Concerning good alignments when killing the Supernatural

[mrloucifer]

Another conversation I had recently with a young game master was the about good alignments (especially Principled) when it comes to killing the supernatural. His concern was that those of a good alignment would not willing kill off a supernatural creature any more than he would a human being. While I found his heart was in the right place on the subject, I had some perspective on the subject that I shared with him.

The core 2nd edition book goes into this only a tad bit, and so I shared with him my insights on the subject and I thought that it might be worth bringing up on the forum as well, if only for an interesting perspective on good alignments.

In my eyes, even a principled alignment character should have no qualms about killing the supernatural, if for no other reason than because they are not human beings. They hold some semblance of human traits, and most parapsychologists believe that they are spawned via various aspects of humankind (sadly, they are composed from either the worst traits of man or their best traits that are warped and twisted in some cruel way) and their very existence is to torment and kill humankind.

In theory, a principled character who understands this would be more determined to destroying the supernatural than other alignments. In my game, the players and I all share an outlook on the supernatural. The biggest difference between man and the supernatural is that “Humans CAN be evil by choice… the supernatural ARE evil by nature.”

While this statement brings up a potential topic concerning the evil that men do by choice (and that choosing to be evil is worse than simply being), the point here is that the supernatural HAVE to do the evil they do. They exist only to do what they do… they can’t be saved, they can’t be reasoned with, they can’t “see the light” and most importantly, they CANT be human.

This goes into our second outlook that the supernatural does not have “a soul” or “a spirit” as humans do. Therefore we do not “kill” the supernatural; we “destroy” them. The player character’s “destroy” the supernatural when they find them and do not need to feel guilty about it. In fact, in the mind of a principled character, they may pity the supernatural to the point where destroying them is like freeing them from their own horrible nature as truly evil and incomplete beings.

So while a principled character will be hesitant and even resistant about killing a human pawn, or an evil human who conjures the supernatural for his evil purposes, or even those humans who willingly serve (and may even enjoy serving) the supernatural in some way, no matter how much he may deserve it, he will gladly put down the supernatural all day and will not lose any sleep over it.
I hope I gave y’all something to ponder. Now go and destroy some supernatural baddies!

[Xar]

Excellent thoughts. These should also go in the “GM advice Section” in the “Victims” book you are working on.

[Cybermancer]

An additional perspective is that many supernatural beings discorporate. You haven't really killed them so much as cut their link to this dimension. Like severing the internet link of an internet annoyance.

[Tearstone]

"And he saw how truly awful goodness is."

The other aspect is that many principled people are a pinnacle of good, and defending others, and preserving human life. Supernatural evil is an anathema to them, and would be considered most vile and deserving of destruction. They would have almost a crusader point of view. Mentally brushing up against a demon or devil would make most people vomit, or want to vomit.

[Holister]

Players actually playing strictly within the context of their character's alignment has always been a blurred grey area for me. I was just happy when the good guys acted "good" and the bad guys were "bad". This is why I inevitably gave up on specific alignmnets and cut the choices down to either Hero, Villain, or Mutable. This way it simplified gameplay and allowed players to act out there character with a broader moral compass direction.

NOTE: Mutable was the alignment given to everyday people or victim type characters, not good or evil, but just more concerned with there own daily lives and often apathetic or aloof to the rest of society around them.

[Lord Z]

Excellent thread, my friends!

I agree, but please allow me to indulge in the actions of a devil's advocate. The unredeemability argument and the discorporation argument both assume that the principled character has knowledge of the supernatural which she probably does not. Suzy PC might witness a gremlin building a bomb. Let's say that she understands the creature is a monster and that its intent is evil. How does she know that when the trekking is killed, it will reappear in its homeworld? How does she know that the trekking is purely evil and not merely a disgruntled criminal like most other mad bombers? How would she be able to learn any of this?

Only the protection of life argument applies. Even that argument is a subject to the differing opinion of the character herself. Perhaps, Suzy's strong respect for life might persuade her to try chasing away the monster and disarming the bomb rather than killing it. If a player made that call, I certainly would not dispute it.

Furthermore, not all demons are unredeemable. If they are, that is an interpretation limited to that gamemaster's campaign. Mr. Lucifer doesn't have good demons in his game, but Hollister's town has several demons who are living the good life. In Rifts Atlantis, the head SN creature, Lord Splyncryth, has a Chaotic alignment. In Mystic China, the life goal of the Demon Hunter class is to reform a demon; there is another class, an actual playable character class, called the Reformed Demon.

[mrloucifer]

Furthermore, not all demons are unredeemable. If they are, that is an interpretation limited to that gamemaster's campaign. Mr. Lucifer doesn't have good demons in his game, but Hollister's town has several demons who are living the good life.

Very true, I'm speaking exclusively of the BTS world in this case.

[slade the sniper]

There should be "victim" alignment that 95% of people fall into, since I have found that even when faced with the prospect of death most people are too weak to do anything other than roll over and hope for a quick death.

-STS

[mrloucifer]

I'm too afraid to ask you how you've research your statement.

[Cybermancer]

"Will all good people automatically kill 'evil' creatures without qualm?"

Only if they're robots.

There is no circumstance where all people, even all the people of a specific philosophy are going to do the same thing, much less do it 'automatically'. Some will do it, and may or may not have qualms about it.

Really, it depends on your view of the monsters. And there is no 'right' or 'one true way' on this one. There really isn't. Everyone who plays the game is going to view it differently. Some are going to view the monsters as unholy abominations that must be destroyed for the greater good. Others are going to want to redeem them, refusing to beleive that such irredeemable evil exists.

I agree that it can make interesting role playing oppurtunities either way, simply because there is no real right or wrong way to handle it. It allows players the freedom to explore their characters and maybe make some hard decisions (or perhaps they won't seem so hard after all).

Here's a scenerio:

A person is turned to a vampire. The night of their turning a hunter kills the vampire that created them. They were themselves too late to save the newly turned vampire. This newly turned vampire pleads that it is innocent and has yet to commit a single evil act. It's an intelligent being capable of choosing it's own destiny. It should be allowed to do so. Just because it has the capacity to do evil doesn't mean it will.

To take it one step further, what happens if this newly created vampire shows up at a hospital and says that it has a condition that requires blood to live. While initially met with skepticism, it actually won't take much for it to prove what it is.

Does the hunter let it go?

Do the doctors help it by providing the blood it needs, as they would a human patient?

And how does the world change?

Do the characters change with it?

And is it all an elaborate trick, as some players are no doubt likely to suspect?

[Sir Neil]

And is it all an elaborate trick, as some players are no doubt likely to suspect?

Yes. Palladium vampires are all demon-animated corpses. The answer might be different in another system, though.

[Cybermancer]

And is it all an elaborate trick, as some players are no doubt likely to suspect?

Yes. Palladium vampires are all demon-animated corpses. The answer might be different in another system, though.

Palladium Vampires are capable of having selfish alignments so it's not as open and shut as that.

[Sir Neil]

My copy of BTS says diabolic or miscreant. YMMV.

[Cybermancer]

My copy of BTS says diabolic or miscreant. YMMV.

That's odd. Because they don't appear in my copy at all.

But of course you're referring to the original BtS.

Palladium's vampires have been updated since then. I'll refer you to the Vampire Kingdoms, Nightbane and for some optional flavor, Rifter 50.

[Sir Neil]

I'll have to get those someday.

[Cybermancer]

I especially recommend Rifter #50 for the vampire material alone. Er, actually, that may have been Rifter 49. Or was it 48? I'll have to check when I get home later. But if you like vampires, it is chalk full of good ideas. I've pretty much taken it and used it to replace the standard rules.

Vampire Kingdoms was excellent and I still use it when I run Rifts games (although next time I plan to use the Rifter Vampires instead). The Nightbane series overall has a lot of material that can be mined for ideas. Through the Mirror Darkly is pretty good. One of the supplement books, I can't remember which one, needs to have the last page in it pulled out and burned though.

[Lord Z]

That Rifter article was Vampires Revisited in Issue #49. If anyone reading is unfamilair, it's been discussed and widely praised in the Rifter forum.

[slade the sniper]

I'm too afraid to ask you how you've researched your statement.

Three years in Iraq, two years in Afghanistan, many many months in Central and South America, growing up in the Third World...

As far as good people killing monsters...who says it is a monster? Violence is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used for good or ill. Just because you drink blood or eat flesh doesn't mean you are evil. If that were the case, in the pantheons of chickens and cows Human Beings must be the most hated demonic forces in the Universe!

It is isn't WHAT you do, it is WHY you do it. Oh, and before the whole the "ends justify the means" argument starts...if ends didn't justify the means, then they wouldn't have started working towards those ends, and if the means got too difficult halfway through, then they would just stop, wouldn't they? Rhetorical/philosopical questions rarely make an appearance in my world.

Back to the OP: killing something because it is EVIL is like killing someone because of being X race or Y gender. It is a simplistic argument for simple people. Killing someone due to their actions (torture, rape, murder) when the killer is positive (to whatever burden of proof is required) the event took place is something else entirely.

For instance...if I were a vampire hunter, and my neighbor got turned into a vampire, I would not simply waltz in and kill them. I would attempt to help them first. If that failed and they fed on the innocent but didn't kill anyone, I wouldn't necessarily kill them unless they used violence to forcibly get the blood... If they got really stupid and attacked me, well, they'd be dead very quickly. I don't take kindly to being attacked by someone I am trying to help...

but how about this scenario...your sister, a fairly attractive woman who has lots of casual male acquaintences and basically does a bit of "quid pro quo" for her to get her fix of hemo...is a scrupulous person going to go in all guns ablaze to put the godless creature of hell back into the fires of perdition?

I like to think along the lines of what I call Newtonian Justice (or by others as Lex Talionis)...equal and opposite, tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye

See, I think that the child molester, the corporate embezzler, the traitor and the false prophet are all far more deserving of death than a vampire who gives to get.

Just my $.02

-STS

[Jefffar]

For me the bottom line for a good character deciding to kill another being is that the character has to reasonably believe that that killing the being is the only way to stop it from harming others. Good characters don't sincrely want the deaths of others, instead it is typically viewed as a last resort.

[slade the sniper]

For me the bottom line for a good character deciding to kill another being is that the character has to reasonably believe that that killing the being is the only way to stop it from harming others. Good characters don't sincrely want the deaths of others, instead it is typically viewed as a last resort.

Jeffar,

Agreed. Once again you are far more succinct than I. *bows*

-STS