Do you feel killing evil creatures and people if they aren't actively doing something?

I personally think that it is okay to kill for food and self-defense. Killing on sight is only okay versus pests (ex: cockroaches).

If you are fighting enemies and the surrender then I won't kill them. But if they don't I am not going to give them the chance to kill my character. If I am playing a character that is merciful or the person is a capture target then sure.

Finally, the alignment system tells you how the creature might behave right now. Not how they will behave in the future. If something pings as evil but they are actively trying to be good then they should be helped to be good, not punished. Similarly, if a good creature starts thinking of doing evil things they should not be punished but helped to prevent them from acting on those thoughts.

Killing anything just because they pinged as evil is something an evil creature would do.

I fully support the kill on sight for cockroaches.

Temperans wrote:

I personally think that it is okay to kill for food and self-defense. Killing on sight is only okay versus pests (ex: cockroaches).

If you are fighting enemies and the surrender then I won't kill them. But if they don't I am not going to give them the chance to kill my character. If I am playing a character that is merciful or the person is a capture target then sure.

Finally, the alignment system tells you how the creature might behave right now. Not how they will behave in the future. If something pings as evil but they are actively trying to be good then they should be helped to be good, not punished. Similarly, if a good creature starts thinking of doing evil things they should not be punished but helped to prevent them from acting on those thoughts.

Killing anything just because they pinged as evil is something an evil creature would do.

I fully support the kill on sight for cockroaches.

Think of Mommy cockroach and the children waiting for Daddy cockroach!

;-D

Kasoh wrote:

If they wouldn't actually do it, then its not actively evil intent.

Yes, good and neutral people will occasionally commit evil acts. If you Detect Evil on them during one those times they will read as evil even though that person typically isn't evil.

Hence why Detect Evil can give a false positive.

Yes, they should be stopped from committing whatever evil they were about to do, but does that mean they should die for a moment of weakness? (The answer to that will vary greatly by person, but that's kind of what this entire thread is about.)

Sure, its the example I take issue with, not the idea that Detect Evil can ping on a normally good person.

Thinking about doing evil is not an "actively evil intent." That is just a thought. People have thoughts all the time. Its when a person has decided to act upon those thoughts where they gain actively evil intent. (Because they intend to do evil, actively.)

Warped Savant wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

If they wouldn't actually do it, then its not actively evil intent.

Yes, good and neutral people will occasionally commit evil acts. If you Detect Evil on them during one those times they will read as evil even though that person typically isn't evil.

Hence why Detect Evil can give a false positive.

Yes, they should be stopped from committing whatever evil they were about to do, but does that mean they should die for a moment of weakness? (The answer to that will vary greatly by person, but that's kind of what this entire thread is about.)

Sure, its the example I take issue with, not the idea that Detect Evil can ping on a normally good person.

Thinking about doing evil is not an "actively evil intent." That is just a thought. People have thoughts all the time. Its when a person has decided to act upon those thoughts where they gain actively evil intent. (Because they intend to do evil, actively.)

Sorry, I forgot to clarify; yes, I agree, simply thinking evil thoughts isn't enough and my example was wrong. Detect Evil can give a false positive if a neutral or good person is commiting or about to commit a planned evil action.

(¬_¬)

Sidenote, I think I need to elaborate on the paranoia thing

I am reminded of a certain saying, something sbout once being unfortunate, twice being a coincidence, and three times being enemy action.

Conversations like this are why I am exceptionally happy 2e is doing away with alignments.

Kasoh wrote:

Warped Savant wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

If they wouldn't actually do it, then its not actively evil intent.

Yes, good and neutral people will occasionally commit evil acts. If you Detect Evil on them during one those times they will read as evil even though that person typically isn't evil.

Hence why Detect Evil can give a false positive.

Yes, they should be stopped from committing whatever evil they were about to do, but does that mean they should die for a moment of weakness? (The answer to that will vary greatly by person, but that's kind of what this entire thread is about.)

Sure, its the example I take issue with, not the idea that Detect Evil can ping on a normally good person.

Thinking about doing evil is not an "actively evil intent." That is just a thought. People have thoughts all the time. Its when a person has decided to act upon those thoughts where they gain actively evil intent. (Because they intend to do evil, actively.)

Sorry, I forgot to clarify; yes, I agree, simply thinking evil thoughts isn't enough and my example was wrong. Detect Evil can give a false positive if a neutral or good person is commiting or about to commit a planned evil action.

Or planning with the intent to commit.

As I see it, it requires the "intention to do", not simply fantasizing, but not doing the act (because the risk is too high, or because something happened between the planning and realizing the plan, etc.) isn't enough to negate the fact that you had decided to do an evil act.

To make an example: a neutral, rich merchant decides to remove a competitor to make more money. He tries to hire an assassin, but can't find anyone competent and shelves the plan for a future time. He has planned the murder and tried to find someone to do it. He failed in finding the right person, the intention to do evil was there. Evil intention and an attempt to do an evil act. He would have pinged as evil while planning it and while searching for an assassin.

Senko wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I personally think that it is okay to kill for food and self-defense. Killing on sight is only okay versus pests (ex: cockroaches).

If you are fighting enemies and the surrender then I won't kill them. But if they don't I am not going to give them the chance to kill my character. If I am playing a character that is merciful or the person is a capture target then sure.

Finally, the alignment system tells you how the creature might behave right now. Not how they will behave in the future. If something pings as evil but they are actively trying to be good then they should be helped to be good, not punished. Similarly, if a good creature starts thinking of doing evil things they should not be punished but helped to prevent them from acting on those thoughts.

Killing anything just because they pinged as evil is something an evil creature would do.

I fully support the kill on sight for cockroaches.

Think of Mommy cockroach and the children waiting for Daddy cockroach!

;-D

I did. Why do think I switched from Mortein spray + disposal to cockroach bait to make them die back in the hive and spread the poison to the thousands of unseen ones that eat their corpse.

Conversations like this are why I am exceptionally happy 2e is doing away with alignments.

Its not just alignment though like I said the other example which got me thinking about it was a player attacking an NPC in part because they weren't human then insisting they were evil, everything they had was stolen and so on when they had been the ones to start the fight and the NPC had tried non-lethal way's to defeat the party until they were so hurt they had to run away.

Temperans wrote:

I personally think that it is okay to kill for food and self-defense. Killing on sight is only okay versus pests (ex: cockroaches).

If you are fighting enemies and the surrender then I won't kill them. But if they don't I am not going to give them the chance to kill my character. If I am playing a character that is merciful or the person is a capture target then sure.

Finally, the alignment system tells you how the creature might behave right now. Not how they will behave in the future. If something pings as evil but they are actively trying to be good then they should be helped to be good, not punished. Similarly, if a good creature starts thinking of doing evil things they should not be punished but helped to prevent them from acting on those thoughts.

Killing anything just because they pinged as evil is something an evil creature would do.

I fully support the kill on sight for cockroaches.

Tbf, I don't like killing mosquitoes either, so cockroaches would probably be off my kill list as well.

(fun cockroach trivia: From what I've heard they are extremely hygienic and seem to find humans grossly unhygienic)

Senko wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I personally think that it is okay to kill for food and self-defense. Killing on sight is only okay versus pests (ex: cockroaches).

If you are fighting enemies and the surrender then I won't kill them. But if they don't I am not going to give them the chance to kill my character. If I am playing a character that is merciful or the person is a capture target then sure.

Finally, the alignment system tells you how the creature might behave right now. Not how they will behave in the future. If something pings as evil but they are actively trying to be good then they should be helped to be good, not punished. Similarly, if a good creature starts thinking of doing evil things they should not be punished but helped to prevent them from acting on those thoughts.

Killing anything just because they pinged as evil is something an evil creature would do.

I fully support the kill on sight for cockroaches.

Tbf, I don't like killing mosquitoes either, so cockroaches would probably be off my kill list as well.

(fun cockroach trivia: From what I've heard they are extremely hygienic and seem to find humans grossly unhygienic)

I don't care how clean the things are, I care that multiple times in my childhood when wandering to the toilet half asleep in a dark hallway they grabbed onto my big toe. It is very unnerving to a sleepy young child in a dark hallway to feel this long thin things latching onto you. To this day I will not have them in my house, elsewhere fine but not where I live.

That was more of "evidently cockroaches hate humans as much as humans hate cockroaches" statement than about them being clean tbh

So out of curiosity how would you handle Melazema in wrath of the righteous? A chaotic evil Umbral dragon who was drawn into the abyss long enough ago she's no longer affected by it. However she has no interest in returning to the prime material plane, feeds on the demons infesting her isle, is unbothered by a much elemental sharing her home and is stated will not attack or pursue the PC's unless they touch her stuff (treasure) or attack her in her lair after she returns from hunting (with a cateblepas she throws at them as her first action). She's the one who prompted me to make my original post as I don't like the idea of fighting her chaotic evil or not when you can just avoid her and she's only harming demons.

That is a circumstance that has to fit into one of the rare exceptions on my list. We are dealing with the Outer Realms, which is the realm of the gods and other beings and outside the scope of how I deal with Evil in the Mortal Realm. As far as I am concerned, the dragon is not only where she wants to be, but where she OUGHT to be. It is not my place to judge her morality or fate, as that is (effectively) already done. Should she pose a threat to me or my party, and attack us unprovoked, she will die and my conscious will be clean. Should she restrict herself to the demons and other evil outsiders that threaten her territory, ignoring her is the best option.

Even this kind of situation has exceptions, specifically if there are mortals present in the Outer Realms and their current fate. Mortals do not belong in the Outer Realms and if they are being mistreated or harmed, morality must come into play based on the Material world, if only to return them to where they belong.

Wrath of the Righteous pushes a lot of the boundaries of those who swear oaths and serve the forces of Good. Those with a loose understanding of the alignment system will have their foundational assumptions tested, and many people discover that their ideas of the alignment system are inherently flawed.

I have to agree that something going on in the Abyss or other outer planes is different than what is going on in the material planes. The outer planes are by nature aligned with specific alignments. In ways they are the final punishment/reward for mortal creatures. Killing the inhabitants of those planes is only a temporary thing. Even if the individual outsider stays dead the plane absorbs its essence and uses it to create more outsiders. Killing a chaotic evil creature of the Abyss does not really diminish evil. All it does is to start the cycle over again. Unless the outer planar creature is affecting other planes leaving it alone is often the best course of action.

If Melazema is really not interested in other planes especially the prime material leaving her alone is probably the best bet. If there is a reason besides killing her to bother her that might be different, but trying to kill her just to kill her is not going to make the universe better place. The fact she is killing demons means that those demons are not able to harm innocents. Let he stay and reduce the effectiveness of evil. If things ever get the point where all other evil has been eliminated that might change things, but until then there are more important evils to deal with.

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Conversations like this are why I am exceptionally happy 2e is doing away with alignments.

Its not just alignment though

I don't think it's an alignment thing at all! If you can take the alignment system and it's varied means of defining any particular alignment out of the conversation, you can talk to a player solely about their actions and the consequences of those actions. They can't say, "Well, my PC is x alignment, so they have to attack!"

With no alignment, there's no way the offending player can just brush off the conversation because they feel that any creature pre-disposed to be LE, NE, or CE deserves to be killed.

Senko wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Conversations like this are why I am exceptionally happy 2e is doing away with alignments.

Its not just alignment though

I don't think it's an alignment thing at all! If you can take the alignment system and it's varied means of defining any particular alignment out of the conversation, you can talk to a player solely about their actions and the consequences of those actions. They can't say, "Well, my PC is x alignment, so they have to attack!"

With no alignment, there's no way the offending player can just brush off the conversation because they feel that any creature pre-disposed to be LE, NE, or CE deserves to be killed.

I'm not so sure that would work as I said one of the events prompting this thread was a player attacking a non-humanoid for being rude and wasting their time with a side quest then saying they were evil and it was ok to take all their stolen stuff. No knowlege of alignment, no reason to believe their stuff was stolen just justifications.

Senko wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Conversations like this are why I am exceptionally happy 2e is doing away with alignments.

Its not just alignment though

I don't think it's an alignment thing at all! If you can take the alignment system and it's varied means of defining any particular alignment out of the conversation, you can talk to a player solely about their actions and the consequences of those actions. They can't say, "Well, my PC is x alignment, so they have to attack!"

With no alignment, there's no way the offending player can just brush off the conversation because they feel that any creature pre-disposed to be LE, NE, or CE deserves to be killed.

The alignment being there or not is not going to change the fact that those players would try to find an excuse for their actions.

Also anyone using alignment as an excuse clearly does not understand that alignment is a descriptor. Alignment does not force you on acting a certain way which is why you are able to change alignments in the first place. Outsiders from the 9 aligned planes don't change aligment easily because they are literally made of it.