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

PaizoCon 2014!

How do you lie to yourself about your alignment....


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Bad Sintax wrote:


Big time.

Those examples are all simply bad player examples. "Good" characters who hunt chromatic dragons just for their hoards? That would be evil.

Characters who hunt chromatic dragons to stop them from eating villagers? That would be good.

Well thats where it gets a little tricky...

Even the staunchest paladin is, in some part of what passes for their brain, thinking about the hoard when they kill the dragon: even if its just all the good they can do with the cash, the desire for the cash is still going to be there.

Even the most cold hearted and mercenary rogue is going to feel SOME sympathy if he sees a peasant cradling the burnt remains of what used to be her husband

People are complicated. Their motivations swirl and blend together, almost always beyond what their actions tell them, and oft more than they know/are willing to admit themselves.

Quote:

Plus, hunting down a band of orcs who has already raided a village is definitley not doing it because they "might." It is doing it for what they already have done. If a human village and an orc village have co-existed next to each other for years without incident and one day a group of adventurers decided to kill the orcs, that would be evil.

This gets messed up too. If there's peace then war sure, one side started it. But when you get endless back and forth attacks and raids and reprisals for the raid and revenge for the reprisal of the raid and then the retribution for the revenge that was the reprisal followed by a requital that was a revenge for the retribution for the reprisal for a raid....


You see law and chaos as more important concepts than good or evil. Also Paladin re rare and clerics are at least uncommon.


Bad Sintax wrote:

However, while the player has access to those rules, the character does not. So if a paladin tries to smite the character, the character might think that he is being persecuted by a fanatical zealot powered by a god who wants to wipe he and his kind out.

Plus, smite good and smite evil work basically the same, right? How does the character know that it isn't an anti-paladin trying to smite him?

Sorry, but characters get access to the rules. Many classes have access to detect alignment spells, spells with alignment descriptors, smites, summoning outsiders from aligned planes etc. If someone knows that he will fight tons of Hell Knights in the near future he will get an anarchic weapon. Tell me why? Why does he buy a weapon that is especially effective against people of a certain alignment when he has no idea what alignment is? Concerning the question if you fight a paladin or an anti-paladin, that depends on your knowledge. If you hit back and he uses lay on hands on himself he's a paladin.

Serisan wrote:

The problem with the OP's question is that the alignment system is written from the perspective of a Lawful Good individual. Shift to any other square of the alignment chart and the categories are viewed differently. A CG character might view the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum as Oppression/Freedom. A LE character might view it as Order/Anarchy. Similarly, an Evil (of any sort, really) character might view Good/Evil as Means/Ends, or even Servile/Dominant.

Just because someone fits the Evil alignment doesn't mean that they think they're wrong. In fact, they most likely believe that their path of action is right.

Yeah, I know that evil usually thinks it's right. The problem with my character concept is however that unlike the FR drow for example he doesn't think he is right because of some perceived injustice that was done to his people ages ago but specifically because of his relationship to the higher planes.

Orthos wrote:
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. A PC trying that in any of my games would find himself quick on the southward slide out of any alignment ending in G. An NPC, such as this guy, might be Good the first time or two the party meets him, but after a few incidents of this would be very firmly Neutral and/or well on his way to Evil.

Same here.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Read the Goblins welcoming (goblinscomic.com) it features a Dwarf Paladin named Kore who kills a Dwarf child because he was being raised by an orc and therefore could become evil or sympathize with evil. Sounds close to your concept. no?

I've been reading Goblins for years. Do you know that they make a big deal out of the fact that Kore hasn't fallen yet? It's pretty obvious that it's not normal.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The thing is alignment is subjective. By Pathfinders alignment definitions I'm Chaotic Evil simply because I enjoy my freedom and only care about myself and a select few. Yet ask them and they describe me as Chaotic Good. Why because I am good from their perspective.

Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Sorry, but if you were anything like chaotic evil you would write your posts from out of prison and your "friends" would tell you that they think of you as chaotic good because they were afraid that you would gut them with a broken bottle.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Kore is Lawful because he is organized and methodical. Kore is good because to him and probably a few others he is doing the right thing.

Again, Kore is a special case and this is called out quite often in the comic.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Look at the Goblinslayer he thought he was good because he was defending the city from monsters.

What you think of yourself has absolutely no bearing on the game mechanics. Otherwise all the lower planes would have been closed ages ago.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

This whole "Alignments are set in stone" crap is ignorant. I present you with the second paragraph under the alignment section:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

To be blunt any GM who thinks an alignment is set in stone probably won't end up with happy players. I say this from experience with 5 GMs who done this and that isn't counting the other bad GMs. I can also tell you the more loose alignments are then more often than not it will be more enjoyable for everyone. I say that from GMing and Co-GMing around 50 campaigns with 10 different groups.

I will Now step down from the soapbox.

Who says that alignment is set in stone? Alignment can change, you can act contrary to your alignment (even though it will change if you do it too often) and you can lacking contrary evidence believe that you have another one. However Pathfinder is like D&D built around the assumption that there is objective good and evil and law and chaos. That you can detect them, affect them and that ultimately people will go into the afterlife that corresponds to their alignment. If a paladin could smite whoever he thinks is evil and if everybody who thinks of himself as good could do whatever they wanted without consequences and go to the higher planes that whole system would break down. If you don't like it that's your personal opinion, there are tons fantasy RPGs which work wonderfully without alignment systems (most of them don't have an afterlife you can visit with a spell). If you want to cut them from Pathfinder that's your personal set of house rules, please don't present them as fact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mistah J wrote:


But it doesn't make him evil.

It does. Because killing innocents is always evil. It's evil to kill someone for having an evil alignment. It's also evil to kill someone for having a dragon ancestor 20 generations ago. While he THINKS that he is doing the right thing he isn't. Tieflings, dhampirs, half-dragons and sorcerers with their bloodlines all are born with the ability to chose between good and evil. The self-image of the aasimar does in no way affect that he will ultimately go to hell.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Someone said wrote:
Stop and look the alignments are general not specific. Heck, a Dnd/pathfinder paladin technically isn't a true Paladin by definition. a Paladin is a Knight who swore to uphold the values of their God regardless of these values. I.E. by that definition an Anti-Paladin is a Paladin. The paladin in Pathfinders core rules is actually based on Christian Ideals of the perfect soldier of god. In fact all the alignment examples are based on christian ideology. Based on that because I only care for myself and those I choose i am evil.

Yes. Paladins are not true paladins in the historical sense. They also could not cast spells in the historical sense. "Paladin" is a game term. And wow, you are saying goodness combined with honor and compassion is only a Christian Ideal? I know quite a few billion people who would disagree with you on that.

someone said wrote:
I am not meaning to make this into religion but look at the late gary gygax and everyone at TSR who laid out the alignments. They were devoted christians. If you look at it i am in fact true neutral as i am a little bit of everything.

If your little bit of everything includes murder and slavery, I would say that is evil. Again, just because you think you are good, does not make it so. To use a good example from another post, newsflash, people who strap bombs to themselves and then walk into cafes to forward their cause and because they think it is the right thing to do, are in fact, not good people.

someone said wrote:

Here i have a good moral question for you if a man brought freedom to his people by using slaves is he evil? I give you an example of George Washington. King Arthur supposedly a hero of pure heart & King Richard the lion heart who lead the Crusades they all owned slaves. Most of which were white. Does that make them evil?

An alignment depends on where you are looking from.

Nope, not in PF. Number one, King Arthur is a legend. Legends are reflections of the society which creates them. Number two, Richard was a holy roller who killed non-believers. If you are saying Richard would be a PF paladin, you better crack a history book and read about the atrocities he and most of the other crusaders committed. Number three, I don't think George Washington brought freedom to his people by using slaves. If he did, by somehow throwing his slaves into the grinder of war for others to benefit, then yes, I would say that was evil. Plus, I'm not sure why the white reference...are you saying because they were white instead of black it was somehow more wrong?

I am as cynical as the next man, however PF paladins are above cynicism. They are the true ideal. And if they are not, then they cease to be paladins.


Orthos wrote:

The problem with that suggestion J is that a Good character is incompatible with the idea of killing a creature just because of an arbitrary factor. Most notably the idea that "you have X in your bloodline, X is evil, that makes you evil, I'm going to kill you for it", when the victim has done nothing to prompt such an assault, nor taken any hostile actions against the instigator nor anyone else. Even the evil fodder races such as goblinoids, orcs, etc. that adventurers get sent after all the time have the threat of "have raided/will raid unless stopped" justifying such an assault; in this case, many of this guy's victims will be nothing more than an unfortunate commoner who, as you stated, got the short end of the stick as far as ancestry goes.

Lawful Neutral, I could see very easily, though there would be a very real risk of sliding into LE in the process. But Good? No, that is not Good. Not at all.

This is an issue with how the game has evolved. Currently in Pathfinder evil dragons, evil outsiders and undead are all supernaturally evil. An evil dragon is the same as a demon, it is a creature made out of evil lacking the free will to be good.

Back when Gygax was writing the game the various humanoid races were seen as supernatural evils. Goblins were viewed as a kind of spirit laking free will. Likewise Orcs were the supernaturally corrupted creatures from Tolken (think aberration to humanoid type). Over the years gamers transformed these races from supernatural creatures to physical races with free will. This opens up a number of tricky questions, such as if killing orcs amounts to racism/genocide. The idea that Gygax was getting at isn't that killing orcs is OK as they are a racial other. Instead orcs are a physical embodiment of spiritual evil (an argument that mot gamers came to see as BS, hence the current implementation of humanoids).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

People are complicated. Their motivations swirl and blend together, almost always beyond what their actions tell them, and oft more than they know/are willing to admit themselves.

This gets messed up too. If there's peace then war sure, one side started it. But when you get endless back and forth attacks and raids and reprisals for the raid and revenge for the reprisal of the raid and then the retribution for the revenge that was the reprisal followed by a requital that was a revenge for the retribution for the reprisal for a raid....

Good point, both. I would say action is primary and motivation is secondary, regarding alignment interpretation.

Also, at that point, I think a good character would try to stop the violence between the two villages, rather than further it. However, that does not make for a very exciting PF game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Richard Leonhart wrote:
if you're evil, you know it, normally even in real life, but people think there are good excuses for a few evil acts.

No, that just isn't true. Some of the most awful things people have done to other people were done in the name of rightness and good. Thomas de Torquemada, Hopkins the witch-finder general, the list is HUGE and contains almost every inhumanity done to man by man. In fact the only thing they have in common is that 1: they all thought they were the good guys and they were in the right; and 2: they assumed this without question justified whatever they did.

Navarion wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much the point of the thread, how in the nine hells this works in a fantasy world where alignments are tangible things.

I don't know, there are some things that we can all agree are evil acts, and yet we find 'good' people that have no problem justifying their use in our own world.

Shalmdi wrote:
Oh, also, I am aware of Undetectable Alignment and even Nondetection, but to use those, you have to admit you have something to hide.

Such as one's divine and holy aura from the corrupt, jealous and weak who would stand in your way and defy your holy mission because they wish to protect their own interests or simply do not understand the moral courage it takes to so what needs to be done?

This is a brilliant summary of how being evil and not realising it works:

VRMH wrote:
  • Deny the facts.
  • When you can't deny the facts, deny the rules.
  • When you can't deny the rules, deny the definitions.
  • When you can't deny the definitions... make a personal attack.

Say you really were good, and somebody claimed you were evil from their detect spell. This means that...

  • They got the spell wrong.
  • The spell must be picking up on the things you have had to do, or is registering you because of an infringement of another sect/church's rules, not evil.
  • They are lying to conceal their own agenda - THEY are the evil ones and they have duped everyone else.

All of these are as 'true' to you if you ARE evil and don't realise it as they are if you are not.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"If you're evil and you know it clap your hands"

*clap clap*

"SMITE EVIL!" HACK


Most of you seem to be saying the depictions in the book are the only examples. That is false. Evil can simply represent extreme apathy. While good can be extreme empathy. Law and chaos are really the only ones that are restrictive and that is only if taken at face value like what most people seem to do. In the end alignment is superficial and is use as a general first glance of a person. It doesn't mean a CE wizard has to be a sadistic bastard. It could simply mean he only cares about himself and does everything on impulse.

I was using Kore as an example of how your character could be.

And evil and good are subjective. As has been said by others. Where e'er e one person sees order another sees oppression. You are forgetting the alignments are guidelines not rules.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other.

King Arthur and King Richard were meant to be paragons something every Christian was supposed to aim to be. By definition King Richard was a paladin even by PF standards. To his people he was the Paragon of Law & Good. The slaves being white is meant to confer the fact that because of this they were over looked as being soldiers. George Washington later in the war made a army consisting purely of slaves who were forced into battle by their masters.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Mistah J wrote:


I would suggest that the arbitrary factor is not 'they have evil in their blood' but 'what they do with it'. You are right in saying that most good people would take that into consideration; I am saying they don't have to.

I'd say any good person would take that into consideration. You can't have a character be Good without actual good.

One who is willing to snuff out lives because of an accident of birth is anything but good. People going about butchering others because of their blood will eventually find out that the angels definitely do not have their backs in that conflict, at least in any cosmology where Good is actually good and not something abhorrant.


Navarion wrote:
I've been reading Goblins for years. Do you know that they make a big deal out of the fact that Kore hasn't fallen yet? It's pretty obvious that it's not normal.

Yeah, thing is: Despite being called a paladin, Kore never actually uses any paladin powers. It's not at all clear that he has not, in fact, fallen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Say you really were good, and somebody claimed you were evil from their detect spell. This means that...

  • They got the spell wrong.
  • The spell must be picking up on the things you have had to do, or is registering you because of an infringement of another sect/church's rules, not evil.
  • They are lying to conceal their own agenda - THEY are the evil
...

[list]

  • Pretty much impossible.
  • The spell detects alignment, not single actions and not things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomedae. As a paladin, cleric or inquisitor of a good deity you also have the nice guarantee that you can't be evil if you can still casts spells,, unless your deity changed alignment, home plane and ethos during your service. As another spellcaster you can summon whatever outsider they like to let them confirm your alignemnt. So either someone is lying or you have been duped into doing a lot of evil.
  • Yeah.

    Dabbler wrote:
    All of these are as 'true' to you if you ARE evil and don't realise it as they are if you are not.

    Yeah, if you don't mind your angels smelling like brimstone and looking like they want to bite your head off.

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Most of you seem to be saying the depictions in the book are the only examples. That is false. Evil can simply represent extreme apathy. While good can be extreme empathy. Law and chaos are really the only ones that are restrictive and that is only if taken at face value like what most people seem to do. In the end alignment is superficial and is use as a general first glance of a person. It doesn't mean a CE wizard has to be a sadistic bastard. It could simply mean he only cares about himself and does everything on impulse.

    Sorry, but where are you pulling that from? What you describe is (chaotic) neutrality. Evil is about harming others either for personal gain or fun, good is about helping others out of the goodness of your heart, neutrality is what is between those two.

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    I was using Kore as an example of how your character could be.

    No offense to Tarol Hunt intended but so far Kore has been a massively house-ruled boogeyman.

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    And evil and good are subjective. As has been said by others. Where e'er e one person sees order another sees oppression. You are forgetting the alignments are guidelines not rules.

    Okay, let's roll with that for a while. I'm playing a paladin. Since alignment is completely subjective I can use smite evil on whoever I want, because if I say they are evil they are. I also claim that murder, rape, torture and slavery are all completely good acts that don't make me lose my powers. After all whatever I do must be good, I'm a paladin. Then a paladin who thinks that rape, torture and slavery are all wrong and that you have to kill everything and everybody as quickly as possible attacks you for being evil. Now can they both smite each other? They see each other as evil. But they see themselves as lawful good.O_O Sorry, but claiming that alignment in Pathfinder is subjective is complete and utter crap. Pathfinder is not Dragon Age.

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other.

    Who claimed anything different? However people of the same alignment can ACT differently within reason (there's no such thing as a "good torturer" or "good rapist") however, they are SMOTE the same.

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    King Arthur and King Richard were meant to be paragons something every Christian was supposed to aim to be. By definition King Richard was a paladin even by PF standards. To his people he was the Paragon of Law & Good. The slaves being white is meant to confer the fact that because of this they were over looked as being soldiers. George Washington later in the war made a army consisting purely of slaves who were forced into battle by their masters.

    Where do you get the idea that the (medieval) christian church was/is good? Because they say so? Sorry, guys in armor with swords are nothing like what a Christian should be like.

    The Bible: "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also."

    The Crusaders: "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His."

    Quite simply put, if the christian god would have granted spells to his priests and knights he definitely would not be seated in the Seven Heavens of Celestia or whatever the Pathfinder equivalent is now.

    Mikaze wrote:


    I'd say any good person would take that into consideration. You can't have a character be Good without actual good.

    One who is willing to snuff out lives because of an accident of birth is anything but good. People going about butchering others because of their blood will eventually find out that the angels definitely do not have their backs in that conflict, at least in any cosmology where Good is actually good and not something abhorrant.

    Thanks, sometimes reading the forums makes me doubt my sanity.

    Shadowdweller wrote:


    Yeah, thing is: Despite being called a paladin, Kore never actually uses any paladin powers. It's not at all clear that he has not, in fact, fallen.

    Well, he has cast a spell and Ears' special axe that can't affect paladins doesn't work on him, and it is acknowledged by Young-and-Beautiful's corpse that he is somehow "cursed" in a way that he can't lose his powers.


  • Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Mikaze wrote:
    Mistah J wrote:


    I would suggest that the arbitrary factor is not 'they have evil in their blood' but 'what they do with it'. You are right in saying that most good people would take that into consideration; I am saying they don't have to.

    I'd say any good person would take that into consideration. You can't have a character be Good without actual good.

    One who is willing to snuff out lives because of an accident of birth is anything but good. People going about butchering others because of their blood will eventually find out that the angels definitely do not have their backs in that conflict, at least in any cosmology where Good is actually good and not something abhorrant.

    Or to put it another way, what Mistah J is describing is exactly the circumstance by which an evil person would be trying to define themselves as 'good' and deceiving themselves that they are.

    Navarion wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    Say you really were good, and somebody claimed you were evil from their detect spell. This means that...

    • They got the spell wrong.
    • The spell must be picking up on the things you have had to do, or is registering you because of an infringement of another sect/church's rules, not evil.
    • They are lying to conceal their own agenda - THEY are the evil
    ...

    • Pretty much impossible.
    • The spell detects alignment, not single actions and not things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomedae. As a paladin, cleric or inquisitor of a good deity you also have the nice guarantee that you can't be evil if you can still casts spells,, unless your deity changed alignment, home plane and ethos during your service. As another spellcaster you can summon whatever outsider they like to let them confirm your alignemnt. So either someone is lying or you have been duped into doing a lot of evil.
    • Yeah.

    You're assuming reason in a stance that is not intrinsically reasonable.

    Like was said:


    • Deny facts: They must have cast detect law/chaos, not detect evil. That idiot cannot tell the difference.
    • Deny definitions: What is detecting as evil, anyway? You and I know the definition of what is detected as evil, but the person detected is out to rationalise themselves as good by any means necessary. They are detecting an item on me, not me. They are detecting deeds that isolated are evil, but the spell does not detect the big picture - or at least, so the person will argue.
    • Launch a personal attack: the person claiming to detect evil is lying. It doesn't matter who they are, they MUST be lying because you aren't evil. You'd know if you were...

    If you ever want to experience this kind of logic first hand, arm yourself with all the facts and figures on anthropogenic climate change and then get into a debate with a climate change denier.

    Navarion wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    All of these are as 'true' to you if you ARE evil and don't realise it as they are if you are not.
    Yeah, if you don't mind your angels smelling like brimstone and looking like they want to bite your head off.

    Three words: Hat of disguise. Devils and demons are not stupid, after all, and those that cannot change their appearance naturally can use items.


    Navarion wrote:
  • The spell detects alignment, not single actions and not things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomedae. As a paladin, cleric or inquisitor of a good deity you also have the nice guarantee that you can't be evil if you can still casts spells,, unless your deity changed alignment, home plane and ethos during your service. As another spellcaster you can summon whatever outsider they like to let them confirm your alignemnt. So either someone is lying or you have been duped into doing a lot of evil.
  • The spell detects alignment for the player. The character may not ever say "I detect chaos/law or evil/good," just as the character never says, "I just lost 15 hit points." Depending on your DM's descriptive powers, the character may well sense things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomadae.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Hitdice wrote:
    Navarion wrote:
  • The spell detects alignment, not single actions and not things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomedae. As a paladin, cleric or inquisitor of a good deity you also have the nice guarantee that you can't be evil if you can still casts spells,, unless your deity changed alignment, home plane and ethos during your service. As another spellcaster you can summon whatever outsider they like to let them confirm your alignemnt. So either someone is lying or you have been duped into doing a lot of evil.
  • The spell detects alignment for the player. The character may not ever say "I detect chaos/law or evil/good," just as the character never says, "I just lost 15 hit points." Depending on your DM's descriptive powers, the character may well sense things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomadae.

    More to the point, the characters do not have the rulebook to reference. You only have the character's say that they detected evil, after all...


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Navarion wrote:

    [list]

  • Pretty much impossible.
  • The spell detects alignment, not single actions and not things like violations of the most holy laws of the poor desert hermits of Iomedae. As a paladin, cleric or inquisitor of a good deity you also have the nice guarantee that you can't be evil if you can still casts spells,, unless your deity changed alignment, home plane and ethos during your service. As another spellcaster you can summon whatever outsider they like to let them confirm your alignemnt. So either someone is lying or you have been duped into doing a lot of evil.
  • Yeah.
  • Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus will detect as Evil even though he is not. He could see Asmodeus as being allied with Abadar as they are both lawful deities. Asmodeus is helpful to the city in that he provides the law to stop the city from descending into Chaos.

    So no, Detect Evil will not always detect an evil person, and it WILL sometimes detect a non evil person.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Every dictator that ever lived believed himself a good man.

    Lying to one's self is not as hard as you think.

    It's called Cognitive Dissonance. It's where you believe in conflicting things at the same time.

    Some people have a high tolerance for CD, some do not.

    You find very high tolerance for CD among the extremely religious, racist organizations, other "supremacist" organizations and the like.

    How long did it take you to stop believing in Santa Claus? If it was very early, you probably have a low tolerance for CD. If you held on to the Santa belief into the double digits, you probably have high tolerance for CD.

    You know when you come across two conflicting pieces of information and your brain goes "AHHHH! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"?

    Some people don't have that reaction.


    Navarion wrote:
    Well, he has cast a spell and Ears' special axe that can't affect paladins doesn't work on him, and it is acknowledged by Young-and-Beautiful's corpse that he is somehow "cursed" in a way that he can't lose his powers.

    Apologies, was recalling that back against Young-and-Beautiful that he seemed to be using a magic item to mimic spells. He HAS since used paladin powers here:

    http://www.goblinscomic.com/11162010-2/

    ...so, my bad.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Fleshgrinder wrote:

    Every dictator that ever lived believed himself a good man.

    Lying to one's self is not as hard as you think.

    It's called Cognitive Dissonance. It's where you believe in conflicting things at the same time.

    Some people have a high tolerance for CD, some do not.

    You find very high tolerance for CD among the extremely religious, racist organizations, other "supremacist" organizations and the like.

    How long did it take you to stop believing in Santa Claus? If it was very early, you probably have a low tolerance for CD. If you held on to the Santa belief into the double digits, you probably have high tolerance for CD.

    You know when you come across two conflicting pieces of information and your brain goes "AHHHH! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"?

    Some people don't have that reaction.

    Very true. It's an extreme form of Confirmation Bias: this is where people cherry-pick what they want to hear out of information they receive, selecting only that which confirms what they already want to believe.

    Basically the "Does not compute!" reaction is...thinking. Seriously. It's thinking about your own basic assumptions and challenging them with the new information, rather than dismissing the new information. It's amazing how much people will take to be convinced of something that they do not want to believe - and that's not some people, it's most people. Very few of us actually think and consider things with an open mind, even scientists who are trained to do just that.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    My take on "good and evil" in real life vs. D&D / PF:

    In "real life" good=right and evil=wrong. Classically that's how we see things and for the most part still do. So Richard the Lionheart could butcher non-Christians and still think of himself as "right / good". In essence, if you know your right (and what you believe in is right), then you know you are "good" and the people who think otherwise are "evil". We are more inclined to relativism today (at least in the west) but at the core we still think "we are right" and therefore "good".

    In D&D / PF evil does not equate in all peoples minds automatically with "wrong". Someone who is "evil" can believe he is right without labelling himself "good". He probably thinks those goody two shoes are weak and wrong and his beliefs about "might makes right" (or whatever) are right and proper.

    This allows for evil societies / churches etc. It makes sense of things like "Detect Evil" (or Good / Law / Chaos), "Smite Evil" and so on. Someone who is evil and thinks he is good would have to be pretty deluded, all the more so with concrete methods of detecting good / evil (and reasonably concrete definitions of them), supernatural beings who hand down the law and so forth.

    So, just let evil be as sanctimonius as good, let them get on with their arguments over who is right and let the bodies fall where they may :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    That's a good analogy, with one proviso I mentioned earlier: the characters in the game do not have a copy of the rules. Or to put it another way, to them, Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is in effect "Detect Wrong".

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Navarion wrote:

    ....without appearing to be completely insane?

    In our world some of the worst people are those who actually think that they are doing good. Would something like that be possible in a world where moral alignment is a tangible force?
    For a paladin it's practically impossible. If you cease to be lawful good you will realize soon enough that your divine powers have vanished. A cleric could champion a cause he believes noble and just but if he is actually evil he will channel negative energy which should tell him something. For non-divine classes it could be easier, but as a villain who is anywhere but the smallest villages you would still have to interact with the rules at some point. How do you think of yourself as a good being when a paladin almost bisects you with a smite or if the gaze attack of a Ghaele shakes you?
    I would like to see some other opinions on that.

    Actually it's rather easy from a mechanics stand point. All characters PC & NPC that don't have levels in a divine class, or outsiders, or some form of undead don't actually register through any of the detections spells till around 8th level. As for followers of a god if you look at the alignment section of the cleric they actually read as the alignment of their god which means just "detecting" a guy becomes much more difficult as when one is actually trying to figure out the alignment of say a cleric of a LN god he will really only register as lawful hiding whether he is good or evil entirely. Knowing this one should be able to agree that most other organizations would know this and treat detect spells as a niche method at best as most people in the world wouldn't register at all while those who do are probably famous enough that one could venture a guess or are immune by virtue of their connection to divinity.

    Now as for how one convinces themselves that they are good? I would say look for modern examples and see what they say like the aforementioned Taliban, the Nazi regime, or even some other more grey areas like Andrew Jacksons forced migration of Native Americans after the wars for Florida with the Spanish. If you're cool to look into fictional sources one of the best examples and break downs of this is Walter White from amc's breaking bad which focuses a lot on this kind of topic. Another good one is the shield as well as the mini series sleeper cell which all give great examples and insights into the mindset that comes about to keep those beliefs alive.

    Also what R_Chance said above works as well in that what is "right" in one persons mind doesn't have to be what is "good", and what might be the right choice to solve a problem doesn't have to be good either. Look at Cheliax, the fought a 30 year civil war with hundreds dead and large swaths of territory lost and the right answer to their problem of civil unrest and the restoration of order was diabolism. Another good example comes out of pfs with the andoran faction which for the longest time was meant to be the association for those who wanted to do good in the world, but if you look at their faction missions through a lot of those early games they were basically tasked with assassinating people, and quickly became a running gag that people thought was odd.

    Osirion

    Navarion wrote:
    In our world some of the worst people are those who actually think that they are doing good. Would something like that be possible in a world where moral alignment is a tangible force?

    I don't have to lie to myself. I am Neutral, not Good.

    While I seldom act out of greed I will do what is necessary.

    While I tend to follow the rules, they will not stop from doing what must be done.

    I recognize that frequently the best way to achieve my goals is to assist others with thier goals, but not always.

    My oath is nearly always kept, it is in by best interest to be reliable.

    I feel little compassion for those who have dug their own holes, but I'm not going to persecute them.


    On good, evil and how a character sees themselves, I have been playing through these issues with an npc called Therin (not set in Golarion).

    Therin
    Chaotic evil heading towards Chaotic good
    Fighter 6

    An albino of the old Oolacile bloodline, Therin was on the run from Catarinans when he first met the party. Being warrior-born did not “work out” prior to taking up adventuring. He was born and dragged into a long running family feud. His line being put to the sword after his victories and revenge on those who held him hostage as a boy. He has committed many horrible crimes in the wars to the south, but is seeking a redemption of sorts. To do good heroic deeds and become an armed champion and not simply a murderer, raider and child-killer.

    Therin is adapting to subterfuge and a life on the run and in peril. His hair and juvenile beard are cut back and hidden behind a militia coif, grease is worked into his skin to conceal his unusual pallor. He has a Catarinan accent he is attempting to lose. He tries to seem unassuming but is easily angered having being raised with violence and threats. His skills are mainly in the longbow, vicious bastard sword fighting, surviving and tracking.

    --

    Now Therin knows he has done evil, dark stuff, hanging kids, raiding castles, shooting decent guardsman, evading the law. He has been hunted by good knights and narrowly escaped. He has plenty of excuses for what he has done, and indeed some of them have some merit--the party knows nothing about the southern wars and what it was like, the conquering, the hostage taking, the power and vileness of some of the Catarinans that he fought. So Therin is trying to get past all that, but it has left the young lad scarred by what he has done. Therin almost got to some isolated clerics and was intending to join a good order for survival and to become someone else, but he has joined the pcs instead and is now doing good while occasionally giving in to his vicious side (monks attacked the party recently and he lost it once he got hit, stabbing one multiple times in the throat into the floor, multiple hits for max damage).

    Getting back on track, Therin partially lies to himself and lies heavily to others about who he has been. He has been guilty of vaguing it up and not being entirely honest. Eventually they got most of the story. While he lies about his past and who he has been, he is on a path of change. He also doesn't care what the Catarinans or any holy or righteous affiliate think or say about him; they were his enemies after all before he left that life behind. The war criminal tries to live with himself and what he has done, but he can deal with this because he lost his innocence very young in the hatred and violence of feudal war.


    Loyalist, slayer of threads!
    :{


    Just want to talk about alignment. No one to post to... so lonely.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The human(oid) capacity for self-delusion is fairly extraordinary and I don't think anyone would have much issue convincing themselves that they are in fact /right/ if not out right /good/ for very nearly any action.

    If you go read through numerous alignment threads on these boards those facts bear out- people will rationalize *anything* in order to keep their golden halo status. "Its not evil because X, Y, Z". While those don't hold water in the rules sense they make perfect sense for any given character to *think* they are doing good.

    Alot of very vile and evil people in our real world think (or thought) that are/were good and are/were doing the best thing for the world and/or their society- despite that such good things involved the whole sale slaughter of relatively innocent peoples.
    It doesn't make them good to think it so- it just makes it *wrong*.

    The main problem though inside a gaming group however is that most groups are assumed to be friendly to itself and a total nut job who didn't trust anyone wouldn't be allowed inthe group very long.. so all it would really take would be a couple of detect alignments followed by some fun alignment circle spells to not only determine their alignment but to show said individual that they were in /fact/ not goodly aligned. Now delusion is such that the guy would probably just assume they were joking with him or were otherwise wrong.. but handing the guy a weapon thats good only is a pretty effective way of showing what alignment someone really is regardless of their delusion.

    I think it would make for a great RP- but could be annoying at some point since alignment IS objective in D&D and since you can use spells and items to *prove* what someone's alignment is.. the refusal of a person to let their character see the light could turn an otherwise interesting RP into a running joke. Which may or may not be fun- depending on the tone of the group :)

    -S


    I'm far less concerned with halos. It happens a lot though.

    On nutters being allowed in, yeah some chars, they would never really be allowed in the group. I've heard some groups saying no more arrogant wizards after a while (the last few were all the same, and dangerous to the party) and seen parties break up in sandboxes over quite different aims and alignment views (CG ninja is horrified that N wizard roasted innocents).


    Selgard wrote:

    The human(oid) capacity for self-delusion is fairly extraordinary and I don't think anyone would have much issue convincing themselves that they are in fact /right/ if not out right /good/ for very nearly any action.

    If you go read through numerous alignment threads on these boards those facts bear out- people will rationalize *anything* in order to keep their golden halo status. "Its not evil because X, Y, Z". While those don't hold water in the rules sense they make perfect sense for any given character to *think* they are doing good.

    Alot of very vile and evil people in our real world think (or thought) that are/were good and are/were doing the best thing for the world and/or their society- despite that such good things involved the whole sale slaughter of relatively innocent peoples.
    It doesn't make them good to think it so- it just makes it *wrong*.

    The main problem though inside a gaming group however is that most groups are assumed to be friendly to itself and a total nut job who didn't trust anyone wouldn't be allowed inthe group very long.. so all it would really take would be a couple of detect alignments followed by some fun alignment circle spells to not only determine their alignment but to show said individual that they were in /fact/ not goodly aligned. Now delusion is such that the guy would probably just assume they were joking with him or were otherwise wrong.. but handing the guy a weapon thats good only is a pretty effective way of showing what alignment someone really is regardless of their delusion.

    I think it would make for a great RP- but could be annoying at some point since alignment IS objective in D&D and since you can use spells and items to *prove* what someone's alignment is.. the refusal of a person to let their character see the light could turn an otherwise interesting RP into a running joke. Which may or may not be fun- depending on the tone of the group :)

    -S

    Your suggestions on determining alignments reminds me of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's work and Socratic questioning. Good potential for an npc or two!


    Selgard wrote:

    The human(oid) capacity for self-delusion is fairly extraordinary and I don't think anyone would have much issue convincing themselves that they are in fact /right/ if not out right /good/ for very nearly any action.

    If you go read through numerous alignment threads on these boards those facts bear out- people will rationalize *anything* in order to keep their golden halo status. "Its not evil because X, Y, Z". While those don't hold water in the rules sense they make perfect sense for any given character to *think* they are doing good.

    Yeah, I've encountered my fair share of those. :D

    Selgard wrote:

    Alot of very vile and evil people in our real world think (or thought) that are/were good and are/were doing the best thing for the world and/or their society- despite that such good things involved the whole sale slaughter of relatively innocent peoples.

    It doesn't make them good to think it so- it just makes it *wrong*.

    The main problem though inside a gaming group however is that most groups are assumed to be friendly to itself and a total nut job who didn't trust anyone wouldn't be allowed inthe group very long.. so all it would really take would be a couple of detect alignments followed by some fun alignment circle spells to not only determine their alignment but to show said individual that they were in /fact/ not goodly aligned. Now delusion is such that the guy would probably just assume they were joking with him or were otherwise wrong.. but handing the guy a weapon thats good only is a pretty effective way of showing what alignment someone really is regardless of their delusion.

    I think it would make for a great RP- but could be annoying at some point since alignment IS objective in D&D and since you can use spells and items to *prove* what someone's alignment is.. the refusal of a person to let their character see the light could turn an otherwise interesting RP into a running joke. Which may or may not be fun- depending on the tone of the group :)

    In-group interaction is definitely not a problem, since it is supposed to be a villain. I just kind of hoped to make him in some way that he doesn't look completely crazy when he is encountered with overwhelming evidence that he is wrong. I linked Miko Miyazaki as a really bad example, but I guess now it simply can't be avoided. Either he is crazy and ignores the obvious or the concept doesn't work. Now I'm only stuck with the selection of classes. I guess most gods would react allergically to employing him. Good ones for obvious reasons, evil ones because Tieflings and his other victims are potentially useful. But I'm generally thinking about a houserule for my homebrew setting he could benefit from.


    Evil agents can also be in opposition to holy churches because of ethnic and regional differences. So what the cleric of one god says is not viewed as valid, because the followers of said god oppressed evil char and his people. LG becomes views as LE by such a char.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Indeed. The most common definition of such 'good' and 'evil' is the phrase: "You are either with us or against us!" Which roughly translates in sane-speak as "We're going to attack anyone who disagrees with us" and is generally a hallmark of evil.

    Shadow Lodge

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Scott Walsh wrote:
    The descriptions of alignment are pretty clear, there is no lying needed, they give you pretty defined definitions on how those types of people should behave if they are that alignment.
    Its not clear at all, its VERY blurry, especially for NPCs. How far does "I was just following orders" go with a Lawful neutral character before they go all the way to evil?

    I think they are unclear because they are concepts that exist outside of the characters themselves. They are guides for the palyer, no the character, which means character could belive they were CG while torturing children to find the big bad boss, but the players would clearly know he was CE. The characters are often, just like us in real life, ignorant of their true alignments. Players can play an evil caharcter who thinks he is LG but really is CE only because the character is not aware his or her alignment.

    Taldor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The point about paladins is that you cannot.compare pf paladins with butchers from the crusades who got called paladins.
    Pf paladins are supposed to be pillars of virtue and goodness. they are supposed to.be shinning examples for people to look up to. Their code specifically forbids them to perform evil or unlawful acts.
    That is why paladinhood is such an enormous burden. While a regular lawful good person might get away with shoplifting or doing something evil if the situation called for it, a paladin could not.


    I'd like to quote an antipaladin from the rival guide as an example of a way to do this. Quite clearly evil, and quite clearly believes he isn't:

    Quote:
    “Blood is a simple thing—one part water, one part life. It ties and it binds, but always it seeks freedom; freedom from this pathetic flesh. Don’t you love freedom? I am a patriot, you see, a partisan for those unable to speak for themselves. Do you not hear your blood crying out for freedom? I do, and I will answer its plea, but first I just want you to know why I do this. It’s only personal with those damnable elves. For you, this is your final step towards liberty. Come; let your blood run free at last.”

    Lantern Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Hama wrote:

    The point about paladins is that you cannot.compare pf paladins with butchers from the crusades who got called paladins.

    If I recall correctly Paladins refer to those heroes known as the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. Which include figues like Roland. They all end up dead due to the treachery of Ganelon, a name no doubt familiar to Zelazny fans.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm chaotic neutral; I don't have to lie to myself. I just do stuff because I want to.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    El Cid Vicious, AnarkoPaladin wrote:
    I'm chaotic neutral; I don't have to lie to myself. I just do stuff because I want to.

    If you do what you want, what happens if you want to believe you're Lawful Good?

    Qadira

    I have created a Paladin that has a few people shaking their heads.

    Basically, due to my own religious beliefs, I do not follow any "gods" nor do I use any "magic" (happyto use an alchemical health tonic and use the rules for CLW, but don't want any hoopy woogedy-woo magic).

    Now, below is the brief summary of my paladin's motivations. Please keep in mind that a Paladin does NOT have to follow a "god", they can follow an ideal.

    ***
    Teman Bo has seen the influence and suffering that religion, nationalism and magic has bought the world and thus he disdains them all, especially magic.

    Teman believes that the only constant force that all respect (whether through greed, influence or economic sanctions), is money and trade.

    By making Qadira the strongest faction, and amassing their influence and wealth, if managed correctly by "Good" people, it can bring a lasting and sustaining peace to the world.

    To that end, Teman is always keeping in mind the "Greater Good" of the world rather than the individual deeds that may seem out of place to a LG Paladin.
    ***

    I see him as a kind of "United Nations" Lawful Good.

    Yes the UN has made a multitude of blunders in the past, so no need to rehash them here, then again, every system of governance has their fair share of blunders. What is important is that the ideals of the UN, are Lawful Good.

    Some things he'll be asked to do may not seem "right" to him on a personal level, but he has Int and Wis of 7 and does not have access to the "big picture". Like any solider, you do as you are told and assume that those in command have a damn good reason for giving that order.


    I prefer to just make most of my characters Neutral Evil (which according to most "real life alignment tests" is my actual alignment) because I can just lie to EVERYONE ELSE about my alignment.

    NE is probably only slightly harder than LE to play in a party of good characters.

    LE is extremely easy to play as a hero. You could argue that several vigilante type super heroes were LN bordering on LE.

    Sort of like if Batman killed and tortured the criminals he caught.


    Fleshgrinder wrote:

    I prefer to just make most of my characters Neutral Evil (which according to most "real life alignment tests" is my actual alignment) because I can just lie to EVERYONE ELSE about my alignment.

    NE is probably only slightly harder than LE to play in a party of good characters.

    LE is extremely easy to play as a hero. You could argue that several vigilante type super heroes were LN bordering on LE.

    Sort of like if Batman killed and tortured the criminals he caught.

    The Punisher might be considered lawful evil, depending on how you look at him. The trouble, though, is that he himself continuously breaks the law in his pursuit of justice/vengeance as he understands it.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Breaking the law is not being chaotic, alignment wise.

    "Lawful" in alignment terms does not mean law-abiding, it means logical, codified and predictable. A lawful evil character plans and plots and schemes, he does everything with a plan and a clear idea in mind. He has no problem breaking laws along the way, as long as he doesn't get caught.

    Organised crime is a good example of lawful evil.

    Shadow Lodge

    The Forgotten wrote:
    An evil dragon is the same as a demon, it is a creature made out of evil lacking the free will to be good.

    Wait, what?

    Taldor

    Orthos wrote:
    The Forgotten wrote:
    An evil dragon is the same as a demon, it is a creature made out of evil lacking the free will to be good.
    Wait, what?

    I'm with him on this...what.

    Shadow Lodge

    Hama wrote:

    Pf paladins are supposed to be pillars of virtue and goodness. they are supposed to.be shinning examples for people to look up to. Their code specifically forbids them to perform evil or unlawful acts.

    That is why paladinhood is such an enormous burden. While a regular lawful good person might get away with shoplifting or doing something evil if the situation called for it, a paladin could not.

    This is a good point. Now replace "paladin" with "angel" and there's an easy solution for the OP: the villain believes he is "taking the fall" for the forces of good.

    He knows that wholesale slaughter of humanoids of tainted blood is against the nature of truly angelic creatures. His mortal side makes it possible for him to be the merciless sword of the forces of good, to perform a regrettable but necessary genocide of those who would other cause great evil by their very nature. At the same time, he (falsely) trusts his celestial heritage to prevent him from committing true evil in his crusade. He knows he is not a knight in shining armor, but he believes that by getting blood on his hands, he is performing the greatest sacrifice - not of his life, but of his purity.

    With a worldview like this, he could almost endlessly delude himself into believing that despite any (magically-detected, smiteable, etc) taint he has acquired he is doing the right thing, acting in the greater good. In fact, the fact that he has acquired this taint is part of the point. If celestial creatures try to convince him otherwise, it is because they must retain their purity. If good mortals try to convince him otherwise, it is because they are misguided and do not understand his noble purpose.

    It helps his argument that in most game worlds tieflings, etc are statistically responsible for much more evil than other humanoid races, regardless of the alignment of any individual. Utilitarianism might not apply perfectly in a world that does have moral absolutes, but together with the above justification it could be used to muddy the waters.

    This general theme has been used in other narratives to interesting effect. Off the top of my head, from the most heroic to most villainous:

    Harry Potter:
    One reason Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him, aside from the gambit with the Elder Wand, was to prevent Draco from committing such an evil act as murder.

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
    When Giles murders Glory's mortal vessel, it is because Buffy is "too good" to do what is necessary.

    Serenity:
    The Operative is a killer who believes he is creating a better world. However, he admits that there is no place in this perfect world for him, because of the acts he must commit to bring it to pass.

    Of course, you could also define "Absolute Good" in your world to mean "Smite Evil." Just because there's absolute morality in PF doesn't mean it has to match what we believe absolute morality ought to be.


    A hero willing to sacrifice his purity, to knowingly enter the pit for the greater good, that is a hero, not necessarily a delusional either.

    Evil agents needed to be feeding him tainted visions, ha! But even more amusing would be if the forces of good was pushing this little sucker along.

    In my setting one of the good gods has fallen pretty low, got quite totalitarian but still against the forces of darkness (and neutrality). Got a plan to fool and stay in power, prevent evil and individualistic humans from getting sway away from the gods.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    Well Shadrach would be seriously offended if you called him 'evil'.

    Spoiler:
    He was extremely lawful evil. He doesn't see himself as 'evil' Rather he'd describe himself as 'focused' 'goal oriented' 'playing the long game' etc. Being Greyhawk, his long game was godhood. This is the guy who healed a thieves guild (to put them in his debt) started an orphanage (to raise the first generation of his worshipers) saved the city from bombs (to better be the hero) and named his adventuring party "The Company of the Silver Dragon" clear to the point of buying everyone blue tunics with a silver dragon emblazoned on the chest. (It wasn't until he bought the cloak clasp with a silver dragon on it that the player of the silver wyrmling in the party realized that all this was making his character the perceived leader and target.)

    At the same time, his best friend in the party was the NG cleric of St. Cuthbert (GM keeps St. Cuthbert LG) because they never conflicted. He risked his life for an NPC rogue and a cleric of Zuoken, because they were put in danger working for him.

    He also used his contacts with the thieves guild to pay the other PC's butler to spy on them, and had about 8 different scams going to imprison/maim/kill/rob from PCs and NPCs who had wronged him. He killed a prisoner in cold blood because he would have 'slowed them down' and had an elaborate scheme to kill the CN rogue (who had stolen from the party) that would have worked if not for GM fiat. and it would have looked like he had done everything to save her.

    He also was trying to kill the wizard's familiar. Nothing personal, but the wizard was CN and had 'inherited' an undead raven as a familiar from a necromancer. He saw it as a destabalizing influence. Chaotic Neutral acting is hard enough to control. Chaotic evil would be something to be stomped out.

    Likely the two funniest moments were when the Wizard and Rogue players were expressing concern to the GM that Shad would take levels in Thrallherd (he was a psychic warrior). GM said "Why would he bother? you gave him an orphanage" If not that then when after the rogue's player died, we were talking about could have beens. The wizard's player admitted they were planning to blackmail Shad and Sela (the neutral good cleric). The GM and I then listed every plan Shad had in motion to neutralize their characters, including using the rogue's relationship with one of the crime lords to start a gang war, using the wizard's acution house to move illegal contraband, that he'd been the one to have the wizard's spell book destroyed (twice) etc etc. His reply? "We'd never have known what hit us."

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    3.5 Loyalist wrote:

    A hero willing to sacrifice his purity, to knowingly enter the pit for the greater good, that is a hero, not necessarily a delusional either.

    Evil agents needed to be feeding him tainted visions, ha! But even more amusing would be if the forces of good was pushing this little sucker along.

    That's what makes his "taking the fall" interesting! If we're working off an absolute morality where actions matter most and intentions are secondary, then genocide is evil and for attempting genocide this antagonist is evil. Any aspirations towards goodness are delusional.

    However, his intentions are noble in nature. In different circumstances - or in a world with a morality more similar to that found in the Crusades - the antagonist could easily be considered a hero. Therefore his delusions are reasonable, and the antagonist a sympathetic figure. Depending on the nature of the OP's game and the inclinations of his players, he could turn this into a very interesting exploration of morality.

    51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / How do you lie to yourself about your alignment.... 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.