Nelith |
Terquem wrote:If there is no motivation to be heroic, how can you call it a heroic campaign? If you examine most fantasy literature, the hero becomes the hero because cicumstances dictate he or she make choices that set them on the path to becoming a hero. They do not wake up in a world that has "Hero" written over their beds.Because the premise of the game was that the players would play heroes. They agreed upon the premise and i explained that their characters had a strong desire to thwart sauron's plans whenever they could because of a mix of duty and personal grudges/reasons. I don't want to write a character's backstory for the player. I just give the skeleton and let them flesh them out.
Oh, and your players' definition of "heroes" might be slightly different from yours-which is not your fault. Your players might interpret hero as "someone with superpowers" instead of someone who protects the people.
Alitan |
Now, the behavior described in the OP is certainly NOT heroic... but there is a disconnect between heroism and alignment; the "default" assumption being that heroic=good-or-at-least-neutral.
It IS possible (I've done it, repeatedly) to be an evil hero. Someone who acts, purely out of pragmatic self-interest, in defense of a village, town, realm, etc. Who's methods include murder, blackmail, theft, etc., and who's response to opposition is crushing (if hidden) force.
Picture a would-be Guildmaster of a Guild of Thieves: he and his minions could easily be moved to remove threats to commerce such as orc raiders on a caravan trade route, because the raiders cut down on their profits. The merchants and citizens have no idea at the motivation: he must be a hero.
Likewise, a wizard with designs to rule over a region would likely clear out any sources of magical mayhem (that could not be subverted to become minions or allies) not because he cares about the citizenry, but because he doesn't want the competition.
"Heroism" is, largely, in the eye of the beholders; as long as an evil person keeps up public appearances and acts (again, out of self-interest) in support of civilization, there isn't any reason he could not be hailed as a hero by the people, even as he tightens his grip on the land.
Food for thought.
Darklord Morius |
I played with an chaotic evil fighter follower of Kord named Alexei "Dragonbane" Malkov :)
He had two dreams, be the strongest fighter of all, and the greatest hero.
He is in the pathfinderized Arshadalon saga, doing good and heroism in a gritty evil way!
He tortured duergars, one in front of the other to get information, lied about let them live (actually, the most helpfull of them he locked him up in a cell and trowed the key away).
His best friend, the Halfling Rogue named Bilbo Jeggins (this name is really fun if you are latin american). Was knocked uncounscious by an evil wizard that we should catch her alive to question, Alexei used this as an excuse to outright kill her while crying out loud BILBOOOOOO I`LL AVENGE THEE! He gladly payed a scroll of speak with dead.
The first adventure, the prequel of the Sunless Citadel. The groups cleric was the first to fall in the first battle, but he led the rest of the group and slaughtered all enemies of the first flour, with tactics, surprise strikes and cunning. They stop to rest, but, meanwhile, they trowed the mangled, sliced, burned and chopped corpses of the dead orcs to the second floor, to terrorize the orcs below, and when an orc appeared in the elevator shaft - were the pile of corpses were throwed he were sniped.
But he saved many gals and bearded dwarves, killed a dragon, and is happy!
Icyshadow |
Now, the behavior described in the OP is certainly NOT heroic... but there is a disconnect between heroism and alignment; the "default" assumption being that heroic=good-or-at-least-neutral.
It IS possible (I've done it, repeatedly) to be an evil hero. Someone who acts, purely out of pragmatic self-interest, in defense of a village, town, realm, etc. Who's methods include murder, blackmail, theft, etc., and who's response to opposition is crushing (if hidden) force.
Picture a would-be Guildmaster of a Guild of Thieves: he and his minions could easily be moved to remove threats to commerce such as orc raiders on a caravan trade route, because the raiders cut down on their profits. The merchants and citizens have no idea at the motivation: he must be a hero.
Likewise, a wizard with designs to rule over a region would likely clear out any sources of magical mayhem (that could not be subverted to become minions or allies) not because he cares about the citizenry, but because he doesn't want the competition.
"Heroism" is, largely, in the eye of the beholders; as long as an evil person keeps up public appearances and acts (again, out of self-interest) in support of civilization, there isn't any reason he could not be hailed as a hero by the people, even as he tightens his grip on the land.
Food for thought.
Sounds like you're describing an anti-hero / anti-villain, really. Either that, or Lex Luthor.
Darklord Morius |
Yeah he is a anti-hero, a villain even - but all that happens underground with no innocent viewers. The village needed to be saved, he saved the village, the dwarf needed his anvil back, he broght the anvil, the elves needed help, he helped the elves. To them, he is a hero - the gritty evil things he did were not witnessed. The truth was what he sayed. People saw him with a dragon skin, orcs and duergars head, an ilithid head and talked about the monster-slaying hero.
In history books of Greyhawk he will be acclaimed as a full fledged hero, like many heroes in real life we have.
Alitan |
Yeah he is a anti-hero, a villain even - but all that happens underground with no innocent viewers. The village needed to be saved, he saved the village, the dwarf needed his anvil back, he broght the anvil, the elves needed help, he helped the elves. To them, he is a hero - the gritty evil things he did were not witnessed. The truth was what he sayed. People saw him with a dragon skin, orcs and duergars head, an ilithid head and talked about the monster-slaying hero.
In history books of Greyhawk he will be acclaimed as a full fledged hero, like many heroes in real life we have.
^This
Exactly ^that
If I make few mistakes, I can blind the world to my evil empire. If I act the hero well-enough, there need be nothing in my comportment to irk the real heroes... that they can discover.
I want to be the evil mastermind who catspaws a secret, world-spanning, criminal organization. It should be, theoretically, possible to do enough good for the realm and keep the heroes happy while actually carving out my criminal turf.
Not that I don't like heroes. As long as they aren't jerk heroes. Most people aren't, when they're cheerfully doing well at the job they love.
This is why I like playing villains; it's easy to add to complexity of the game -- without making it complicated -- when your moral constraints give you an advantage compared to the heroes, but require finesse and secrecy to work on a long-term basis.
Nepherti |
That's why I always invest in a high Sense Motive.
Makes it easier to see through the deceit and win the day.
Even if the concept doesn't call for it? My pally has no sense motive because he takes people at their word. He's a bit dense and naive and very trusting. Having no ranks on sense motive keeps me from metagaming.
Alitan |
Further, my evil mastermind build includes max ranks and Skill Focus in Bluff... assuming similar Charisma/Wisdom match-ups, it's a dead heat on Sense Motive checks.
But why would you be Motive-Sensing the guy who brings you good intelligence on enemy forces, helps you trounce them, and isn't grabby about the loot?
O.O
>blinkblink<
[ANIME RULES: Big eyes; blinking: innocent.]
Judging by our disagreements on various threads, don't think we'd get along well at a table, so my evil mastermind build is kinda moot w/regards to your Sense Motive modifier.
But unless you were REALLY pushing it, I really don't think you'd have a good, in-character reason to suspect my PCBBEG for levels and levels of advancement.
Icyshadow |
Players don't roll Sense Motive and Bluff against one another unless you put up a houserule. I can simply decide that my character doesn't trust you and such, due to a bad vibe of some sort. We'd probably get along better in a villainous party, but you should be wary of the fact that my character could still backstab yours (or someone else's) when an opportunity for such arrives. They're Evil, after all, and it's all about serving one's self when you are Evil.
And just because I play a villain doesn't mean I can't be subtle about it.
EntrerisShadow |
Players don't roll Sense Motive and Bluff against one another unless you put up a houserule. I can simply decide that my character doesn't trust you and such, due to a bad vibe of some sort. We'd probably get along better in a villainous party, but you should be wary of the fact that my character could still backstab yours (or someone else's) when an opportunity for such arrives. They're Evil, after all, and it's all about serving one's self when you are Evil.
And just because I play a villain doesn't mean I can't be subtle about it.
We've always rolled Bluff checks. You might get bonuses are negatives depending on the believability of the lie and whether you're known to be untrustworthy, but Bluff is a pretty arbitrary mechanic. You believe or you don't.
What a person's character decides to do with that information is up to them, but they don't get to choose whether or not they were convinced by another player's words, same as if they were speaking with an NPC.
Now Diplomacy is one I would NEVER allow players to roll against one another. (Actually just had this debate between our party's Pally and Fighter.)
Darklord Morius |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my fighters case, he find no need to lie about his doing, he thinks duergars, drows and orcs are monsters, and he can vent all his cruelty in monsters. Humans can be monsters too, thinking about that, if they are against "heroism".
Of corse, he is fun, he is gentle, he have friends, loves parties - well he loves fight too, and more than once had been involved in a bar brawl, but, loosing or winning, is all sport. Except against monsters. For me, he is chaotic evil.
You pally with sense motive would sense no lies, and would have a hard time trying to defend orcs and drows to the people who suffered against them.
yellowdingo |
In my fighters case, he find no need to lie about his doing, he thinks duergars, drows and orcs are monsters, and he can vent all his cruelty in monsters. Humans can be monsters too, thinking about that, if they are against "heroism".
Of corse, he is fun, he is gentle, he have friends, loves parties - well he loves fight too, and more than once had been involved in a bar brawl, but, loosing or winning, is all sport. Except against monsters. For me, he is chaotic evil.
You pally with sense motive would sense no lies, and would have a hard time trying to defend orcs and drows to the people who suffered against them.
How does he go against half orcs and half drow? and really if a Drow is a monster so are elves, dwarves, and halflings...
Given an Ideal Paladin would believe in the sanctity of all life, it would be prudent to function purely as an enforcer of the law on all. If the villagers kill a Drow, you execute them for depriving a citizen of their right to life - the crime being Treason (Resisting Arrest under charge of Treason being the only mandate for the death penalty). The crimes of individual orcs and drow would be irrelevant to the rights of a particular individual - otherwise it would be lawful to slaughter villagers because they are citizens of a nation whose fellow citizens might commit murder against others.
As a Paladin I would feel obliged to put up a sign at the only way in to the village declaring all within guilty of Treason for their act of conspiracy to murder and execute anyone trying to leave for resisting arrest under charge of Treason.
"Devil's Advocate" |
I personally have gotten very tired of the anti-hero, "shades-of-grey" troupe a long time ago. I can't really remember the last time I had a game with actual heroes, or even the edition really. The alignment system (and specifically the alignment limits on some classes like Cleric) make it a very uneven and arbitrary paying field (that was one great thing about Eberron I wish woud catch on much more in all settings), that in the end, just causes most non-good alignments to be "I do whatever I want and my sheet says I have this Alignment".
I don't mind people playing Evil Characters. I don't mind people using "darker" powers or even tactics. I do mind them trying to hide behind a Neutral alignment, and using that as an excuse to either screw over the party (or a party member) or to skirt other rules of the game. Ususally it's very immature, though there are exceptions.
I also think that Neutral Alignments should either be affected by all Alignment effects fully (so a LN character would be fully affected by all Lawful, Good, and Evil abilities as if they where LG, LN, and LE), or be reserved for the insane, the uninteligent (Undead and Constructs), and animals, but that's just me.
VM mercenario |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darklord Morius wrote:In my fighters case, he find no need to lie about his doing, he thinks duergars, drows and orcs are monsters, and he can vent all his cruelty in monsters. Humans can be monsters too, thinking about that, if they are against "heroism".
Of corse, he is fun, he is gentle, he have friends, loves parties - well he loves fight too, and more than once had been involved in a bar brawl, but, loosing or winning, is all sport. Except against monsters. For me, he is chaotic evil.
You pally with sense motive would sense no lies, and would have a hard time trying to defend orcs and drows to the people who suffered against them.
How does he go against half orcs and half drow? and really if a Drow is a monster so are elves, dwarves, and halflings...
Given an Ideal Paladin would believe in the sanctity of all life, it would be prudent to function purely as an enforcer of the law on all. If the villagers kill a Drow, you execute them for depriving a citizen of their right to life - the crime being Treason (Resisting Arrest under charge of Treason being the only mandate for the death penalty). The crimes of individual orcs and drow would be irrelevant to the rights of a particular individual - otherwise it would be lawful to slaughter villagers because they are citizens of a nation whose fellow citizens might commit murder against others.
As a Paladin I would feel obliged to put up a sign at the only way in to the village declaring all within guilty of Treason for their act of conspiracy to murder and execute anyone trying to leave for resisting arrest under charge of Treason.
Your Ideal Paladin is actually Lawful Evil. Seriously, 'I protect the sancticity of all life... except the people that don't obey me, those guys I will kill' and 'the rights of individual orcs are separate from the crimes of other orcs but the crimes of a few villagers will mark the whole town as treasonus and I will murder anyone that tries to escape'. Real paladins would be chasing after that guy.
What an actual paladin in that situation should do is protect drwon and orc civilians, i.e. children, women, anyone that doesn't enter combat agaisnt the party. If the villagers want to genocide all the orcs/drows he would use diplomacy and make them remember they're supposed to be better than this and [insert name of god here] is watching them.Icyshadow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what if the party attacks anyway? Is he Evil if he ends up killing them in self-defense?
The way you'd want a Paladin to play out makes it nearly impossible to actually play one in most cases.
Golarion (and most other D&D settings) do not go by modern laws or morals. Death penalties were fine in the Middle Ages.
VM mercenario |
And what if the party attacks anyway? Is he Evil if he ends up killing them in self-defense?
The way you'd want a Paladin to play out makes it nearly impossible to actually play one in most cases.
Golarion (and most other D&D settings) do not go by modern laws or morals. Death penalties were fine in the Middle Ages.
Yes. Yes, it was. But slaughtering non combatants has always been considered a war crime. If the party, after defeating the orcs attacking the village, goes into the orc village and slaughters the orc women and orc children they are every bit as evil as the orcs were. Why can't your party play heroic characters?
And if you can't stop villagers weaker than the orcs you just killed, no matter what class you are, you are a failure at adventuring. Orcs are easy, but level one commoners give you trouble? That is just sad..."Devil's Advocate" |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion (and most other D&D settings) do not go by modern laws or morals. Death penalties were fine in the Middle Ages.
Yes. Yes, it was. But slaughtering non combatants has always been considered a war crime.
Not really. Some cultures developed codes among the elite warrior classes against this, but they generally pertained to single combat only and/or where more grounded in ideas of conserving strength than avoiding attacking non-combatants. Even today, there are a lot of groups that do not view this as evil or wrong, (and I'm not saying I agree), but it's a modern (and Western) idea that is far from common. In the game, I would say it is much more a Law/Chaos thing than Good/Evil, (though it can certainly be evil as well). Lawful societies might view it more along the lines of leaving resorces to either take later or to incorporate back once they have conquered, be more concerned with maintaining a sense of good-will after the fight, etc. . . while Chaotic groups might be mre of the mentality of personal survival first and pick up whatever pieces are left later, spreading their own notority/fame, and not leaving anyone that can kill you later.
The other thing is that Pathfinder has hardlined in that Draw ARE evil, (no Drizzts here) officially, and that Orcs are unofficially evil and brutal (typically rapig each other and others, slaughtering for fun, taking when they do not need, and torturing their victims, etc. . .). In both cases, even for their women and childred, exceptions are just that rare exceptions.
VM mercenario |
I would not accept Good aligned characters slaughtering Orc women and children*, if that's what you assumed my response meant.
* = Unless they were all hellbent on killing the party despite whatever attempts to redeem them, forge peace and attempt diplomacy.
I think we were talking about different things. I was trying to tell the dingo that not allowing the orcs to be slaughtered is good, but turning around and slaughtering the humans for wanting to slaughter the orcs is not only evil it is also hypocritical.
Then you said the party attacks any way and I didn't understand, attack who anyway? The humans they just saved, the orc noncombatants or the paladin? That is the part that confused me. Maybe you meant 'what if they attack the party anyway?', with they meaning the orc or drow? The word wasmissing so it confused me.If the orc woman and children are hellbent on attacking the party despite diplomacy and whatnot, they cease to be noncombatants. And they make their choice between peaceful coexistence and war so I would allow the paladin to kill them.
@Devils Advocate: But can you really kill people who aren't fighting or can't fight back and call it a good act? There may not be exceptions but how would you find out if you kill them all even when they aren't beign a threat? I take my paladin cues from the Book of Exalted Deeds and I think you should offer at least a chance for redemption. Killing children, even drow children, is something a paladin should avoid like the plague.
"Devil's Advocate" |
I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but the Book of Exalted Deeds is also specifically the best of the best for Good Alignments, and honestly shouldn't be held up as a standard. I can see some situtions where killing Orc/Drow/Teifling/baby Evil Dragon/etc. . . woman and children could be a good act, (generally in the least of two Goods sense), but I do not see this as common. In PF, Sarenrae and also Iomedae, the two most "exaltedish" deities both stipulate "redeemable evil" and make points to smite the crap out of other evil or those that do/can not change their ways, or when the need is too great.
Every Orc and Drow left alive will very likely go on to do more evil, raping, torturing, slaughtering, and bringing more evil into the world (summoning Demons/Devils, creating Undead), so it is reasonible to say that if that is what the player is trying to prevent, specially if they have experience with that, it would be a good act (again within the context of the game, killing Evil IS a Good act). Alignment is both absolute (even according to the Book of Exalted Deeds!) and also extremely arbitrary, honestly something I do not think that DM's can handle fairly. But that's neither here nor there.
Alitan |
DA, standing against and fighting evil is a good act. Killing evil unless that killing comes at the end of a reasonable effort at redemption remains, at best a neutral act.
If murdering the putatively-evil (that is, sentient beings without the evil subtype) is the First Resort, you're looking at neutral, not good, heroes.
Yeah, they are still heroes; killing off evil things to protect the helpless/defenseless masses is heroic, I grant you that.
But in the context of the game, killing sentient beings is part of the definition of evil. Using, "but they were all bad" as a defense of being good while killing everything evil within reach doesn't really work, imo. YMMV, obviously. But killing evil =/= good, it just = "not bad."
"Devil's Advocate" |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats how I would go to, but by the rules that is not right. In the same sense that raising the bodies of the dead to fight on and prevent even more of the faithful from coming to harm is an Evil act, by the rules, and no good Cleric (or Paladin) is able to do it, even with a good reason or intention. Its better to let a thousand innocents die than to create a single Undead (even if you destroy it right afterwards), because its an absolute system. That doesnt mean thats how I play/DM, Im just saying.
Like I said, arbitrary.
:)
3.5 Loyalist |
Icyshadow wrote:And what if the party attacks anyway? Is he Evil if he ends up killing them in self-defense?
The way you'd want a Paladin to play out makes it nearly impossible to actually play one in most cases.
Golarion (and most other D&D settings) do not go by modern laws or morals. Death penalties were fine in the Middle Ages.
Yes. Yes, it was. But slaughtering non combatants has always been considered a war crime. If the party, after defeating the orcs attacking the village, goes into the orc village and slaughters the orc women and orc children they are every bit as evil as the orcs were. Why can't your party play heroic characters?
And if you can't stop villagers weaker than the orcs you just killed, no matter what class you are, you are a failure at adventuring. Orcs are easy, but level one commoners give you trouble? That is just sad...
War crimes is historically a very new term. You will not find The Hague and its prosecution of war criminals all through history.
3.5 Loyalist |
Icyshadow wrote:I would not accept Good aligned characters slaughtering Orc women and children*, if that's what you assumed my response meant.
* = Unless they were all hellbent on killing the party despite whatever attempts to redeem them, forge peace and attempt diplomacy.
I think we were talking about different things. I was trying to tell the dingo that not allowing the orcs to be slaughtered is good, but turning around and slaughtering the humans for wanting to slaughter the orcs is not only evil it is also hypocritical.
Then you said the party attacks any way and I didn't understand, attack who anyway? The humans they just saved, the orc noncombatants or the paladin? That is the part that confused me. Maybe you meant 'what if they attack the party anyway?', with they meaning the orc or drow? The word wasmissing so it confused me.
If the orc woman and children are hellbent on attacking the party despite diplomacy and whatnot, they cease to be noncombatants. And they make their choice between peaceful coexistence and war so I would allow the paladin to kill them.@Devils Advocate: But can you really kill people who aren't fighting or can't fight back and call it a good act? There may not be exceptions but how would you find out if you kill them all even when they aren't beign a threat? I take my paladin cues from the Book of Exalted Deeds and I think you should offer at least a chance for redemption. Killing children, even drow children, is something a paladin should avoid like the plague.
On those "who aren't fighting or can't fight back", you are confusing good with honour.
There is nothing evil about killing a true black-hearted villain while he is sleeping. He isn't fighting and can't fight back.
Don't worry, this is a common mistake.
VM mercenario |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VM mercenario wrote:Icyshadow wrote:I would not accept Good aligned characters slaughtering Orc women and children*, if that's what you assumed my response meant.
* = Unless they were all hellbent on killing the party despite whatever attempts to redeem them, forge peace and attempt diplomacy.
I think we were talking about different things. I was trying to tell the dingo that not allowing the orcs to be slaughtered is good, but turning around and slaughtering the humans for wanting to slaughter the orcs is not only evil it is also hypocritical.
Then you said the party attacks any way and I didn't understand, attack who anyway? The humans they just saved, the orc noncombatants or the paladin? That is the part that confused me. Maybe you meant 'what if they attack the party anyway?', with they meaning the orc or drow? The word wasmissing so it confused me.
If the orc woman and children are hellbent on attacking the party despite diplomacy and whatnot, they cease to be noncombatants. And they make their choice between peaceful coexistence and war so I would allow the paladin to kill them.@Devils Advocate: But can you really kill people who aren't fighting or can't fight back and call it a good act? There may not be exceptions but how would you find out if you kill them all even when they aren't beign a threat? I take my paladin cues from the Book of Exalted Deeds and I think you should offer at least a chance for redemption. Killing children, even drow children, is something a paladin should avoid like the plague.
On those "who aren't fighting or can't fight back", you are confusing good with honour.
There is nothing evil about killing a true black-hearted villain while he is sleeping. He isn't fighting and can't fight back.
Don't worry, this is a common mistake.
It's not evil. But it's not good either. Neutral leaning good, I would say.
Not evil is not the same as good.Don't worry, this is a common mistake.
AaronOfBarbaria |
Oh jeez... here we go with another alignment fight.
For the record: killing a guy in his sleep, no matter the reason, is evil. That is the product of Pathfinder alignment being a set-in-stone thing - murder is evil, lying is evil, etc.
The "kicker" is that committing an act outside your alignment (in this example sleep murder) for reasons well within your alignment (in this case putting an end to the murder victim's villainous ways) is basically a "wash" - so long as the belief in your actions being necessary holds true.
That's how paladin's don't fall the instant that they are coerced into committing evil, but rather when they are no longer able to tell themselves that their path is true and righteous.
3.5 Loyalist |
:/
No, it is not evil.
If the ranger kills the marauding orcs in their sleep, he is not doing an evil act or going to become evil because he killed them in their sleep before they were ready and could draw their greataxes.
Kill a foe by winning initiative and offing them before they are really fighting you is also not evil.
Jeez, there is a difference between dishonourable and evil. Murdering evil in their sleep may lean to chaos ("I take them when I have the most advantage, this guy isn't going to trial") but it isn't evil.
Icyshadow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather be pragmatic and kill Evil foes before they do anyone harm, which is a Good thing to do since you are protecting others. The other option is of course "to be fair", or probably just sit there and let them do damage before you even raise a sword against them. Letting others come to harm over something as stupid as pride (I can't really equate that to honor so I'll call it what it is) is more Evil than saving lives, even though you'd probably get complaints from any Samurai in your group who isn't Good as well.
Of course, you could tell the Samurai that unless the enemy has an equal sense of honor (Orcs definitely don't), then it's fine.
Alitan |
:/
No, it is not evil.If the ranger kills the marauding orcs in their sleep, he is not doing an evil act or going to become evil because he killed them in their sleep before they were ready and could draw their greataxes.
Kill a foe by winning initiative and offing them before they are really fighting you is also not evil.
Jeez, there is a difference between dishonourable and evil. Murdering evil in their sleep may lean to chaos ("I take them when I have the most advantage, this guy isn't going to trial") but it isn't evil.
In my opinion, the way the rules are written, it's not the method, it's the act -- the murder -- that's the evil part: if your method is in their sleep, well. So what? It could be argued that a swift death is a merciful gesture. But it's only the window-dressing of the main thing, the snuffing out of a life. That the owner of that life was evil does not make imposing death not evil.
Is killing it/them better for the world/cosm/reality? Who knows? Is it better for the locals that aren't getting slaughtered as they sleep? Possibly. Even probably. Is it often possible that killing can often be accomplished, when capture and/or disabling are not? Yes, I think many circumstances exist in which you can destroy a thing you cannot otherwise defeat.
So, you can justify killing a lot. But that doesn't make killing a right, good thing. It remains horrible, not only for your victim, but for the damage you do your own soul in murdering. Violence is bad for you, because it's evil, and evil is insidious, and if you can continue to live with yourself while indulging in continuous murder no matter how noble the cause... you've fallen and become evil, because killing people is evil.
TL;DR? I may or may not agree with the rules as written, but the best you can do, with constant struggle to maintain, is a neutral alignment while constantly killing. Unless you're getting regular Atonements, and that would get expensive, not to mention the awkward "Didn't you come in here to Atone for a massacre last week? How many Atonements have you got here this year? Son, maybe you should come talk to somebody about the amount of killing you're doing, and why?" conversations with your faith's heirarch after a while...
Alitan |
If you honestly play Good as an alignment that way, then I'm not surprised that Evil tends to win out in your campaigns.
And apparently, if we go by how you interpret the rules, then Sarenrae is lying about her Neutral Good alignment to every other deity.
You're not making sense, there. I don't play good as an alignment that way because I don't play good as an alignment. I also don't play Golarion, just Pathfinder. So Sarenrae reference is lost on me.
Speaking on alignments simply out of the CRB, and applying the lawful bent of my usual, lawful/evil alignment... the way I read it is that you cannot make killing good. LESS evil? Sure, you can MITIGATE the stain of evil, but if your solution to evil is killing, you have slipped into a neutral alignment stance, and your continued action will, eventually, inevitably come to match your stance. Unless you get killed before you burn out the goodness in your soul with murder.
3.5 Loyalist |
I do not accept this pacifist stance Alitan. Violence is not bad for you, violence keeps a hunter fed, violence can protect people from crime, violence ensures the vile that are captured die at the chopping block. Violence can also be used for ill and not to protect others or used in self defence. Evil often needs to be driven out and killing is a lot of what dnd is about, the use of violence and violent spells against foes.
On murder, it isn't murder with all the implications that word has "you murdered those children you vile creature... you murdered that merchant for his coin you bandit!" if you are killing-off villains, monsters, the un-hinged and the mindless or truly dangerous undead. Rapacious trolls aren't upstanding people. Do what needs to be done.
Kill the monsters, save the day, make an area safe. Some of the basics of dnd.
As an example, a chaotic good character that keeps eliminating dangerous threats to the area they protect, will not become neutral or evil. The laws to them don't matter, but striving against evil does, as does protecting the frontier folk from the dangers of the forest of wailing. If they are not selfish, they aren't going neutral evil, if they aren't backing tyranny, they aren't going lawful evil, if they aren't killing the innocent, they aren't going chaotic evil. If they keep doing good and killing the nutbars and chompy monsters, they are not going to become neutral, unless they have a curious dm with pacifist ideas.
3.5 Loyalist |
Indeed, and as flawed as the violent solution can be, no matter how often it can be perverted towards evil purposes, an adventurer still has to use it or be killed by the dangerous environment. If you want to do good, there are plenty of options, maybe you try redemption of an evil foe. But the foe to be redeemed still has to be caught, disarmed and brought to listen, their mooks probably eliminated.
Another one comes to mind, goblins are roaming about causing havoc and attacking people. Mowing them down with bows and arrows isn't evil, it is what needs to be done to stop their rampaging.
3.5 Loyalist |
To add a tiny bit more, as a good char, you can have all the ideas in the world about helping people, relieving their burdens, charity, good governance, whatever, the goblins/orcs/ogres/big bad need to be driven back first. Killing them and making sure they can't come back is a good thing, it leads to other good things like safer lands.
The just and goodly lord has to kill off the bandits for the greater good (regardless of how put-out the bandits feel by this).
Slaunyeh |
There is nothing evil about killing a true black-hearted villain while he is sleeping. He isn't fighting and can't fight back.
If good isn't held to a higher standard than evil, then how is it good? Murder isn't 'good', no matter the circumstances. Genocide isn't 'good' just because "all those guys were evil" (and comes dangerously close to RL justification of the same).
If you want to use evil's tools to vanquish evil, then just accept that you're not a good guy and probably shouldn't rely on your paladin spells all that much.
Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the greater good. Lots of excellent stories have risen from that theme, and cheapening it by saying "anything done in the name of good is good" does a disservice to such a fantastic story hook.
IMHO.
Icyshadow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 Loyalist wrote:There is nothing evil about killing a true black-hearted villain while he is sleeping. He isn't fighting and can't fight back.If good isn't held to a higher standard than evil, then how is it good? Murder isn't 'good', no matter the circumstances. Genocide isn't 'good' just because "all those guys were evil" (and comes dangerously close to RL justification of the same).
If you want to use evil's tools to vanquish evil, then just accept that you're not a good guy and probably shouldn't rely on your paladin spells all that much.
Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the greater good. Lots of excellent stories have risen from that theme, and cheapening it by saying "anything done in the name of good is good" does a disservice to such a fantastic story hook.
IMHO.
I would rather not be held to a "higher standard" if said standard is "I am stupid and will let Evil win because I am not ready to stop it before it's too late", because that's basically what this apparent standard is. Not every villain can be redeemed. Some of them will use your "good" nature (read, stupidity and naivety) against you to do even more Evil stuff. If someone sets out to torture and kill as many as he can just because he can, is it not more Evil to let him live than to kill him and spare everyone else from his torment?
Batman might hold on to his "standards" like a stubborn idiot, but it's making him less of a hero each time Joker manages to kill another innocent. Giving someone one or two chances to redeem themselves is of course what a Paladin should do, but if the villain refuses to see the light then he should send that soul to the afterlife. Also, if killing some villain in their sleep will stop him from causing any more destruction, it's not an Evil deed. If he had a chance to do more harm awake, it might even lean towards Good if he was a total monster.
Slaunyeh |
I would rather not be held to a "higher standard" if said standard is "I am stupid and will let Evil win because I am not ready to stop it before it's too late"
And that's perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to play a good character. But if you twist 'good' into 'whatever I feel is right' you're just not playing good. Plain and simple. Odds are you're not that different from the 'irredeemable evil' you're after.
Dragonstar had the 'principle of active morality' that I rather liked. Just because someone ping evil on your detect evil isn't a carte blanche to just walk up and murder them. Not without being a murderous bastard, anyway. Which, again, is fine if you realize that's what you're playing. Not if you think you're playing a LG paladin.
(And the 'murderous bastard for the greater good' archetype works so much better in Dark Heresy :p)
Icyshadow |
You're twisting my view on Good to the cliche Lawful Stupid Paladin Murderhobo shtick, which I do not support.
Please re-read my post above you. If I am not playing a Good character, then Good is unplayable in a game like D&D.
The version of Good you want to play will probably end up killed very fast, probably out of their own stupidity and naivety.
Also, I never told you how I play a Paladin, hence why I expect you to take back that insulting assumption you just made of my gaming style here.
3.5 Loyalist |
The higher standard is you kill evil to prevent it from continually doing evil.
Thus it is dead, and the problems it can cause in the setting are over.
Unless they come back as vengeful undead... then kill them again... and ensure they don't come back.
Using your weapons and spells to kill evil, is not using evil's tools. If you are a good character, they are the tools of good defeating evil.
--
I agree bigkilla, I think I am being alignment trolled, and I do not use the troll label lightly.