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!

Is a Good character "turning a blind eye" to other party members' evil actions, evil?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 133 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: Stealing and Evil:

Stealing, as in "taking something that doesn't belong to you" is, I suppose inherently more Chaotic than Evil, though Evil can definitely come from it (like stealing medicine meant for a community suffering from Plague).

Robbery, on the other hand, where you put a blade to a man's throat or a Bow/Crossbow/Gun in their face, threatening them with violence (and definitely if you carry it out) and inflicting fear on a person is a lot closer to Evil. It could however be justified depending on your target.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SAMAS wrote:

Re: Stealing and Evil:

Stealing, as in "taking something that doesn't belong to you" is, I suppose inherently more Chaotic than Evil, though Evil can definitely come from it (like stealing medicine meant for a community suffering from Plague).

Robbery, on the other hand, where you put a blade to a man's throat or a Bow/Crossbow/Gun in their face, threatening them with violence (and definitely if you carry it out) and inflicting fear on a person is a lot closer to Evil. It could however be justified depending on your target.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we have a winner, ladies and gentlemen! This is what I was trying to say when I failed miserably earlier.

I'd say stealing in vacuum is chaotic. In the majority of situations it leans toward evil. In robbery's case, it leans heavily toward evil.

Mitigating circumstances apply.


toxicpie wrote:
Oh Hell. Now there's an air of, "help with the heist or we're not with you on your quest." D:

So it is, "Do this evil act or we won't help you with your quest of self interest." The answer really should be easy. You should be willing to give up your quest in order to prevent evil.

Call their bluff...

In character: "Fine. I will not help you rob innocent people. You will not help me with my quest, so I am leaving."

Out of character: "My character wanders off to complete his quest on his own. Campaign over. What do we want to do next?"

This is really not ideal, I realize. Is there really no other way to get money? Can't you convince them that there will be "more riches than they can imagine" if they help you with your quest? (May be a little white lie.)

It sounds like you are a cleric. Maybe try to find tales of some rich dude with a sick child. Seek them out, heal the kid and then ask him to finance a quest to bring more healing to the land. Note that I said you heal the kid first and then ask for money. Not that you demand money or you let the kid die.

Honestly I am wondering if your GM has any plan at all. Are there any adventure hooks? Or is he just saying, "Okay, you are here. What do you do?"


Charender wrote:
LazarX wrote:


It's discussions like these that convince me that alignment is something that should be confined to it's intended role as a game mechanic and not used to make simplistic statements about history, religion, or culture, especially cultures in which you have no experience or contact with.

Meh, I was just trying to create an example where ritual sacrifice COULD be considered objectively not evil by western standards. My disclaimer makes it pretty obvious that this is not really what the Aztecs were about...

But if you want me to put the logic together without the cultural baggage...
Assertion 1. Make a sacrifice, everyone gets to live for another week.
Assertion 2. Don't make a sacrifice, everyone dies within the hour.

If 2 happens, then the potential sacrifice dies along with everyone else.

So, the choice is sacrifice dies, and everyone else lives.
or
The potential sacrifice dies along with everyone else.

Either way, the person being sacrificed is going to die. The question is whether everyone else dies along with them. Logic and ethics dictate that given those 2 assertions, you should make a sacrifice.

The rest of the moral problem comes down to how you choose who to sacrifice, and whether or not assertion 2 is in fact true.

You are making a very big assumption that may be wrong. Your argument would be valid from an atheistic point of view. One person dead is better than everybody dead.

But, if you assume that there is an afterlife, and that good people go to the good place and evil people go to the bad place, then it is actually better to not commit the evil act of killing an innocent and just let everyone die. Which is better? A few people going to hell and the rest going to heaven? Or everyone going to heaven?

This is why it is possible for a Paladin to fight against evil even though he has no hope of winning and doing so will cause the destruction of an entire village. Did the Paladin cause everyone to die because he insisted on fighting the demon? Yes he did. But because he did they will at least all be going to the celestial planes instead of being doomed to suffer an eternity in the abyss.


Ah sorry, you misunderstand me. My quest is to resurrect my god's champion and ultimately defeat the Great Other, basically Satan but of ice, cold and death, to save the world forever and lead it in to a new age of peace and light. It's far from self-interest! ;D


toxicpie wrote:
Ah sorry, you misunderstand me. My quest is to resurrect my god's champion and ultimately defeat the Great Other, basically Satan but of ice, cold and death, to save the world forever and lead it in to a new age of peace and light. It's far from self-interest! ;D

So instead of saving the world from the Great Other, the other players think it is a good idea to mug random merchants. Or am I still missing something?

Maybe the money absolutely necessary to complete the quest? And if it is, aren't there other ways to raise money? No tales of bandits (other than yourselves) that need to be stopped? No slavers that can be defeated? No rampaging monsters with, perhaps, a lair full of treasure?

Basically the best that your group can come up with to make money is to resort to common highway robbery.


Lord Twig wrote:
toxicpie wrote:
Ah sorry, you misunderstand me. My quest is to resurrect my god's champion and ultimately defeat the Great Other, basically Satan but of ice, cold and death, to save the world forever and lead it in to a new age of peace and light. It's far from self-interest! ;D

So instead of saving the world from the Great Other, the other players think it is a good idea to mug random merchants. Or am I still missing something?

Maybe the money absolutely necessary to complete the quest? And if it is, aren't there other ways to raise money? No tales of bandits (other than yourselves) that need to be stopped? No slavers that can be defeated? No rampaging monsters with, perhaps, a lair full of treasure?

Basically the best that your group can come up with to make money is to resort to common highway robbery.

But they are rich. Which seemingly makes stealing from them moral.


Thing is they don't believe me, as they don't follow my religion...
That's precisely the problem. There IS other ways to raise money, and I think what they are doing is a terrible thing. The question is should I be doing everything in my power to stop them? It's the best they can seemingly come up with, despite my violent protestations to the contrary.


Lord Twig wrote:

You are making a very big assumption that may be wrong. Your argument would be valid from an atheistic point of view. One person dead is better than everybody dead.

But, if you assume that there is an afterlife, and that good people go to the good place and evil people go to the bad place, then it is actually better to not commit the evil act of killing an innocent and just let everyone die. Which is better? A few people going to hell and the rest going to heaven? Or everyone going to heaven?

This is why it is possible for a Paladin to fight against evil even though he has no hope of winning and doing so will cause the destruction of an entire village. Did the Paladin cause everyone to die because he insisted on fighting the demon? Yes he did. But because he did they will at least all be going to the celestial planes instead of being doomed to suffer an eternity in the abyss.

Sure, if you add assertions, then everything changes. There definately are assertions we can add(existence of the afterlife, uncertain about everyone actually dying, etc) that would change the final decision, but those assertions are not listed on purpose. Given the assertions I listed, and nothing else, the sacrifice is the correct moral choice.

Further, if a guy walks up to you on the street and says, "I put a bomb in that building over there, and it will blow up in 6 hours", then you have a reason to believe that people's lives might be in danger. Maybe the guy is lying, maybe he is blitzed out of his mind on drugs, but you have a moral duty to do something. You exact actions will be based on your assessment of the guy's credibility, but doing nothing is morally wrong. You don't have the option of waiting 7 hours to see if the guy was telling the truth before you act.

We have to act on the information at hand based on what we belief to be the truth. If I believe that "something bad" is about to happen, then I have a moral duty to act. My actions will be based on how certain I am about the "something bad" vs the lengths I have to go to to stop the "something bad", but no matter how you slice it I am morally culpable for my actions or lack there of.

Back to the problem at hand, the OP has solid, credible reasons to believe that something his character believes is wrong is going to happen. He has a moral obligation to act.


toxicpie wrote:

Thing is they don't believe me, as they don't follow my religion...

That's precisely the problem. There IS other ways to raise money, and I think what they are doing is a terrible thing. The question is should I be doing everything in my power to stop them? It's the best they can seemingly come up with, despite my violent protestations to the contrary.

So in this case I think you can say, in character: "You're a bunch of idiots. But since I have to work with you in order to save the world I will help you with your simple-minded plans to rob honest merchants... Provided that you do not kill any innocents and you promise to help on my quest as soon as it is done."

This might be one where "the Greater Good" can trump some minor evil. It also allows you to continue playing the game. You can remove the condescending insults if you wish, but if it were my character that is exactly how he would put it. ;-)


Lord Twig wrote:
toxicpie wrote:

Thing is they don't believe me, as they don't follow my religion...

That's precisely the problem. There IS other ways to raise money, and I think what they are doing is a terrible thing. The question is should I be doing everything in my power to stop them? It's the best they can seemingly come up with, despite my violent protestations to the contrary.

So in this case I think you can say, in character: "You're a bunch of idiots. But since I have to work with you in order to save the world I will help you with your simple-minded plans to rob honest merchants... Provided that you do not kill any innocents and you promise to help on my quest as soon as it is done."

This might be one where "the Greater Good" can trump some minor evil. It also allows you to continue playing the game. You can remove the condescending insults if you wish, but if it were my character that is exactly how he would put it. ;-)

I would probably also require atonement as well. Once the quest is done, anyone harmed for the greater good would get repayment with interest.


Charender wrote:

Sure, if you add assertions, then everything changes. There definately are assertions we can add(existence of the afterlife, uncertain about everyone actually dying, etc) that would change the final decision, but those assertions are not listed on purpose. Given the assertions I listed, and nothing else, the sacrifice is the correct moral choice.

Further, if a guy walks up to you on the street and says, "I put a bomb in that building over there, and it will blow up in 6 hours", then you have a reason to believe that people's lives might be in danger. Maybe the guy is lying, maybe he is blitzed out of his mind on drugs, but you have a moral duty to do something. You exact actions will be based on your assessment of the guy's credibility, but doing nothing is morally wrong. You don't have the option of waiting 7 hours to see if the guy was telling the truth before you act.

We have to act on the information at hand based on what we belief to be the truth. If I believe that "something bad" is about to happen, then I have a moral duty to act. My actions will be based on how certain I am about the "something bad" vs the lengths I have to go to to stop the "something bad", but no matter how you slice it I am morally culpable for my actions or lack there of.

Back to the problem at hand, the OP has solid, credible reasons to believe that something his character believes is wrong is going to happen. He has a moral obligation to act.

I basically agree with everything you have said. I just felt it was necessary to include the afterlife as it is a verifiable fact that it does exist in the Pathfinder universe. This fact would dramatically change peoples view of life and death. And it makes an objective view of Good and Evil more viable.


Lord Twig wrote:
toxicpie wrote:

Thing is they don't believe me, as they don't follow my religion...

That's precisely the problem. There IS other ways to raise money, and I think what they are doing is a terrible thing. The question is should I be doing everything in my power to stop them? It's the best they can seemingly come up with, despite my violent protestations to the contrary.

So in this case I think you can say, in character: "You're a bunch of idiots. But since I have to work with you in order to save the world I will help you with your simple-minded plans to rob honest merchants... Provided that you do not kill any innocents and you promise to help on my quest as soon as it is done."

This might be one where "the Greater Good" can trump some minor evil. It also allows you to continue playing the game. You can remove the condescending insults if you wish, but if it were my character that is exactly how he would put it. ;-)

Sounds good. If I can't dissuade them completely this is what I'll do. And don't worry, I shall be as scathingly rude as possible! ;D

@Charander: Fantastic idea, thank you. I think I'll also personally heal them myself (yep I am a cleric) and repay them double in whatever way I can think of.


But these are definitely last resorts. I think the GM is on my side as well, which will be a big help. I'll let you guys know on Saturday the result!
But please by all means continue the debate and discussion!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It sounds to me as if the rest of the party just isn't buying the GM's plot hook.

1) They offend the only divine caster in the world.
2) They are ignoring the quest he's asking them to go on.

In that case, it may well be advised that they simply... stop playing this game. Either the GM retires their current characters and the players roll up some new ones that will go along with the hook (possibly by taking out the robbers who've done so much wrong, lately), or the players metagame their way into choosing to follow the plot hook.

Or a new game entirely is started.

Let's do this, toxicpie.

Give us a list of their stated responses, goals, and ideas behind their actions. Tell us what they say. Then explain why they think that, if you can.

Can you give us more information on the plot and the set up of the world? We could give more useful, specific advice in that case, I'd say.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
toxicpie wrote:

Thing is they don't believe me, as they don't follow my religion...

That's precisely the problem. There IS other ways to raise money, and I think what they are doing is a terrible thing. The question is should I be doing everything in my power to stop them? It's the best they can seemingly come up with, despite my violent protestations to the contrary.

Quite frankly it sounds to me that you and the other players aren't signed up to play the same game. You're playing the game where Paul the Paladin saves the world, and your other players apparently want to play Harry the Highwayman. Perhaps you need to resolve this dissonance before this question can be answered.


toxicpie wrote:

I'd say yes. My group is basically me (NG) then the other four TN and CN. They have no qualms about hijacking wagons owned by merchants coming into the city, and they say "it's purely self-interest, so it's neutral, not evil." Whether this is correct or not, what would the answer to my first question be.

My character has extreme moral crises everytime we plan anything.

To answer your question: Turning a blind eye is a neutral act, not an evil one. This is also the case if your party-members take it up to eleven on the evil-o-meter. Not interceding is neutral, even if you have the means to stop them from hurting others.

However, with that said, do note that alot of GM's whom I've watched post on these boards, have little-to-no heed for the alignment system as written, and some I'm guessing haven't even read it. So I suggest you ask your GM, it could be that he is house-ruling alignments, and that in his campaign, you turning a blind eye could be evil.

Hope it helps

-Nearyn

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The trick is we're (Well, I'm not) not looking it from a 'Pathfinder Rulesbook' Definition of evil and good.

Indifference to evil is evil. I actually think this is one of the reasons that genuine neutral (NN) is such a pain in the ass to actually play.

The former pole-star from second edition of neutrality, were the Rilmani, outsiders who were Always Neutral and embodied the idea that Balance Must Be Maintained.

They encompassed this in a variety of ways.
The least amongst them were merely apathetic. The highest were chessmasters trying to play good and evil against one another to maintain a sort of cold war detente by force.

The trick that arises is that ultimately evil and good are greedy philosophies. Impeding good to 'preserve the balance,' is only an acceptable action if the 'balance' is a worthwhile thing to retain, otherwise you end up evil because well...you're killing people for an arbitrary reason. And if 'the balance' is the good, then how can good be good if its intriniscally an extremity away from it.

Similarly, how would we view a guy who constantly answered 'its not my problem' in the real world? Under a Randian view, he's perfectly justified as he's taken no action to harm or impede another. Under a more classic view he's a dirtburger ("Well of course I saw Kitty Genoevese being raped and murdered, but it wasn't my problem, so...")

I generally only view neutral as having a thick band when you're pushing to one of the ethical vs moral extremes (Law-Chaos as opposed to Good-Evil). There's very little space a neutral can occupy intentionally.

Now we tend to view the Neutrally aligned as those who aren't quite good or evil, the unaligned, the ones motivated just by their own desire and not out to kill people, but thats people who live in the territory. There's not a 'Neutral act,' in that regard except for the stuff like eating, existing, sleeping, cooking, etc (like the most common neutral creatures, animals do).

But animals aren't moral actors, and so the Neutral alignment of the unaligned is more due to a balancing act of good acts (no matter how inconsequential) with bad acts (not matter how inconsequential).

Letting people conduct evil actions and then condoning them, aiding them, or ignoring them and doing nothing about them (even if its an adominishment, or refusal to work with them) is not a 'Neutral' activity, its just the pathway a good character takes as he tumbles down to Neutral, and then tumbles further into evil.

Good isn't easy.


I view 'neutral' as like the Tao. The difference between it and good is that someone who believes they are acting for the 'good' tries to shape the world according to what they view as 'good'. Someone who believes they are acting for the 'neutrality' believes that any effort to shape the world (whether for good or not) is ultimately destructive.

A neutral person might call the cops to report Kitty Genoevese being raped. A good person might patrol the city or petition the government to create a bunch of anti-rape projects. A neutral person may believe that this stalking will make the city more dangerous and the government projects will not only fail, but cause more harm than good.


Justin Rocket wrote:

I view 'neutral' as like the Tao. The difference between it and good is that someone who believes they are acting for the 'good' tries to shape the world according to what they view as 'good'. Someone who believes they are acting for the 'neutrality' believes that any effort to shape the world (whether for good or not) is ultimately destructive.

A neutral person might call the cops to report Kitty Genoevese being raped. A good person might patrol the city or petition the government to create a bunch of anti-rape projects. A neutral person may believe that this stalking will make the city more dangerous and the government projects will not only fail, but cause more harm than good.

No, that is the difference between two difference forms of good. Good people disagree about which course of action will bring about the greatest good all the time.

The "neutral" person is still basing their actions on what they think will do the most good. If they were neutral, they wouldn't care about what is the most good(apathetically neutral), they would be actively working to balance their good acts with evil ones(actively neutral), or they lack the capacity to know good from evil(innocently neutral). Innocently neutral covers all animals and most children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:

I view 'neutral' as like the Tao. The difference between it and good is that someone who believes they are acting for the 'good' tries to shape the world according to what they view as 'good'. Someone who believes they are acting for the 'neutrality' believes that any effort to shape the world (whether for good or not) is ultimately destructive.

A neutral person might call the cops to report Kitty Genoevese being raped. A good person might patrol the city or petition the government to create a bunch of anti-rape projects. A neutral person may believe that this stalking will make the city more dangerous and the government projects will not only fail, but cause more harm than good.

No, that is the difference between two difference forms of good. Good people disagree about which course of action will bring about the greatest good all the time.

The "neutral" person is still basing their actions on what they think will do the most good. If they were actually neutral, they wouldn't care about what is the most good or they would be actively working to balance their good acts with evil ones.

A Lawful Evil character is doing what they think will cause the most good. They just define 'good' as crawling over everyone else in the hieracrchy through any means necessary (backstabbing, assassination, etc.) to get to the top and then controlling everyone under them with an iron fist.

In the same way, neutral characters do what they think will cause the most good, but they define 'good' differently.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:

I view 'neutral' as like the Tao. The difference between it and good is that someone who believes they are acting for the 'good' tries to shape the world according to what they view as 'good'. Someone who believes they are acting for the 'neutrality' believes that any effort to shape the world (whether for good or not) is ultimately destructive.

A neutral person might call the cops to report Kitty Genoevese being raped. A good person might patrol the city or petition the government to create a bunch of anti-rape projects. A neutral person may believe that this stalking will make the city more dangerous and the government projects will not only fail, but cause more harm than good.

The trick there is that definition allows for the guys who throw acid on the faces of women for being 'unchaste' to be classified as good since 'they believe they are acting for the good and trying to shape the world according to what they view as good.'

Even in the screwball morality of Pathfinder, they don't go along with the subjectivity trap of 'well I think its good, so it is.' They try to define it as alignment represents an objective system in pathfinder.

EDIT: The Rocket beat the ghost to that point! :)


Justin Rocket wrote:


A Lawful Evil character is doing what they think will cause the most good. They just define 'good' as crawling over everyone else in the hieracrchy through any means necessary (backstabbing, assassination, etc.) to get to the top and then controlling everyone under them with an iron fist.

That is subjective good. They are only thinking about what is good for themselves. Objective good uses a higher standard that just what is best for you. Objective good is about what is best for everyone.

Your "neutral" person thinks that it is best for everyone if they all stayed home and didn't play vigilantte.


Spook205 wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:

I view 'neutral' as like the Tao. The difference between it and good is that someone who believes they are acting for the 'good' tries to shape the world according to what they view as 'good'. Someone who believes they are acting for the 'neutrality' believes that any effort to shape the world (whether for good or not) is ultimately destructive.

A neutral person might call the cops to report Kitty Genoevese being raped. A good person might patrol the city or petition the government to create a bunch of anti-rape projects. A neutral person may believe that this stalking will make the city more dangerous and the government projects will not only fail, but cause more harm than good.

The trick there is that definition allows for the guys who throw acid on the faces of women for being 'unchaste' to be classified as good since 'they believe they are acting for the good and trying to shape the world according to what they view as good.'

Even in the screwball morality of Pathfinder, they don't go along with the subjectivity trap of 'well I think its good, so it is.' They try to define it as alignment represents an objective system in pathfinder.

EDIT: The Rocket beat the ghost to that point! :)

Please review my post just before this one. Does it change your understanding of my comment?


Charender wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:


A Lawful Evil character is doing what they think will cause the most good. They just define 'good' as crawling over everyone else in the hieracrchy through any means necessary (backstabbing, assassination, etc.) to get to the top and then controlling everyone under them with an iron fist.

That is subjective good. They are only thinking about what is good for themselves. Objective good uses a higher standard that just what is best for you. Objective good is about what is best for everyone.

Your "neutral" person thinks that it is best for everyone if they all stayed home and didn't play vigilantte.

Perhaps the Lawful Evil character acts the way I described, but feels his actions increase objective good? Is Doctor Doom Lawful Good?


Justin Rocket wrote:
Charender wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:


A Lawful Evil character is doing what they think will cause the most good. They just define 'good' as crawling over everyone else in the hieracrchy through any means necessary (backstabbing, assassination, etc.) to get to the top and then controlling everyone under them with an iron fist.

That is subjective good. They are only thinking about what is good for themselves. Objective good uses a higher standard that just what is best for you. Objective good is about what is best for everyone.

Your "neutral" person thinks that it is best for everyone if they all stayed home and didn't play vigilantte.

Perhaps the Lawful Evil character acts the way I described, but feels his actions increase objective good? Is Doctor Doom Lawful Good?

Only if you look at half of the equation. Good is doing the right thing for the right reasons.

A vicious murderer is not a good guy just because he happened to murder an even worse guy. He made have made the world a better place, but he was just selfishly satisfying his urge to kill.

Likewise, I can end all wars by killing everyone. Ending all wars may be a good and noble goal, but the method being employed to reach that goal isn't.

Your "neutral" guy is doing a neutral, possibly good depending on the situation, thing(Stay home and stay out of trouble) for objectively good reasons(what is best for everyone).

Your "good" guy is doing a good action(looking out for others) with possibly bad results depending on the situation for objectively good reasons.


Charender wrote:


Good is doing the right thing for the right reasons.

That is a completely useless definition which provides no help in gaming unless you can provide a definition/litmus test for "right reasons".

Until you can provide that, I believe the game is better off with a more useful description of the various alignments.


All of the alignment stuff aside, I think a priest of that faith would be a little more understanding of breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. I would have your GM clarify your vision of your need for them, perhaps its only until a certain point in time? Maybe you should help get them caught by the locals, then "bust them out" and go to greener pastures. Rat them out, alert the merchants so the haul is less. I bet converting a town full of merchants will help immensely with your power base with R'Hillor as another tactic.

As the only spellcaster also, you can hold out on healing to gain converts. The Power of R'Hillor only works on the faithful after all.

Banditry in that world will get you hung from a tree no matter how "good" you are if the Lord of the land shows up to sort things out, so your neck is as stretchable as anyone else's. Guilt by association. I am sure the merchants wont recognize the guy with the flaming sword, you dont stand out at all. In reference to the books, think about what happened to someone who fled The Wall, they got tracked down and wasted.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Charender wrote:


Good is doing the right thing for the right reasons.

That is a completely useless definition which provides no help in gaming unless you can provide a definition/litmus test for "right reasons".

Until you can provide that, I believe the game is better off with a more useful description of the various alignments.

I already did, but you glossed over it. Since you are being pedantic, let me be perfectly clear...

Being an objectively good person is about doing objectively good acts for objectively good reasons. The alignments given in the rule book are an attempt to define objective good and objective evil. You may disagree on a detail here and there, but overall they are fairly solid list of objectively good and objectively bad things.

Quote:
Perhaps the Lawful Evil character acts the way I described, but feels his actions increase objective good? Is Doctor Doom Lawful Good?

Your theoretically lawful evil strawman is doing objectively evil acts(enslavement, domination, torture, etc) for objectively good reasons(the good of all men). That makes him evil.


Charender wrote:


Being an objectively good person is about doing objectively good acts for objectively good reasons.

How does a player or GM know what is 'objectively good acts' or 'objectively good reasons'?

Andoran

Justin Rocket wrote:
Charender wrote:


Being an objectively good person is about doing objectively good acts for objectively good reasons.

How does a player or GM know what is 'objectively good acts' or 'objectively good reasons'?

They read the CRB


The black raven wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Charender wrote:


Being an objectively good person is about doing objectively good acts for objectively good reasons.

How does a player or GM know what is 'objectively good acts' or 'objectively good reasons'?

They read the CRB

Its not in the CRB. You know that, I believe.


Justin Rocket wrote:
The black raven wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Charender wrote:


Being an objectively good person is about doing objectively good acts for objectively good reasons.

How does a player or GM know what is 'objectively good acts' or 'objectively good reasons'?

They read the CRB
Its not in the CRB. You know that, I believe.

I suggest you look again.

Alignments

101 to 133 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is a Good character "turning a blind eye" to other party members' evil actions, evil? 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.