Am I evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes...yes, you are evil.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:


Without commenting on which of our respective moral codes is most "right", I will say that your moral code - if that is truly what you believe - is rare. It leads naturally to being a total pacifist. There are some people who hold that position on religious grounds (for example, iirc, Quakers, ideally, will not respond in violence if a loved one gets raped). It's a difficult position to truly hold (and, again, I'm not saying that it's one I approve of). If it is the moral code you truly hold, you've got my respect simply due to the fact that anyone who lives by what they claim to believe in, even though it is difficult to do so, deserves my respect.

Thanks, I try to hold to that idea in life though not necessarily with a given character in RPGs. FYI I consider myself a humanist.

I don't think it lends itself exclusively to pacifism, though I do see pacifism as better than many alternatives.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I can see a CN actions harming folks and him not caring all that much, But the issue is he Chose to kill 60 people. It was not something that just happened, like "oppsy I knocked over that wall to escape and it crushed that due, sorry bout your luck"

I suspect it was something like

evil guy: "he's gone invisible! I hurl a fireball in the general direction!"

GM: "you do realize there's people over there, right?"

evil guy: "meh."

It's not that he purposely killed them, because I doubt he did. It's that he just didn't care, and probably did it several times even after he knew what the consequences were.

Oddly, a fair number of soldiers can find themselves feeling that way after a while. Otherwise you go nuts - it's hard to keep on caring. But that's why so many come back shell shocked / PTSD; the world made them do terrible things, and that left scars on their soul. It takes a while to recover from that. There were better choices, but they were not allowed to make them.


BobChuck wrote:


I suspect it was something like

evil guy: "he's gone invisible! I hurl a fireball in the general direction!"

GM: "you do realize there's people over there, right?"

evil guy: "meh."

Yeah that sounds right.


Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Without commenting on which of our respective moral codes is most "right", I will say that your moral code - if that is truly what you believe - is rare. It leads naturally to being a total pacifist. There are some people who hold that position on religious grounds (for example, iirc, Quakers, ideally, will not respond in violence if a loved one gets raped). It's a difficult position to truly hold (and, again, I'm not saying that it's one I approve of). If it is the moral code you truly hold, you've got my respect simply due to the fact that anyone who lives by what they claim to believe in, even though it is difficult to do so, deserves my respect.

Thanks, I try to hold to that idea in life though not necessarily with a given character in RPGs. FYI I consider myself a humanist.

I don't think it lends itself exclusively to pacifism, though I do see pacifism as better than many alternatives.

Given that you are steadfast against taking the life of an innocent and that you are not omniscient, it logically follows to be against taking the life of anyone, ever. Given that violence always has the potential of being escalated and that accidents in a violent altercation always have the potential of taking a life, you must always be against violence.

So, if you truly hold what you claim to hold, that leads to you being a total pacifist. If you're not a total pacifist, then there is something else about your moral code which you haven't said yet.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Without commenting on which of our respective moral codes is most "right", I will say that your moral code - if that is truly what you believe - is rare. It leads naturally to being a total pacifist. There are some people who hold that position on religious grounds (for example, iirc, Quakers, ideally, will not respond in violence if a loved one gets raped). It's a difficult position to truly hold (and, again, I'm not saying that it's one I approve of). If it is the moral code you truly hold, you've got my respect simply due to the fact that anyone who lives by what they claim to believe in, even though it is difficult to do so, deserves my respect.

Thanks, I try to hold to that idea in life though not necessarily with a given character in RPGs. FYI I consider myself a humanist.

I don't think it lends itself exclusively to pacifism, though I do see pacifism as better than many alternatives.

Given that you are steadfast against taking the life of an innocent and that you are not omniscient, it logically follows to be against taking the life of anyone, ever. Given that violence always has the potential of being escalated and that accidents in a violent altercation always have the potential of taking a life, you must always be against violence.

So, if you truly hold what you claim to hold, that leads to you being a pacifist. If you're not a pacifist, then there is something else about your moral code which you haven't said yet.

First: yes, killing is pretty much always wrong.

That does not mean that killing is never necessary.

A bad guy is about to do something that will kill a thousand people, and you only have a few seconds, so the right thing to do is to stop him. That usually means killing him.

It's unfortunate. But it's also not the same.

What we are talking about here is a bad guy who is escaping. The choice is to do something that will kill dozens of people and might stop him from running away, or to let him run away. The right thing to do is to let him go.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Then again, I've never believed "all that's required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". I believe if the good men are doing nothing, they aren't good.

I think you believe it more than you think. Read what you actually wrote. If good men do nothing, then they are not good, hence evil has prevailed because there is no good.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:

Given that you are steadfast against taking the life of an innocent and that you are not omniscient, it logically follows to be against taking the life of anyone, ever. Given that violence always has the potential of being escalated and that accidents in a violent altercation always have the potential of taking a life, you must always be against violence.

So, if you truly hold what you claim to hold, that leads to you being a pacifist. If you're not a pacifist, then there is something else about your moral code which you haven't said yet.

No my view doesn't lend itself exclusively to pacifism, though it is the prefered route overall. I would detail it more but this isn't the place to do it. The OP is just looking for opinions on his character's alignment.

Liberty's Edge

calvinNhobbes wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Then again, I've never believed "all that's required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". I believe if the good men are doing nothing, they aren't good.
I think you believe it more than you think. Read what you actually wrote. If good men do nothing, then they are not good, hence evil has prevailed because there is no good.

I agree with both of you here. Good men refers to their potential to be good men. They are doing nothing, and hence nothing opposes evil. However, good men shouldn't just be encouraged to act but to do what is right. Lesser evil should be unacceptable, but Evil or Greater Evil should be even less so.


BobChuck wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Without commenting on which of our respective moral codes is most "right", I will say that your moral code - if that is truly what you believe - is rare. It leads naturally to being a total pacifist. There are some people who hold that position on religious grounds (for example, iirc, Quakers, ideally, will not respond in violence if a loved one gets raped). It's a difficult position to truly hold (and, again, I'm not saying that it's one I approve of). If it is the moral code you truly hold, you've got my respect simply due to the fact that anyone who lives by what they claim to believe in, even though it is difficult to do so, deserves my respect.

Thanks, I try to hold to that idea in life though not necessarily with a given character in RPGs. FYI I consider myself a humanist.

I don't think it lends itself exclusively to pacifism, though I do see pacifism as better than many alternatives.

Given that you are steadfast against taking the life of an innocent and that you are not omniscient, it logically follows to be against taking the life of anyone, ever. Given that violence always has the potential of being escalated and that accidents in a violent altercation always have the potential of taking a life, you must always be against violence.

So, if you truly hold what you claim to hold, that leads to you being a pacifist. If you're not a pacifist, then there is something else about your moral code which you haven't said yet.

First: yes, killing is pretty much always wrong.

That does not mean that killing is never necessary.

A bad guy is about to do something that will kill a thousand people, and you only have a few seconds, so the right thing to do is to stop him. That usually means killing him.

It's unfortunate. But it's also not the same.

What we are talking about here is a bad guy who is escaping. The choice is to do something that will kill dozens of...

Killing is never necessary. If, to stop the death of 60,000, you need to kill 60, you -always- have the option of letting the 60,000 die. It is -never- necessary to take a life, one can simply let the greater number die by doing nothing.

Taking up space is necessary. If one wants to live, breathing, eating, excreting, etc. is necessary. Killing another person is always a choice (unless its an accident).
Pretending that the Paladin had no choice is a cowards way of trying to gain absolution. In my opinion, it's morally chilling in much the same way as "I was just following orders".


Ah, the old morality puzzle, would you kill one innocent to save many more innocents.

My opinion on how each alignment would approach this.

Good: Sacrifice themselves personally to save the innocents.

Neutral: If they are personally in danger, kill the one innocent person to save the many including themselves. If they are not personally in danger by the scenario, then leave.

Evil: The one willing to kill the many innocents to get what he wants.

EDIT: By the way, a nice theatrical example of this is the ferry boat scenario in the Dark Knight.


Ok for fun a running tally. 16 people have giving an AL and not just talked about good and evil of those 16

9 said NE
4 said Evil
2 said CN
1 said LN

So the vote far is yes your evil 13 of 16 votes and your NE 9 of 13 evil votes or 9 of 16 total votes


LilithsThrall wrote:

I'm not gonna get into an argument with somebody on the Internet about morality. That's a quick route to Godwin's law.

Suffice to say that until you can show me a guide to morality and -prove- that it is an absolute code, all you're defending is your opinion. Opinions are like bungholes. Everyone's got one and they all stink.

The OP requested an opinion. You have given yours, why can't others do the same?

As for the Balor capturing the thousand people, I think the appropriate response is to... kill the Balor! If the paladin can't do it on his own, he gathers people who can together. Better to die in the attempt than to bind an innocent soul to evil.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Pretending that the Paladin had no choice is a cowards way of trying to gain absolution. In my opinion, it's morally chilling in much the same way as "I was just following orders".

It is incredibly chilling what people will do when following orders though.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

I'm not gonna get into an argument with somebody on the Internet about morality. That's a quick route to Godwin's law.

Suffice to say that until you can show me a guide to morality and -prove- that it is an absolute code, all you're defending is your opinion. Opinions are like bungholes. Everyone's got one and they all stink.

The OP requested an opinion. You have given yours, why can't others do the same?

As for the Balor capturing the thousand people, I think the appropriate response is to... kill the Balor! If the paladin can't do it on his own, he gathers people who can together. Better to die in the attempt than to bind an innocent soul to evil.

They certainly can and I'd like them to. But the one poster I was directing that comment at had just written a post which wasn't directed at the OP, rather it was directed at me.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:


As for the Balor capturing the thousand people, I think the appropriate response is to... kill the Balor! If the paladin can't do it on his own, he gathers people who can together. Better to die in the attempt than to bind an innocent soul to evil.

Ah warms my heart. Spoken like a paladin


i believe (and i'm paraphrasing) that in 3.5 neutral on the good/evil axis was defined in two ways...

1 you have no strong tendencies either way, but you are still an average person and like people to be nice most of the time (character willing)

2 you do both good and evil things, whichever is more convenient for you and they sort of balance each other out

I would say that alignment has a lot to do with intent (except for paladins) and if you were attacking the invisible foe because you didn't want to get hurt or because you were hurt, probably evil. If you thought of it as sacrificing few to save many then probably neutral.

the problem is most alignments don't work on their own...they need both halves to figure out what a person would do in that situation. I think you are playing that character correctly, it was a fairly chaotic thing to do, based on your intent, either neutral or evil.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Pretending that the Paladin had no choice is a cowards way of trying to gain absolution. In my opinion, it's morally chilling in much the same way as "I was just following orders".

Okay, now you are just contradicting yourself.

There are always choices. There aren't always easy choices.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Frogboy wrote:

I'm playing a character who is borderline evil...or is he evil? I don't know. All of the other players see him as evil but I still consider him (and have his alignment written down as) Chaotic Nuetral. The reason the others see him as evil is because he does some truly evil things. He once channeled and killed 60 innocent bystanders in some twisted carnival (RotRL, I think) just to damage an invisible foe that we had no other way to get at.

On the other hand, he's saved many more people than he's needlessly killed and does do many good things as well. He doesn't do what is good or what is evil by definition. He does whatever he feels is necessary to get the job done. He has dug in and fought very close to death on several occations when the others were about to bail. He's very loyal to the group (and probably only to the group) and I still see him as Chaotic Neutral.

I find it practically impossible to play an evil character mixed with a standard (good and nuetral) aligned group mainly because you'd end up refusing to take part in 95% of the adventures because it goes against your alignment. As I said above, though, the rest of the group still view him as evil because of some of the things he's done.

So the million dollar question is, what makes someone evil? Does commiting evil acts automatically make you evil or does the balance make you nuetral? What alignment do believe my character is.

Personally I don't think you have given us enough information to make a true judgement call. But from what little you have given I would lean towards the majority here and say NE.

Liberty's Edge

Kyranor wrote:

i believe (and i'm paraphrasing) that in 3.5 neutral on the good/evil axis was defined in two ways...

1 you have no strong tendencies either way, but you are still an average person and like people to be nice most of the time (character willing)

2 you do both good and evil things, whichever is more convenient for you and they sort of balance each other out

I would say that alignment has a lot to do with intent (except for paladins) and if you were attacking the invisible foe because you didn't want to get hurt or because you were hurt, probably evil. If you thought of it as sacrificing few to save many then probably neutral.

the problem is most alignments don't work on their own...they need both halves to figure out what a person would do in that situation. I think you are playing that character correctly, it was a fairly chaotic thing to do, based on your intent, either neutral or evil.

interesting point.

I disagree, in that his intention isn't all that matters. Did he know, or should he have known, that what he did would kill dozens of people? If so, he's evil.

I think intention is strictly secondary. What he did, how he did it, and what alternatives he ignored are all more important that why he did what he did.

To drive the point home about intention: Jack the Ripper thought he was saving the souls of the prostitutes he killed. Does that make his actions "Good", or "Neutral"? Intention matters, but there are other factors that matter more.


BobChuck wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Pretending that the Paladin had no choice is a cowards way of trying to gain absolution. In my opinion, it's morally chilling in much the same way as "I was just following orders".

Okay, now you are just contradicting yourself.

There are always choices. There aren't always easy choices.

Where's the contradiction?


BobChuck wrote:
Kyranor wrote:

i believe (and i'm paraphrasing) that in 3.5 neutral on the good/evil axis was defined in two ways...

1 you have no strong tendencies either way, but you are still an average person and like people to be nice most of the time (character willing)

2 you do both good and evil things, whichever is more convenient for you and they sort of balance each other out

I would say that alignment has a lot to do with intent (except for paladins) and if you were attacking the invisible foe because you didn't want to get hurt or because you were hurt, probably evil. If you thought of it as sacrificing few to save many then probably neutral.

the problem is most alignments don't work on their own...they need both halves to figure out what a person would do in that situation. I think you are playing that character correctly, it was a fairly chaotic thing to do, based on your intent, either neutral or evil.

interesting point.

I disagree, in that his intention isn't all that matters. Did he know, or should he have known, that what he did would kill dozens of people? If so, he's evil.

I think intention is strictly secondary. What he did, how he did it, and what alternatives he ignored are all more important that why he did what he did.

To drive the point home about intention: Jack the Ripper thought he was saving the souls of the prostitutes he killed. Does that make his actions "Good", or "Neutral"? Intention matters, but there are other factors that matter more.

then are we to define the good and evil of a person solely on other peoples opinion? (court system does) i believe evil can only be done if a person knows an act is evil and conciously makes a decision to commit said evil act disregarding all other people, showing a clear lack of morality.


I vote it an evil act.

Dark Archive

i saw he's close to bordering on LE, NE from the chaotic spree

also; sometimes there is no moral answer to the solution, some situations have no good answer (especially the kill x to save x10) either way its evil, if you whant the good choice just don't ever get into that situation in the first place

Liberty's Edge

Kyranor wrote:


then are we to define the good and evil of a person solely on other peoples opinion? (court system does) i believe evil can only be done if a person knows an act is evil and conciously makes a decision to commit said evil act disregarding all other people, showing a clear lack of morality.

What do you mean by "disregarding all other people"?

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:

n the other hand, who was this invisible foe? Was he going to kill 60,000? Was it a question of sacrificing 60 in order to save a thousand times that number?

That's not known.
Would it have been a good act if it were?

Don't waste your breath LT...i've made the greater good argument before (see the limitations of the paladin's code thread), but apparently sacrificing one to save thousands falls firmly in the evil camp...if you were REALLY good you wouldn't tarnish your good name and you'd make a weak, flailing attempt to kill the BBEG that would probably fail, thereby causing the deaths of 10's of thousands of people...but hey, you're still good...and it's not like YOU killed them, well not directly at least :D


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Ah warms my heart. Spoken like a paladin

Well, it is one of my four classes. :) Along with Archivist, Artificer, and Beguiler. :D


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
but apparently sacrificing one to save thousands falls firmly in the evil camp..

It is. A paladin that does such is no paladin, at lest not after he does the act.

Doing the good thing and doing the "right" thing are not always the same.


BobChuck wrote:

...snip...

More importantly, the "balanced" approach misses the whole point of alignment. It's wrong to damn a single innocent soul in order to save a thousand lives. Period.

...snip...

just had to call this one out here. for purposes of pathfinder, this is just flat out inaccurate. killing someone doesn't damn them. what happens to them after death is determined by their actions in life and what gods they worship. in fact, a good being in bad circumstances could benefit substantially from being killed. being sent to your eternal reward vs being alive in painful and miserable circumstances.

as for the op, i'd say the character is neutral only if he weighs the benefits of his actions vs the cons for others besides just him and his party. if he only ever truly thinks of his and his party's benefit, he's prolly best considered evil.

as for law/chaos, for me that has always been about the primacy of the individual vs the state (or larger group). i see no reason you can't have an extremely self disciplined chaotic character.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

No killing the 60 is an evil act. You may say you did it for the greater good and believe it is, but it is a evil act. You can dress it up however you want it is evil.

Kill one to save a thousand is evil, your commenting evil to do "good' but it does not make it less evil.

Tell that to the 1000 dead people...you can respond by saying "tell that to the one you sacrificed," but you really can't cuz they're already dead ;)


And you commented evil in saving them, the lesser evil yes but evil none the less.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
but apparently sacrificing one to save thousands falls firmly in the evil camp..

It is. A paladin that does such is no paladin, at lest not after he does the act.

Doing the good thing and doing the "right" thing are not always the same.

How can causing the deaths of thousands, even indirectly, be a good act?!

Man some folks have weird definitions of good and evil.


If your good you find a way or die trying, to give into evil to save folks is still evil. The lesser evil but still evil

If we are talking a paladin then they do not get to take the lesser evil. They don't get the take the easy road. A paladin is about doing whats good and right no matter the cost. Killing 10 people to save a thousand is not good or right but it is easy to justify. That however does not make it less evil.

A LN person or N person could justify it as necessary but a good person can not walk away from such a thing without hurting how they see the world. But then even a N or LN person would bulk at killing 60 on the off chance of hurting just one person an evil person would not.

Liberty's Edge

Xpltvdeleted wrote:


How can causing the deaths of thousands, even indirectly, be a good act?!

Man some folks have weird definitions of good and evil.

I don't think either are good acts. However, it is lesser evil if you cannot find an alternative. Still, the good character would strive to save the 1,001 people without sacrificing any if possible. If not, then they may choose a less evil option.

We're arguing over semantics. Neither option is desireable, but a neutral character would likely have less soul searching to do than a good character.


The problem with the whole "you must kill one innocent or I kill a thousand others" scenario is this; How can you be sure that the villain will keep his word? It is just as likely that someone capable of such an act will laugh at you for killing the one, and then proceed to kill the thousand anyways.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

The problem with the whole "you must kill one innocent or I kill a thousand others" scenario is this; How can you be sure that the villain will keep his word? It is just as likely that someone capable of such an act will laugh at you for killing the one, and then proceed to kill the thousand anyways.

er..what?

I don't think we're thinking of the same scenario as I don't know what the villain having to keep his word has to do with anything.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

The problem with the whole "you must kill one innocent or I kill a thousand others" scenario is this; How can you be sure that the villain will keep his word? It is just as likely that someone capable of such an act will laugh at you for killing the one, and then proceed to kill the thousand anyways.

er..what?

I don't think we're thinking of the same scenario as I don't know what the villain having to keep his word has to do with anything.

Part of the hypothetical you brought up. No where in the OP did he mention saving 60,000 people as a result of his actions, so we're just continuing down the hypothetical route.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

If your good you find a way or die trying, to give into evil to save folks is still evil. The lesser evil but still evil

If we are talking a paladin then they do not get to take the lesser evil. They don't get the take the easy road. A paladin is about doing whats good and right no matter the cost. Killing 10 people to save a thousand is not good or right but it is easy to justify. That however does not make it less evil.

A LN person or N person could justify it as necessary but a good person can not walk away from such a thing without hurting how they see the world. But then even a N or LN person would bulk at killing 60 on the off chance of hurting just one person an evil person would not.

So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.

I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.


Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

The problem with the whole "you must kill one innocent or I kill a thousand others" scenario is this; How can you be sure that the villain will keep his word? It is just as likely that someone capable of such an act will laugh at you for killing the one, and then proceed to kill the thousand anyways.

er..what?

I don't think we're thinking of the same scenario as I don't know what the villain having to keep his word has to do with anything.
Part of the hypothetical you brought up. No where in the OP did he mention saving 60,000 people as a result of his actions, so we're just continuing down the hypothetical route.

Not part of any hypothetical *I* brought up.

And the OP didn't mention saving 60,000 people as a result of his actions. He's not said why his character let innocents die. I'm only pointing out that there are mitigating circumstances which would make it a good act.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:


So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

?!?

This assumes his intent is to absolve his consciousness and not to save 60,060 people. He's trying to save everyone and it might well cost him his life. He's choosing everyone else over his own life, and this is the easy road? I think you're going to have to explain better.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:

On the other hand, who was this invisible foe? Was he going to kill 60,000? Was it a question of sacrificing 60 in order to save a thousand times that number?
That's not known.
Would it have been a good act if it were?

You didn't bring this up?


LilithsThrall wrote:

[

So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

No, you took the easy out. You justify what you did, but it was evil. Next time the chose will be easier, then the time after that easier soon it's "well only 40'000 will die we can still save 20'ooo"

You compromise and justify and every step goes easier and easier. Making the call to kill 60 will effect you enough for an AL switch and each small step gores easier and easier and you don't see what you have done as evil. No it was necessary is all.

To me LN and LE are the scariest of all AL's as they can justify anything.


BobChuck brought up the concept of having to sacrifice one innocent or a Balor will slaughter 1000 others.

In that instance, I doubt the Balor will let anyone go even if the hero does what is demanded of him.


Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

?!?

This assumes his intent is to absolve his consciousness and not to save 60,060 people. He's trying to save everyone and it might well cost him his life. He's choosing everyone else over his own life, and this is the easy road? I think you're going to have to explain better.

My hypothetical made no assumption that the Paladin was guaranteed to be able to sacrifice his own life in order to save the 60,060 others. If he's lucky enough to have that out, then, sure, he should do that.

My hypothetical assumes he's not that lucky.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

?!?

This assumes his intent is to absolve his consciousness and not to save 60,060 people. He's trying to save everyone and it might well cost him his life. He's choosing everyone else over his own life, and this is the easy road? I think you're going to have to explain better.

My hypothetical made no assumption that the Paladin was guaranteed to be able to sacrifice his own life in order to save the 60,060 others. If he's lucky enough to have that out, then, sure, he should do that.

My hypothetical assumes he's not that lucky.

And your hypothetical is a DM trap to get a Paladin to fall by forcing a paladin to choose between two evils. If one of the choice is Good, why should it be a moral dilemma for the Paladin? The reason it's a hard choice is because both choices are wrong.

The reason necessary evils are called evil is because they're the best choice, not the RIGHT choice.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:


My hypothetical made no assumption that the Paladin was guaranteed to be able to sacrifice his own life in order to save the 60,060 others. If he's lucky enough to have that out, then, sure, he should do that.
My hypothetical assumes he's not that lucky.

You made a good point though with you hypothetical. No one here knows, so we bring up the other hypothetical situations to find out when things are true or not. Its part of the philosophical process.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

[

So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

No, you took the easy out. You justify what you did, but it was evil. Next time the chose will be easier, then the time after that easier soon it's "well only 40'000 will die we can still save 20'ooo"

You compromise and justify and every step goes easier and easier. Making the call to kill 60 will effect you enough for an AL switch and each small step gores easier and easier and you don't see what you have done as evil. No it was necessary is all.

Again, there is no "necessary". "Necessary" implies you have no choice. But there certainly is a choice. If there were no choice, there would be no moral dimension.

By trying to excuse it all away as "necessary", you remove the moral agency from the equation and reduce it to "just following orders". For me, that's deeply morally disturbing.
Your slippery slope doesn't work here, because the same thing can be said about your position. That would become very, very obvious if you would explain under what circumstances you do not embrace total pacifism.


Paul Watson wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


So, you die trying and the end result is that the 60,000 people die, but you die with them. You can absolve your conscience by the fact that, while 60,000 people died as a consequence of your actions, you died with them.
I'd call that "taking the easy road".
The hard road would be for a good guy to sacrifice the 60 in order to save the 60,000 and then live every single day for the rest of his life with the blood of the 60 on his hands.

?!?

This assumes his intent is to absolve his consciousness and not to save 60,060 people. He's trying to save everyone and it might well cost him his life. He's choosing everyone else over his own life, and this is the easy road? I think you're going to have to explain better.

My hypothetical made no assumption that the Paladin was guaranteed to be able to sacrifice his own life in order to save the 60,060 others. If he's lucky enough to have that out, then, sure, he should do that.

My hypothetical assumes he's not that lucky.

And your hypothetical is a DM trap to get a Paladin to fall by forcing a paladin to choose between two evils. If one of the choicesis Good, why should it be a moral dilemma for the Paladin? The reason it's a hard choice is because both choices are wrong.

The reason necessary evils are called evil is because they're the best choice, not the RIGHT choice.

You view both choices as evil. I don't.

I find it evil that one is sitting on his hands and doing nothing because the choices are between a greater and lesser evil.


See as you said they chose to do evil. If your agreeing they chose to do evil I fail to see why you keep saying it's not evil?

51 to 100 of 555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Am I evil? All Messageboards