Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Evil action? What do you think?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

loaba wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.

Victims have rights.

But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

Being Good is hard. Being Evil is easy. It's really just that simple.

Too true, they have too many purportedly good people telling them that their good actions are in reality evil thereby muddying the waters with their moral elitism.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right

Stop.

I apply EQUAL rights to all.

I'm sure Mikaze does the same.

Aranna wrote:
But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

False. One group having rights does not mean the other group must have no rights.


Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.

Victims have rights.

But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

You're Racially Profiling here :-)

The Goblins Raided Caravans. Not raiding villages, taking captives and torturing them.

The PCs were Hired to Negotiate, not Exterminate the Goblins.

The PCs had the opportunity to kill the Prince, but instead, captured and tortured him and used him as a Prop to incite the rest of the tribe to attack, so they could feel better about the Genocide they were performing.

Again, you really need to look at what and how Pathfinder defines Alignments. If you don't like the Alignment makeup, that's fine, but that is the only discussion we should be having. The PCs went out of their way to use their hatred of the goblins to brutally and ruthlessly handle a situation they were supposed to handle through Negotiations.

They acted in a Chaotic Evil Manner more than they did in a Chaotic Good Manner. If they continue to handle things in this way, they are stepping away from Good and heading to the Dark.....eerrrrr....Evil side.

Since I said Dark Side, use Anakin's experience with the Sand People. Were they evil? Yes. Did he perform the Genocide to help out the Humans in the area? Yes. Did this one act make him an evil man? No. Did it help him go down that road to pure Evil? Yes. Its the same thing in this example. One act, on its own doesn't make the alignment shift, but a few more cases like this, and it will.


jupistar wrote:
loaba wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.

Victims have rights.

But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

Being Good is hard. Being Evil is easy. It's really just that simple.
Too true, they have too many purportedly good people telling them that their good actions are in reality evil thereby muddying the waters with their moral elitism.

I don't care how Good you think you are, you're committing an inherently Evil act when you slice the throat of a helpless hostage. You are sinking to his level. Do it enough times and it won't matter what you have written on your sheet.


I'M racially profiling???

No where in the example did the heroes commit genocide OR kill babies.
Yet this is what Mikaze is accusing them of doing!

I am sorry ZugZug but when Mikaze frames the argument racially that is the only way to respond.

Have you read the OP ZugZug? They didn't torture anyone.

All they did was execute a prisoner who already had a death sentence for his crimes. Remember the group was effectively given license to kill the wrong doers.


Aranna - I did read it. I also read how the Goblins were Intellegent and Cultured. That brings that up from the "Depths" of just average Goblins.

The Party is Judge, Jury and Executioneer? When I read the OP, it mentioned they were hired by Merchants. Not the local Constable, Sheriff, Lord, etc. That doesn't give them a License to Kill. Or else do you think just payment for killing is enough?

aranna wrote:

Good is about the results. Is it good to kill a cruel, murderer, and bandit? Yes it is. The game makes that clear. No more people will be victimized by this evil goblin son. A good deed was done.

Is it honorable to slay him in front of his own father? Oh heavens no it isn't, but when has a chaotic character cared about honor? Doing dishonorable acts for the greater good is what chaotic good is all about. In D&D they called it the rebel alignment. Rebels don't fight fair.

Rebel Alignment? Yes. That doesn't mean Bloodthirsty. Robin Hood and Malcolm Reynolds both would take prisoners, and would avoid bloodshed when other avenues were open to them. Neither of them would Slit the throat of a captive PERIOD. They might make threats, but they wouldn't do it. Now if that captive got free and took up arms again, they'd kill em just like that <snaps fingers>, but it would not happen while the captive was helpless.


loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
loaba wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right to the goblins who ARE torturing and killing children than to the heroes who are there to simply kill murderers.

Victims have rights.

But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

Being Good is hard. Being Evil is easy. It's really just that simple.
Too true, they have too many purportedly good people telling them that their good actions are in reality evil thereby muddying the waters with their moral elitism.
I don't care how Good you think you are, you're committing an inherently Evil act when you slice the throat of a helpless hostage. You are sinking to his level. Do it enough times and it won't matter what you have written on your sheet.

Really? Why is it an "inherently Evil act" to "slice the throat of a helpless hostage"?

Shadow Lodge

...you have to ask?


TOZ wrote:
...you have to ask?

Yep

Grand Lodge

...er...experiencing moral dumbfounding. Incapable of fully expressing why, but it gives a visceral feeling of wrongness to execute a helpless target outside of the heat of battle (not considering use of, lets say, a sleep spell). If you've already hostaged him...then it seems wrong to kill them on a number of reasons. They can't possibly harm you, have no way of defending themselves, and have no chance at any kind of...well, anything. Killing a defenseless creature is...well, it just feels wrong. Petty at least, and cruel at the worst.

Also impractical. Hostages are usually worth more alive and with the threat of death looming over their heads. Actually killing them off doesn't tend to make negotiations run more smoothly. If anything, it means negotiations will now never be accepted...


Damian Coldshadows wrote:

Hi,

I feel that one of my players committed a slightly evil action this weekend and I'd just like to confirm (mostly for him), that it was an evil action.

He says his PC is CG. I say he's definitely not good, maybe CN or Neutral.

Scenario
We're sent into a dungeon where we have to negotiate (or wipe out) a group a goblins. They've been attacking our merchant caravans. The goblins are intelligent and "cultured".

We encounter and beat the son of the "King". I had no problem with the group killing the downed son (in the heat of the moment, even as a 'good' PC), but instead he choose to do the following.

We captured the son, carried him to the King, and then we he didn't like how the negotiation was going, he slit the son's neck and threw him violently in a heap on the ground.

Was that evil? I think it was slightly evil, and just because it was a goblin doesn't justify the complete lack of respect for sentient life and the cruelty involved. I know it wasn't good. What do you think?

Thanks.

I agree with you - it's slightly evil. But alone it shouldn't merit an alignment shift. As per the alignment guidelines, if I were in your shoes as the DM, I would warn the character that such behavior does not correspond with his alignment. If he doesn't make a habit of that sort of thing, then no problem. But if he does make a habit of it (one or two more acts), warn him that one more act will shift his alignment. Even if he doesn't agree with you, at least you've given him plenty of fair warnings as a DM. But again, one or two out-of-the-ordinary evil acts by good characters doesn't make the character evil. In fact, it can add some nice character development to the game for roleplaying purposes (gives the character a bit of a questionable dark side).


Damian Coldshadows wrote:

Hi,

I feel that one of my players committed a slightly evil action this weekend and I'd just like to confirm (mostly for him), that it was an evil action.

He says his PC is CG. I say he's definitely not good, maybe CN or Neutral.

Scenario
We're sent into a dungeon where we have to negotiate (or wipe out) a group a goblins. They've been attacking our merchant caravans. The goblins are intelligent and "cultured".

We encounter and beat the son of the "King". I had no problem with the group killing the downed son (in the heat of the moment, even as a 'good' PC), but instead he choose to do the following.

We captured the son, carried him to the King, and then we he didn't like how the negotiation was going, he slit the son's neck and threw him violently in a heap on the ground.

Was that evil? I think it was slightly evil, and just because it was a goblin doesn't justify the complete lack of respect for sentient life and the cruelty involved. I know it wasn't good. What do you think?

Thanks.

Its absolutely Evil, not alignment change evil but certainly paladin lost his powers or Good god isnt happy with his follower evil (these may not apply).

Prisoners are supposed to be treated with dignity and respect. When you take a prisoner and you're a good character you're basicly agreeing to care for that prisoner as a sentient being. Meaning you provide the necessities for life (food, water, and sleep) and do nothing that would physically or mentally damage them.

That said, I would warn him that this kind of behavoir doesnt agree with his alignment. If that kind of behavoir continues on a regular basis then go ahead and change him to CN


jupistar wrote:
TOZ wrote:
...you have to ask?
Yep

D&D/Pathfinder morals are based on modern-day morality. Here's a real-world spin for ya - should American servicemen execute prisoners, during face-to-face negotiations?

The answer is, of course, no. It's brutal and unthinkable. That the Goblin is Evil (in game terms) is irrelevant. The deed itself is abhorrent. And I think you know that.


The Drunken Dragon wrote:
...er...experiencing moral dumbfounding. Incapable of fully expressing why, but it gives a visceral feeling of wrongness to execute a helpless target outside of the heat of battle (not considering use of, lets say, a sleep spell). If you've already hostaged him...then it seems wrong to kill them on a number of reasons. They can't possibly harm you, have no way of defending themselves, and have no chance at any kind of...well, anything. Killing a defenseless creature is...well, it just feels wrong. Petty at least, and cruel at the worst.

Killing a defenseless creature... like Bambi. These are not naturally defenseless nor harmless nor good-hearted nor loving, they've only been rendered so through the luck, skill, and/or strength of their captors. They are, in truth, low ankle-biting insects to which our heroes *should* be mortally and morally opposed, for the good of all innocents. If not for the success of those heroes, the goblin(s) would've shredded their captors to pieces and gnawed on the bones. This is Gandalf's argument as to why Gollum should not have been killed (That even the wise cannot predict whether good will come from such beings and since one cannot undo a killing, one should not do something such permanent harm to another.). Gandalf's decision was exonerated, but more through happenstance than any factor of wisdom -- it was a wrong decision. Gollum had left humanity long before and never came back. It was much more likely that Gollum would murder another innocent before saving the world (which was in fact only accidental, certainly Gollum's intent was evil enough).

The Drunken Dragon wrote:
Also impractical. Hostages are usually worth more alive and with the threat of death looming over their heads. Actually killing them off doesn't tend to make negotiations run more smoothly. If anything, it means negotiations will now never be accepted...

In most cases, unless the hostages/prisoners are put to slave labor, they're rarely worth more alive and in captivity, but are rather a huge resource drain.


loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
TOZ wrote:
...you have to ask?
Yep

D&D/Pathfinder morals are based on modern-day morality. Here's a real-world spin for ya - should American servicemen execute prisoners, during face-to-face negotiations?

The answer is, of course, no. It's brutal and unthinkable. That the Goblin is Evil (in game terms) is irrelevant. The deed itself is abhorrent. And I think you know that.

Loaba: I have intentionally stayed away from "real-world", modern-day military actions because that opens an entirely different can of worms (politics and terrorism and enhanced-interrogation vs. torture). Let's just say, for the sake of argument, I believe this is an apples and oranges comparison. We're not talking about goodly races nor sapient ones, but rather just sentient ones.

I do not believe that the deed itself is abhorrent regardless of your claims to the contrary.


jupistar wrote:
Loaba: I have intentionally stayed away from "real-world", modern-day military actions...

... because the behavior that you propose wouldn't fly in the real-world.

jupistar wrote:
I believe this is an apples and oranges comparison.

Except it's not - it's a like-comparison.

Executing a helpless prisoner, in front of kin (with whom you're negotiating terms), real or game world, is not a nice thing to do. It doesn't serve Good, rather it shows that you can flip the Evil switch any time you like. And you can. But if you do it too often, you'll find that switch is set to Evil permanently.

Killing Drow babies and Goblin prisoners, because they're Evil, may be fun for you. And that's cool. Rationalize it however you like.

Lantern Lodge

either way, the goblins deserved to die. it is the only reason they exist. the metagame goal of being slaughtered ruthlessly by the PCs.

i am against the attempt to anthropomorphise a species that was initially created by the designers with the intent to be killed by the PCs with a smile on thier face.

should we really allow the lives of 1,000,000 goblins to continue on the chance that one might resist his preprogrammed evil impulses?

instead of counting on that one, we should slaughter all 1,000,000 like cattle with smiles on our faces, no feelings of remorse, no mercy, and in the least humane possible ways.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Chaotic good characters do not imprison and torture people in order to achieve their goals, for example. Like lawful good characters, a chaotic good character has the initial intention to harm none, uses methods that do not inflict suffering or pain (if he can help it) and works for a positive outcome not just for themselves but for others.

Well a Good person will not torture or harm an innocent regardless of whether they are lawful or chaotic. But in my opinion for chaotics that restriction is lifted when dealing with Evil. And I am talking about Evil with a capital E, not bread thieves with a little e. These are the guys who would protect us all by torturing information out of terrorists to save thousands from another bomb. Something a LG person would never do even if it meant saving lives. But I realize you aren't going to change your mind. And ultimately you don't have to. We are BOTH right in our own games. Pathfinder made the GM the final arbiter over alignment. Hopefully whichever view the OP decides on in his dilemma he applies it consistently.

This is true.

However I am reminded of a great saying: "Evil is never so easy to perform by the good as when it is convenient."


Luminiere Solas wrote:
either way, the goblins deserved to die.

Must be nice operating under that theory. I guess you get lots of XP as a result.

Lantern Lodge

loaba wrote:
Luminiere Solas wrote:
either way, the goblins deserved to die.
Must be nice operating under that theory. I guess you get lots of XP as a result.

yeah, i poison goblin wells all the time. Mother Lamashtu tells me to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Loaba: I have intentionally stayed away from "real-world", modern-day military actions...

... because the behavior that you propose wouldn't fly in the real-world.

jupistar wrote:
I believe this is an apples and oranges comparison.
Except it's not - it's a like-comparison.

Except it's not.

loaba wrote:

Executing a helpless prisoner, in front of kin (with whom you're negotiating terms), real or game world, is not a nice thing to do. It doesn't serve Good, rather it shows that you can flip the Evil switch any time you like. And you can. But if you do it too often, you'll find that switch is set to Evil permanently.

Killing Drow babies and Goblin prisoners, because they're Evil, may be fun for you. And that's cool. Rationalize it however you like.

Your smug self-righteous condescending elitism aside, you're still wrong. You conflate sentience with sapience and you conflate sentience with morality. You anthromorphize goblins and other evil creatures with humans based upon this notion that since they're sentient, they have emotions, and if they have emotions, they must be treated like they're human criminals -- even human prisoners in today's world are executed.


jupistar wrote:
even human prisoners in today's world are executed.

Sure they are, after a trial and everything. And when that's not the case, the action is decried as being evil.

See how that works? Real-world morality, right there.

Jupistar - don't you have some Orc babies that need drowning or something? heh :P


loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
even human prisoners in today's world are executed.

Sure they are, after a trial and everything. And when that's not the case, the action is decried as being evil.

See how that works? Real-world morality, right there.

So, if you are ambushed by a pack of goblins after your wagons, you think it's a moral necessity to take any prisoners you've captured back to town for trial? I guess the trick is to not take prisoners, 'eh?

Here's a good question for you: do they get a jury of their peers?

Your real-world morality is about humans executing helpless humans after "justifying it to themselves". We're talking about the execution of a member of an evil species not a goodly or moral species. And you can't see there's a difference?


loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
even human prisoners in today's world are executed.

Sure they are, after a trial and everything. And when that's not the case, the action is decried as being evil.

See how that works? Real-world morality, right there.

Jupistar - don't you have some Orc babies that need drowning or something? heh :P

Do you consider yourself a good person, loaba? Read the last sentence above as a "good person".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jupistar wrote:
loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
even human prisoners in today's world are executed.

Sure they are, after a trial and everything. And when that's not the case, the action is decried as being evil.

See how that works? Real-world morality, right there.

So, if you are ambushed by a pack of goblins after your wagons, you think it's a moral necessity to take any prisoners you've captured back to town for trial? I guess the trick is to not take prisoners, 'eh?

Actually, you take prisoners because it's easier than fighting them all to the death. You don't kill them outright for the same reason - word gets around that you kill prisoners, no more surrenders. So yes, in terms of pure practicality it's worth taking prisoners and dragging them up before a judge.


So executing a prisoner is evil?! Huh?

This is a criminal. He has to be brought to justice. It is good to enact justice. Or are you people arguing that a lawless society is the only good one? Because THAT is absurd.

There are two forms justice can take, Slavery (imprisonment) or Death (execution). If it is too great a burden for a society to enact imprisonment (they can't afford to house, guard, feed, and cloth him) OR that criminal isn't going to reform his behavior and simply start doing crimes again after his release, then it IS good to execute him. Good is what benefits a society of civil, peace loving people. Execution IS good by this definition... unless:

I will concede to TOZ that if the society has good intent and the means to imprison the criminal then it becomes Neutral (not good) as he first suggested to simply and expediently execute him. But we don't know anything about this except what was briefly posted. The society and it's ability to handle goblin prisoners is an unknown.


jupistar wrote:
So, if you are ambushed by a pack of goblins after your wagons, you think it's a moral necessity to take any prisoners you've captured back to town for trial? I guess the trick is to not take prisoners, 'eh?

Y'know, I started to play your game, but there's no point to it. Any survivors don't have to be executed, unless the party is feeling bloodthirsty. It's just that simple. And that action, should they go that route, should be noted down for future reference.

As for my statement about drowning Orc babies - if you're offended, then you have my sincere apologies. Though I wonder how you could be offended at all. Orc babies are Evil and will grow up to be murderous villains, right? Better you should get rid of them now.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

So executing a prisoner is evil?! Huh?

This is a criminal. He has to be brought to justice. It is good to enact justice. Or are you people arguing that a lawless society is the only good one? Because THAT is absurd.

Just as absurd as the idea that only a lawful society can be good.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

So executing a prisoner is evil?! Huh?

This is a criminal. He has to be brought to justice. It is good to enact justice. Or are you people arguing that a lawless society is the only good one? Because THAT is absurd.

There are two forms justice can take, Slavery (imprisonment) or Death (execution). If it is too great a burden for a society to enact imprisonment (they can't afford to house, guard, feed, and cloth him) OR that criminal isn't going to reform his behavior and simply start doing crimes again after his release, then it IS good to execute him. Good is what benefits a society of civil, peace loving people. Execution IS good by this definition... unless:

I will concede to TOZ that if the society has good intent and the means to imprison the criminal then it becomes Neutral (not good) as he first suggested to simply and expediently execute him. But we don't know anything about this except what was briefly posted. The society and it's ability to handle goblin prisoners is an unknown.

Sometimes it is just in how you do it. If they had beaten him and summarily executed him for it, not evil. Using him as a pawn in the negotiation and then slitting his throat? Definitely not a good act and it should sway the character towards CN. Neutral isnt merely the space between good and evil, it is an equal nature on its own and neutral acts should affect alignment same as good or evil.


loaba wrote:
jupistar wrote:
TOZ wrote:
...you have to ask?
Yep

D&D/Pathfinder morals are based on modern-day morality. Here's a real-world spin for ya - should American servicemen execute prisoners, during face-to-face negotiations?

The answer is, of course, no. It's brutal and unthinkable. That the Goblin is Evil (in game terms) is irrelevant. The deed itself is abhorrent. And I think you know that.

I really don't think that they are. Golarion does not have rules of engagement. Paladins are by definition fanatically religious which is a highly negative trait in real life. The parallel is actually with the late middle ages, not the present.

Also, there is a disturbing tendency to conflate deontologial and good, as someone pointed out above.

Deontological is Lawful, Consequentialist is Chaotic. This is completely orthogonal to Good and Evil. Interestingly, falsly conflating the two is also the tack that 4e took as part of the general simplification of the system, and one that reflects what I think is an unhealthy tendency to assume that Lawful is by nature "good".


Saint Caleth wrote:
The parallel is actually with the late middle ages, not the present.

No - if you're saying that D&D/Pathfinder morality is parallel to the late middel ages, then you're flat-out wrong.

Pathfinder features equality of the sexes front and center, and that's indicative of real-world morality. In the late middle-ages, women were not treated as equals (certainly not with any regularity.)

Silver Crusade

Shalafi2412 wrote:
Yes it is an evil act. Are there any other examples of what he has done to justify being CN?

Yes, he has done other CN things before, but the acts weren't evil. He's never done anything "good". Still not enough to justify an alignment shift, but he's getting close now. Honestly, if the player is having fun, that's the most important thing, I'd just prefer that they realize how they're playing and shift the alignment themselves.

Shalafi2412 wrote:
While it definately seems like an evil act, I would like to have the complete context. For example, had the player decided that since negotiations were failing that they would need to kill all of the goblins, and just started with the one he held captive?

Nah, the PC was just being a dick since the King was being tough with negotiations. Purely vindictive. Killing the son served absolutely no purpose except to torment the King.

Debates like this are funny. It's ok to be evil as long as it's being done to the "enemy". I guess that's how atrocities are committed in history. Although most goblins, orcs, kobolds are evil, not all of them are. As a matter of fact, the goblin son (that was killed) was LN and just protecting his home from intruders. Oops? Does his alignment being non-evil change anything? Because it shouldn't. The party never asked him any questions and they never knew a single thing about him before they killed him.

Scrogz wrote:
Orcs and goblins are evil, period, end of story. The only right they have is the right to die at the hands of adventures for fun and profit.

Actually, they're not all evil. The son that was brutally killed in front of his father was actually LN. They're sentient beings, they can choose to be one way or the other. Alignment is taught, you're not born with alignment.

If it wasn't a goblin and instead it was a kobold or orc, does that change anything?

Luminiere Solas wrote:
you were hired to clear out a horde of goblins.

No, they were hired to negotiate (of which they didn't work very hard at). Killing was supposed to be the last resort.

Clerics of Sarenrae
A more interesting question is, what do you think of the two Neutral Good clerics of Sarenrae (compassion, peace, and redemption) that didn't say a word (or raise a hand) about the killings?

Before anyone asks, I didn't punish them, because they're both new to Pathfinder and roleplaying.

Sorry guys, I'll try but I can't keep up with this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess it depends on his motives...did he feel it was the only way to proceeded for the "good" of the community or was he just being a wanker! I think more context is required...he is not lawful, he is the opposite so killing an evil being for the great good seems more like a chaotic move to me. If he just did to be a wanker..then he is evil. The issue revolves around the definition of good and whose good he was acting in.

Lantern Lodge

Jason S wrote:

Clerics of Sarenrae
A more interesting question is, what do you think of the two Neutral Good clerics of Sarenrae (compassion, peace, and redemption) that didn't say a word (or raise a hand) about the killings?

Before anyone asks, I didn't punish them, because they're both new to Pathfinder and roleplaying.

Sorry guys, I'll try but I can't keep up with this thread.

Sarenrae is quite the contradictory goddess. yeah, a portion of her priests may preach compassion, peace and redemption. but at the same time, she backs merciless holy jihad against evil and rewards those who die on her crusades with 72 virgins each.


Saint Caleth wrote:
What I was trying to say is that in Golarion, like in the middle ages, it is completely compatible with good morality to believe that another group was evil and deserves only death, regardless of what a more modern, relative morality would teach. Thus, reflecting medieval more than modern morality.

Is that the case in Golarion? Where is it written that Good believes that Evil deserves only death? Did I miss that part in the CRB?


Ok, here are some examples of exactly that mindset, this is by no means an exhaustive list.

From the APG:

Oath against Undeath wrote:
Destroy all undead. Put to rest the poor souls turned against their will. Prevent the taint of undeath from spreading to the newly dead, blessing or burning the corpses as necessary.
Oath against The Wyrm wrote:
Slay evil dragons, as well as other dangerous dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons.
Oath against Feinds wrote:
Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

From Faiths of Purity:

Paladin Code of Torag wrote:

Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information.

I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families...
Sarenrae and Other Religions wrote:
Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation, for to entertain the Rough Beast is to display a total rejection of righteousness.

From the Scenario You Only Die Twice:

Scenario Plot:
While masquerading as undead in Geb, one of the encounters is a group of Pharasmin clerics raiding a town and slaughtering the intelligent undead who live there. Throughout their dialog they refer to the aforementioned undead (who are citizens in Geb) only as "abominations". The Party has to fight them, since they will otherwise kill the characters along with the undead.

I think that it is pretty clear-cut that this type of thinking exists on a wide scale both in Golarion, and in the rules of the game. Note especially that the Oath Against the Wyrm requires the paladin to kill non-evil dragons and dragon-blooded creatures that are deemed "dangerous". The paladin oath of Torag is a particularly sterling example of what I was talking about.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just wanna point out that Outsiders and Undead are already killed. You are just re-killing them.


Saint Caleth wrote:

Also, there is a disturbing tendency to conflate deontologial and good, as someone pointed out above.

Deontological is Lawful, Consequentialist is Chaotic. This is completely orthogonal to Good and Evil. Interestingly, falsly conflating the two is also the tack that 4e took as part of the general simplification of the system, and one that reflects what I think is an unhealthy tendency to assume that Lawful is by nature "good".

Someone incorrectly made the opposing case, believing Consequentialism translates to Lawful. The main points I've been trying to make since this all started is that:

1) Modern normative relativistic morality, while widely popular, is not an objective position nor is it held by all. Those with a consequentialist worldview (such as myself), believe things must be taken in context with all factors considered.

2) Neither sentience nor life necessarily have an inherent objective value, nor does evil sentient life necessarily have an inherent subjective value to goodly races.

I've got a ton more to say, but I'm burning out...

On an entirely separate note: the OP has taken the opportunity to describe his goblins as not all being evil or having evil intent. In which case, these goblins were merely "the enemy". Basically, the OP told us that the player was evil (by describing his actions as merely vindictive with a desire to torment the Goblin King), after asking us if he was evil. Kind of makes the whole thing moot.

I can't imagine a good person wanting suffering *for the sake of suffering*, regardless of whether they're deontologists or consequentialists.

Andoran

...and THIS is why people shouldn't care about alignment (unless the PC was a cleric, paladin or someone with a strict code of behaviour). It's an antiquated hold over from the 70's and it doesn't work well.

And the end of the day, who cares? It's a game and it's an alternate rule.

To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.


Saint Caleth wrote:
Oath against Undeath wrote:
Destroy all undead. Put to rest the poor souls turned against their will. Prevent the taint of undeath from spreading to the newly dead, blessing or burning the corpses as necessary.

Undead aren't living and so are exempt. In fact, it is a mercy to destroy them.

Saint Caleth wrote:
Oath against The Wyrm wrote:
Slay evil dragons, as well as other dangerous dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons.

This is out there, man.

Saint Caleth wrote:
Oath against Feinds wrote:
Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it. Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

Don't Outsiders just reform later on down the line, or am I mistaken?

Saint Caleth wrote:

From Faiths of Purity:

Paladin Code of Torag wrote:

Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information.

I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families...

Okay, so you fight to death but occasionally take prisoners. What do you do with 'em afterwards? At least you only scatter the families...

This one too, is out there.

Saint Caleth wrote:
Sarenrae and Other Religions wrote:
Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation, for to entertain the Rough Beast is to display a total rejection of righteousness.

Are all Evil creatures followers of Rovagug, then?

Basically, you're saying there are lot of Psycho Paladins out there.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Saint Caleth wrote:
Paladins are by definition fanatically religious which is a highly negative trait in real life.

Lemme see, paladin, according to the dictionary:

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

Paladins are idealistic, yes. Devout? Not actually a requirement. In fact being religious is not a requirement. So fanatical? Don't know where you got that one...

Silver Crusade

VacantFanatic wrote:
To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.

Well, it's a little bit more than that. This game was run using PFS, which is organized play, and evil alignments aren't allowed. If he commits enough evil acts, I'm forced to move him to evil and retire his PC. So it does matter.


Why on earth would "Lawful" goblins be doing banditry?
Why would good clerics want them all dead if negotiations failed, and over simple robbery at that?
It makes no sense...

Would you be giving your players a spoiler if you told us on here what is really going on?


Aranna wrote:

Why on earth would "Lawful" goblins be doing banditry?

Why would good clerics want them all dead if negotiations failed, and over simple robbery at that?
It makes no sense...

Would you be giving your players a spoiler if you told us on here what is really going on?

What, Goblins can't have order? And these are LN, meaning they probably don't even eat hu-mon babies.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I think it's shameful that Mikaze and the others apply MORE right

Stop.

I apply EQUAL rights to all.

I'm sure Mikaze does the same.

You are correct sir![/mcmahon]

Aranna wrote:
But wait if you go by Mikaze's rules then only Goblins have rights clearly he feels humans don't have any rights.

Yeah, cause I totally work in false dichotomies.

Aranna wrote:

I'M racially profiling???

No where in the example did the heroes commit genocide OR kill babies.
Yet this is what Mikaze is accusing them of doing!

I am sorry ZugZug but when Mikaze frames the argument racially that is the only way to respond.

I didn't frame the argument racially. I pointed out that race shouldn't be the deciding factor in the morality of the action, which was already going on in the thread.

The mentions of genocide were also in the thread already, in case you haven't noticed a certain someone yammering on and on about how it's Good's responsibility to visit cruel death upon entire sapient races.

Damian Coldshadows wrote:

If it wasn't a goblin and instead it was a kobold or orc, does that change anything?

...

Clerics of Sarenrae
A more interesting question is, what do you think of the two Neutral Good clerics of Sarenrae (compassion, peace, and redemption) that didn't say a word (or raise a hand) about the killings?

Before anyone asks, I didn't punish them, because they're both new to Pathfinder and roleplaying.

Nah, it wouldn't change anything.

On the cleric players, well, you say they're new, so there's that. I'd check to make sure they get what Sarenrae's about, and show in-world consequences of their actions for those around them first before any direct punishment came down the chute.

Unfortunately the immediate consequence that leaps to mind is "well, peace negotiations are pretty much over!". And in that case I probably wouldn't be shy about driving how why that was the case, who was responsible, and whose inaction didn't help the situation. Even then, I'd try to make the situation recoverable and give them a chance at some measure of redemption, but nothing's leaping out at me at the moment here swamped at work.

There's also the matter of how the players know and relate to each other, and how that might affect how they'd handle possible IC conflict. Maybe they're uncomfortable or unsure of how to deal with it. Some of this can apply to the hostage-killing player as well. Need more info/context really. :)

101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Evil action? What do you think? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.