Exactly. Good is always harder and more challenging than evil, or simply selfish neutrality... some players aren't up to the challenge, so they play neutrals. A cavalier who joins a good-aligned order has to do the hard work involved in living up to a code of good morality.
Good will always triumph over evil. Because good, is dumb.
Anyways, sometimes good is the easy way, sometimes evil is the hard. Black and white statements tend to forget shades of gray and that circumstances change things radically.
|
There are situations in which I think it would be perfectly fine for a CG character to finish off unconscious enemies, and I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between CdG and leaving someone to bleed out. A character who truly cares about life does not see a difference between "I killed this person" and "my inaction directly led to this person's death."
However, this was not a situation in which killing the unconscious attackers would be a CG-aligned act. Drachasor put it very well. CG might not care about formal trials but it definitely wants to make sure that it only kills people who deserve death, and people who were tricked or magically or nonmagically coerced into attacking the PCs don't deserve death.
Well I guess that's where things break down. It looks to me like people are trying to find a way to use the rules to punish a character for being a dick. If a GM want's to slap down a player for being a dick he should. But he should say exactly why he's doing it, not pretend it has something to do with the rules.
This isn't about punishing the player, it's about setting a tone for a game. Are NPCs, including the Cavlier's superiors, going to approve of his action? What about his deity, or good-aligned outsiders? What does Detect Alignment tell people in this world - can people (PCs or NPCs) assume that someone who detects as good is going to show mercy? A world in which individuals with certain identifiers such as membership in the Order of the Sword or CG alignment are generally expected to execute anyone who appears to attack them unprovoked is very different than a world in which such an individual is generally expected to stay their hand.
The OP earlier posted that the Order indicated its displeasure to the Cavalier, which seems perfectly appropriate in terms of setting expectations without punitively stripping a character's powers or changing alignment without warning.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment-systems sucks...
I *love* the alignment system, and think it's one of the best core features of the game at fostering actual roleplaying (as indeed happened, per OP). I actually prefer the wording in 3.5 PHB over the bit-more-watered version in Pathfinder CRB.
The alignment-systems sucks...I *love* the alignment system, and think it's one of the best core features of the game at fostering actual roleplaying (as indeed happened, per OP). I actually prefer the wording in 3.5 PHB over the bit-more-watered version in Pathfinder CRB.
How does it foster role-play? It looks like its making people question your decisions or making decisions for you. That doesn't sound like fostering role-play to me.
How does it foster role-play? It looks like its making people question your decisions or making decisions for you. That doesn't sound like fostering role-play to me.The alignment-systems sucks...I *love* the alignment system, and think it's one of the best core features of the game at fostering actual roleplaying (as indeed happened, per OP). I actually prefer the wording in 3.5 PHB over the bit-more-watered version in Pathfinder CRB.It forces players to define an actual persona for their characters--one with specific ideals, opinions, and beliefs that have to be played consistently from one session to the next. This frustrates the opportunistic/pragmatist players who just want to do whatever is mechanically most efficient and helps them 'win' most often... that is to say, it forces them to roleplay.
The better players will recognize that roleplay is an improvement over munchkin-style min-maxing... and the bad ones will get fed up and go away. Everybody wins.
I disagree completely. the alignment system is really only benefit is to aid new players. It acts as a guidline for people who can't tap into a characters motives and believes and helps sell the premise that one should really care about the world and the NPCs. In the hands of experienced roleplayers the alignment system is completely irrelevant, as real people don't really think in the framework of the alignment system, they have their own idea of right and wrong. A well fleshed character shouldn't be build lockstep with an alignemt, or else there would only be nine kinds of people in the world.
In the end the alignment system does nothing to address power playing one way or the other. Your free to choose the alignment you want. (In most cases at least.)
Alignment is inherently important to Pathfinder characters because the system is balanced with those definitions in mind. Paladins only really make sense with it rather than modern interpretations of what good/evil and law/chaos are. If evil is what it is and good is what it is as in the CRB then LOTS of things suddenly make much more sense about some of the design choices in the APs, classes, etc. I've seen a lot of "good" character that didn't make sense because they were actually neutral and neutral characters that were actually evil according to the book. These can also impact other mechanical choices you make for the character and how other systems treat you as well. Alignment per the CRB should not be ignored as a roleplaying only gimmick.
It forces players to define an actual persona for their characters--one with specific ideals, opinions, and beliefs that have to be played consistently from one session to the next.
Okay, is that really a good thing to force it though? Its also not the only deciding factor, and it can break down in the case of characters who are 3 dimensional. What makes me create a persona is that I want to role-play a particular character, nothing to do with alignment. Alignment is okay for new players and suggestions, but not as restrictions I don't think.
The better players will recognize that roleplay is an improvement over munchkin-style min-maxing... and the bad ones will get fed up and go away. Everybody wins.
The guy with the Alignment as a straightjacket group didn't win.
I've seen a lot of "good" character that didn't make sense because they were actually neutral and neutral characters that were actually evil according to the book.
Isn't it possible your just enforcing your opinion of what is and that's why certain characters don't make sense. They probably made sense to the author at the time.
But the real question is, would we be having this argument if these would be murderers were simply mind controlled mercenaries, Milo? Or if they were another town's guards that had been mind controlled?
Better yet, what if these were farmers and villagers on their way out to defeat the bandits themselves? Your PCs show up and everyone thinks YOU are the bandits and attack. Clearly your group has a right to defend itself, BUT murdering someone for trying to defend their home... NOT good at all.
Since no one asked any questions this very plausible scenario could be exactly the case.
I would point out that protagonist-centered morality is not uncommon in stories. It isn't too hard to find examples of where someone is claimed to be good despite anything they might do. Probably more common than stories where this isn't the case (but in part this is because most stories are trash).I've seen a lot of "good" character that didn't make sense because they were actually neutral and neutral characters that were actually evil according to the book.Isn't it possible your just enforcing your opinion of what is and that's why certain characters don't make sense. They probably made sense to the author at the time.
Just because they outwardly roleplay a character a certain way doesn't change their actual alignment. You can be the proverbial "I'm helping my people" brand Hitler but still be evil as all hell. As I said, it also matters mechanically. If you're an evil master manipulator passing yourself off as good but suddenly your mojo or whatever doesn't work on someone with protection from evil that raises questions and it should. It could also very well spark some additional roleplay amongst the party. The alignment system in Pathfinder is objective and not subjective.
I've seen a lot of "good" character that didn't make sense because they were actually neutral and neutral characters that were actually evil according to the book.Isn't it possible your just enforcing your opinion of what is and that's why certain characters don't make sense. They probably made sense to the author at the time.
As I said, alignment in Pathfinder is objective. This is the assumption the game and various resource material makes when it talks about good, evil and neutral people. If what you're doing generally fits more in a different alignment than what you have written down they you should talk about an alignment shift with your GM.
The alignment system in Pathfinder is objective and not subjective.
Its objective in that you have an alignment you write on your sheet, its subjective in that everyone has a different idea of what alignment their character is. Morality is pretty subjective.
Edit: Your argument isn't "I know morality better than you!" is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is that the CRB prescribes the morality for us. Like all the other rules and systems, its the common contract and understanding the game is made with.
My argument is that the CRB prescribes the morality for us. Like all the other rules and systems, its the common contract and understanding the game is made with.
Its still vague enough people argue about it and think it makes decisions for you though. Otherwise we would never have threads about alignment. That's sort of what I was getting at with the "I know morality better than you!" argument. That's what it can turn into. Edit: Perhaps I should say "I know alignment better than you!" instead.
What I do with alignment questions is take the situation and compare it and make a mental list of what it most applies to for the 9 alignments. The one it most resembles is the winner. Don't try to put in anymore gray than what needs to be there. If you killed someone to get somewhere more quickly then you killed them out of convenience and that's evil. You need to call situations what they are rather than trying to apply today's pseudomorality into it where what's evil to one person can be good to another.
Take the acts largely removed from intent and compare them that way. Intent and context can play into it but really only as a tiebreaker if something isn't squarely in one bucket or another and then only really as much as necessary to narrow it down into one alignment. More detail than that obfuscates the situation beyond what the system cares about.
Keep in mind the afterlife in Pathfinder is a known quantity. It's basically down to a science. You can know what kind of demon someone will become based on their sins. You know which area of heaven another will go to based on how they let their goodness show. It's that specific. We don't have that luxury so to try to take our own views and superimpose them on the system throws things far out of whack.
I kinda disagree with this premise. While I certainly grant that the afterlife is more or less understood, it also clear that the Gods themselves are fallable. Each of them have their own idea of what is right and wrong, and argue with each other as much as mortals argue amongst themselves.
I like games that have a mechanic specifically to reward heroic acts and punish evil ones. Marvel Superheroes had "karma;" 7th Sea has drama dice. Anything that systemically promotes and encourages heroism rather than being morally 'blank' gets a +1 in my estimation.
That's one reason I like official PFS games so much--because evil characters and PVP are specifically forbidden,
but season 4 gives you boons for being a bad guy... The pvp is necessary for the organized play setting. Its not an awful house rule for group cohesion either.
The game doesn't mechanically reward you for being a good guy. Evil can do more to hurt you if your good than evil in some cases, and vice versa. Neutral is the power gaming alignment. The rewards come from your GM at the table level, which means you don't even need alignment. Its just consequences for your actions.
You can be a bad guy without being evil. Highwaymen and bandits are neutral per paizos own materials as I quoted. They steal and plunder and maybe frighten their victims but they generally don't target the poor (innocents) and generally have a purpose. That's not to say they're all Robin Hood personalities. They probably do it out of practicality more often, but pathfinder alignment is based on how you generally act. They don't subsist on killing and oppressing people who can't defend themselves. Those are the hallmarks of evil in pathfinder.
They do subsist on oppressing people who can't defend themselves. That's how they make money.
Bandits go after merchants and the like. People with something to steal valuable enough to be worth their time. These people can very often defend themselves in the Golarion campaign setting.
The seedier parts of criminality IRL exist because often times society allows it to. In America in the south throughout the early and mid 20th century racial crimes against blacks were something of a norm. That was a contemporary mentality then by many white communities and so it persisted. The reason why prohibition was useless was because society wanted booze.
Those who steal are often the destitute taking from those more well to do than themselves, not less. The point is if they actively were targeting the poor, homeless, etc then mobs would form to carry out street justice. The lower class has always outnumbered those above it. Given the rule of crits in pathfinder a mob with rocks is frightening to normal human characters and the problem would be gone quickly.
The reason the aristocracy arose in the first place was some learned to either placate other people so they didn't feel cheated or they were able to amass numbers on their side so those that weren't on their side couldn't really do much about it. Bandits are basically just aspiring aristocrats who lack social grace to do this. When bandits are able to do this we have revolutions and the bandits become the new aristocracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Buri: No. They often go after the easiest target NOT the richest one. So frequently farmers and the like get the brunt of the attacks because they have stuff that is valuable and little if any means to protect it. Also, crimes against blacks weren't the norm... However those crimes that did get committed were often not investigated by racist law enforcement. The poorest people get robbed all the time by criminals no mobs form. Why? Because most people don't care about those people. While richer areas right next to the high crime poor areas have very little crime. These same criminals could score far more valuables by hitting the rich areas, BUT they know police will take such crime far more seriously and they don't want the hassle when the poor person can be robbed for less but the police won't care. The same would apply to fantasy crime, why hit a rich merchant who will hire guards and even adventurers to hunt you down when you could prey on poor villagers and get no armed response?
The first aristocrats were not bandits, they were merchants. While some aristocrats came from bandits, certainly not all did, I would even doubt most did.