many places, it's a crime to murder people; just so happens that Menzoberranzan is one of the few Prime cities not likely to have a law like that, but the monk would still consider it unlawful (since he doesn't ascribe to the code in effect in Menzoberranzan). Murder is bad, evil by definition, as it lacks justification. Murder is also dishonorable, but that is another matter altogether.

2.) Was this a case of murder? The problem here isn't whether it was actually murder or not. The problem is the monk did it without being certain that it wasn't murder; acting without regard for the consequences of ones actions is evil. He hoped he was doing the right thing. That is entirely insufficient. Suspicion is not proof.

You can't wear the benefits of Exalted and then flaunt the rules. If you want to flaunt the rules, try evil; they do it better anyway.

That's not what murder means in d&d. Murder in D&D is defined as killing without justification or for a nefarious purpose. Whether it's in combat and whether or not they're helpless doesn't matter.

Neither is a lack of foresight or consideration of actions evil, though they can easily lead to it. Evil isn't careless or uncaring, Evil is intentionally malicious.

The monk in question narrowly dodged a bullet on this one. Questionable motivation and bold assumption led to him acting without doing his due diligence in vetting his targets. He's just lucky his assumptions were right this time.

If either of those wizards had been neutral instead of evil he'd've fallen like a comet. Exalted falls can be atoned, but he'd be disqualified from being sainted. This would've been REALLY bad for the monk, since it would've left his VoP butt naked behind enemy lines. I suspect that this point probably had more to do with the DM's decision to let the action slide than the actual rules.

Somebody mentioned the Phylactery of Faithfulness. The character in question has VoP. He can't have one.

[olejars]

I also forgot to mention that this monk took his Plea of Rest/Ten Day. Now, this may release him from his deific bonds for a week, it still doesn't release him from Exalted stricture. Just thought I should throw that in there as well. Sorry if this peice of info changes anyones stance.

[Deophaun]

This isn't necessarily true. The socio-political structure of Thay demands that anyone who wants to get ahead in life is stuck with the choice of joining one of the organizations under the red wizards, the red wizards themselves if you have the magical talent, or flee the country. In nations run by Big Brother you're either with the power group or you're a victim.
If you want to get ahead, you take part in the oppression. I believe that actually falls under D&D's definition of evil. So this really doesn't rebut anything I said. But, we'll leave this as disputed, as arguing it is going to trip Godwin.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
In nations run by Big Brother you're either with the power group or you're a victim.

Not necessarily. There are always those who find some way to live in the gaps of crumbling mortar, avoiding or bribing the authorities and scraping by in their own little niche.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
The monk in question narrowly dodged a bullet on this one. ...He's just lucky his assumptions were right this time.

Has it been confirmed in-game that the two guys in red were, in fact, Red Wizards? It sounds probable, but I didn't have the impression from the OP that this had been confirmed by the PCs.

Either way, I wouldn't see this as much of a comfort. The point is that the monk made the assumption, and then acted on it, without pausing to think if he might be incorrect. Really, it's hard to justify this in the context of an Exalted character, who almost by definition should care more about other people than themselves or their own priorities.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
Somebody mentioned the Phylactery of Faithfulness. The character in question has VoP. He can't have one.

I did, however, have to laugh sharply at this one. Nice catch.

:smallamused:


Originally Posted by olejars
I also forgot to mention that this monk took his Plea of Rest/Ten Day. Now, this may release him from his deific bonds for a week, it still doesn't release him from Exalted stricture.

Not only that, I would argue that the Plea of Rest is intended to give Ilmater's clerics a breather from the constant pressure of healing and empathy. It's specifically described as an emotional respite. It's not a moral holiday, and certainly not a blanket absolution to commit murder.

[Tevesh]

I'm curious how the DM ruled.

This is why I don't allow players to create Exalted characters. I've had characters Ascend to Exalted status but that's because they played Exalted to earn the right. I also think Exalted is more boring because there is no conflict with the character, they're so sure of the way that they've manifested powers with divine backing.

Exalted to more than that. Exalted, just like Vile, is the best of the best. The exemplar (No, not the class) that everyone attempts to emulate. The real deal.

I think the act was Evil because while the purpose of Execution is that the character must be aware that their rights are being revoked in response to the Guilty's repeated revoking of others' rights. This Monk did not Execute these Wizards, as they were asleep and unable to comprehend that the revoking of their right to live was in response to the oppression that they may have caused.

The Monk killed them on a suspicion, based on a hatred. Sorry guy, if you're Exalted you're above that. Sure, playing a Monk that is conflicted over this is much more interesting than the Exalted that would know it was wrong. Alignment and degree to that amount is measured in quantifiable sources. Where's the due process?

May because the Monk didn't even bother having Detect Evil or Scry or any other quite reliable ability in D&D to find something out. There is a reason why you can kill Dragons and its fine - because Evil is a quantifiable trait (or resource). If the Wizards' Detect Evil was Strong, then they were probably irrevocably evil.

Undead, Outsiders and Clerics light up like Christmas trees. You'd have to be seriously hardcore to radiate Strong and not be one of those. That's right. A level 25 Hitler would not be Evil enough to be Strong, he'd be Moderate. Definitely lock him away and throw away the key, but redemption is an option.

I use Strong as the litmus test because Outsiders and Undead are considered irredeemable. There isn't many that are intelligent with less than 8 and 4 HD respectively, so afterwards the entity begins making well informed choices.

So RAW - no way, jose. If the DM wants to play a variant, then that's his call completely.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tevesh
I'm curious how the DM ruled.


Originally Posted by olejars
The monk player insists that this act isn't evil and isn't against being exalted because killing them stops tyranny and all the evil that they could do if allowed to live. And the DM is siding with this thought.

That seems to be the ruling. The DM gave Exalted murder a big thumbs-up.

[Deophaun]

I think the act was Evil because while the purpose of Execution is that the character must be aware that their rights are being revoked in response to the Guilty's repeated revoking of others' rights.
You're confusing Good with Lawful here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not necessarily. There are always those who find some way to live in the gaps of crumbling mortar, avoiding or bribing the authorities and scraping by in their own little niche. That's not getting ahead, though. It's just scraping by. My point was that just because you're going with the status quo doesn't mean you agree with it or that you're beyond redemption. A red wizard can easily choose not to do any evil himself but be too afraid to act out against the oppression for fear of his superiors or less scrupulous peers.




Has it been confirmed in-game that the two guys in red were, in fact, Red Wizards? It sounds probable, but I didn't have the impression from the OP that this had been confirmed by the PCs.

Either way, I wouldn't see this as much of a comfort. The point is that the monk made the assumption, and then acted on it, without pausing to think if he might be incorrect. Really, it's hard to justify this in the context of an Exalted character, who almost by definition should care more about other people than themselves or their own priorities.

They haven't, and almost certainly never will, confirmed that that was the case. I'm making an assumption to make the situation work within the game rules because it's a background detail that'll never come up again (this particular instance, not a similar situation) unless they were the target of this particular adventure, which I didn't get the impression they were.

You're right about this being unacceptable behaviour for an exalted character, though. It won't cause a fall on its own but it is very highly likely to result in one at some point unless the DM is determined to avoid having him fall for anything but the most egregious violations. As I noted, a fall would be catastrophic for the character unless circumstances are just so at the time of the fall.



I did, however, have to laugh sharply at this one. Nice catch. There are reasons VoP is so reviled from a strictly mechanical standpoint. This is one of them.




Not only that, I would argue that the Plea of Rest is intended to give Ilmater's clerics a breather from the constant pressure of healing and empathy. It's specifically described as an emotional respite. It's not a moral holiday, and certainly not a blanket absolution to commit murder.

Agreed. An Illmatari worshiper on his plea of rest should be resting, not adventuring. It's right in the title of the holiday, for Pete's sake.

[Tevesh]

You're confusing Good with Lawful here.

He is LG.

Both spectrums should be covered. And failed, by the looks of things. :/

[ArcturusV]

This is... interesting. Seems most people do have a higher standard of "exalted" than I necessarily do. As a DM I'd often let people slide with the rule of "Good, not nice". Though the particular religious affiliation would probably suggest there was more "niceness" in the monk's good than righteous wrath.

It's... kind of the curse of the Paladin. Oddly something I don't see too often with monks or druids even though they are alignment fixed as well. People look for a reason for them to fall. They seem to have a gleeful desire to see the shiny hero dragged through the muck.

But I'm trying to think of it in terms of what would have happened at a table I ran.

For one, knowing most players I get, someone would ask:

"Hey... the monk comes from Thay and has been dealing with Red Wizards all his life. Does he recognize their markings and dress code as specifically being from Thay?"

I'd think about it... for most people that would be Knowledge: Local, but considering the backstory this would be like asking if someone recognized their own state/country's flag and military uniforms. Which is generally an Auto Yes. So I'd go:

"Yeah, sure, you recognize it." or "Nah, similar but you can tell they're not legit, some of it isn't set right, posers or perhaps some renegade sect", whatever the case may be.

So the monk probably goes: "Well... those bastards are pretty damned evil. And them on some mission in a den of evil probably isn't something that I want to succeed. Time could be of the essence, they've been here for a while and might be accomplishing their mission already. Not going to get another shot... I stalk them, sneak in, and snap their necks while they sleep. Sure as hell not going to challenge them to a duel and let them just smoke me with their magic..."

So I ponder it a bit while they're doing it. Logic is there, it's sound. He is trying to do what he thinks is right, to the limit of his ability to figure out was right.

In the end... I don't punish players for unknowns. This may not be RAW, seems to be RAI excepting things like the Paladin wearing a helm of opposite alignment. At the very least most RAW seems to suggest this is right, as it's usually "Willfully committing an evil act". And to willfully choose evil... you have to be aware it IS evil.

Heck, I think they even have an example somewhere of trying to escape some enemy, climbing up a cliff over a village. If the cliff was unstable, you trigger a rockslide that wipes out some homes... that's not evil. Evil comes from knowing the cliff is unstable, knowing it probably will wipe out some homes if you climb up, and deciding you'll do it anyway.

That's why the line seems to exist to me, that would keep him from "Falling". From the sound of it, he acted on his best available information. He didn't know if he had time to wait for 3 days while he snooped around and tried to find out what they were doing. He didn't have the power to necessarily tie them up and hold some trial, have someone cast particular divinations, etc.

Ont he flip side? You got a cleric. Augury is a thing that he can cast a ton of, and is really good for when these situations come up. It's why my clerics don't leave home without at least one on my list. Could have averted the issue from even being an issue with a simple question of something like, "Should I attack those I believe to be Red Wizards of Thay?" "Weal" "Cool, lets go crack their skulls open like an overripe musk melon."

[Deophaun]

He is LG.

Both spectrums should be covered. And failed, by the looks of things. :/
The L means that he fails as a monk, not as an Exalted character.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
My point was that just because you're going with the status quo doesn't mean you agree with it or that you're beyond redemption.

I see what you mean, and agreed, especially the last phrase. That's absolutely key for an Exalted character, and it's specifically called out as something which must be attempted every single time, no exceptions. Here's a relevant quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds, under "Mercy" on p. 7:


"Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life being taken to its logical extreme--respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy.

...Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds."

Not even allowing the possibility of surrender can't be construed as falling within this definition of good.

And a little further, under "Ends and Means," p. 9:


"Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need."

The ends, especially hoped-for theoretical ends, really cannot justify the means where truly good characters are concerned.

(And clearly Jack Bauer is pretty much the opposite of Exalted....)


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
An Illmatari worshiper on his plea of rest should be resting, not adventuring. It's right in the title of the holiday, for Pete's sake.

And if it weren't bedtime in my household I'd be laughing uproariously at this. So, so true.

:smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is... interesting. Seems most people do have a higher standard of "exalted" than I necessarily do. As a DM I'd often let people slide with the rule of "Good, not nice". Though the particular religious affiliation would probably suggest there was more "niceness" in the monk's good than righteous wrath.

It's... kind of the curse of the Paladin. Oddly something I don't see too often with monks or druids even though they are alignment fixed as well. People look for a reason for them to fall. They seem to have a gleeful desire to see the shiny hero dragged through the muck.

But I'm trying to think of it in terms of what would have happened at a table I ran.

For one, knowing most players I get, someone would ask:

"Hey... the monk comes from Thay and has been dealing with Red Wizards all his life. Does he recognize their markings and dress code as specifically being from Thay?"

I'd think about it... for most people that would be Knowledge: Local, but considering the backstory this would be like asking if someone recognized their own state/country's flag and military uniforms. Which is generally an Auto Yes. So I'd go:

"Yeah, sure, you recognize it." or "Nah, similar but you can tell they're not legit, some of it isn't set right, posers or perhaps some renegade sect", whatever the case may be.

So the monk probably goes: "Well... those bastards are pretty damned evil. And them on some mission in a den of evil probably isn't something that I want to succeed. Time could be of the essence, they've been here for a while and might be accomplishing their mission already. Not going to get another shot... I stalk them, sneak in, and snap their necks while they sleep. Sure as hell not going to challenge them to a duel and let them just smoke me with their magic..."

So I ponder it a bit while they're doing it. Logic is there, it's sound. He is trying to do what he thinks is right, to the limit of his ability to figure out was right.

In the end... I don't punish players for unknowns. This may not be RAW, seems to be RAI excepting things like the Paladin wearing a helm of opposite alignment. At the very least most RAW seems to suggest this is right, as it's usually "Willfully committing an evil act". And to willfully choose evil... you have to be aware it IS evil.

Heck, I think they even have an example somewhere of trying to escape some enemy, climbing up a cliff over a village. If the cliff was unstable, you trigger a rockslide that wipes out some homes... that's not evil. Evil comes from knowing the cliff is unstable, knowing it probably will wipe out some homes if you climb up, and deciding you'll do it anyway.

That's why the line seems to exist to me, that would keep him from "Falling". From the sound of it, he acted on his best available information. He didn't know if he had time to wait for 3 days while he snooped around and tried to find out what they were doing. He didn't have the power to necessarily tie them up and hold some trial, have someone cast particular divinations, etc.

Ont he flip side? You got a cleric. Augury is a thing that he can cast a ton of, and is really good for when these situations come up. It's why my clerics don't leave home without at least one on my list. Could have averted the issue from even being an issue with a simple question of something like, "Should I attack those I believe to be Red Wizards of Thay?" "Weal" "Cool, lets go crack their skulls open like an overripe musk melon."

Wow you misunderstood that example.

That example was illustrating the fact that what a character does and doesn't know and his motivation are important to determining if a given act is good, evil, or neutral. If he didn't recognize the possibility of a rock-slide then it's an unfortunate accident; no fall. If he recognized the possibility but was confident he could avoid it, its dubious but not malicious; no fall but maybe a divine warning against hubris. Of he recognized the possibility, knew he'd probably cause a slide and didn't care, that's destroying the innocent villagers to save himself and he falls like the rocks he stepped on for committing an evil act.

[ArcturusV]

... not really, as that's what I was getting at? That Evil comes from knowing, not caring, and choosing to do what is convenient for you anyway. Being ignorant of possible evil isn't evil. Acting in good faith on what you think is the best course of action without harming innocents isn't evil. It takes a certain level of "Screw everyone else" to reach evil.

[Yogibear41]

Turns out, one of the two supposed red wizards he killed was actually a CG wizard in disguise who was working to undermine the slavery exchange from within, the monk just blew years of undercover work. Not to mention killing the guy on the inside :smallsigh:


No it was not a good act, it wasn't necessarily evil though, but a good toe shoes type (exalted) shouldn't do stuff like that.

Now if the paladin detected evil and he got a ping off the guys that might make for a change of argument, I know a person can conceal their alignment completely but not aware of anything off hand that would make a human detect as an alignment that he is not.

[ArcturusV]

Wonderful. :smallsigh:

Though part of me wonders if it always was, or if it was a screw you... Just because I've known DMs who basically if you did something unexpected with an Alignment/Code Dependent character like that, they'll just pull something out of their asses to say that you fell.

But then again he might have actually planned it.

... but from just that small bit it has my BS-dar going off. Like when you have an otherwise normal bandit encounter, you kill them as they are pillaging some farm... and then your DM tells you that you fell because they were good guys driven to desperation to feed their starving families in the next village over or something and you killed good people.

[Phelix-Mu]

... not really, as that's what I was getting at? That Evil comes from knowing, not caring, and choosing to do what is convenient for you anyway. Being ignorant of possible evil isn't evil. Acting in good faith on what you think is the best course of action without harming innocents isn't evil. It takes a certain level of "Screw everyone else" to reach evil.

The bold is quite relevant. The monk knew that he had precious little evidence. The monk didn't care that mistaken identity or false pretense could render his justice little more than cold-blooded murder. The monk chose to go ahead, knowing that any investigation could be hard or risky, but was eminently possible.

Frankly, a little investigation wouldn't have been hard. Ask around, trail the wizard for a bit. An augury spell from an ally. Talk to the slavers about the wizards in the colorful robes. It's risky, might not work, and could take a bit of time.

BUT BEING GOOD IS HARD.

It's also silly to argue the monk was "ignorant of possible evil." As someone that has suffered and been persecuted, and then studied a god of patient suffering in the face of evil, the monk probably would have done well to respond to his personal hatred with calm reflection. Rushing off in search of vengeance/justice/whatever by snapping necks is pretty much classic slippery slope, and no Exalted character ever makes it to being so good without realizing the moral peril inherent in taking such matters into ones own hands.

EDIT: Again, it doesn't matter whether the wizards were evil or not. And I'm not arguing the monk should fall, just that the DM should make it clear that a good character really can't feel "okey dokey" with that kind of behaviour (much less a LG character). The monk should seek atonement out of an abundance of caution.

[Pickford]

olejars:

Going further into the Underdark, we come to a city that happens to be having an open slave market going for the next few days. While wandering through said city, the Monk and a couple of the others spot some humans wearing Red robes with tatoos. A couple of us make the connection that these guys could be Red Wizards of Thay. The monk, through backstory and worship of Ilmater, despises Red Wizards, and views them as irredemablem, and slavery. After a couple of days, the monk finds an oppurtunity to sneak over and kill two of the four "Red Wizards" that we know of in their sleep. Keep in mind that these men haven't done anything except exist in this city.

Let's walk through this again.

1) Your adventuring party goes into a city where you're aware there is an ongoing slave market.
2) Unrelated to the above, your party sees 4 human males with tattoos and wearing red robes.
3) Your group starts throwing ideas around and guesses that maybe those guys with some tattoos and wearing red robes might be red wizards of thay, but you have no real idea.
4) On the basis of this naval gazing and his personal hatred of an entire class of people, your 'exalted' monk, tracks these strangers down, and kills them without bothering to either verify their identities, their allegiances, or even that they've ever done anything wrong in their lives.

Yes, that act is completely evil.

Also, and this is important, the ends do NOT justify the means in D&D. (This is from the BoED that your Monk is pulling from). An evil act even in the service of seemingly good ends, taints those results irreparably.

Phelix-Mu: Even the Slayer of Domiel doesn't get a pass on being exalted. Murdering people in their sleep is still right out.

INoKnowNames:

This is the one thing you said that I outright object to, rather than consider the possibility of. It's this same kind of straight jacket that many people try to fit on non Chaotic-Greedy Rogues. If there is no chance of forgiveness, no chance of surrender, and attempting things the nice, or even fair way, will lead to more damage done to yourself, your cause, and those you seek to protect, then Good might just have to stop being Nice. It doesn't mean Good has to stop being Good, though.

If you choose to murder someone, you stopped being good. Doing things because they are convenient is not an excuse.


Kelb_Panthera: I disagree. The Monk dodged a bullet in that his DM isn't actually following the rules layed out for Exalted characters. He, apparently, got away with murder. More to the point, he still doesn't know his assumptions were correct, he's just convinced his DM that as long as he doesn't know, but believes it to be so, it doesn't matter.

Incidentally, the Phylactery is not useful because it only provides guidance if the subject is going to change alignments, which doesn't help if the act is evil but not alignment changingly evil, or goes against their deity (which is not useful at all as VoP has nothing to do at all with deities).

Oh, and for the person who only partially quoted BoED, this is important here, given the character's backstory:


revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence

[Kelb_Panthera]

... not really, as that's what I was getting at? That Evil comes from knowing, not caring, and choosing to do what is convenient for you anyway. Being ignorant of possible evil isn't evil. Acting in good faith on what you think is the best course of action without harming innocents isn't evil. It takes a certain level of "Screw everyone else" to reach evil.
Wow...... Not sure how I misread your post that badly. My apologies.

Turns out, one of the two supposed red wizards he killed was actually a CG wizard in disguise who was working to undermine the slavery exchange from within, the monk just blew years of undercover work. Not to mention killing the guy on the inside :smallsigh:


No it was not a good act, it wasn't necessarily evil though, but a good toe shoes type (exalted) shouldn't do stuff like that.

Now if the paladin detected evil and he got a ping off the guys that might make for a change of argument, I know a person can conceal their alignment completely but not aware of anything off hand that would make a human detect as an alignment that he is not.

Okay now it's a bad DM call. He made no effort to properly vet his targets and killed a good character because of prejudice. He should've left a crater for falling so hard.

That's not a good-faith kill. Good demands due diligence. Killing someone because they might do evil in the future when you have no proof that they've ever done evil in the past, you don't know their alignment, and they pose no immediate threat to you is the worst kind of self deluded evil. The seed is there and this monk needs to squash it before it grows any more than it already has.

If you don't have the time to do due diligence, then you non-lethally incapacitate the target, if he poses a threat or otherwise get him out of the way through misdirection or what-have-you.

[ArcturusV]

But yeah, in any case, there's a cleric in the party. You're high level. Augury is hardly a huge cost in spell power. He definitely should have it and ask for it on things like that. Saves so many of these headaches.

[Deophaun]

Okay now it's a bad DM call. He made no effort to properly vet his targets and killed a good character because of prejudice. He should've left a crater for falling so hard.

That's not a good-faith kill.
Yes, yes it is.

The guy was posing as a Red Wizard of Thay. The guy wanted people to think he was a Red Wizard of Thay, wore their symbols, and paraded around with their officials.

Sucks that he got killed by friendly fire, but that's the risk you take when you don the uniform of the enemy.

[Particle_Man]

Wow...... Not sure how I misread your post that badly. My apologies.


Okay now it's a bad DM call. He made no effort to properly vet his targets and killed a good character because of prejudice. He should've left a crater for falling so hard.

I picture a Miko like fall from grace. ;)

And in a world where Detect Evil is not hard to do, the Monk didn't even have a friend do that. That was a careless lack of Due Diligence. I would have taken away his Exalted status and put a mark next to his alignment tracker.

[olejars]

The DM just let me in on knowing that the character recognized one of the Red Wizards he dealt with back in Thay. So he knew exactly who they were. Still doesn't sit right with my kdea of exalted but I digress.

[AlltheBooks]

This is... interesting. Seems most people do have a higher standard of "exalted" than I necessarily do. As a DM I'd often let people slide with the rule of "Good, not nice". Though the particular religious affiliation would probably suggest there was more "niceness" in the monk's good than righteous wrath.

It's... kind of the curse of the Paladin. Oddly something I don't see too often with monks or druids even though they are alignment fixed as well. People look for a reason for them to fall. They seem to have a gleeful desire to see the shiny hero dragged through the muck.

But I'm trying to think of it in terms of what would have happened at a table I ran.

For one, knowing most players I get, someone would ask:

"Hey... the monk comes from Thay and has been dealing with Red Wizards all his life. Does he recognize their markings and dress code as specifically being from Thay?"

I'd think about it... for most people that would be Knowledge: Local, but considering the backstory this would be like asking if someone recognized their own state/country's flag and military uniforms. Which is generally an Auto Yes. So I'd go:

"Yeah, sure, you recognize it." or "Nah, similar but you can tell they're not legit, some of it isn't set right, posers or perhaps some renegade sect", whatever the case may be.

So the monk probably goes: "Well... those bastards are pretty damned evil. And them on some mission in a den of evil probably isn't something that I want to succeed. Time could be of the essence, they've been here for a while and might be accomplishing their mission already. Not going to get another shot... I stalk them, sneak in, and snap their necks while they sleep. Sure as hell not going to challenge them to a duel and let them just smoke me with their magic..."

So I ponder it a bit while they're doing it. Logic is there, it's sound. He is trying to do what he thinks is right, to the limit of his ability to figure out was right.

In the end... I don't punish players for unknowns. This may not be RAW, seems to be RAI excepting things like the Paladin wearing a helm of opposite alignment. At the very least most RAW seems to suggest this is right, as it's usually "Willfully committing an evil act". And to willfully choose evil... you have to be aware it IS evil.

Heck, I think they even have an example somewhere of trying to escape some enemy, climbing up a cliff over a village. If the cliff was unstable, you trigger a rockslide that wipes out some homes... that's not evil. Evil comes from knowing the cliff is unstable, knowing it probably will wipe out some homes if you climb up, and deciding you'll do it anyway.

That's why the line seems to exist to me, that would keep him from "Falling". From the sound of it, he acted on his best available information. He didn't know if he had time to wait for 3 days while he snooped around and tried to find out what they were doing. He didn't have the power to necessarily tie them up and hold some trial, have someone cast particular divinations, etc.

Ont he flip side? You got a cleric. Augury is a thing that he can cast a ton of, and is really good for when these situations come up. It's why my clerics don't leave home without at least one on my list. Could have averted the issue from even being an issue with a simple question of something like, "Should I attack those I believe to be Red Wizards of Thay?" "Weal" "Cool, lets go crack their skulls open like an overripe musk melon."

Your whole post concerning the Exalted monk is invalidated by a post in the previous(or 1st maybe) page.

What if these guys are good guys disguised?

Also, lazy monk. Did not at all do everything in his power, at all.

Sorry, again, don't give a hoot whether he's good, bad or ugly. Run as a pretty morally ambiguous DM(world wise) running sandbox style campaing.

No personal stake myself. Not Exalted.

EDIT: Wow flood of responses. So the monk knew definitely they were Red Wizards. Sticking to it, no, cold blooded murder is not exalted style. Not saying Exalted is smart or anything...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, yes it is.

The guy was posing as a Red Wizard of Thay. The guy wanted people to think he was a Red Wizard of Thay, wore their symbols, and paraded around with their officials.

Sucks that he got killed by friendly fire, but that's the risk you take when you don the uniform of the enemy.

Yeah, the Red Wizards aren't on the very short list of Good's declared enemies. Demons, devils, yugoloths, and others with the evil subtype as well as -some- of the other creatures listed as always evil comprise the whole of that list.

He may have been disguised as an enemy of the monk but the monk doesn't get to decide who is and isn't worthy of being killed on sight for the purpose of adjudicating his exalted feats. The fake Red Wizard wasn't an immediate threat (or a threat at all though the monk didn't know that) therefore he needed to be vetted as a valid target.

With a cleric in his party he had access to an excellent tool for that very thing in the form of a simple detect evil spell. If that had come back evil he'd've been clear for at least avoiding a fall even if it was a magical misdirection but he didn't even try.

He should've simply avoided them and tried to free the slaves. Good is about protecting the innocent and promoting the ideas that map to good. Punishing the wicked is a foot-note and slaying evil characters is sometimes necessary but never seen as superior to redeeming them.

[Deophaun]

Yeah, the Red Wizards aren't on the very short list of Good's declared enemies. Demons, devils, yugoloths, and others with the evil subtype as well as -some- of the other creatures listed as always evil comprise the whole of that list.
This isn't about Good's declared enemies. This is about targeting an evil organization. You don't have to be an enemy of Good for it to be open season on you.

Yes, if you dress up in the regalia of an organization that is invading neighboring countries and throwing civilian populations into ovens, don't expect the resistance fighters to dig too deep into the past of your unit before their bomb goes off in your officers club, just on the off chance some of you might actually be devoted sons or something.

He may have been disguised as an enemy of the monk but the monk doesn't get to decide who is and isn't worthy of being killed on sight for the purpose of adjudicating his exalted feats. The fake Red Wizard wasn't an immediate threat (or a threat at all though the monk didn't know that) therefore he needed to be vetted as a valid target.
This is magical thinking. The monk is essentially at war with Thay. These people are wearing Thayan uniforms, that is all the vetting he needs. They are legitimate targets, and he has no obligation to them unless they surrender, only to civilians.

With a cleric in his party he had access to an excellent tool for that very thing in the form of a simple detect evil spell.
Because, you know, it's not like detect evil is ridiculously easy to fool.

If that had come back evil he'd've been clear for at least avoiding a fall even if it was a magical misdirection but he didn't even try.
When the test's results are going to be suspect regardless of the outcome, it's a worthless test.

He should've simply avoided them and tried to free the slaves. Good is about protecting the innocent and promoting the ideas that map to good. Punishing the wicked is a foot-note and slaying evil characters is sometimes necessary but never seen as superior to redeeming them.
Good is irrelevant here. Evil is, as only evil acts cause him to lose his feats. What he did was not evil. It was neutral at worst.

[Angelalex242]

Funny thing about the monk. He's an unarmed character. Ya know what that means? He can do subdual damage as much he wants. Which means, he can just capture these guys, by...I don't know if this RAW, but I'll call it a subdual version of CDG.

That is, you knock the guy so far into unconscious he's not gonna wake up for a week or more. Then, you just haul their bodies out, take them back to your companions, and the Paladin, among others, can help pass judgment with his detect evil at will. Monks have stealth as class skill, if he did it right, it'd just look like he was carrying two big sacks of something.

[Thrair]

Every time a debate like this comes up, I like to point out the Baldur's Gate quest for Paladins.

It's been a while, so I apologize if my memory is faulty on the exact details, but iirc, you're tasked with rescuing a rather spoiled snob of a girl from Assassins.
At one point, a man claiming to be her ally comes and asks to take her into his custody.
If you kill him out of hand, you can get tossed out of the order in disgrace, as he was genuine.
Meanwhile, if you hand the girl over, he might be an Assassin who kills her, and you ALSO get tossed out of that (if memory serves, when the NPC spawns, he has a 50/50 chance of being the real deal).
The way to do the mission successfully is to use Detect Evil on the guy to confirm his story. The Paladin order is not just interested it whether your actions were good (killing evil assassin trying to wax a girl = good), but also your intentions (killing a possibly innocent guy without provocation or proof = evil, even if you get lucky).


Now, Detect Evil is not, nor should be, a Yes/No answer to whether someone's smiteable. But the principle of taking the time to assure guilt before using lethal force is definitely a critical aspect of any Paladin's code.


Also, consider some evil PCs do not warrant death in any circumstance. Take the example of a Bartender who swindles his customers, takes advantage of his Boss's poor memory to embezzle some of the waitresses tips, and cheats on his loving wife. He's an *******, and an example of Neutral Evil, possibly even Chaotic Evil. Does he deserve to be executed for those crimes? No. Exposed, yes. Arrested, yes. Executed out of hand? No.

To quote Tolkien (via Gandalf), "Many who live deserve death. But some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"*

*The moral of this quote is somewhat undermined in D&D by Raise Dead spells, I'm aware. :smallwink:

[Deophaun]

Now, Detect Evil is not, nor should be, a Yes/No answer to whether someone's smiteable. But the principle of taking the time to assure guilt before using lethal force is definitely a critical aspect of any Paladin's code.
He saw and correctly identified the dress of a Thayan Wizard. That is more reliable than detect evil.

[georgie_leech]

He saw and correctly identified the dress of a Thayan Wizard. That is more reliable than detect evil.

Do you carefully study the history of every magical item you find? It could have been 2 fellow adventurers who happened to kill 2 Red Wizards, and their robes were better than their old ones.

[Red Fel]

He saw and correctly identified the dress of a Thayan Wizard. That is more reliable than detect evil.

Right now, the only argument I hear is:

Major Premise: The Red Wizards are an evil organization.

Minor Premise: This person voluntarily wore the uniform of the Red Wizards.

Conclusion: Therefore, this person voluntarily and openly identified with an evil organization.

That logic does not conclude with "Therefore this person is Evil." Nor does it conclude with "Therefore this person has done Evil."

We can argue ideologies and whether a person can pretend to espouse the views of an organization, even in an attempt to subvert it, without actually supporting the organization, but all that is irrelevant.

Even if we were to assume that the victims of the killing were, in fact, Evil Red Wizards, their summary execution would nonetheless be an egregious act. An Exalted character does not take the law into his own hands merely based on affiliation. He had no proof, apart from the uniform, that these were Evil people. There are a number of hyperbolic or slippery-slope arguments to be made, but ultimately, simply wearing the uniform isn't enough.

[Kelb_Panthera]

He saw and correctly identified the dress of a Thayan Wizard. That is more reliable than detect evil.

Because it's so much harder to change your clothes than to cast a second level or higher spell, right? I mean any adult with higher than average intelligence, charisma, or wisdom and 3 levels of a casting class can cast a spell. It takes the brilliance and foresight of a 4 year old to get in and out of clothes.

I hope the sarcasm there is thick enough I don't need to color the text.

Let's also not forget that the Wizards were in a territory where they are welcome (as much as any non-drow can be) and the monk was not. Enemy regalia is fine for the battlefield but this was not a battlefield. It was a room at the inn.

Far, far more importantly though, being the monk's enemy doesn't mean squat to the cosmic force that decides whether or not he gets to stay exalted. Good has strict, sometimes impractically so, rules to abide. Not killing a character based on simple appearance is one of those.

Killing those wizards solely because of his own prejudices is murder by the D&D definition. Doing it because of assumptions based on that prejudice is dodgy at best. If his assumptions had been correct it would've been a narrow miss, they weren't. He should've fallen. Really, he probably should've fallen either way.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Being exalted doesn't require that every single thing you do be exalted good. You can't do evil, and in general you should be double-plus-good, but some neutral actions aren't breaking anything.

Assuming they were positively identified as red wizards, the player is fairly justified. They are a scum-sucking evil organization of willing members and are extremely dangerous. And, being wizards, lawful-stupidly seeking out a face to face "honorable duel at noon" is flipping moronic, you need to get any sort of drop on them that you can. Was outright killing them instead of knocking them out the best way to handle it? Maybe not. Should it cause the character to fall? I don't think so, unless it becomes a pattern of behavior.


Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).

And probably people don't buy it because they hope they can argue the DM into submission whenever alignment questions come up, and thereby save the 1000gp and the head slot.

Or because the PC has Vow of Poverty and literally CANNOT buy it...

[hamishspence]

In The Crystal Shard - Wulgar's decision to wake Icingdeath because he thinks it would be dishonourable to attack the dragon in its sleep is castigated :

"Even a knight of honor, would have looked beyond his chivalric code, seen the situation as a blessing, and slain the dragon in its sleep. Few heroes have ever given an evil dragon (of any colour) an even break and lived to boast about it"

and high level wizards are as dangerous as dragons.

Still, it helps if the hero has done the research on their opponent, and knows exactly what crimes they are "executing" them for.

In a thread last month, we proved that Eludecia indeed worked because even though fiends always succeed on the save against that one spell / ability to redeem them (I forgot which), RAW still allows them to willingly fail that save like any other save in the game. Which is what Eludecia probably did. For love. Which is wicked cool. Literally. And this generalized Eludecia's case by showing that any fiend can go through it.
(Concerning Sanctify the Wicked, and fiends, as written, there's nothing preventing the spell from working - it's simply that the Sanctified creature template cannot be applied to fiends. All other effects of the spell should work fine- though a lot of players seem to find the spell itself objectionable.

It's the "Redemption through Diplomacy" process that Creatures with the Evil Subtype are specifically immune to.)

[Angelalex242]

Eeeeeeeh.

I'm pretty sure RAI is fiends cannot be targeted by Sanctify the Wicked.

(Even the Succubus Paladin doesn't have 'Sanctify the Wicked' in her background, and if ever they were going to make a case for it, that would be it. And I dunno about you guys, but a Succubus Paladin sounds more like someone going, "Hey, I can USE that massive charisma bonus, say, can I redeem a Succubus?" then a well considered 'Is this even POSSIBLE?' Powergaming in its worst form...)

Fluff of that spell is 'finds a speck of goodness in their heart'...

Fiends have no such speck. (Of course, the side debate over whether Exalted characters can smite fiends for being fiends is very much a side issue. I think there's no reason whatever to give fiends, even surrendering fiends, any quarter at all, because that evil subtype overrides other considerations.)

Back to the actual Red Wizards of Thay:

Is there a reason the Monk can't just beat them so far into unconsciousness they won't wake up for a week and have the Paladin at least detect evil on them?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Being exalted doesn't require that every single thing you do be exalted good. You can't do evil, and in general you should be double-plus-good, but some neutral actions aren't breaking anything. I'm aware of this. However, killing an intelligent creature without just cause is an evil act.

Just cause isn't that hard to do.

If it is an immediate threat, that's enough.

If you are certain that it has and will continue to do evil unless you kill it and taking it prisoner would jeopardize yourself or others, that's good too.

If it's on the blacklist I mentioned previously, go for it.

Belonging to an organization led by evil men, not so much.


Assuming they were positively identified as red wizards, the player is fairly justified. They are a scum-sucking evil organization of willing members and are extremely dangerous. And, being wizards, lawful-stupidly seeking out a face to face "honorable duel at noon" is flipping moronic, you need to get any sort of drop on them that you can. Was outright killing them instead of knocking them out the best way to handle it? Maybe not. Should it cause the character to fall? I don't think so, unless it becomes a pattern of behavior.

Nobody's saying he should've challenged them to a "fair" fight. That would indeed be of paramount stupidity. However, automatically writing off an entire organization of (mostly) mortal men and women as irredeemably evil and slaughtering them all is nothing short of genocide and is completely ignoring the fact that many of the mid and low level members are not necessarily evil just because the leaders are evil. The men the monk killed could've been magic item salesmen that abhorred slavery and given an unpleasant regional assignment.

The Red Wizards aren't just in Thay. They -are- thay. They are the open head of the nation's government. All noble children of thay are tested for magical talent, and recruited to the Red Wizards when it's found, as soon as they're old enough. The idea that they join willingly is more than a little suspect.

[hamishspence]

It's worth noting that one of the example Red Wizard characters in FRCS in LN- and the PRC only requires "Any nongood".

[Michellus]

I think it is fine that the monk did not fall this time. But i do think that he should receive a massive warning from his deity that this is not okay. He should have done his research before executing them. Even if he did not have access to a cleric he could have paid for a spell casting service or brought a scroll.

He took a risk and very well could have fallen. To take away his exalted status immediately seems a bit harsh to me. Perhaps start with taking away his monk abilities to send a message?

I play an exalted character myself and it is hard as hell.

The way i see it. Is even if you are exalted you are still a mortal (in my case outsider but whatever) you have emotions. Not acting on them is a big part of being exalted imho. You can hate people all you want. You just can't act on it.

Restraint is key.

I quite enjoy the gut wrenching hypocrisy that comes with being exalted. But i have a thing for dragging my exalted character through the mud. I actively think of and suggest things that make my exalted characters life harder. Ive even contemplated making her fall on purpose because that would give some huge rp options. But that option went off the table because that would make my character stop existing (literally). To be fair i think my character should have fallen a long time ago. But our group seems to go for the ends justify some means route and when i do questionable stuff i usually search for atonement anyway even if i was forced to do it.

Also i think you can smite demons, devils and undead and simillar irredeemable creatures with impunity.

Redemption should be offered to those who are capable of receiving it. When playing an exalted character there is no better feeling than redeeming someone imho.

And otherwise they should be kidnapped so they can stand trial. Anti magic shackles are a good investment if you are at war with Thay. Because i would argue that kidnapping them so they can stand trial is a good if not even exalted act or am i wrong in this assumption?

So far my redemption count is 2. Funnily enough a CE Red wizard of Thay (other party member and it took like 2 god damn years but it was worth it) and a half ogre who is now becoming a paladin of Pelor. It warms my heart every time i encounter the npc ogre.

Everyone plays exalted differntly i think.

Also while im at it. I quite enjoyed reading this discussion about exalted status. Opinions seem to be divided on the issue with the monk which is nice. But the discussion about exalted status in general has been quite interesting :)

TLDR: Restraint is key. Offer redemption to those capable of receiving it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Deophaun
Sucks that he got killed by friendly fire, but that's the risk you take when you don the uniform of the enemy.

This is a perfectly acceptable perspective for a Neutral, maybe even a slightly cynical Lawful Neutral, but really not any kind of Good and absolutely not Exalted. An Exalted person feels compassion too strongly to shrug off something like this. That's the heart of being Exalted.


Originally Posted by Deophaun
The monk is essentially at war with Thay. ...They are legitimate targets, and he has no obligation to them unless they surrender, only to civilians.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. You're trying to apply a rather casual perspective on the codified norms of war to an Exalted monk of Ilmater, the Faerûnian deity of empathy, compassion and patient suffering. It just doesn't mix. As an Exalted, he has every obligation to them, as spelled out in the passage I quoted earlier, repeated here for easy reference:

From the Book of Exalted Deeds, under "Mercy" on p. 7:

"Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life being taken to its logical extreme--respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy.

...Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds."


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
As someone that has suffered and been persecuted, and then studied a god of patient suffering in the face of evil, the monk probably would have done well to respond to his personal hatred with calm reflection.

This, exactly. This is the essence of Ilmater's teachings. The monk violated those teachings--and evidently never so much as gave them a passing thought.


Originally Posted by Deophaun
He saw and correctly identified the dress of a Thayan Wizard. That is more reliable than detect evil.

--Wait, what?! Anyone can put on a red robe and get some gnarly ink. That doesn't make them evil, and it's in no way more reliable than a spell designed for the purpose of exposing a being's soul.

.

[Particle_Man]

I think I heard of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode where Buffy does not kill the Big Bad Evil Guy in a helpless state, but Giles does, after giving a speech like "Buffy is a very good person . . . I'm not".

I mean, if Exalted people don't spare sleeping people that may or may not be evil, then who can? Is there even a place for sparing people's lives in a world where Exalted people are not required to do so?

Heck, as a modern equivalent, most police officers know who the criminals are, in various organizations. It would not make it right for the police officers to track them all down, find them when they are sleeping, and blow their heads off.

What the monk did was not not exalted, was not good, was not even lawful. It was chaotic, evil and definitely not exalted. People should have been able to see the monk's fall from grace from outer space.

[Red Fel]

I think I heard of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode where Buffy does not kill the Big Bad Evil Guy in a helpless state, but Giles does, after giving a speech like "Buffy is a very good person . . . I'm not".

This. It's one of my favorite Giles moments. Let me dig up the quote...



Ben: She could’ve killed me.

Giles: No she couldn’t. Never. And sooner or later Glory will re-emerge, and … make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world with her. Buffy even knows that… and still she couldn’t take a human life. She’s a hero, you see. She’s not like us.

Ben: Us?

The Big Bad in question was an evil goddess sharing a body with a mortal. Buffy beat the goddess into submission, leaving a badly battered mortal behind, and Buffy let the mortal go with a promise to leave and never come back. Giles realized that wouldn't be enough, and finished what Buffy could not.

Giles was Good. Buffy was Super-Good. Giles held Buffy out to be the (admittedly not pragmatic) heroic ideal. To Giles, Buffy was Exalted.


I mean, if Exalted people don't spare sleeping people that may or may not be evil, then who can? Is there even a place for sparing people's lives in a world where Exalted people are not required to do so?

Heck, as a modern equivalent, most police officers know who the criminals are, in various organizations. It would not make it right for the police officers to track them all down, find them when they are sleeping, and blow their heads off.

What the monk did was not not exalted, was not good, was not even lawful. It was chaotic, evil and definitely not exalted. People should have been able to see the monk's fall from grace from outer space.

Bottom line, he made a snap judgment. Even assuming they were actually evil, even assuming they were on an evil errand, even assuming they were going to sacrifice babies over breakfast the next morning, that snap judgment is still not justification for summary execution while they slept.

And shame on the DM for allowing Exalted feats without holding players to a higher standard.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Particle_Man
People should have been able to see the monk's fall from grace from outer space.

Well, they're in the Underdark, so that could be difficult. But metaphorically, yeah.

:smalltongue:

[Pickford]

Being exalted doesn't require that every single thing you do be exalted good. You can't do evil, and in general you should be double-plus-good, but some neutral actions aren't breaking anything.

Assuming they were positively identified as red wizards, the player is fairly justified. They are a scum-sucking evil organization of willing members and are extremely dangerous. And, being wizards, lawful-stupidly seeking out a face to face "honorable duel at noon" is flipping moronic, you need to get any sort of drop on them that you can. Was outright killing them instead of knocking them out the best way to handle it? Maybe not. Should it cause the character to fall? I don't think so, unless it becomes a pattern of behavior.

Or because the PC has Vow of Poverty and literally CANNOT buy it...

The Book of Exalted Deeds disagrees with you.


The utter avoidance of evil, however, doesn't make a character good-solidly neutral, perhaps, but not good.


Good is selfless, just, hopeful, benevolent, and righteous.


Exalted characters are simply those, of any level, who are devoted to the highest ideals of good


Good ends might demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

Lastly, these men were non-combatants, which violates the 3rd rule of the use of violence for good:

Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants.

edit: Giles is neutral at best. (You don't have to be good to be on the same side)

[INoKnowNames]

Oh, and for the person who only partially quoted BoED, this is important here, given the character's backstory:

I find it odd you call someone out for partially quoting the book when you only partially quote it yourself, and the part you leave out (of the sentence) coincidentally runs contrary to your argument, including your 12:11 post about the 3rd rule of Violence.

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.

Catching a foe by surprise and fireball-ing women and children are two completely different things, or else Exalted Rogues couldn't exist.


INoKnowNames: If you choose to murder someone, you stopped being good. Doing things because they are convenient is not an excuse.

Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like.

I don't think I ever said you should kill someone just because it was convenient. In fact, I'm almost certain I've never said that. I said if there's no chance of making the foe surrender, no chance of getting them to stop, and trying to even capture them would put yourself and everyone you're trying to protect at risk, then find me a line in the good or evil book that calls defeating said foe an evil act. I've listed several that say it's at least not evil.

The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness during their imprisonment.

Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good.

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act.


The DM just let me in on knowing that the character recognized one of the Red Wizards he dealt with back in Thay. So he knew exactly who they were. Still doesn't sit right with my kdea of exalted but I digress.

This is something that you should edit into the op. I was going to ask, since you stated that it was after a few days, whether or not the Monk had done any homework on the foes he was about to kill or not.

But this changes the entirety of the posts and the entirety of the argument. He found a nemesis of his, one who he has fought in the past, and said foe's allies. He knew -exactly- who he was facing, and -exactly- what they've done in the past. He didn't have to do research at the moment when he already had done his homework (and managed to survive the process). He recognized opponents in a war on slavery who were going to continue their evil antics, knew they wouldn't give up, knew they wouldn't change their ways, and knew they wouldn't surrender. It's not revenge, it's not bias, it's straight combat.

YES, There are several more exalted options at hand he could have pursued. But, especially with this piece of knowledge, what he did was pragmatic neutral, not evil. With this piece of knowledge in hand, it is ESPECIALLY not Evil. Just not nice. The argument's practically over with that, actually.

I still say you could still stand to look at him odd in character until he explains himself, but I'm still trying to see where RAW what he did was an Evil Act. I don't think a single person has stated that. And again, you don't fall for doing neutral, you fall for doing evil. You're right in that's -not- how the standard exalted adventurer runs, and it can certainly seem just as out of place as Mother Teresa saying "Darn it!". But it's still not enough to condemn the person for their action so long as they do nothing worse.

And to those mentioning the Phylactery of Faithfulness, try this on for size. (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-faerun--22/gift-of-discernment--1218/)

[ArcturusV]

I'm tempted to ask about the Non-Combatant thing but I know from other topics about this Pickford has posted in, that his stance is generally "It's murder unless you call them out, let them arm up, cast their buffs, summons, etc, then count down from 3 so there's no surprise round and fight them according to rigid rules of honorable conduct".

... a bit of hyperbole there but it's more or less where his stance is.

A less hardline, more reasonable type would say something like "... well... it's a wizard... of an evil organization. If that's not a combatant what is?" A soldier is a soldier is a soldier, and still a valid target whether he's in full battle gear, sword drawn and stalking an active battlefield or in his camp, eating his dinner and resting up for the next fight.

The fact that the Slayer of Domiel exists suggests that less hardline stance is accurate. Nevermind things like Ruby Knight Vindicator (Which are paladins), etc.

Eh. In the end the whole situation is kinda murky, I'm sure there's details going around at the table we're not really privy to, and the whole "Oh, he was actually undercover" just sounds like BS made up fall bait.

... like the same way your party can fight and kill random thieves and no one would blink at it UNTIL you got a good aligned cleric or Paladin in the party and suddenly you have to deal with things like their families or "oh he was under a geas from an evil wizard but was actually a good guy" and twists like that which DMs only pull out when it'll screw someone with a code.

I'd be surprised if that wasn't what happened. I really would. Probably closer to trying to 'punish' the party and the monk for the fact that he was likely building up to some epic fight scene between a few wizards of power and the party, where they'd be busting out summons, flashy effects, etc. Really going full throttle to make you guys feel badass for beating it. But the monk just bypassed the encounter, so he's ticked and wants to make someone pay for it. I mean these things happen. Quite a bit actually.

[Pickford]

I find it odd you call someone out for partially quoting the book when you only partially quote it yourself, and the part you leave out (of the sentence) coincidentally runs contrary to your argument, including your 12:11 post about the 3rd rule of Violence.

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.

Catching a foe by surprise and fireball-ing women and children are two completely different things, or else Exalted Rogues couldn't exist.


These men were not threatening anyone, that makes them noncombatants. This is exactly my point.


Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like.

I don't think I ever said you should kill someone just because it was convenient. In fact, I'm almost certain I've never said that. I said if there's no chance of making the foe surrender, no chance of getting them to stop, and trying to even capture them would put yourself and everyone you're trying to protect at risk, then find me a line in the good or evil book that calls defeating said foe an evil act. I've listed several that say it's at least not evil.

Personal gain, revenge. Which, because of the Monk backstory being used as justification, this explicitly is.



The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness during their imprisonment.


The monk is not judge, jury, nor executioner. He has no legal authority in this matter, he's a common murderer.


Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.

That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).

The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good.

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

Yes, this falls outside of those limits.


The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act.

This isn't the same thing, a bunch of random people in robes in the vicinity of evil who aren't themselves doing evil is NOT evidence of evil.

[A Tad Insane]

These "wizards of thay" could have easily been four random guys making a fashion statement, and then they get murdered. By definition, exalted means you are the best of the best, literally holier than thou, and yet the monk sentences these people to death with no due process of LAW, the staple of LG. If he knew for a fact they were wizards of thay, then killing them in their sleep could be easily justified. Four wizards are breaking dangerous! They could have killed an innocent bystander or something. As it stands, the mink took the easy path and might have killed some innocent people. Being exalted is not easy, and if he doesn't want to put in the effort, he has no rights to it.

[Pickford]

These "wizards of thay" could have easily been four random guys making a fashion statement, and then they get murdered. By definition, exalted means you are the best of the best, literally holier than thou, and yet the monk sentences these people to death with no due process of LAW, the staple of LG. If he knew for a fact they were wizards of thay, then killing them in their sleep could be easily justified. Four wizards are breaking dangerous! They could have killed an innocent bystander or something. As it stands, the mink took the easy path and might have killed some innocent people. Being exalted is not easy, and if he doesn't want to put in the effort, he has no rights to it.

It doesn't matter what someone could have done if they haven't actually done anything.

No Prior Restraint.

[INoKnowNames]

These men were not threatening anyone, that makes them noncombatants. This is exactly my point.

You know good and darn well that "caught unaware" and "not threatening anyone" are two entirely different things, and would require Orange-and-Blue Morality to even possibly justify confusing them.


Personal gain, revenge. Which, because of the Monk backstory being used as justification, this explicitly is.

His backstory is used as justification because he recognized old foes still up to no good, not revenge! It's not an "Oh, he looked at me funny when we were younger, so I'm gonna slit his throat now to make up for it". It's Captain America catching a Hydra Elite and his assistants unaware and defeating, finishing off a battle started years ago. It's explicitly -not- that.


The monk is not judge, jury, nor executioner. He has no legal authority in this matter, he's a common murderer.

I was using that line as yet another note that killing in the name of justice is not automatically an evil act, to which you still can't do anything but try to half-quote and twist points. And him not having legal authority would make it a more chaotic act than anything.


Yes, this falls outside of those limits.

Explain. Rather than strawman it, try explaining how it falls outside of those limits that it actually very much is within.


This isn't the same thing, a bunch of random people in robes in the vicinity of evil who aren't themselves doing evil is NOT evidence of evil.

Did you seriously miss what was quoted about the op admitting that these people were recognized as known slave drivers, the monk having fought against his target personally, and -not- random innocent bystanders merely dressed up? Or are you just ignoring that fact.


These "wizards of thay" could have easily been four random guys making a fashion statement, and then they get murdered. By definition, exalted means you are the best of the best, literally holier than thou, and yet the monk sentences these people to death with no due process of LAW, the staple of LG. If he knew for a fact they were wizards of thay, then killing them in their sleep could be easily justified. Four wizards are breaking dangerous! They could have killed an innocent bystander or something. As it stands, the mink took the easy path and might have killed some innocent people. Being exalted is not easy, and if he doesn't want to put in the effort, he has no rights to it.

You totally missed the part where the op admitted later that the underlined is -exactly- what happened! That's why he -really- needs to put that in the op.


I'm tempted to ask about the Non-Combatant thing but I know from other topics about this Pickford has posted in, that his stance is generally "It's murder unless you call them out, let them arm up, cast their buffs, summons, etc, then count down from 3 so there's no surprise round and fight them according to rigid rules of honorable conduct".

... a bit of hyperbole there but it's more or less where his stance is.

.... holy crap. In a world where you could have 500 high level Monks fight 1 equal level Wizard and it'd still not be enough for them to win without WBL shenanigans, a Vow of Poverty Monk -still- gets flack for not engaging a Wizard to a fair fight? Holy Crap!


A less hardline, more reasonable type would say something like "... well... it's a wizard... of an evil organization. If that's not a combatant what is?" A soldier is a soldier is a soldier, and still a valid target whether he's in full battle gear, sword drawn and stalking an active battlefield or in his camp, eating his dinner and resting up for the next fight.

The fact that the Slayer of Domiel exists suggests that less hardline stance is accurate. Nevermind things like Ruby Knight Vindicator (Which are paladins), etc.

Thank you!


Eh. In the end the whole situation is kinda murky, I'm sure there's details going around at the table we're not really privy to, and the whole "Oh, he was actually undercover" just sounds like BS made up fall bait.

... like the same way your party can fight and kill random thieves and no one would blink at it UNTIL you got a good aligned cleric or Paladin in the party and suddenly you have to deal with things like their families or "oh he was under a geas from an evil wizard but was actually a good guy" and twists like that which DMs only pull out when it'll screw someone with a code.

I'd be surprised if that wasn't what happened. I really would. Probably closer to trying to 'punish' the party and the monk for the fact that he was likely building up to some epic fight scene between a few wizards of power and the party, where they'd be busting out summons, flashy effects, etc. Really going full throttle to make you guys feel badass for beating it. But the monk just bypassed the encounter, so he's ticked and wants to make someone pay for it. I mean these things happen. Quite a bit actually.

The Op is a player alongside the monk, and was just surprised that the Dm allowed the Monk to get away with what looked like a random act of murder with a flimsy justification. Turns out as is being missed by most everyone who passed that point (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16445383&postcount=68), it was actually Captain America finding a Hydra Executive and his men, and slaying them while they had their guard down. If anything, a Wizard who hasn't prepared for an assassin to come at him while he's asleep should be the odd point at this time.

People really hate the Monk Class, Vow of Poverty, and the players who would use them that they would argue that such characters should automatically fall if they don't engage in freaking Yu-Gi-Oh Duels? I'm honestly shocked.

[Pickford]

You know good and darn well that "caught unaware" and "not threatening anyone" are two entirely different things, and would require Orange-and-Blue Morality to even possibly justify confusing them.

They were killed, after 4 days, in their sleep.

Yes, I'm saying they were not threatening anyone (insofar as the Monk knew). From the Monk's perspective, that makes them innocents.


His backstory is used as justification because he recognized old foes still up to no good, not revenge! It's not an "Oh, he looked at me funny when we were younger, so I'm gonna slit his throat now to make up for it". It's Captain America catching a Hydra Elite and his assistants unaware and defeating, finishing off a battle started years ago. It's explicitly -not- that.

It is said earlier that the Monk hates the Thayans, and the group basically guessed that these guys are probably Thayan Wizards. The only reason the Monk has given for killing them is his hatred of said people. That's revenge!



I was using that line as yet another note that killing in the name of justice is not automatically an evil act, to which you still can't do anything but try to half-quote and twist points. And him not having legal authority would make it a more chaotic act than anything.

This isn't justice.


Explain. Rather than strawman it, try explaining how it falls outside of those limits that it actually very much is within.

The third limit, violence is not good when directed at noncombatants (i.e. a group of people who are not harming anyone).


Did you seriously miss what was quoted about the op admitting that these people were recognized as known slave drivers, the monk having fought against his target personally, and -not- random innocent bystanders merely dressed up? Or are you just ignoring that fact.

Apparently I did miss that. What post #? The closest I saw was in the OP the group surmised these were Wizards of Thay lacking any real evidence.

ArcturusV: I never said you had to engage an enemy in anything less than advantageous circumstances. For example, there's nothing wrong with breaking into their rooms and hogtying them to bring them back to whatever legal justice is allowed. But killing someone in cold blood on the basis of suspicion? How can you not see that as evil?

[INoKnowNames]

ArcturusV: I never said you had to engage an enemy in anything less than advantageous circumstances. For example, there's nothing wrong with breaking into their rooms and hogtying them to bring them back to whatever legal justice is allowed. But killing someone in cold blood on the basis of suspicion? How can you not see that as evil?

I wonder if someone can silently punch someone enough to keep them knocked unconscious while they're asleep... that -would- have been the most paragon option, I agree.


Apparently I did miss that. What post #? The closest I saw was in the OP the group surmised these were Wizards of Thay lacking any real evidence.

... the post I linked to in size 6 font?


The DM just let me in on knowing that the character recognized one of the Red Wizards he dealt with back in Thay. So he knew exactly who they were. Still doesn't sit right with my kdea of exalted but I digress.

So I think that makes this a bit clearer now?

[ArcturusV]

I didn't miss the IDing post. So I didn't see it as evil. I saw it as "... I just saw someone, and his entourage, that I had fought against for my whole life.... I'm not letting him go".

So it's less about Murder, and more about putting an end to a known vile figure.

Because of the IDing post, the whole "oh, one guy was actually good and undercover" bit just struck me as total BS.

Particularly since the DM didn't Autofall the Monk originally it tells me he was probably thinking about it originally like "... well... they're evil slaver wizards and he just put an end to their evil..." was what was going through his mind. He probably even had the IDing thing going on, wanting some climatic confrontation between long term archrivals, the tyrant slaver and the freedom fighter monk.

It was afterwards that he tacked on the BS "Oh, one of them was good" because he was ticked at the monk for bypassing the epic encounter.

At least that is my read based on what we have.

[INoKnowNames]

I didn't miss the IDing post. So I didn't see it as evil. I saw it as "... I just saw someone, and his entourage, that I had fought against for my whole life.... I'm not letting him go".

So it's less about Murder, and more about putting an end to a known vile figure.

See, that's the mindset I was on when I saw that.


Because of the IDing post, the whole "oh, one guy was actually good and undercover" bit just struck me as total BS.

Wait, when did the op say that?


Particularly since the DM didn't Autofall the Monk originally it tells me he was probably thinking about it originally like "... well... they're evil slaver wizards and he just put an end to their evil..." was what was going through his mind. He probably even had the IDing thing going on, wanting some climatic confrontation between long term archrivals, the tyrant slaver and the freedom fighter monk.

It was afterwards that he tacked on the BS "Oh, one of them was good" because he was ticked at the monk for bypassing the epic encounter.

At least that is my read based on what we have.

... *thread dive*

You mean what Yogibear said? I'm pretty sure he's not the op, and was speaking ... is faciciously the word I'm looking for? Anywho, it seemed like he was a way to make fun of how this would have made the Monk fall so hard, he'd hit Asmodeus' roof.

Then again, if he is a party member, then we've got somewhat conflicting information, and that would need to be straightened out so we know the truth before our input can be valid.

[Phelix-Mu]

Actually, I think the OP posted a page ago and said the monk actually recognized one of the wizards from his time in Thay.

The post about one of the wizards being a good person in disguise was, I assumed at the time, a joke. Maybe I am misinterpreting the yawn emoticon.

Smacks of a little bit of retconning, but I really can't tell...in any case, I concur with Kelb Pantera that the DM really couldn't fall the monk immediately in any case. For a VoP character, falls behind enemy lines pretty much is a death sentence. Doubly so for a VoP monk that may have also just gotten in trouble with his patron deity. It still warrants some kind of reproachful vision from his god or a visit by a herald about the merits of timely deliberation and not getting caught up in emotions.

[ArcturusV]

Ah. For some reason I thought he was in on the game. My mind's not been up to par lately. I apologize.

Probably because I've seen far too many DMs do things like that, I was just waiting for that to be the case.

[Red Fel]

Again, for me, it comes down to this.

They were Thayans. This is a known fact. The PC knew it.

Does this mean they were Evil? No. Some Thayans are Neutral. Red Wizards only require Non-Good, after all.

He waited several days and killed them in their sleep. During that period of time, he did not investigate who they were, or what they were doing; he simply knew that they were Thayans and where they were staying. Then he killed them.

I recognize the argument that they were probably evil, and that his act was probably good. Fine. I recognize the argument that the act was motivated by preventing future wrongdoing, not revenge. Also fine. I recognize (and agree with) the fact that the presence of Thayans generally indicates trouble. Also fine. I recognize (and agree with) the argument that being Exalted does not require the character to challenge villains to a showdown at high noon, if it wouldn't be too inconvenient, oh don't get up just yet, I'd like you well-rested and fully armed, if you please.

But there was no due diligence. None, in several days. No search, no investigation, no nothing.

The ID post said he recognized them as Thayans. Not as evil Thayans. Just as Thayans. Good, so we know they're not some unfortunate mooks in costume, or undercover do-gooders. But we still don't know that they're evil, or doing evil, or planning to do evil, or will ever amount to anything naughtier than foreclosing on the blacksmith's mortgage. Several days, nothing.

Even if we take all of the above arguments as true, he may have been Good, but he was not Exalted. An Exalted character, particularly a follower of Ilmater, would seek a non-violent alternative if at all possible. One that doesn't involve killing. He didn't seek any alternative. He went straight to, "Well, evil folks need killin'," and knock them off in their sleep. That simply is not Exalted.

[Phelix-Mu]

Ah. For some reason I thought he was in on the game. My mind's not been up to par lately. I apologize.

Probably because I've seen far too many DMs do things like that, I was just waiting for that to be the case.

Well, assuming the monk immediately recognized the actual red wizard, his later actions are much, much more justifiable. But they are still pretty extreme for someone that worships a god of patient suffering (even if he also fights tyrants).

But it seems the monk killed more than just the red wizard he knew, which puts him back in sketchy territory. For instance, take this.

A harper Undercover in Menzoberranzan sees a large party of people pass by. The harper sees and recognizes that there is a known evil CE half-dragon lizardfolk in the group (method of knowing is irrelevant...previous experience, divination, sees the half-dragon do something evil). The harper hates dragons and evil. He tracks the party to where they are sleeping, and murders the lizardfolk and his companions.

Well, I think we can see the problem. The harper just killed an exalted monk of Ilmater, just because he assumed those traveling with someone evil are also evil (or at least worthy of execution).

[INoKnowNames]

Ah. For some reason I thought he was in on the game. My mind's not been up to par lately. I apologize.

Probably because I've seen far too many DMs do things like that, I was just waiting for that to be the case.

Why do dms set up the Paladin to fall? That's honestly cruel. If they mess up on their own is one thing, but being set up to fall is cruel dming.

I think the biggest point to make here is the difference between Good Characters and Exalted Characters. Roy, for example, is a Good Character. He also abandoned Elan, and even his entire team, to potentially die, just because he didn't care about what they're doing. That's a blatantly evil act, and he even got called out for it in heaven.

The difference between if Roy was Good and if Roy was Exalted (or Paladin) is that Good Roy had a chance to redeem himself on his own actions. He's not trying to be perfect, so if he messes up every now and then, he can usually do something about it.

Exalted Roy, however, by making that committment to being exalted, would have fallen for that act, and would have had to gain atonement for it. Exalted Roy is not allowed to commit -any- evil. That's the difference.

This act was not Exalted. This act was not Good. This act was Neutral. Exalted is allowed to do Neutral every now and then, though they should -strive- to be no less than Good in anything they do. In a sense, Neutral is to Exalted as Evil is to Good: The latter -shouldn't- dabble in the former, but it occasionally does happen.

Why does Evil have it so easy? Evil can do whatever they damn well please...


The ID post said he recognized them as Thayans.

Actually, you seem to be missing one small detail:


The DM just let me in on knowing that the character recognized one of the Red Wizards he dealt with back in Thay. So he knew exactly who they were. Still doesn't sit right with my kdea of exalted but I digress.

So, he at least recognized one of his opponents through direct experience with him, not just as a member of the group, but as a personal nemesis. So one of those kills has not a drop of ambiguity at all. However, see Phelix-Mu's point for a good argument on the other.


Well, assuming the monk immediately recognized the actual red wizard, his later actions are much, much more justifiable. But they are still pretty extreme for someone that worships a god of patient suffering (even if he also fights tyrants).

But it seems the monk killed more than just the red wizard he knew, which puts him back in sketchy territory. For instance, take this.

A harper Undercover in Menzoberranzan sees a large party of people pass by. The harper sees and recognizes that there is a known evil CE half-dragon lizardfolk in the group (method of knowing is irrelevant...previous experience, divination, sees the half-dragon do something evil). The harper hates dragons and evil. He tracks the party to where they are sleeping, and murders the lizardfolk and his companions.

Well, I think we can see the problem. The harper just killed an exalted monk of Ilmater, just because he assumed those traveling with someone evil are also evil (or at least worthy of execution).

Hm... that is a good point, actually. It seems like in the actual situation that the Dm doesn't seem to be ruing that this happened, but it certainly very well could, and is more than enough of a reason that one shouldn't jump to something so extreme as killing if it can be avoided without doing the research. The Monk may have had the pre-existing experience, but that's still a pretty big risk to make. It doesn't seem that he's wrong in this case, but it's certainly still worth a "what the heck" response in game from another player, plus a warning to pursue a little disgression.

[ArcturusV]

Same reasons DMs do a lot of things. Particularly if you "ruined" something they were building up to. Took out their favorite villain in an anticlimatic way, etc. Or they just want to tell a 'darker' story than your Paladin Code/Exalted Status will necessarily allow.

But "punishment" happens a lot. I think most everyone has seen some point in time where a DM has punished them for going off the rails, or pre-emptively killing a villain, etc.

Now... cagey players can get around almost any "Autofall" scenario if they want to. That's the flip side of it. But it tends to lead to the DM just trying to punish you again if you beat him at his Autofall game.

I dunno. It's something I've seen a lot of. And everyone I've played with has seen happen before.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Red Fel
...he did not investigate who they were, or what they were doing; he simply knew that they were Thayans and where they were staying. Then he killed them.

...there was no due diligence. None, in several days. No search, no investigation, no nothing.

All this is absolutely true--and the point we keep coming back to is that a supposedly Lawful Good, supposedly Exalted monk of Ilmater not only killed a sleeping person who offered no threat, he did so without making any attempt to even consider another approach. This is a clear violation of Exalted behavior, and goes against the spirit of Ilmater's teachings as well.

It is explicitly incumbent on the Exalted to make every attempt to redeem each and every foe, regardless of how many times they've personally betrayed him in the past. Killing them without even speaking to them is an explicit violation of the Exalted's unique moral burden.

And yet, he deliberately chose to deny them the opportunity to surrender. -- Pragmatic? Of course. Exalted? No.

The fact is, if you're standing next to a sleeping wizard, and you're not on fire, you really do have a whole range of options to work with. Being an Exalted monk absolutely demands you choose the nonlethal options first.



And apart from his compounded moral failures, in this case it was also incredibly shortsighted and stupid of the monk to conduct a point-blank execution. If he truly wants to fight an evil nation of slavers, which is more effective in the long term? Pick off one or two at a time--or learn everything they know, and follow up every lead in a determined and methodical fashion?

I just can't see this as a well-played Exalted character. As much as I like the concept, and BoED in general, it's hard not to see this as a strong example of how a player--and potentially a DM--can completely miss the deeper moral dimensions that are inherent to the concept, either deliberately or otherwise.

.

[olejars]

Hm... that is a good point, actually. It seems like in the actual situation that the Dm doesn't seem to be ruing that this happened, but it certainly very well could, and is more than enough of a reason that one shouldn't jump to something so extreme as killing if it can be avoided without doing the research. The Monk may have had the pre-existing experience, but that's still a pretty big risk to make. It doesn't seem that he's wrong in this case, but it's certainly still worth a "what the heck" response in game from another player, plus a warning to pursue a little disgression.

I plan on slapping him in irons and bringing him before the mayor for prosecution. My character views this as murder and yields to the ligitimate authority of this town, though it is the drow city of Eryndyl, in this matter. I'm debating on using my amulet of the planes to visit Tyr, Torm, and Ilmater in the House of the Triad to get their perspectives on it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by olejars
I plan on slapping him in irons and bringing him before the mayor for prosecution. My character views this as murder and yields to the ligitimate authority of this town, though it is the drow city of Eryndyl, in this matter.

In a drow city? Now that is a bold move.

And now I want a campaign journal. I need to see how this goes down.

:smalltongue:

[Pickford]

I wonder if someone can silently punch someone enough to keep them knocked unconscious while they're asleep... that -would- have been the most paragon option, I agree.



... the post I linked to in size 6 font?



So I think that makes this a bit clearer now?

So he recognized one of them as a Red Wizard who he knew before....and so he killed his companions because?

[INoKnowNames]

I plan on slapping him in irons and bringing him before the mayor for prosecution. My character views this as murder and yields to the ligitimate authority of this town, though it is the drow city of Eryndyl, in this matter. I'm debating on using my amulet of the planes to visit Tyr, Torm, and Ilmater in the House of the Triad to get their perspectives on it.

I'd bring this opinion up to the Dm before you do anything else. Since falling would have been automatic if he was wrong (though that's a horribly stupid way to test it: If I kill him and I don't fall then he deserved it, if I do then he didn't), whether or not it would be too worth pursuing his judgement in that regard is rather sketch. This is actually (or maybe it always has been and I'm slow on the uptake) starting to sound like an Out of Character/Game problem at this point, and if you can, you might want to consider talking to both the Dm and the player about how you feel about the situation, and potentially ask where this scenario is supposed to be going, to avoid anyone's feelings getting hurt by variously justifiable in character actions.


So he recognized one of them as a Red Wizard who he knew before....and so he killed his companions because?

That's the biggest ambiguity on his act at this point: Even if you verify that you're about to kill Hitler, it doesn't automatically mean he's not traveling with innocent people who just happen to have a similar fashion sense, even if the chance of them being his accomplices is probably higher. The impression I get seems like the Dm isn't specifically doing that to the player and that the men with him are just-as-guilty slave-driving demon-summoning bad guys, but if that was the case (them being innocent men just traveling with a bad guy), then -that- would be unconditional premeditated unjustifiable murder, and Exalted Status be gone.

Though to be fair, I'm not sure how one would get away with killing Hitler and his allies in the same room not retaliate. Though I also don't see how he would tie him up silently and not alert the others some how, either.... it really is quite the sticky situation alone, and he really should have gotten his allies to help him, rather than take matters into his own hands by himself. A few spells really would have made at least determining final identities easy enough, and then action would have been more justifiable.

Hey, this is the first alignment argument I've ever posted in! I want to get ice-cream now, to mark the occasion. :smallsmile:

[olejars]

In a drow city? Now that is a bold move.

And now I want a campaign journal. I need to see how this goes down.

:smalltongue:

My character's first incursion into the underdark is this one. The first two drow cities that were encountered were very lawful neutral at a glance with the law of "Don't cause me any problems and don't kill anybody openly." and thats all I have to go on for Drow society.

My LG Cleric/Pious Templar of Tyr will uphold just laws regardless of who makes them. IT's those unjust ones that I'll have an issue with. :smalltongue:


I'd bring this opinion up to the Dm before you do anything else. Since falling would have been automatic if he was wrong (though that's a horribly stupid way to test it: If I kill him and I don't fall then he deserved it, if I do then he didn't), whether or not it would be too worth pursuing his judgement in that regard is rather sketch. This is actually (or maybe it always has been and I'm slow on the uptake) starting to sound like an Out of Character/Game problem at this point, and if you can, you might want to consider talking to both the Dm and the player about how you feel about the situation, and potentially ask where this scenario is supposed to be going, to avoid anyone's feelings getting hurt by variously justifiable in character actions.



That's the biggest ambiguity on his act at this point: Even if you verify that you're about to kill Hitler, it doesn't automatically mean he's not traveling with innocent people who just happen to have a similar fashion sense, even if the chance of them being his accomplices is probably higher. The impression I get seems like the Dm isn't specifically doing that to the player and that the men with him are just-as-guilty slave-driving demon-summoning bad guys, but if that was the case (them being innocent men just traveling with a bad guy), then -that- would be unconditional premeditated unjustifiable murder, and Exalted Status be gone.

Though to be fair, I'm not sure how one would get away with killing Hitler and his allies in the same room not retaliate. Though I also don't see how he would tie him up silently and not alert the others some how, either.... it really is quite the sticky situation alone, and he really should have gotten his allies to help him, rather than take matters into his own hands by himself. A few spells really would have made at least determining final identities easy enough, and then action would have been more justifiable.

Hey, this is the first alignment argument I've ever posted in! I want to get ice-cream now, to mark the occasion. :smallsmile:

The monk has been vehemently vocal about his supreme distaste and that any Red Wizard that dies by his hand is not murder. It's not gonna take a rocket scientist to peice it together that he did it. I plan on calling him out on taking the law into his hands and that he should answer for what he did. PC's are not immune to what I would do to an NPC; if they make a bad call, then it would be bad form on my part to not do anything in this situation.

OoG: I've already spken to the DM and have been told any further issues I have with the situation I need to address in game since this issue, though I disagree, is closed. Also, there will be in game ramifications for his actions. On a side note, we all LARP together and are accustomed to having intense RP together.

[Angelalex242]

Brought up for the third time by me, and 4th time total:

Are there rules that allow the monk to beat this guys so far into subdual damage that they won't wake up for a week, then bring them to trial of sorts before the party Paladin and rest of the team?

[Raven777]

I plan on slapping him in irons and bringing him before the mayor for prosecution. My character views this as murder and yields to the ligitimate authority of this town, though it is the drow city of Eryndyl, in this matter. I'm debating on using my amulet of the planes to visit Tyr, Torm, and Ilmater in the House of the Triad to get their perspectives on it.

If the character didn't lose his Exalted status the very moment he committed the act, what is handing him over to the chaotic evil demon worshiping bastards gonna accomplish?

Maybe in your DM's world, offing evil on a hunch is good if you turn out to be right. This is stupid, but maybe that's how he rolls.

[Deophaun]

Because it's so much harder to change your clothes than to cast a second level or higher spell, right? I mean any adult with higher than average intelligence, charisma, or wisdom and 3 levels of a casting class can cast a spell. It takes the brilliance and foresight of a 4 year old to get in and out of clothes.

I hope the sarcasm there is thick enough I don't need to color the text.
How hard is it to fool the Red Wizards? Because that's what this guy was doing. He was palling around with a known Red Wizard while in Red Wizard garb, and somehow you think the Monk is going to have more resources to vet this guy than the entirety of Thay.

That is insane.

Let's also not forget that the Wizards were in a territory where they are welcome (as much as any non-drow can be) and the monk was not. Enemy regalia is fine for the battlefield but this was not a battlefield. It was a room at the inn.
Battlefield or not, it makes no difference. he is under no obligation to give them quarter. This isn't baseball. There's no base to be safe at.

Far, far more importantly though, being the monk's enemy doesn't mean squat to the cosmic force that decides whether or not he gets to stay exalted. Good has strict, sometimes impractically so, rules to abide. Not killing a character based on simple appearance is one of those.
And again, for the umpteenth time, all that means is no one is going to sponsor him for more Exalted feats. It most definitely does not mean that he loses the benefits of his Exalted feats.

Killing those wizards solely because of his own prejudices is murder by the D&D definition.
Stop abusing the term "prejudice," please. He didn't go after them because they used magic, or because they came from a certain area. He went after them because they were deliberately advertising that they did the bidding of Thay, which is slavery and conquest.

However, automatically writing off an entire organization of (mostly) mortal men and women as irredeemably evil and slaughtering them all is nothing short of genocide and is completely ignoring the fact that many of the mid and low level members are not necessarily evil just because the leaders are evil.
Horrible abuse of the word "genocide." But that seems par for the course here.

--Wait, what?! Anyone can put on a red robe and get some gnarly ink. That doesn't make them evil, and it's in no way more reliable than a spell designed for the purpose of exposing a being's soul.
First of all, it's highly unlikely that the garb of a Red Wizard of Thay is something that people accidentally don. Second of all, the Monk knew one of his targets.

So you're claiming that if you see one hands down, without a doubt, known Red Wizard of Thay palling around with another guy wearing the same garb designed to label them as a member of that organization, it is somehow unfair to jump to the conclusion that the other guy is also a Red Wizard of Thay?

These men were not threatening anyone, that makes them noncombatants. This is exactly my point.
You do not need to threaten anyone to be a combatant. A soldier sitting down to mess is as valid a target as a soldier directing artillery fire. You may find the former case dishonorable, tending to the chaotic in D&D's terms, but that has nothing to do with the moral aspect.

Does this mean they were Evil? No. Some Thayans are Neutral. Red Wizards only require Non-Good, after all.
And good people never kill things with neutral alignments.

As I said previously, it's an interesting quirk of the alignment system that someone can be neutral while actively supporting slavery and aggressive conquest.

But there was no due diligence. None, in several days. No search, no investigation, no nothing.
Due diligence was done on second 1, when a Red Wizard of Thay was positively identified, and his companion was positively identified as wearing garb specific to the Red Wizards of Thay.


The ID post said he recognized them as Thayans. Not as evil Thayans. Just as Thayans.
No, he recognized them as Red Wizards, not simply Thayans, who could be anything from bakers to physicians to serial killers.

[ArcturusV]

Hmm... interesting question. My gut answer was "Hmm... no."

Because I was thinking of various rules that mentioned Non-Lethal and effects based on lethality. Like a rogue can't sneak attack non-lethal damage unless the weapon only inflicts non-lethal damage, like with a black jack, not even if they take the -4 penalty to bonk someone with the flat of their blade/pommel of their sword.

However I had to check and Coup de Grace doesn't really have any rules against it.

However, it does have a "Fort save or die equal to damage inflicted". So by RAW, even if you used non-lethal, you could still end up cracking their head open with an unarmed strike from the monk and killing htem outright. Entirely likely since wizards have poor fort saves and as NPCs they probably didn't jack up Con necessarily.

So it's still a risk of outright killing them.

Now I mention Coup de Grace because, as a monk, the auto crit is probably the only way you'd do enough damage in a single shot to guarantee the KO and not just have the wizard wake up and go "OW, MY NOSE!" and lightning bolt the insolent monk into oblivion and wake up his comrades.

Even with wizards having low HP, you need to do it in one shot or they'll wake up, call the alarm, and you got three angry wizards to deal with.

That doesn't even come to the question of, if you're so afraid of "legality" and moral authority what makes the party paladin any more of an appropriate judge than the exalted monk and chosen disciple of a good aligned god?

[Angelalex242]

Well, in a Drow City, there's no such thing as legit authority. The guys in charge are CE, and it's impractical to transport the wizards elsewhere without a LOT of powerful restraint items. So who else can he take 'em to?

"Yes, Drow Priestess, we find these guys guilty of being slavers and being evil!"
Priestess:Yeah, so? I'm evil too, I just tortured 3 males who failed me for fun yesterday, and had my slaves clean up the mess.

I guess doing a non lethal 'coup de gras' designed to put someone into a coma for transport would have to be house ruled. But if anyone could launch an unarmed strike meant to do that, an exalted monk would be it.

Main reason I mentioned the Paladin, though, is 'detect evil at will.' At least the Paladin can prevent "Oh, that guy was secretly a Harper undercover' with Detect Evil.

[Brookshw]

Oh come now, Monks get evasion, don't take away one of their few toys.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, you'd probably just houserule, in rational practical terms, that the Fort Save is versus Comatose rather than death.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a practical guy. I don't like it when someone tries to use your alignment against you like that... like forcing you to take prisoners and interrupt your much more important quest because some random thug surrendered to you and you have to drop everything to bring him to some place that you believe has proper justice... who may not even care that he committed a crime so far away from their lands, etc. I'd let the Monk and Paladin pass judgement. Monk would just say "Hey, Paladin. I know this guy. He runs major slaving outfits I've fought against all my life." Paladin goes "Okay... cast zone of truth. Thayan Mageling... is this true? Ah, what, you can't deny it? Okay, guilty. Coup de Grace him, no drawn out torture".

That simple. Least I'd let it be that simple. It doesn't have to be more complex than that. Particularly when you are involving characters like Paladins who are quite literally the armored fist of good, sent out to smite evil, not coddle them until they can transport them to the Free World and give them a Trial for crimes they didn't commit in that land that will drag out for months as witnesses and evidences are divined up/found, etc, etc, etc.

[olejars]

Well, in a Drow City, there's no such thing as legit authority. The guys in charge are CE, and it's impractical to transport the wizards elsewhere without a LOT of powerful restraint items. So who else can he take 'em to?

"Yes, Drow Priestess, we find these guys guilty of being slavers and being evil!"
Priestess:Yeah, so? I'm evil too, I just tortured 3 males who failed me for fun yesterday, and had my slaves clean up the mess.

I guess doing a non lethal 'coup de gras' designed to put someone into a coma for transport would have to be house ruled. But if anyone could launch an unarmed strike meant to do that, an exalted monk would be it.

Main reason I mentioned the Paladin, though, is 'detect evil at will.' At least the Paladin can prevent "Oh, that guy was secretly a Harper undercover' with Detect Evil.

Until I see the CE of this society, I'm not going to say I claim to know these things about drow society because everything I've encountered so far hasn't fit the "norm" that most players would expect from Drow. Like I have stated, this is my first time spending time in the Underdark, it is very foriegn to me. When I witness these women of power using that power for nefarious purposes, you better believe that I will no longer consider them legit authority.

[Particle_Man]

The fact that the Slayer of Domiel exists suggests that less hardline stance is accurate. Nevermind things like Ruby Knight Vindicator (Which are paladins), etc.

Some RKVs are paladins. Some are Blackguards. Some are just LN.

But I would assume the RKVs that are Paladins are still subject to Paladin restrictions as much as any other Paladin, and their bosses would know this and not order them on a mission they would have to fall from grace to complete.

[Angelalex242]

Until I see the CE of this society, I'm not going to say I claim to know these things about drow society because everything I've encountered so far hasn't fit the "norm" that most players would expect from Drow. Like I have stated, this is my first time spending time in the Underdark, it is very foriegn to me. When I witness these women of power using that power for nefarious purposes, you better believe that I will no longer consider them legit authority.

Make a knowledge Religion check about Lloth. DC 10.

That ougghta do it...

And for the Paladin? Priestesses of Lloth have Aura of Chaos and Aura of Evil as if they were evil outsiders.

[Raven777]

Battlefield or not, it makes no difference. he is under no obligation to give them quarter. This isn't baseball. There's no base to be safe at.

Woah, woah, woah. This is not a question of "giving quarters". This is a question of "ganking people in their bedroom". The monk ain't a Navy SEAL on a government sponsored mission, he's a guest in a foreign city. Decency means you don't off the other guests without provocation. Remember decency? That thing that a lot of being a Good Guy was about?

I'm not saying a PC can't do it. Riffin' on Inglorious Basterds is par for the course for a bunch of player characters. I'm saying a PC who pretends to be the epitome of Good ain't gonna do that.

[Enixon]

It's not quite the same situation but...

I don't remember if it was here or some other forum but I recall a quote from Gary Gygax basically defending Paladins putting Orc civilians to the sword. I forget the details but the jist of it was that a quick painless death was A. More Merciful than forcing them into some sort of internment camp or other slum. and B. Not forcing the peasantry to go hungry because now they have to feed the kin of the people who had just previously been raiding and murdering them wholesale.

Mind you this was in 2nd Edition which also had a bit in a Ravenloft module where the party finds a few Drow locked up in Azlan's dungeon, the module notes that the DM should NOT penalize good aligned characters that decide to just shoot the drow dead in their cages, after all "everybody knows drow are evil"

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Deophaun
*all of it*

You are expressing a pragmatic and generally neutral approach.

Exalted aren't pragmatic and they aren't neutral, by definition. The Exalted goes to moral lengths that no one else ever will. That's why he's Exalted.




Originally Posted by Raven777
This is not a question of "giving quarters". This is a question of "ganking people in their bedroom". ...Remember decency? That thing that a lot of being a Good Guy was about?

...Too true, and too gorram funny.

:smalltongue:


Originally Posted by olejars
When I witness these women of power using that power for nefarious purposes, you better believe that I will no longer consider them legit authority.

Which is why we so need a campaign journal. I'm longing to see this go down.

:smallbiggrin:

[INoKnowNames]

I feel like the thread's already been answered, by both sides, so this is really the only thing I feel like adding to the conversation: What happens when the Good decide on making this a permanent answer to their problems, rather than an is-there-no-other-way point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zexXH3lS8Uw#t=107

And it is terrifying.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Genocide: noun 1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
source (http://m.dictionary.com/definition/genocide?linkid=ibc5yn&srcpage=home&site=dictwap)

So how am I misusing the term there, deophaun?

While I'm at it;
prejudice: noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. pretty sure about using that one correctly too. Same source.

I didn't see the bit about the monk recognizing one of the wizards but, even so, that only clears him for that individual. Otherwise I stand by my previous arguments. Guilty by association isn't valid justification. If the monk had offed just that one and left he'd have been in the clear and the peculiarities of drow society would have protected him from open retaliation, assuming any would've even been forthcoming. He clearly could've done so since he got all four of them without waking anyone.

[Pickford]

You do not need to threaten anyone to be a combatant. A soldier sitting down to mess is as valid a target as a soldier directing artillery fire. You may find the former case dishonorable, tending to the chaotic in D&D's terms, but that has nothing to do with the moral aspect.


Soldiers actively 'in' a war zone are combatants. These were not soldiers and not in a war zone. They were not a threat to 'anyone' insofar as the Monk could be aware, this makes his actions murder.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not super relevant but it has to do with the difficulty of morality, so maybe tangentally relevant. Hilarious in any case.

http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/723/