Playing a cleric, 9th level. It is a monotheistic religion, and the god is generally good. I belong to a sect whose rules are not quite as strict, but we are just as devoted as other sects. I am chaotic good. High wisdom (18).
The situation:
We are facing an abyssal lord. Pure evil. However, we have devised a path to his redemption. He badly wants something and we are able to convince him that he will never find it without first being redeemed. Odds are low, but if the redemption doesn't work, he probably ends up dead. Win/win. He has agreed to follow the path we've laid out and we have no specific reason to think he's deceiving us.
We are then confronted by a group of good NPCs who all (understandably) want this abyssal lord dead. With the combined strength of both groups, we can probably do it. We are unable to convince them that our plan of redemption will work. A fight is imminent.
The dilemma:
I've communed with my god about this once (5th level ritual - too powerful IMO). He was unclear on whether we were doing the right thing, but did say the nobody is beyond redemption. During the parlay with the NPCs, I began a second commune ritual but it may not be done before fighting ensues. Defending a creature of such great evil feels wrong, but the possibility of redeeming him and bringing him back into the fold is a powerful motivation to protect him. Also, he can help us solve an extremely important problem along his path to redemption, a problem that I have a huge personal stake in.
So, two choices:
1) Defend him. Low odds of redemption, good chance he dies eventually anyway. But fulfilling a core purpose for my god while also perhaps solving a problem of great personal importance.
2) Turn on him. Kill him. High odds of success but also goes against a core teaching of my god. And I am again left with no way to solve my great problem.
The question(s):
What does everyone think the best course of action is? The rest of the party will likely be swayed by whatever I decide to do.
I think it heavily depends on what the thing the Abyssal Lord wants enough to turn from pure evil for actually is. If its power, then I'd be very tempted to look up the exact wording your path to redemption took, and where that path ends. They may be willing to follow till the very last step you've laid out, claim what they wanted, and then snap right back. If its something more sentimental like a lost love however, that's a chip to use for bargaining with the other party.
That said, I'm leaning to defend them. You gave your word, and you followed your God's guidance. The CG alignment gives a lot more wiggle room in regards to a promise compared to a LG or G, but I would still question oath breaking from a Good alignment.
Personally though? Pick a third path. Double down that this fight is a mistake at this point in time. If you can fight and win now, then you can fight and win later, but haste wastes an opportunity. An Abyssal Lord swayed to your side is a far more potent instrument than a dead one for pragmatism, and showing that your words and intentions are cheap shows you aren't noble yourself to the emotional argument. I'm all for being the awkward one!
Also of note, not sure if this applies to your DM, but an initiative roll doesn't have to mean that diplomacy is impossible.
Personally though? Pick a third path. Double down that this fight is a mistake at this point in time. If you can fight and win now, then you can fight and win later, but haste wastes an opportunity. An Abyssal Lord swayed to your side is a far more potent instrument than a dead one for pragmatism, and showing that your words and intentions are cheap shows you aren't noble yourself to the emotional argument. I'm all for being the awkward one.
Personally though? Pick a third path. Double down that this fight is a mistake at this point in time. If you can fight and win now, then you can fight and win later, but haste wastes an opportunity. An Abyssal Lord swayed to your side is a far more potent instrument than a dead one for pragmatism, and showing that your words and intentions are cheap shows you aren't noble yourself to the emotional argument. I'm all for being the awkward one.
What do you mean double down? Use lethal force?
I was meaning more on the diplomacy sorry. I'd assume a fair bit went into convincing the Abyssal Lord, I'd be tempted to do the same for the good NPCs.
Hard to know how to push without knowing if they are pragmatic or emotionally driven though
Has your GM established that you can down NPC's without killing them? Maybe your group can use spells and/or grappling and ropes to incapacitate them while the groups escapes with the abyssal lord.
With the combined strength of both groups, we can probably do it.
Sounds like you don't have to fight that other group. If they can't handle him on their own, all you have to do is abstain from joining with them to fight the abyssal lord. They should be smart enough to know they can't take him alone, and if they fight you just because you won't help them solve the problem their way then they are arguably not that good and you gain some "moral leverage."
I'd also emphasize that you are not protecting a creature of great evil. You're protecting the creature that you believe he can become.
That's how I'd reason it anyway. I love dilemmas like this and strive to put my players in positions like this. This is what roleplaying is all about IMO.
As someone who has played many a cleric, priest, paladin, and holy-man back in my day let me just add this: You invested in his redemption, it is now your goal to redeem him. Good aligned people can still be wrong, and it is up to the ones that can see past good/evil etc and to the real core of the events to do what is right. And even then, it's only right from one side. You have your god on your side, you have your party on your side, you have you on your side.
Kindly ask them to let you redeem this creature, or they will invoke your holy wrath. Pray for their stupidity and forgiveness after you kill them.
As someone who has played many a cleric, priest, paladin, and holy-man back in my day let me just add this: You invested in his redemption, it is now your goal to redeem him. Good aligned people can still be wrong, and it is up to the ones that can see past good/evil etc and to the real core of the events to do what is right. And even then, it's only right from one side. You have your god on your side, you have your party on your side, you have you on your side.
Kindly ask them to let you redeem this creature, or they will invoke your holy wrath. Pray for their stupidity and forgiveness after you kill them.
Huh, the last sentence is an absolute ticket down to the lower plane, one way. Killing good people just because of your decision (especially since the god was fairly noncommital) is a powerful evil act. And calling them stupid so that you can kill them is the best example of might makes right, it's hard to find for more evil principles in actions.
If you go that way, honestly, you will end up joining up with the abyssal lord and him corrupting you rather than you redempting him. This might actually be a test either from your deity or the abyssal lord.
You're looking at it in a black or white scenario, you gave them a chance, if they die because you were defending yourself and your charge's life then it's on them. As a good aligned character i will feel bad about it, i will even be upset with myself about it for a time, however i will not blame myself for it. As for his god, i'm assuming it is also a CG deity, its more than believable that the god would side with the player on this.
I think this goes without saying, but those of us in the murder hobo/ never trust an Abyssal Lord camp demand updates as the adventure continues. I wish you luck with your decision.
We have very different notions of chaotic good. For me, a chaotic good deity will respect the freedom of choice of the other group, and will certainly not condone their killing.
Moreover, you are reading way too much in the god's perspective, the only thing that the OP said was: "He was unclear on whether we were doing the right thing, but did say the nobody is beyond redemption"
So even the god is not saying that attempting the redemption is a good thing, but you still want to kill good people for the chance to attempt it, because of pure personal hubris ? Evil, evil, super-evil actually, and not in line at all with what the god actually said.
If these so called good people attack you, who are also doing good, while attempting to redeem the creature then they are in turn committing "evil" under your definition, and therefore are in turn in need of dispatching.
I'm merely stating a chaotic good character, on a mission of redeeming a great evil, with an assumed chaotic good god based on his opening sentence will have no qualms about attempting to parlay with the group, and if they refuse and attack, in self defense dispatch the now enemies. He's still doing good, he is still intending no harm on them unless they attack him and/or the creature he is defending. You're simply looking at it where good people get killed that's bad. If they're attacking him, they are no longer good by your definition.
The idea of redeeming something that is a manifestation of Pure Evil is comparable to any other "impossible" task that heroes are expected to achieve, so I'd say take the "Self-Defense" route as previously suggested. You have a righteous mission and need to take the appropriate steps to achieve it, but you also have an ethical obligation to minimize collateral damage along the way. Make every possible effort to deescalate the conflict.
The Hippocratic Oath is “primum non nocere”, "First, do no harm", which is often held as a standard for "Good". No matter how rich the reward for redeeming a demon may be in the future, you can only guarantee what you manifest in the present.
Realism:
As 9th level characters, there is probably a 99.99% chance that an Abyssal Lord is manipulating your party and will turn you into jelly as soon as you stop amusing it. Even if you really do have a tempting enough carrot to lead it toward redemption, the nature of evil is corrupting, which would likely lead the Abyssal Lord to slay your party and everyone along its path toward redemption. I mean.... it's already pure evil... what's the harm in one last massacre for the road? Your plan ideally requires a certain amount of "good faith" on the part of the Abyssal Lord, and that's a hard thing to come by in the lower realms.
I mean, Sarenrea offers redemption to all but one demon, as well as things that have no hope of redeeming. However taking a part from pathfinder, is that them doing good deeds and your assistance. Can slowly and in intervals assist a wisdom check to help shift their alignment. Sort of insight them and keep the whole abyssal lord thing as a hint that it may be incredibly tough. However it would be a pretty fun use for role playing up, then when level 10. Attempt divine intervention to help them become good aligned if it plays into your gods ordeals. Would be a pretty good buildup if you don't die first.
As someone who has played many a cleric, priest, paladin, and holy-man back in my day let me just add this: You invested in his redemption, it is now your goal to redeem him. Good aligned people can still be wrong, and it is up to the ones that can see past good/evil etc and to the real core of the events to do what is right. And even then, it's only right from one side. You have your god on your side, you have your party on your side, you have you on your side.
Kindly ask them to let you redeem this creature, or they will invoke your holy wrath. Pray for their stupidity and forgiveness after you kill them.
Huh, the last sentence is an absolute ticket down to the lower plane, one way. Killing good people just because of your decision (especially since the god was fairly noncommital) is a powerful evil act. And calling them stupid so that you can kill them is the best example of might makes right, it's hard to find for more evil principles in actions.
If you go that way, honestly, you will end up joining up with the abyssal lord and him corrupting you rather than you redempting him. This might actually be a test either from your deity or the abyssal lord.
Your making an assumption that the other party is actually in the good. Their alignment may detect as good but it's completely possible this act of killing this Abbysal Lord is actually the act that shoves their alignment into one more fitting of evil if their willingness to attack the players party isn't the straw that does that anyway. Particularly if they are willing to attack the party that is trying to redeem the Abyssal lord in the process. There are signs that they are going down an evil path themselves. The thing that often gets ignored is that there is some real responsibility in their deaths through their actions even if you are the one to kill them since they are the ones forcing the fight and your forced to defend your life. The same mentality that your saying might drive a player saying such a thing down a dark path is just as easily if not more easily flipped on the npc party in this scenario and it could be said that your actually doing a good thing by actually stopping them before they actually turn to the dark side and their souls may still go to a holy realm, as dark as that thinking can be considered it's not necessarily evil thinking as long as you don't take it too far.
I say go for Plan C. Explain to the other party that there is a chance for redemption for the Abyssal Lord and that if the path to redemption fails there is a high chance the Abyssal Lord will die anyway. Emphasize that you have given your word to allow the Abyssal Lord a chance at redemption and that breaking your word would make you no better than the evil you are sworn to defeat. Now tell the other party that you have no quarrel with them and if they wish to attack the Abyssal Lord then they are free to do so but would have to do it without your aid.
Depending on the wording of their Deal with the Abyssal Lord, Simply allowing it to be attacked could be deal breaking in it's own way. As could simply not defending it when your trying to redeem it and show it to be better than evil. Even if it does not actually break the deal, it could be a consequential issue in the effort to actually Redeeming the Abyssal Lord.
Also. The wording of the God that is used as non-commital but Saying that All things can be redeemed in no way validates Attacking the Abyssal Lord as being a good act making siding with the other Party an act of Good. all it is is a neutral non-commital answer that says that their course of action to Redeem the Lord can work. It gives no basis of difficulty. No actual issue of right or wrong or anything like that.
There is actually a Moral Dilemma for a Paladin in the game Never Winter Nights II that the Paladin Fails. The Paladin comes across a baby orc and the Paladin immediately wants to slay the baby orc because a large Majority of orcs grow up, join an evil society of goblinoids and orcs and becomes evil and does evil acts. The Paladin's reasoning is blind and extremely black and white in saying "I'll kill the baby orc before it can grow up to do evil acts because it's an evil creature and can grow up to be evil." But compassion and Redemption are Characteristics of Good. The Correct answer to the Test for the Paladin is actually to take the Orc Baby and to Raise it with a Good Outlook and help it join Good Aligned society. Not just Smiting Evil. This kind of reasoning that caused the Paladin to fail is why the Trope "Lawful Stupid" or "Stupid Good" depending on your perspective actually exists. It only defines good as Destroying evil. The Problem is that You are not inherently good or have Done some kind of Good Act simply because you have destroyed Evil. Both Neutral and Evil can also destroy Evil.
The dilemma with the Demon Lord and the "Good" Party is the same basic Dilemma even though the exact details are actually different. If the Demon has made a Vow to be redeemed Then the act of Compassion and Righteousness technically is to help the Demon to Achieve that while watching out for it to betray that path and possibly deal with that if you have to. Blindly Killing it just because it's evil is not an inherently good or evil act on it's own. And Killing it simply because you have sworn to do so even when you are presented with a possibility of stopping it's terror and evil acts in another way is Not Inherently Good. It is Lawful because you are following your Sworn Oath but it's Goodness is a different Matter.
If the other Group attacks the Pc and his Party the other group is the Aggressor. It is not inherently evil simply to defeat the group that attacks your party or your charge. Good Is Allowed to defend itself. Though there is some grey area in ultimately how you defeat them in that the outcome of defeating them may or may not have levels of both good and bad to it. The Idea that Good cannot Defend itself, Even against other Forces of Good that aggressively pursue a violent path is as much a fallacy as the idea that Just because the Party is good you must be Evil and they are doing the Good Thing by attacking you simply to get to the Abyssal Lord.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Background:
Playing a cleric, 9th level. It is a monotheistic religion, and the god is generally good. I belong to a sect whose rules are not quite as strict, but we are just as devoted as other sects. I am chaotic good. High wisdom (18).
The situation:
We are facing an abyssal lord. Pure evil. However, we have devised a path to his redemption. He badly wants something and we are able to convince him that he will never find it without first being redeemed. Odds are low, but if the redemption doesn't work, he probably ends up dead. Win/win. He has agreed to follow the path we've laid out and we have no specific reason to think he's deceiving us.
We are then confronted by a group of good NPCs who all (understandably) want this abyssal lord dead. With the combined strength of both groups, we can probably do it. We are unable to convince them that our plan of redemption will work. A fight is imminent.
The dilemma:
I've communed with my god about this once (5th level ritual - too powerful IMO). He was unclear on whether we were doing the right thing, but did say the nobody is beyond redemption. During the parlay with the NPCs, I began a second commune ritual but it may not be done before fighting ensues. Defending a creature of such great evil feels wrong, but the possibility of redeeming him and bringing him back into the fold is a powerful motivation to protect him. Also, he can help us solve an extremely important problem along his path to redemption, a problem that I have a huge personal stake in.
So, two choices:
1) Defend him. Low odds of redemption, good chance he dies eventually anyway. But fulfilling a core purpose for my god while also perhaps solving a problem of great personal importance.
2) Turn on him. Kill him. High odds of success but also goes against a core teaching of my god. And I am again left with no way to solve my great problem.
The question(s):
What does everyone think the best course of action is? The rest of the party will likely be swayed by whatever I decide to do.
I think it heavily depends on what the thing the Abyssal Lord wants enough to turn from pure evil for actually is. If its power, then I'd be very tempted to look up the exact wording your path to redemption took, and where that path ends. They may be willing to follow till the very last step you've laid out, claim what they wanted, and then snap right back. If its something more sentimental like a lost love however, that's a chip to use for bargaining with the other party.
That said, I'm leaning to defend them. You gave your word, and you followed your God's guidance. The CG alignment gives a lot more wiggle room in regards to a promise compared to a LG or G, but I would still question oath breaking from a Good alignment.
Personally though? Pick a third path. Double down that this fight is a mistake at this point in time. If you can fight and win now, then you can fight and win later, but haste wastes an opportunity. An Abyssal Lord swayed to your side is a far more potent instrument than a dead one for pragmatism, and showing that your words and intentions are cheap shows you aren't noble yourself to the emotional argument. I'm all for being the awkward one!
Also of note, not sure if this applies to your DM, but an initiative roll doesn't have to mean that diplomacy is impossible.
What do you mean double down? Use lethal force?
I was meaning more on the diplomacy sorry. I'd assume a fair bit went into convincing the Abyssal Lord, I'd be tempted to do the same for the good NPCs.
Hard to know how to push without knowing if they are pragmatic or emotionally driven though
Has your GM established that you can down NPC's without killing them? Maybe your group can use spells and/or grappling and ropes to incapacitate them while the groups escapes with the abyssal lord.
Sounds like you don't have to fight that other group. If they can't handle him on their own, all you have to do is abstain from joining with them to fight the abyssal lord. They should be smart enough to know they can't take him alone, and if they fight you just because you won't help them solve the problem their way then they are arguably not that good and you gain some "moral leverage."
I'd also emphasize that you are not protecting a creature of great evil. You're protecting the creature that you believe he can become.
That's how I'd reason it anyway. I love dilemmas like this and strive to put my players in positions like this. This is what roleplaying is all about IMO.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
As someone who has played many a cleric, priest, paladin, and holy-man back in my day let me just add this:
You invested in his redemption, it is now your goal to redeem him.
Good aligned people can still be wrong, and it is up to the ones that can see past good/evil etc and to the real core of the events to do what is right. And even then, it's only right from one side.
You have your god on your side, you have your party on your side, you have you on your side.
Kindly ask them to let you redeem this creature, or they will invoke your holy wrath.
Pray for their stupidity and forgiveness after you kill them.
|| Sol Night-Arrow, Tabaxi Ranger ||
||Currently DMing a Homebrew Campaign ||
Guides or Important Threads of Mine ----- || List of ALL Official Familiars || My Homebrew Monsters ||
Level 3 One Shot Character Concepts ----- || Fist of the Gods || Triple Tap Hunter || Bullseye Dartmaster || Captain America ||
^^^Those are Links BTW^^^
You're looking at it in a black or white scenario, you gave them a chance, if they die because you were defending yourself and your charge's life then it's on them.
As a good aligned character i will feel bad about it, i will even be upset with myself about it for a time, however i will not blame myself for it. As for his god, i'm assuming it is also a CG deity, its more than believable that the god would side with the player on this.
|| Sol Night-Arrow, Tabaxi Ranger ||
||Currently DMing a Homebrew Campaign ||
Guides or Important Threads of Mine ----- || List of ALL Official Familiars || My Homebrew Monsters ||
Level 3 One Shot Character Concepts ----- || Fist of the Gods || Triple Tap Hunter || Bullseye Dartmaster || Captain America ||
^^^Those are Links BTW^^^
I think this goes without saying, but those of us in the murder hobo/ never trust an Abyssal Lord camp demand updates as the adventure continues. I wish you luck with your decision.
If these so called good people attack you, who are also doing good, while attempting to redeem the creature then they are in turn committing "evil" under your definition, and therefore are in turn in need of dispatching.
I'm merely stating a chaotic good character, on a mission of redeeming a great evil, with an assumed chaotic good god based on his opening sentence will have no qualms about attempting to parlay with the group, and if they refuse and attack, in self defense dispatch the now enemies. He's still doing good, he is still intending no harm on them unless they attack him and/or the creature he is defending. You're simply looking at it where good people get killed that's bad. If they're attacking him, they are no longer good by your definition.
|| Sol Night-Arrow, Tabaxi Ranger ||
||Currently DMing a Homebrew Campaign ||
Guides or Important Threads of Mine ----- || List of ALL Official Familiars || My Homebrew Monsters ||
Level 3 One Shot Character Concepts ----- || Fist of the Gods || Triple Tap Hunter || Bullseye Dartmaster || Captain America ||
^^^Those are Links BTW^^^
My opinion is split between Fantasy and Realism:
Fantasy:
The idea of redeeming something that is a manifestation of Pure Evil is comparable to any other "impossible" task that heroes are expected to achieve, so I'd say take the "Self-Defense" route as previously suggested. You have a righteous mission and need to take the appropriate steps to achieve it, but you also have an ethical obligation to minimize collateral damage along the way. Make every possible effort to deescalate the conflict.
The Hippocratic Oath is “primum non nocere”, "First, do no harm", which is often held as a standard for "Good". No matter how rich the reward for redeeming a demon may be in the future, you can only guarantee what you manifest in the present.
Realism:
As 9th level characters, there is probably a 99.99% chance that an Abyssal Lord is manipulating your party and will turn you into jelly as soon as you stop amusing it. Even if you really do have a tempting enough carrot to lead it toward redemption, the nature of evil is corrupting, which would likely lead the Abyssal Lord to slay your party and everyone along its path toward redemption. I mean.... it's already pure evil... what's the harm in one last massacre for the road? Your plan ideally requires a certain amount of "good faith" on the part of the Abyssal Lord, and that's a hard thing to come by in the lower realms.
I mean, Sarenrea offers redemption to all but one demon, as well as things that have no hope of redeeming. However taking a part from pathfinder, is that them doing good deeds and your assistance. Can slowly and in intervals assist a wisdom check to help shift their alignment. Sort of insight them and keep the whole abyssal lord thing as a hint that it may be incredibly tough. However it would be a pretty fun use for role playing up, then when level 10. Attempt divine intervention to help them become good aligned if it plays into your gods ordeals. Would be a pretty good buildup if you don't die first.
Your making an assumption that the other party is actually in the good. Their alignment may detect as good but it's completely possible this act of killing this Abbysal Lord is actually the act that shoves their alignment into one more fitting of evil if their willingness to attack the players party isn't the straw that does that anyway. Particularly if they are willing to attack the party that is trying to redeem the Abyssal lord in the process. There are signs that they are going down an evil path themselves. The thing that often gets ignored is that there is some real responsibility in their deaths through their actions even if you are the one to kill them since they are the ones forcing the fight and your forced to defend your life. The same mentality that your saying might drive a player saying such a thing down a dark path is just as easily if not more easily flipped on the npc party in this scenario and it could be said that your actually doing a good thing by actually stopping them before they actually turn to the dark side and their souls may still go to a holy realm, as dark as that thinking can be considered it's not necessarily evil thinking as long as you don't take it too far.
I say go for Plan C. Explain to the other party that there is a chance for redemption for the Abyssal Lord and that if the path to redemption fails there is a high chance the Abyssal Lord will die anyway. Emphasize that you have given your word to allow the Abyssal Lord a chance at redemption and that breaking your word would make you no better than the evil you are sworn to defeat. Now tell the other party that you have no quarrel with them and if they wish to attack the Abyssal Lord then they are free to do so but would have to do it without your aid.
Depending on the wording of their Deal with the Abyssal Lord, Simply allowing it to be attacked could be deal breaking in it's own way. As could simply not defending it when your trying to redeem it and show it to be better than evil. Even if it does not actually break the deal, it could be a consequential issue in the effort to actually Redeeming the Abyssal Lord.
Also. The wording of the God that is used as non-commital but Saying that All things can be redeemed in no way validates Attacking the Abyssal Lord as being a good act making siding with the other Party an act of Good. all it is is a neutral non-commital answer that says that their course of action to Redeem the Lord can work. It gives no basis of difficulty. No actual issue of right or wrong or anything like that.
There is actually a Moral Dilemma for a Paladin in the game Never Winter Nights II that the Paladin Fails. The Paladin comes across a baby orc and the Paladin immediately wants to slay the baby orc because a large Majority of orcs grow up, join an evil society of goblinoids and orcs and becomes evil and does evil acts. The Paladin's reasoning is blind and extremely black and white in saying "I'll kill the baby orc before it can grow up to do evil acts because it's an evil creature and can grow up to be evil." But compassion and Redemption are Characteristics of Good. The Correct answer to the Test for the Paladin is actually to take the Orc Baby and to Raise it with a Good Outlook and help it join Good Aligned society. Not just Smiting Evil. This kind of reasoning that caused the Paladin to fail is why the Trope "Lawful Stupid" or "Stupid Good" depending on your perspective actually exists. It only defines good as Destroying evil. The Problem is that You are not inherently good or have Done some kind of Good Act simply because you have destroyed Evil. Both Neutral and Evil can also destroy Evil.
The dilemma with the Demon Lord and the "Good" Party is the same basic Dilemma even though the exact details are actually different. If the Demon has made a Vow to be redeemed Then the act of Compassion and Righteousness technically is to help the Demon to Achieve that while watching out for it to betray that path and possibly deal with that if you have to. Blindly Killing it just because it's evil is not an inherently good or evil act on it's own. And Killing it simply because you have sworn to do so even when you are presented with a possibility of stopping it's terror and evil acts in another way is Not Inherently Good. It is Lawful because you are following your Sworn Oath but it's Goodness is a different Matter.
If the other Group attacks the Pc and his Party the other group is the Aggressor. It is not inherently evil simply to defeat the group that attacks your party or your charge. Good Is Allowed to defend itself. Though there is some grey area in ultimately how you defeat them in that the outcome of defeating them may or may not have levels of both good and bad to it. The Idea that Good cannot Defend itself, Even against other Forces of Good that aggressively pursue a violent path is as much a fallacy as the idea that Just because the Party is good you must be Evil and they are doing the Good Thing by attacking you simply to get to the Abyssal Lord.