I am well aware of that fact. But even James Jacobs himself said 99% of all orcs are evil, regardless of age and gender. If even the devs treat races as exp fodder or acceptable targets, then it's kinda hard to prove that it's truly disputed. Not saying you are wrong in that (I myself have been objecting to baby-killing in D&D myself) but I am pretty sure there are a lot of people who would want to say that you and I ARE wrong in this.
Getting really angry happens in the real world too, and the Paladins are only mortal, after all.
true, but 1) when angry I don't go around mutilating corpses 2) My morality is not that of a paladin, IRL even really good people are a lot closes to neutrality than a paladin is.
Also, this is after all the same setting where killing orc/kobold/gnoll/goblin babies is perfectly fine of a Paladin (or any good-aligned character for that matter) "because they'll end up evil anyway". Given this kind of stuff is more or less canon (despite some attempts from me and others to subvert this), alignment arguments tend to cause a lot of disagreements in general.
That's the kind of stuff we, in my group, let slip unnoticed when for example we burn an entire orc village. That's because we like to play paladin and we like to burn orc villages up, but should we stop and question our actions all of us would agree that such an act is evil and should cause serious trouble to the conscience of a good PC.
Killing an orc kid while looking into his eyes because he will become evil it's an evil act in our book. As far as I'm concerned right/effective and good are not the same.Am I the only one that thinks trying to impose 21st century ethics on characters not from the 21st century is a bit foolish?Depends on if the ethics of the society the characters are from are the same as 21st century ethics.
Yeah, that's the point. We judge good and evil by our standard: there is nothing preventing a whole society to be evil, if it so appears to our eyes (just to make sure, I'm talking about the game). If you play a drow campaign you don't have good character who go around killing mindlessly just because the other drows do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking NE, but there was at least some adherence to the concept of law and order (although 0 concept of justice).
She doesn't really believe in the cause of Good.
Good says that there are laws and customs in place and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Good believes in the rule of law and fair trials.
Good calls for arrest, restraint, and mercy.
Not found in any of what you put.
That was straight up vigilantism - you can be a toecutting lunatic and still despise rapists etc, thats not a unique to good guys, but the way the character has conducted themselves is flat out evil.
They did what was convenient in order to satisfy their own sense of right and wrong.
Um, no. What you describe is lawful (following an order, holding oaths, working within the system, etc), not good.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Now, being both lawful and good, I'd expect the paladin to turn the guards into the local magistrate. Apprehend them and take them. If they resist/fight, THEN defend yourself. But, you should do so with the intent of putting them down rather than killing them with the goal of still turning them in to the proper authorities. What was done is more chaotic good. It was putting down people who did evil acts but it was done so in a very "my way" sort of way rather than letting the system work itself out.
"Now, being both lawful and good, I'd expect the paladin to turn the guards into the local magistrate. Apprehend them and take them. If they resist/fight, THEN defend yourself. But, you should do so with the intent of putting them down rather than killing them with the goal of still turning them in to the proper authorities. What was done is more chaotic good. It was putting down people who did evil acts but it was done so in a very "my way" sort of way rather than letting the system work itself out. " - I think it was said over and over that apprehending them was no longer an option by that part.
Anyway, I guess that doesn't matter anymore. XD
"Now, being both lawful and good, I'd expect the paladin to turn the guards into the local magistrate. Apprehend them and take them. If they resist/fight, THEN defend yourself. But, you should do so with the intent of putting them down rather than killing them with the goal of still turning them in to the proper authorities. What was done is more chaotic good. It was putting down people who did evil acts but it was done so in a very "my way" sort of way rather than letting the system work itself out. " - I think it was said over and over that apprehending them was no longer an option by that part.
Anyway, I guess that doesn't matter anymore. XD
Granted, I didn't read the whole thread. I saw 4 pages and went "yeah....". LOL
Having read both threads...
I'll be straight up, your alignment is tough to pin down.
Regarding law/chaos... you are all about the law, yet you don't follow protocol. It's like the law is "something over there, for other people". You have proven yourself enthusiastic about using brutal violence for the sake of a stable and responsible social infrastructure. In other words, you'll do what it takes to make sure that authority does its job, and does not fall to corruption. Intentions are lawful, actions are chaotic.
As for good/evil, you are all about doing the right thing, but you seem to have no issues with playing judge, jury and executioner. Remember that guards have families and friends too, and they are also citizens of the town. Killing a guard may leave a widow and fatherless children in the wake, with no source of income. Through no fault of their own, that family is both emotionally devastated and economically screwed. This sort of thing never comes to mind when slaughtering bad people. But good/evil may be intent or consequence, or both... it's up to your GM, really.
Back when you were a paladin, you should really have deferred to authority, in that yes you defend yourself in the bar, but then immediately clear your name by reporting them to a local magistrate or similar. Get your word in before they do, and let an inquiry sort out the facts. If you find corruption at that level, go higher until you find someone who'll care. If the whole system is corrupt, then it's time to find some angry citizens and begin a revolution, replacing the corrupt government with one that's worthwhile. Or go to some neighboring kingdom that's decent and try to instigate a war against their corrupt neighbors. If the system is corrupt, priority 1 should be to free the innocent people who are under the heel of the corrupt government. If war is what it takes, let it be done!
Choosing to go talk directly to the same guys you kicked the poop out of was probably unwise, and looking for trouble. This wasn't a personal matter - you owe them nothing. The moment violence began among the local police, it was a legal matter. I suggest escalating through appropriate channels if you're all about the law.
Honestly, it sounds like an interesting game. Very real. It's like Law & Order SVU, with swords and spells.
Removed some posts and their replies. Post civilly please, or not at all.
|
I think something important to remember is that people with Neutral alignments would rarely if ever refer to themselves as such, even in gamespeak and especially in their own minds.
They'd likely think of themselves as 'Good, but doing what needs to be done.'
Even evil characters can still believe that they are essentially Good. Those villains are my personal favorite.
|
"Now, being both lawful and good, I'd expect the paladin to turn the guards into the local magistrate. Apprehend them and take them. If they resist/fight, THEN defend yourself. But, you should do so with the intent of putting them down rather than killing them with the goal of still turning them in to the proper authorities. What was done is more chaotic good. It was putting down people who did evil acts but it was done so in a very "my way" sort of way rather than letting the system work itself out. " - I think it was said over and over that apprehending them was no longer an option by that part.
Anyway, I guess that doesn't matter anymore. XD
Agreed, also your character must be concerned what it considers corruption. For example, in Pathfinder #1, a CE char Nualia thought of herself as corrupted with celestial blood and wished to purge it by replacing it with demonic aspects.
Not to say that this was right, just to say that the character could say they hate corruption and still be evil.
If your character is truly Lawful Good, and the bad guy is deemed innocent by the local law, your character could find a way to track down the evil doer and stop him from further acts via catching him if he does something evil again, but the CG thing to do is just to slay him the first time.
I think something important to remember is that people with Neutral alignments would rarely if ever refer to themselves as such, even in gamespeak and especially in their own minds.
They'd likely think of themselves as 'Good, but doing what needs to be done.'
Even evil characters can still believe that they are essentially Good. Those villains are my personal favorite.
Holy/Unholy weapons and alignment-based spells would provide plenty of proof to the contrary. When you die from the effects of "Holy Word", it's pretty cut & dry.
|
|
Holy/Unholy weapons and alignment-based spells would provide plenty of proof to the contrary. When you die from the effects of "Holy Word", it's pretty cut & dry.
Even evil characters can still believe that they are essentially Good. Those villains are my personal favorite.
You underestimate the powers of self-delusion. The fallen paladin/LG cleric who lost powers knows they lost powers, but it's 'not their fault'. They're still LG in their own mind, but are a victim of circumstances they're not responsible for, and by gum they're going to make those people pay for making me lose my powers, etc.
Oh, I'm detecting as evil? I'm burning from Holy Word? It's never "OOOOH I get it, I became evil!" It's "WHAT IS THIS TRICKERY! That spell isn't 'Detect Evil', its some deception! The holy word burned me? You put some sort of curse on me to make it affect one as goodly as myself!"
Sure sure there's the evil that just enjoys eating babies and raping horses, but that's such a BORING evil.
Getting a bit off topic. If a character finds the need to do Evil acts in the name of Good, that's pretty much as definitively Neutral as you can get.
Oh, trust me, I know that mindset. When DMing, I wrote a passage from a book, written by a necromancer. He used necromancy to help people, but turned evil from casting too many spells with evil descriptors (Animate Dead for one). He referred to two kinds of evil/good - cosmic consequential. But nevertheless, he was fully aware that he was cosmically evil... for the sake of others. The whole "I'm damning myself to make the world a better place" kind of martyr mindset.
The OP here is definitely operating with LG goals, but using ... questionable means. The tough part about alignment is that it doesn't specify whether alignment is intent-based or consequentialist, or a mix.
I prefer consequential myself. It gives value to the Atonement spell, and lets honest mistakes, guilt and so on all fall into place - the rabbi is indeed tainted if he's forcefed a porkchop.
This character hates corruption, and believes that for the law to be effective it needs to be purged of such elements as the guards in the thread linked to above. Somebody needs to keep the guards in line, and it may as well be her. That said, she believes that the rule of law is essential for any civilization in order for it's people to have good lives, and for the law to be upheld. She isn't chaotic by any means, she just feels it necessary to purge those elements of the law that are corrupting it so that it can function for the good of all. Her favored method is to show up in the middle of the night when her prey is sleeping and give them one chance to justify their actions, knowing full well they can't do it. They she administers justice.
So, should I put her alignment as lawful good or neutral good? She's an inquisitor now, so she can be either alignment.
I’m going to go against the general consensus and go with either LG or NG. Trying to work within the system (by the barmaid being dead at the hands of the guards) has been shown not to work so someone has to see to it justice is served. What really matters is the motivation of the character though, and it sounds like the motivations could be either NG or LG.
I wonder though, would those go say Evil change if the guards in question were Orc or Goblin guards?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin's Code of Conduct only pertains to just authority. Authority which tolerates this kind of abuse is fundamentally unjust, and the Paladin has a moral obligation to oppose it. If Paladins weren't intended to kill evil people, they wouldn't have Full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency, and a whole slate of class features relating to their ability to kill evil people better.
You are easily still within the bounds of Lawful Good and you have not fallen. But, after having mutilated the corpses, you should probably seek atonement. Paladins smite evil; they don't humiliate it.
You gave the corrupt system a chance to work. You gave the corrupt individuals a chance to repent. You did everything you could. Letting rapists and murderers walk free because the law is on their side is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.
The Paladin's Code of Conduct only pertains to just authority. Authority which tolerates this kind of abuse is fundamentally unjust, and the Paladin has a moral obligation to oppose it. If Paladins weren't intended to kill evil people, they wouldn't have Full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency, and a whole slate of class features relating to their ability to kill evil people better.
You are easily still within the bounds of Lawful Good and you have not fallen. But, after having mutilated the corpses, you should probably seek atonement. Paladins smite evil; they don't humiliate it.
You gave the corrupt system a chance to work. You gave the corrupt individuals a chance to repent. You did everything you could. Letting rapists and murderers walk free because the law is on their side is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.
I'm an inquisitor, not a paladin, but thanks.
I would peg your actions as NE honestly. You might think they are good and lawful, but they really are not. You are leaning toward LE but from what we have been shown I have to put you at NE.
Wow, for once it wasn't me being uncivil.
Was probably still your fault though.
|
Lawful Neutral.
The lawful part really depends how strictly you stick to your code of conduct but from what i have read i would say Lawful for now.
Neutral because although you are trying to punish evil and do the right thing your actions are away from the conventional ideal of good. That being said you aren't doing this with malice so probably not evil.
Sounds very much like an inquisitor to me. Using evil/neutral ways to punish the evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an inquisitor, not a paladin, but thanks.
Same difference, ain't it? You're still a Lawful Good holy warrior; only difference now is that you're the knife in the darkness instead of the banner at dawn.
I don't buy this nonsense that a Paladin is a "special kind of Good"; they're the same Good as any other Good character, except that they have to be Good all the time. The difference isn't in what they're allowed to do, it's in how often they're allowed to do it-- a LG Fighter can do the easy thing, the expedient thing, the evil thing "just this once" and he's still a hero. A Paladin has to do the right thing every time or he falls.
Really, I think the rules should be just as strict for Clerics and Inquisitors.
Killing those men was the right thing to do, whether you're a Paladin or an Inquisitor, or even just some girl with a piece of sharpened metal and a conscience. Only difference between you and "just some girl" is that you had to do the right thing.
The biggest one is that in real life (which in a lot of ways is projected into peoples characters) no one really comes close to being that chaotic. I would say in the real world an overwhelming majority of people would be lawful or neutral, but mostly lawful, by this standard.
I think the biggest part of the problem is that most people are Neutral, but almost everyone thinks they're Good, regardless of whether they're really Good, Neutral... or worse. They confuse their own lack of moral convictions-- and the courage of those convictions-- with moral virtues like tolerance and mercy. They're essentially cowards and weaklings who confuse courage and fortitude with evil.
Drug Dealers, Serial Killers, Gang Bangers, Rapist, ect ect all live by their own personal codes. Very few people do things at random, almost everyone has a system for living the way they do.
Nobody does anything at random. There is always a reason, and that reason always makes sense in their own heads. Law and Chaos aren't about reasons, they're not about rules-- they're about structure. Law believes in a society that has a place for everybody, and everyone should be in their place; when Law rebels against authority, it is to change the social order, to establish a new order. Chaos believes everyone should find their own way, an island unto their own; when Chaos upholds a code of conduct, it's because that code of conduct preserves their freedom.
I think at some point it has to be about the bigger picture. It can not be about the individual, but it has to be about their views of the law. If they are willing to work within the system and create order instead of chaos.
Law is dedicated to a system, not the system. Sometimes a Lawful character has to tear down the old order to establish a new one-- especially a Lawful Good character tearing down an Evil system to make room for a Good one. Dedication to the system, right or wrong, is the hallmark of Lawful Neutral; Lawful Evil can corrupt any system and thrive under it.
The character in question does not seem to be acting with any regard for the law. She is anti-corruption, but that seems to be driven for her desire to see evil punished then place any order back into the system. She seemed to merely want to make an example of the guards to deter people from acting in a less favorable manner then she would like, and did not seem to care about establishing a better rule to the land. Nor does she seem to care about freedom. This suggests to me a more neutral act. Her intentions seemed Good but her actions were sort of Evil.
Yeah. I don't think killing the guards was a Lawful act by any means; I'm only arguing that it wasn't incompatible with a Lawful alignment. It was also, in my opinion, a wholly Good act-- something any Good character with the power to do would consider morally obligatory, regardless of their position on Law or Chaos. "Working within the system" may be the more Lawful option here, but in this case it would be a clear example of choosing Law over Good-- something that a Paladin, no matter how Lawful, is allowed to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I do with atonement -- you can't intentionally commit evil deeds by saying to yourself, "well, it's fine, I'll just go get an atonement." In those cases, I'd probably make it fail, unless you really have turned over a new leaf.
Saying "sorry" means jack-all if you turn around and do the same thing again. As Andrew Vachss puts it, "Words are just words. Behavior is the truth."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So murder has suddenly become a good act nowadays?
Please do explain to me the moral difference between her killing those guards in honorable combat and those guards being lawfully executed after a fair trial. Then, do please continue to explain to me what the Inquisitor should have done about this rampant corruption that the lawful authorities were apparently quite willing to tolerate.
"Working within the system" is only a valid option when the system works, when there is a sufficiently powerful and sufficiently just authority to appeal to. In the absence of such an authority, it is the obligation of any person who is capable to dispense justice.
The only alternative is to allow men like the ones she killed to go on raping and murdering as they please. That is the "Good" that you are supposedly upholding. You should be thankful that better men than you have done all of the hard work-- and made all of the hard decisions-- that keep you from having to live with the consequences of your moral values.
But seriously doing evil to preserve good doesn't make you good, the ends do not justify the means. As Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
Gandhi also said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Yes, you must first be the change you wish to see-- but you must also work in the world to bring that change about. And if you do not have the power to force people to change for the better, sometimes you have to settle for having the power just to force them to stop.
Killing murderers and rapists is not evil. Deposing an unjust government is not evil. Those are not the Evil methods to accomplish Good goals-- they are Good ends in and of themselves.
Perhaps the mutilation and display could be an uncharacteristic action brought on by immense rage, and she went to a priest to repent? I really don't want to play a neutral character here.
You don't need to worry about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing people bad? Yes. Does it make it okay if they're evil? No. Why? Because evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Do you even realize how little sense this statement makes? If you're saying that "evil is in the eye of the beholder", then you don't get to say that killing people is bad; that is logically inconsistent and it doesn't make any sense.
If the guards' rapes and murders only made them Evil "in the eye of the beholder", then her subsequent murder of them can't make her Evil, either.
Justice is blind otherwise it's just vengeance with a coat of paint slapped on it.
You seem to think there's a difference. There isn't. What would make the servant of a corrupt government a more just and impartial judge than the servant of a deity of justice? Who decides that one person has the moral authority to judge matters of life and death, and another person does not?
The only difference between a judge and the PC is that the judge has to rely on other people to do his dirty work.
And you have to be s$@&ting me if you think that the solution to a corrupt system is anarchy. The solution to corruption is to fix the system not to go around declaring summary executions of people based on the word of one woman.
Who said anything about anarchy? I only said that Kelsey should overthrow the corrupt government; that is only the first necessary step in establishing a just government in its place. In a democracy, you can possibly remove a corrupt government without bloodshed, but that is not the case in any feudal system.
Also stop using personal attacks.
I might apologize for that if you hadn't condescendingly dismissed my entire argument, called me insane, and then implied that I derived my entire system of moral values from a video game released last month. This whole thread is full of shrill, self-righteous moralizing; if it offends you so much, maybe you should remove the plank in your eye before helping me with the speck in mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This wasn't a Lawful Good act, but I still say she's in reasonable LG territory-- this is an atonement offense, not a falling offense, and that's mostly an issue of her treatment of their corpses.
See above post. They committed a brutal rape, then attempted to murder the victim to get away with it, and got away with it because of their status as guards. They deserved to be punished.If you are serious about this, I'd rule you Lawful Evil at best, more likely Neutral Evil.
That last action, where I kicked down the guards' door in the middle of the night, challenged them to explain themselves, killed them, and dumped the castrated bodies on the steps of the guard station as a warning, is beginning to make me think that the character I want to play is absolutely not a paladin.
Where you strayed from LN to NE is when you mutilated the people you accused.
I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.
After reading the first page, I'd have to say Lawful Neutral, with more leaning towards True Neutral.
Remember. Inquisitors are the shadowy enforcer branches of a church, where as Paladins are typically the militant arm. Inquisitors tend to be able to get away with things such as this, as by their faith they are given authority to be Judge, Jury, and if necessary, Executioner. In essence, they are Judge Dredd. But usually only against those that oppose her faith.
What deity/church does she serve?
Edit: Also, I completely understand the whole situation. I honestly cannot say I wouldn't have done the same thing myself IRL were I presented with such an event (and I had sufficient power/authority to do something about it). If they have violated something pertaining to your faith or church, it would be 'good', in that you are upholding your faith's tenets. If it was just pure vigilante-ism, then that would be more True Neutral, given the circumstances beforehand.
These people are forgetting that the ones killed were vile, evil excuses for meat sacs, it seems like. Usually that does not factor into alignment, but if it's an intelligent sentient then I'd say it does.
You mean a Hellknight? :D
I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.
Killing out of moral outrage I can see, but mutilating the bodies takes it a little more over the top.
One can be good and still kill when they have to. Mutilating, and or torture however falls into the evil category regardless of how much they deserve it.
Tell that to the paladins of Sarenrae. They are still Lawful Good, even though they don't show mercy to villains who refuse to repent in an honest manner. They give them one or two chances. If the villains choose to ignore these chances, then they only got what they deserved. And judging from how these guards behaved, they wouldn't have gotten very far either way.
A Paladin of Sarenrae would not castrate or mutilate those they deem worthy of being killed either. When they exact a death penalty it would be quick and painless.