It's borderline questionable, but it really depends on the context (what the information is, used for, who it's sold to, etc.). It's definitely not enough to automatically turn your PC evil though, which would depend heavily on other things the character does. Neutral is a balance between good and evil, and will do both things at times.
I'm more drawn to the lawful aspect. This definitely doesn't seem lawful to me.
More specifically it doesn't seem lawful good or lawful neutral, it could very well be lawful evil.
So, what happens when a magically inclined member of the watch wonders about the popularity of these pastries and casts detect magic on one?Depends... is it against the law to use magic in your baking? Quite frankly in a magical fantasy world that probably falls under the '11 secret herbs and spices' category.
My 2cp.... I don't think this ACTION is evil, so much as what he DOES with it.
Charm spells arent' inherently evil... Gathering information isn't inherently evil...
Running a massive spy ring and blackmailing innocent people? Definitely evil. Getting the password to the local thieves guild and clearing them out for the town guard?? less so.
so THAT'S why when KFC changed hands to taco bell it started to suck, they fired all the wizards!
I see some metagame problem here:
If one pc earns lots of money on the side without really doing much for it that can cause trouble. Maybe the paladin player just argues for an alignment change because he dislikes your pc being handed free loads of money.
Often times devious plots like yours get rewarded while doing god things for the community are not. With the power magic wielding pcs have it is easy to disrupt economy in a way that is beneficial for you. But should that be done?
For example one could buy a chicken farm, spread some epizootic disease that affects chickens and cure/protect his own stock. After some time his farm would be the only one still producing eggs and the price would skyrocket. Not as complex as the OPs plot but given some time you can easily find many things to earn money on the side through spells.
GMs should be wary of this and think twice before allowing a passive money flow towards one pc.
|
I see some metagame problem here:
If one pc earns lots of money on the side without really doing much for it that can cause trouble. Maybe the paladin player just argues for an alignment change because he dislikes your pc being handed free loads of money.
Often times devious plots like yours get rewarded while doing god things for the community are not. With the power magic wielding pcs have it is easy to disrupt economy in a way that is beneficial for you. But should that be done?For example one could buy a chicken farm, spread some epizootic disease that affects chickens and cure/protect his own stock. After some time his farm would be the only one still producing eggs and the price would skyrocket. Not as complex as the OPs plot but given some time you can easily find many things to earn money on the side through spells.
GMs should be wary of this and think twice before allowing a passive money flow towards one pc.
I ran an undead pyramid scheme in one campaign. You'd be surprised how profitable create undead becomes if you crank out an army of juju zombies, the ability to permanently erase someone's memories, and lots of high social skills. Kept the mindless ones constantly cranking out the goods, kept the juju zombies luring more people in to become juju zombies and in turn expand the operation. Before long I had some juju zombie necromancers making more mindless undead on their own HD, making more juju zombies, and otherwise just exploding productivity. Meanwhile my character used all those funds to attain lichdom, and began the ascent to godhood shortly thereafter; there is no power in the land greater than that of money. Was the party paladin pissed? He sure was! Especially out of character, but in-character there was nothing he could do about it. This all practically sprang up overnight due to months of planning. He used his leadership feat to gather up a lot of followers and oppose; they failed. All of them joined "the family." The juju zombie antipaladin 14 "recruit" I gained out of the deal was quite nice. >)
This here is a good example of what can happen if you start letting wealth get out of control. Besides that, it's already really easy to exploit the system once you bring social skills and magic into it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.
You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
The person playing the evil PC is not automatically at fault. Contrary to popular belief, priority does not immediately default to the "good guy." Besides, we don't really know if the OP's character even deserves an alignment drop or not; insufficient information. In any case, why is the person whose character is doing questionable things automatically at fault? The presence of a paladin doesn't mean the entire party is filled with lawful stupid, after all. Nor does the fact that they're playing a paladin entitle them to preferential treatment, though sadly, many GMs provide that to those individuals anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, what you're doing is Neutral but any more evil stuff would see you croissant that line.
Nobody is discussing game term mechanics of addiction, they are discussing ethics of the English definition of it.
If you can't stop the craving of your own free will and persist in it against other rational factors, that's also addiction, game mechanic or no.
That said, the magical craving suggestion seems superfluous to the OP's tactic.
It would work better (more detect magic-proof) if every item wasn't Suggestion-ified,
and he just relied on a high quality product from ingredients and skill to sell the product.
The OP's general description doesn't sound like he's going for anything more than something akin to magical MSG.
If I started selling nicotine (for a relatively harmless addiction) and sodium pentathol (for loose lips) brownies to people without telling them what was in them, I'd go to jail.
You'd go to jail because it's an unlawful act, not because it's an evil act. Yes, many laws are in place to rule out evil actions but that is not universally true, and much less so in a medieval setting.
If I started lacing people's drinks to make them more talkative than they thought they would get, that's clearly wrong.
There's wrong, and there's wrong. Again this is a fantasy setting and that absolutely has to be taken into consideration. If a bar start spiking their mead with rum without telling anyone and the patrons enjoy it and keep coming back for more, that's not particularly wrong. It's assumed that a bar will make their products potent and enjoyable. There's tacit consent to accept product that is made as appealing as the supplier can make it. So too with our sweets.
That guy who promised his wife he'd cut back on sweets is now betraying that promise, not because he's weak willed, but because you forced him.
Not to be pedantic, but I'd suggest that a} the moment he bought the sweets he'd already committed to the path of violating his promise and b} by definition it is absolutely because he's weak-willed as I guarantee there's a Will save involved here somewhere. It's a question of how tempting you've made your product. And again, it's assumed that a bakery will make GOOD stuff. When you stick it in your mouth, you risk actually liking it. A lot. Magically enhanced or not.
(And it might not be as 'trivial' as losing weight: perhaps the local barber-dentist has had to pull a few too many of his teeth, or even though he's not 'poor', he's trying to do the equivalent of cutting the latte habit and save a few coppers a day to save for the future.)
Oh sure, yes, at the micro level of the individual patron there may be consequence. In our scenario it's a certainty that someone is spending a copper on a bun that they would otherwise have spent on getting their socks darned. Again I play the devil's advocate and point out that the customer took the risk when they stepped in the shop and bought the first pastry. Pastries being luxury items that suggests - but admittedly does not prove - that they are not borderline destitute.
F!&+ing with others' free will for fun and profit is exactly what LE does. (You say you're not making money, but information is valuable too.)
Hmmm. You take that up with the real-world advertising industry. They expend massive effort convincing the public to buy product that they otherwise wouldn't. Low-income families all seem to have cable TV, and cell phones, and wherever possible iPads. That's money that could have been - should have been - better spent, perhaps on educational materials. But no, the advertisers put a shiny layer of shellack - literally - over their pictures of burgers so they look that much more mouth-watering. They give us images of sexy people driving cars we can barely afford, and show us exciting scenes that suggest if we drink their brew we'll have an adventurous and exotic life. We are absolutely, positively F!&+ed with by that industry, with tonnes of mathematics, sociology and psychology behind it. You aren't aware of how manipulated you are... they're that good. And yet. Legal. And largely not considered evil.
Some people are commenting to the effect of 'You magnificent bastard, I wish I'd thought of that'. Magnificent Bastards are often LE.
Well, yeah, it's a get-rich-quick-and-cleanly scheme. Doesn't make it evil.
Your justification seems to be 'I don't see myself as a bad person, how can I be evil?' Evil people never think they're bad people. They think they're clever people. Or 'special' people. The hero of their own story. Only poorly written cartoons eat a basket of puppies just to prove their evil cred.
You know, Good people don't think they're evil either.
TL;DR: If you have to explain why it isn't Evil, it's usually Evil. If you are hurting others for your own gain, that is the definition of Evil.
You know that by being North American and having the goodies you have, from the food you eat to the clothes you wear, you are consuming resources that in fairness should be shared worldwide and other people - statistically - are suffering for your benefit, right? Every time we buy a Paizo product we are hurting someone. Oh sure, some people in the East are benefiting... the folks at the print shop for instance, but that paper pulp doesn't always come from a renewable source. And that ink may have toxic chemical byproducts when created. And, and, and. It's complicated. And some evil is... just the way it is.
In the animal kingdom the strong eats the weak. That's not evil. And the OP isn't even eating his customers. The loss is literally a matter of coppers.
TL;DR: It's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Intention plays a HUGE role in judging this kind of thing and the OP isn't out to hurt anyone.
At this point it isn't so much a question of whether it's evil as whether or not he should get an alignment infraction. Part of his proceeds are going towards charity, and many of the pastries made are going to the poor and homeless. Seems like the kind of thing that would pretty much nullify the other, resulting in no alignment change at all.
Donating to charity is a wonderful front for shady business.
Not saying the OP's just doing that as a front, but if that happened to be the reasoning behind the charity, I'd say it doesn't outweigh anything.
Sure, but it's the GM's call as to Alignment repurcussion, not the other player's.
Instead of just labelling it Evil out of the blue, it's more interesting to develop some of those bad repurcussions of this project,
like this Information being sold being used for Evil ends, lives being ruined, etc.
None if this is going to change his actual Alignment INSTANTLY, so why not reveal the repurcussions
before any alignment change, allow them to try to help resolve any problems,
but perhaps the project cannot be succesfully continued without such repurcussion,
so then it is a conscious choice of whether to continue with an Evil choice or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far there's no solid reason to think the OP's character is evil. Seems neutral at the moment.People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
I was just reversing a childish answer back on the author and he was the one talking about an evil pc afoot.
I just hate the "I play a jerk pc and if you have a problem with it you're immature" crap as much as I hate the "I'm holyer than you and you have to do what I want."
If you build PCs for a group discuss alignment topics and if you want the gm to give you free money discuss that, too and half the flame-wars here on the boards are unnecessary.
As things stand right now, I am having a bit of a conflict with our parties Paladin who is trying to convince the GM that my alignment should shift from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil. Allow me to give a little background as to how this conflict has arisen.
You've already given the background. Let me zoom in on it.
I am having a bit of a conflict with our parties PaladinEnhance:
a conflict with our parties PaladinEnhance:
our parties PaladinAlmost got it:
partiesI guarantee you 100% NOBODY WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS if a Paladin wasn't in your party and using that as an excuse to be a dick to his party members.
The problem is that guy.
I agree a parties paladin should be improving your parties, and not be the alignment lawyer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Aunguish - I don't disagree with everything you've said but
If a bar start spiking their mead with rum without telling anyone and the patrons enjoy it and keep coming back for more, that's not particularly wrong. It's assumed that a bar will make their products potent and enjoyable. There's tacit consent to accept product that is made as appealing as the supplier can make it. So too with our sweets.
There's a significant difference between spiking someone's mead (alcoholic beverage) with rum (alcoholic beverage) and spiking someone's brownies (or other mundane pastry) with magic (of the mind altering/enchantment variety). If it was just Prestidigitation to make it tastier, then that's one thing. But a compulsion to "make the patron want more"*? A compulsion that "makes the patron a little more chatty (and truthful) than they might want to be"*? They are not comparable.
* Direct quotes from the OP post.
Not to be pedantic, but I'd suggest that a} the moment he bought the sweets he'd already committed to the path of violating his promise and b} by definition it is absolutely because he's weak-willed as I guarantee there's a Will save involved here somewhere. It's a question of how tempting you've made your product. And again, it's assumed that a bakery will make GOOD stuff. When you stick it in your mouth, you risk actually liking it. A lot. Magically enhanced or not.
(A) He hadn't bought the sweets, and wasn't going to. Then he passed the store and was compelled to. He hadn't violated the promise until the bakery's compulsion affected him.
(B) By the very nature of the scenario, there can't be a Will save. If there was, 5% of people would not only be unaffected, but they also would be aware that they weren't affected. And if you're walking down the street and suddenly realise, heck, I've just resisted some kind of spell, you're gonna get the guards there, fastish. The guards arrive with Detect Magic active and find the bakery selling pastries that enchant the patrons against their will or knowledge, and it'd be shut down. That didn't happen, hence no Will save must exist. That or the GM hasn't been giving it enough thought.Hmmm. You take that up with the real-world advertising industry. They expend massive effort convincing the public to buy product that they otherwise wouldn't. Low-income families all seem to have cable TV, and cell phones, and wherever possible iPads. That's money that could have been - should have been - better spent, perhaps on educational materials. But no, the advertisers put a shiny layer of shellack - literally - over their pictures of burgers so they look that much more mouth-watering. They give us images of sexy people driving cars we can barely afford, and show us exciting scenes that suggest if we drink their brew we'll have an adventurous and exotic life. We are absolutely, positively F!&+ed with by that industry, with tonnes of mathematics, sociology and psychology behind it. You aren't aware of how manipulated you are... they're that good. And yet. Legal. And largely not considered evil.
Firstly, yes, advertising companies spend massive amounts of money convincing of us what we want, and convincing us that our wants are needs.They are largely successful in this endeavour. However, that's not what the OP is doing. Once again, Magic! Far more powerful and pervasive than simple advertising or crafty wording. You cannot point at the blue sky and use buzz words and fast talk to convince me it's green. With magic, you can! So trying to equate the two is, once again, a false equivalence. Secondly, legal, yes. No one is arguing with the Lawful aspect of the character. Evil is another thing though. I think many people would largely contest that.
In the animal kingdom the strong eats the weak. That's not evil. And the OP isn't even eating his customers. The loss is literally a matter of coppers.
In the animal kingdom, it's do or die. Eat or be eaten. The OP is not cash starved. He's not incapable of doing any other form of income generation. He could make normal pastries. He could adventure. He could do any number of things. He chooses to use underhanded means to get further ahead. The loss is far from a few coppers. For the small scale, inconsequential villagers, yes, a few coppers. For the nobles, the guards, the city at large? I wouldn't be surprised if lives are lost to such a business (namely the information brokering side of the business, though the "truth" pastries handed out for free probably also cause no end of trouble).
TL;DR: It's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Intention plays a HUGE role in judging this kind of thing and the OP isn't out to hurt anyone.
You're right, intentions are a big factor in this kind of thing. But as you also say, it's not as simple as just that. They are far from the only factor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The end does not always justify the means. The OP, however minorly, is slowly drugging the inhabitants of some city. He never states whether his intentions are good or ill, merely that he benefits from what he does. He never actually says he isn't out to hurt someone. And from the laissez-faire way he approaches the business, I'd be surprised if he cares. Maybe that's Neutral. But he doesn't care because he's benefiting. He profiting by disadvantaging others. As far as I'm concerned, that's what makes him Evil.
I'd have to toss a vote towards the "Evil, but not quite enough to cause an immediate alignment shift". Over time, and it sounds like it has gone on for some time, then in a Golarion-style world where Good and Evil are tangible things, and even adventurers are corruptible, then I would absolutely see that shifting to Evil. As for as the inter-party RL conflict, it's a pretty basic one - it sounds like each player has a very different idea of how this fantasy universe they're playing in should be. It sounds like the OP wants to be able to do highly unethical and nefarious actions that don't have consequences, because it creates an amusing and entertaining tale/story, and the Paladin's player expects their to be consequences (which to be fair, the entire theme of the Paladin class assumes that there are consequences).
I would also be in the camp that the GM has been incredibly lenient as well, and it really doesn't feel like the GM has actually thought out the consequences to the world at large. It's a novel concept for mostly law-abiding people, sure, but given how prevalent magic generally is in Pathfinder I doubt the OP's character is the first one to come up with this. Either this sort of thing is widespread, causing the adventurers to often run afoul of it (does their party often come away from town with mysterious losses in their funds, due to their character uncontrollably buying all the luxury items they're addicted to?), or it's something the city should be able to react to. If it has a stable city watch/guard then it's very reasonable they would quickly find out via their own divination and detection abilities as someone pointed out. If not, there are still people in power (unless the city is a ramshackle town of beggars, in which case the OP isn't making any money at all), and they will not react kindly to being swindled and manipulated in this fashion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do routinely place various enchantments and whatnot on most of the baked goods.
Do you advertise that your baked goods are enchanted? What kind of enchantments? To what end?
They just make the patron want more.
Ah, so, to your benefit then? You affect their free will, negatively, reducing their own freedom to make decisions, to increase your profits. That's evil. Minor evil, but still evil. Not to mention, that makes each enchanted pastry you sell a minorly evil act. How many pastries do you sell? In a city like Magnimar, probably a fair amount. With each sale being an evil act, that builds up to a whole lot of evil acts rather quickly.
A slightly less benign spell makes the patron a little more chatty (and truthful)than they might want to be. These are usually given to town guards and other notable passersby for free.
Now, that's not so minorly evil. You, effectively, zone of truth people without their knowledge or consent? And then send them out into the city to accidentally cause mayhem? Don't underestimate the damage that the pure, unadulterated truth can cause. Particularly the guards. That's thoughtless, careless and callous.
A lot of my goods are given away to the poor. Many times along with small amounts of coin.
We're back on the good train here. Charity is good. Do you get anything in return? Do you expect it? If nothing is/was offered, would you continue to be charitable? Are these charitable goods ever of the enchanted variety? I think giving the baked goods that encourage people to buy from you to the poor wouldn't really be charity at all.
Between the enchantments and the charity everyone from the highest noble to the lowest urchin tells me all the secrets worth knowing in town.
...ooookay. That puts a lot of power in your hands. Was this your goal? What do you do with this power?
I am like a giant spider sitting at the center of a vast information web.
Not really painting yourself in the best light here. Spiders are predators. Are you a predator? Are all the people caught in your "web" merely playthings to you? Pawns? Tools to be used and discarded? Means to an end? Or perhaps there is a better light to this? Mayhaps they are all in your web of protection?
I also know a lot of tidbits that, while unimportant to me, are of the highest importance to others. That's when my other "employee" comes into play. I have a low level rogue I use as an information broker. He never meets me personally (I mentioned I know magic, right?) but I pass along all the info I think can be useful to others and he sells it. Many times for a high price.
So, for fun and profit then? I note that the only criteria you use here is info you think can be useful to others. So, guard rotations? Safe combinations? Details of mistresses? Blackmail and extortion are not really lawful. And if you do it indiscriminately it's not Good either. Actually, kinda Evil. I mean, someone might say Neutral, but if people are dying because you don't care enough to vet the info, then it's Evil, regardless of whether you do it to both the Good and the Evil or just one.
And thus, our Paladin has his panties in a bunch. Out of game, I think the player is just a little jealous of how easy I make money.
Your first reaction is to dismiss his concerns out of hand, and write it off as jealousy of all the money you're making? That's kinda got evil written all over it. I mean, if it's the money you're making, and he's a fellow party member, why not let him share in it? If that doesn't solve the problem, then it's not just the money. And if you're unwilling to do that, then money means more to you than working with Good. That's, once again, kinda evil.
He is trying to argue that it's evil to addict people and steal information from them.
He's right. These two things are absolutely, without a doubt, Evil. If you're arguing that they're not, then you are definitely on the evil side of things. If you're arguing that these two things do not accurately represent what you're doing, then you need to say that and explain why they're not.
I point out that its no more evil than using a charm spell.
Which can be evil. I mean, it's not evil by definition, it's evil by intent. Charm the BBEG into not killing someone? Good. Charm the Paladin into killing babies? Evil. Charm is not evil by nature but by purpose. And your purpose appears to be profit, regardless of the consequences for others. That's evil.
Anyone have any thoughts on the morality of my businesses?
Bakery - Neutral.
Enchanted Pasties - Evil.
Charity - Good.
Information Brokering - Evil.
Net Alignment - Evil.
I agree a parties paladin should be improving your parties, and not be the alignment lawyer.
Well... Paladins aren't allowed to travel or play with 'Evil' characters. Therefore the bakers alignment is VERY relative to the Paladin.
My issue is that it's OOC knowledge. If the Paladin actually KNEW what was going on... then he'd be RIGHT to call the baker out on it. However here the Player is getting involved too early.
Overall I'd put it in Neutral territory. Drugging people and the guards doesn't feel like a very lawful thing to me. I think it depends on how you use it if it's evil or not. If you destroy people's lives or get people killed with the information you extract from them, then I'd probably consider it Neutral Evil, especially if you benefit from it in the process. If that isn't the case then combined with the charity I think it's closest to neutral. After all how is steeling information different from steeling property? With the charity part you are taking from the richer and giving to the people who don't have anything, which seems Robin Hood like (good), except that you are keeping a cut (neutral).
That's at least my opinion on the alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murderhoboes, stand and unite!
The Golarion Union of Murderhoboes for the Betterment of Others is pleased to have your public support, Mr. Beard.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representative
Paladins aren't allowed to travel or play with 'Evil' characters...
They're specifically allowed to. Doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do anything about it, but they're allowed to work with known Evil if doing so furthers the cause of the greater good, etc.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't players of Good characters learn to just sit idly by while their teammates go around committing Evil acts? They're ruining everyone's fun if they object!
We should just ban all Good alignments as needlessly restrictive. Besides, they attract problem players who want to do game-spoiling things like 'upholding justice' and 'defending the innocent.' Who wants to play with a jerk like that?
Oh God I've actually heard someone argue almost exactly that at the table without irony.
Everyone else was apparently supposed to stop playing their good characters because he couldn't be bothered to be subtle or keep it out of sight or not sabotage the party's efforts.
|
I agree a parties paladin should be improving your parties, and not be the alignment lawyer.Well... Paladins aren't allowed to travel or play with 'Evil' characters. Therefore the bakers alignment is VERY relative to the Paladin.
My issue is that it's OOC knowledge. If the Paladin actually KNEW what was going on... then he'd be RIGHT to call the baker out on it. However here the Player is getting involved too early.
I'm pretty sure the OP is probably bragging about it to the rest of the party.
"the OP is probably bragging about it to the rest of the party"?
well that is classic conflation of out of character and in character knowledge/role.
People don't seem to like the idea of the other player 'intervening' to try and get an Alignment shift ruling.
I get that, but players should reasonably have a conversation with the GM about alignment and how it works in the GM's game.
That covers discussing what sorts of acts are Evil. That the player may approach it from the persective of
"isn't what player X doing rather evil?" does not change the fact that it's discussing the terms of alignment in game.
Even if it prods the GM to do something they would not is not a problem,
if the GM is prodded to go with a consistent ruling WHATEVER IT IS that is improving the immersion of the game,
and that seems like a legitimate conversation for players to have with the GM, to further the depth of the game.
Prove him right by killing the Pally in his sleep.
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
Right. This can cause the player to lose the PC he loves to play. I am starting to think that the OP is doing this on purpose to annoy the paladin player.
You might think that if the Paladin was pre-existing before the other character concept,
or if for some reason you're giving the Paladin inherent priviledge that a shifty character does not.
As far as we know this was part of the character concept from the beginning, and the Paladin may not even have been in the game yet.
I get the impression the Paladin player (and character) didn't really do anything or express actual objections while this was going on for a while.
The person playing the evil PC is not automatically at fault. Contrary to popular belief, priority does not immediately default to the "good guy." Besides, we don't really know if the OP's character even deserves an alignment drop or not; insufficient information. In any case, why is the person whose character is doing questionable things automatically at fault? The presence of a paladin doesn't mean the entire party is filled with lawful stupid, after all. Nor does the fact that they're playing a paladin entitle them to preferential treatment, though sadly, many GMs provide that to those individuals anyway.People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.You could say it is quite indicative of immaturity to play an evil pc with an evil plot in a party with a paladin.
In this case it does. Sure, if the Players all gather together and one guy had (with DM approval) brought in a LE PC and another a Paladin, then yes- priority does not immediately default to the "good guy" as you say. But priority DOES default to the "first guy." If one player is playing a paladin, then other players have no right to bring in a evil PC to try and ruin the paladin players fun (well, unless he wants a fallen paladin, of course). Priority defaults to priority. It's a complete dick move to try to make a fellow player's paladin fall, unless he's Ok with it. It's the same as burning the Wizards spellbook.
I know some posters here have issues with the Alignment system and thus Paladins. Don't let that blind you to what's right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As things stand right now, I am having a bit of a conflict with our parties Paladin who is trying to convince the GM that my alignment should shift from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil. Allow me to give a little background as to how this conflict has arisen.
You've already given the background. Let me zoom in on it.
I am having a bit of a conflict with our parties PaladinEnhance:
a conflict with our parties PaladinEnhance:
our parties PaladinAlmost got it:
PaladinI guarantee you 100% NOBODY WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS if a Paladin wasn't in your party and using that as an excuse to be a dick to his party members.
The problem is that guy.
Someone's got jokes. Most of my Good characters would object to this mindscrew bakery.
|
|
You might think that if the Paladin was pre-existing before the other character concept,
or if for some reason you're giving the Paladin inherent priviledge that a shifty character does not.
As far as we know this was part of the character concept from the beginning, and the Paladin may not even have been in the game yet.
I get the impression the Paladin player (and character) didn't really do anything or express actual objections while this was going on for a while.
You've got a point here. Is the evil character in the wrong, for being evil with a paladin in the party? Or is the good character in the wrong, for raining on the evil character's parade? It depends on who was there first and the nature of the campaign. If the GM advertised a good guy campaign, or the paladin player/character was around first, then clearly the evil character/player would be in the wrong. And vice versa.
None of this is detailed in the OP though. We don't have any of that information. Neither is that the topic of the discussion. The question was, "Anyone have any thoughts on the morality of my businesses?" And by virtue of this discussion turning into a "good character vs the evil character" one, I think we all agree that the morality of the business is evil.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the OP's language is so slanted that the self-delusion is tumbling right off the edge of the page. Maybe I'll steal from an entire city via fake beggars who use a small enchanted dog that will magically influence people to give up more money than they normally would, then start a thread called "Alignment Shift... Because of Puppies!?"