Alignment Shift...Because of Pastry!?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 582 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course, the tobacco industry is actively hurting people. This business probably doesn't so much. Like I said, it's a somewhat victimless crime as long as he uses his power wisely.

Also, he said he wasn't giving the poor the "tell me everything" pastries. Even if he was mean enough, it'd be kinda wasteful. ;D

People buying cigarettes know what their buying. Comparing what the OP is selling to tobacco and alcohal doesnt work, the pitfalls of tobacco and alcohal are known. You should be comapring what the OP is doing to being roofied since the buyer of the pasty DOESNT KNOW hes buying an enchanted pastry.

Just my opinion on this of course.

Chengar wrote:
The alcohol comparison really doesn't work because people know what alcohol's effects are when they purchase it.

You're both totally right.

Which is why I just think it's somewhat similar.

Keep in mind we wouldn't in a million years accuse a bartender of being evil, despite alcohol being harmful. Nor would we accuse a gossiping old lady of the same. We wouldn't even demand an alignment hit.

So what's going on here isn't what he's selling, since the substance itself is harmless. It's not like it's mind-raping them or anything. Nor is the problem the information brokering itself--after all, that depends on who's doing it. If the spider is only selling the secrets of criminals (and using the secrets of guards to dish out vigilante justice) then the only victims are people who deserved it.

So the sole problem is the dishonesty. Which is why I can't buy this being Evil.

Manipulation and dishonesty are mean, sure, but even a Lawful Good character can be an utter jerk. What this guy is doing doesn't hurt the innocent, it's just an unscrupulous way of getting people to talk more. It's just spiking the punch. Do we call someone spiking punch Evil?

The most I can see is Chaotic Neutral.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:


The OP is setting the City up for a date rape.

That's kind of offensive and really abusing hyperbole. The only effect of the pastries is to make people more honest. Immoral? Maybe. We're still discussing that. Unscrupulous? You betcha. Setting people up for date rape? Not sure how you got there.

Liberty's Edge

The Beard wrote:
The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


5) "By this logic it is safe to assume that almost no one on these forums are qualified to respond to any posts."; and you really have to explain what you mean with this.

Context; it's a very simple matter of picking this out. You have displayed a propensity for unfavorable reactions to people whose characters may be evil or do evil things, as well as those players that condone such activities. Your attempted personal attack on me earlier was only one such instance of this, as many others are present throughout the various forums. Reading between the lines is not something difficult; you should veil things a little better. In any case, this line of conversation isn't going to help the subject of the thread.

The point of my hyperbole was to illustrate something, though I was a bit too laid back in my exaggeration in hindsight. My point is that there is nothing wrong with disguised evil in a good campaign so long as it doesn't interfere with party dynamics, there is nothing wrong with protecting yourself by maintaining an information web, and there's definitely nothing wrong with good old selfishness. To be selfish is not to be evil; selfish is the very definition of neutrality. You do what you have to do to look out for you and yours; the rest of the world can burn for all you care.

My post has nothing to do with "you like to play a evil character", but it has a lot to do with you, and some other posters, depicting paladins like jerks, independently from their actions and motivations, while at the same time categorizing yourselves as guys that have no problem with playing against your fellow players.

I don't know if you were speaking of two different campaigns, but you have gloated about creating a character that was against its party and the paladin in particular, about transitioning him in an undead anti paladin, killing all of your party and so on.
I have played with evil characters, but no one that I know has gone to such lengths to turn against his fellow party members.

- * -

If I get what you said to me and Arnwyn correctly, you aren't even responding to what I did say in this thread, but to some perceived "abuse" against people that like to play evil characters in some other thread.

And, to repeat it again, you are the guy that said:
"People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure."
Aren't you the guy that is becoming angry for something that wasn't even said?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadeOfRed wrote:
Slaughtering people is evil. Even if they are orcs. When is the last time any peaceful reconciliation with a tribe or orcs has ever been attempted by a group of adventurers? It's probably happened, but I'll bet good money it's attempted less than 1% of the time.

clears throat

We're not nearly that rare.


forgotwho wrote:

Sajan Gadadvara

Ross Byers wrote:
...
What is the road to Hell paved with?

I always thought it was the bodies of the damned.

LOL

Now to business.
I think the problem is how people are looking at magic. Is it like a drug or is it like a skill?
Lets assume he is adding an altered version of "charm person" to his cupcakes for an extreme example. When they eat the muffin they see you as their friend and get chatty and spill their guts.
With no alcohol involved, a skilled and charming talker could get the same information with a little more effort and time and leave the person thinking "why did I just tell him that?" That doesn't make the person evil. Manipulative, maybe. But not evil. He is skilled at reading/mirroring people and talented enough to get information.
People look at spells like drugs because its instant, but it's not like drugs at all. A skilled and charming person can make you feel like you've known them your whole life in 5 minutes. A few years ago I had a girl walk up to me and start chatting me up and i didn't realize until she was long gone that she had just started working there (I spent the whole time trying to figure out where I knew her from).
Let's use a different example:
I use leadership and have a cohort and followers. I train them all in bluff and diplomacy (along with relevant feats and + to skill items)and have them buyout a popular shop in town. People come in and while they are shopping my people use bluff and diplomacy to rob them of everything they know. Is it evil?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[tangent]

Yeah, it's pretty dead common. Common enough that nowadays, people just see "orcs are people too!" complainers as, well, complainers. If all orcs are evil in the setting, slaughtering them isn't really that evil.

I call it "The Goblins Thingy". I'm not good at naming things. Point is, the webcomic "Goblins" protests racism while putting it in a setting that doesn't apply to actual D&D games--in the "Goblins" setting, the goblins are all nice people and the adventurers are just pointlessly attacking them. In most D&D games nowadays, the adventurers are protecting the highways/a village.

Point being, it's very rare nowadays for a monstrous race to be attacked without cause now that there's a handy "Usually Neutral Evil" tag right there.

[/tangent]

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
ShadeOfRed wrote:
Slaughtering people is evil. Even if they are orcs. When is the last time any peaceful reconciliation with a tribe or orcs has ever been attempted by a group of adventurers? It's probably happened, but I'll bet good money it's attempted less than 1% of the time.

clears throat

We're not nearly that rare.

Considering my players story of making friendship with kobolds it is fairly commons.

Let see:
- Kingmaker, they have set a kobold tribe as a semi independent vassal state,
- Forgotten realms, they have made frienship with a tribe of kobolds and gifted them with a magical apple tree (feather token)
- adopted a tribe of orcs.
- made friendship with 2 tribes of werewolves
- they have even made an alliance with mind flayers against a greater evil
- rescued a half-demon and turned her to CN
- generally the only group that get automatic negative reactions are undead, and even for that there are exceptions. They did make friendship with 2 lich, one neutral and one evil.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
ShadeOfRed wrote:
Slaughtering people is evil. Even if they are orcs. When is the last time any peaceful reconciliation with a tribe or orcs has ever been attempted by a group of adventurers? It's probably happened, but I'll bet good money it's attempted less than 1% of the time.

clears throat

We're not nearly that rare.

Considering my players story of making friendship with kobolds it is fairly commons.

Let see:
- Kingmaker, they have set a kobold tribe as a semi independent vassal state,
- Forgotten realms, they have made frienship with a tribe of kobolds and gifted them with a magical apple tree (feather token)
- adopted a tribe of orcs.
- made friendship with 2 tribes of werewolves
- they have even made an alliance with mind flayers against a greater evil
- rescued a half-demon and turned her to CN
- generally the only group that get automatic negative reactions are undead, and even for that there are exceptions. They did make friendship with 2 lich, one neutral and one evil.

Awesome. :)

And then there's the presence of Sarenrae in the setting and the Redeemer archetype.


I have a pet theory paizo's trying to train people away from the murder loot defile approach considering every AP has a large number of creatures who aren't that bad, are misunderstood/starving/pitiful, trying to steal enough money to buy their way into an arranged marriage in their description although only the GM would ever know it as they're a random low level minion of some other being with similar motivations who the party run into once unless the GM rewrites things so there can be a peaceful resolution to the encounter (encouraged by cannon bonus XP) for getting through things without a fight.


Liam Warner wrote:
I have a pet theory paizo's trying to train people away from the murder loot defile approach considering every AP has a large number of creatures who aren't that bad, are misunderstood/starving/pitiful, trying to steal enough money to buy their way into an arranged marriage in their description although only the GM would ever know it as they're a random low level minion of some other being with similar motivations who the party run into once unless the GM rewrites things so there can be a peaceful resolution to the encounter (encouraged by cannon bonus XP) for getting through things without a fight.

I'm not sure if it's Paizo trying to train people away from that approach, as recognizing that some groups will choose to spare some Evil NPC or group of low level minion, or what have you. So rather than force the DM to deal with this with irredeemably evil villains, they decide to give hooks as to why the villain isn't quite as irredeemably evil, so the DM can end up making them into sympathetic NPCs, if the party redeems them.

Liberty's Edge

Tholomyes wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
I have a pet theory paizo's trying to train people away from the murder loot defile approach considering every AP has a large number of creatures who aren't that bad, are misunderstood/starving/pitiful, trying to steal enough money to buy their way into an arranged marriage in their description although only the GM would ever know it as they're a random low level minion of some other being with similar motivations who the party run into once unless the GM rewrites things so there can be a peaceful resolution to the encounter (encouraged by cannon bonus XP) for getting through things without a fight.
I'm not sure if it's Paizo trying to train people away from that approach, as recognizing that some groups will choose to spare some Evil NPC or group of low level minion, or what have you. So rather than force the DM to deal with this with irredeemably evil villains, they decide to give hooks as to why the villain isn't quite as irredeemably evil, so the DM can end up making them into sympathetic NPCs, if the party redeems them.

The description of the personality and motivations of some of the main and not so main villains are very interesting and a great hook to give them more than a duo dimensional personality. I often read or sum it up to the player after the encounter and its consequence have been completed.

Speaking with the "monster" it is both a question of players and opportunities. I had players trying and sometime succeeding at speaking with monsters even in 1st or 2nd edition modules, where that was rarely a option in the adventure, now it is easier as the adventures take that in consideration.
Most of my players opinion is that as long as it is not actively doing something bad there is room for discussing, alignment notwithstanding.
Even if he is evil and don't want to change that, the lich living in the middle of the desert and doing magical research for the sake of magical research isn't really a problem and maybe she is even an asset, as you can learn a dead tongue from her dead tongue or enlist her help, for a hefty price, against something worse.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course, the tobacco industry is actively hurting people. This business probably doesn't so much. Like I said, it's a somewhat victimless crime as long as he uses his power wisely.

Also, he said he wasn't giving the poor the "tell me everything" pastries. Even if he was mean enough, it'd be kinda wasteful. ;D

People buying cigarettes know what their buying. Comparing what the OP is selling to tobacco and alcohal doesnt work, the pitfalls of tobacco and alcohal are known. You should be comapring what the OP is doing to being roofied since the buyer of the pasty DOESNT KNOW hes buying an enchanted pastry.

Just my opinion on this of course.

Chengar wrote:
The alcohol comparison really doesn't work because people know what alcohol's effects are when they purchase it.

You're both totally right.

Which is why I just think it's somewhat similar.

Keep in mind we wouldn't in a million years accuse a bartender of being evil, despite alcohol being harmful. Nor would we accuse a gossiping old lady of the same. We wouldn't even demand an alignment hit.

So what's going on here isn't what he's selling, since the substance itself is harmless. It's not like it's mind-raping them or anything. Nor is the problem the information brokering itself--after all, that depends on who's doing it. If the spider is only selling the secrets of criminals (and using the secrets of guards to dish out vigilante justice) then the only victims are people who deserved it.

So the sole problem is the dishonesty. Which is why I can't buy this being Evil.

Dishonesty?

Not the whole tricking people into eating your magic roofie pies so they'll divulge important information to you that they otherwise wouldn't have? And that they'll be compelled to come back and have more? That definitely sounds a little mind rapey to me. It's just more subtle than complete domination. It forces you to want to give that information away to begin with. How is forcing someone to want to tell you something not as bad as forcing them to tell you?

Because that reeks of sinister intent to me, regardless what that information is then being used for.

This is a hefty disregard for the free will of your fellow man and I'd chalk that up as definitely being Lawful and with all that personal gain going on, I'd say it dips you into Neutral Evil. And since you skirt the law to make this all happen, I'd say it smack dabs you right in Lawful Evil.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Beard wrote:
I suppose the fact that the alignment system does, in fact, result in various aligned acts being able to balance one another out when properly used is completely irrelevant, then. I'd also say the fact that this information is being used to benefit the party and city would qualify as mitigating factors. Even then, there's nothing inherently evil bout coaxing people to talk. In any case, people that think what he's doing should constitute immediately dropping to neutral evil, as has been repeatedly suggested, seem to take a very hardline view regarding evil acts.

This thread has nothing to do with alignment. It's not even a question of morality... The PC is 'charming' innocents for his own personal benefit and selling the secrets he learns for personal gain.

These aren't the acts of an honest or good person.


So many arguments for and against are flying straight past each other because we still don't know how this works. I see people saying "the pastries are just extra delicious" and people saying "he's mind-controlling them with compulsion magic," and I can't even tell which side is right because I read it as a magical compulsion at first, and the OP has never confirmed or rejected either claim. It's very hard to reach a conclusion on what alignment his actions are when we don't even know and properly understand what they do.

lastblacknight wrote:


These aren't the acts of an honest or good person.

Who ever said he was honest or good? We're discussing whether he's neutral or evil, good has nothing to do with it.

Liberty's Edge

To the OP I don't think your evil. Not all good. Just greedy and being smart about it.

I like how the fact that the OP gives money to the poor keeps getting overlooked. Then again I have noticed a definite "how dare you not just play a goody two shoes hero. How dare you think outside of the box when playing your character." vibe that I'm getting. Before anyone says you have to "play a hero dammit or your not playing your character properly" BS. Well maybe at your gaming tables. Not every gaming table is the same. It's not written somewhere on some stone tablet in a ruined mayan temple that players have to play a certain way. If anything what is interesting is the you must be a hero at all costs getting very defensive. Almost jelous because a player played something other than the same boring hero all the time.

Mind you if I was the DM I would keep an eye on the OP if he did truly did start to abuse what he can do with his character. As well the Paladin player I would summarily refuse to listen to outright. If you have problems with a player at the table you deal with it with the other player. You don't come to me behind the players back and ask me to do it. Not unless it's truly distruptive at the gaming table.

So to the OP I admire your ingenuity and willingness to take risks with characters. As well as not playing the same boring, stale, overdone hero stereotype at my gaming table. You can play at my gaming table anytime.

Finally you can just keep telling yourselves that using Charm spells are not evil. I guess Bards must be evil then since they can start out Fascinating and then using Suggestion at later levels. The first has me essentialy mesmerizing a bunch of people against their will. Then I can get them to do something non-violent that I want them to do if they fail their save.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

So many arguments for and against are flying straight past each other because we still don't know how this works. I see people saying "the pastries are just extra delicious" and people saying "he's mind-controlling them with compulsion magic," and I can't even tell which side is right because I read it as a magical compulsion at first, and the OP has never confirmed or rejected either claim. It's very hard to reach a conclusion on what alignment his actions are when we don't even know and properly understand what they do.

lastblacknight wrote:


These aren't the acts of an honest or good person.
Who ever said he was honest or good? We're discussing whether he's neutral or evil, good has nothing to do with it.

Actually some people have been arguing he's good and he said the GMs hand waving the effects so it could be anything from "I know I shouldnt but the taste so good" through to "I'm never at my best without a foodie mcmuffin" since it does 1 wisdom point of damage every 24 hours without one and HE doesn't realize that because he never really.checked into the long term effects.

Hmmm I wonder if long term charm abuse can lower someone's resistance to mind effects and make them easier to dominate in the future?

Shadow Lodge

I have one thing to say about the comparison to this and charm person, in that it doesn't have the evil descriptor
you are right, it doesn't, neither does the barbarian's sword, but if he goes and kills a load of people in town that would still be evil

I'm not saying your actions are equivalent it's just food for thought


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So he's evil because the GM can Fiat in additional consequences?

Does that mean I can now argue he's good because with GM Fiat I can make them good for the consumer in the long term?

Dark Archive

Rynjin wrote:

So he's evil because the GM can Fiat in additional consequences?

Does that mean I can now argue he's good because with GM Fiat I can make them good for the consumer in the long term?

That would indeed appear to be the case.

Summoning the Great Old Ones is now also a good aligned action due GM Fiat.


Rynjin wrote:

So he's evil because the GM can Fiat in additional consequences?

Does that mean I can now argue he's good because with GM Fiat I can make them good for the consumer in the long term?

The whole scheme is running on GM Fiat already, isent it?

Shadow Lodge

Cap. Darling wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So he's evil because the GM can Fiat in additional consequences?

Does that mean I can now argue he's good because with GM Fiat I can make them good for the consumer in the long term?

The whole scheme is running on GM Fiat already, isent it?

Seems to be. Also we havent seen the spells he's using posted yet.


The Beard wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So he's evil because the GM can Fiat in additional consequences?

Does that mean I can now argue he's good because with GM Fiat I can make them good for the consumer in the long term?

That would indeed appear to be the case.

Summoning the Great Old Ones is now also a good aligned action due GM Fiat.

No he's evil for the MANY reasons given here.

I was saying people have been arguing he's good AND that the poster I was responding to hadn't seen any spells as the GM was handwaving the whole thing at which point I'm pretty sure I gave an example from both extremes as to how it could be playing out to show we really don't know some important things before wandering off on a tangent whih was in its own paragraph. I had been up for 24 hours by the point so I could be mistaken.

Nope just went back and checked I did include both extremes so what's your reasons (two posters there) for ignoring my example of someone just enjoying the taste and going full hyperbole to discredit me?


Liam Warner wrote:


Nope just went back and checked I did include both extremes so what's your reasons (two posters there) for ignoring my example of someone just enjoying the taste and going full hyperbole to discredit me?

The way I read your post the mention of the "good" (IMO Neutral, but you get the idea) alternative was meant as a declaration that you didn't agree with that idea/

Apologies if I read it wrong.

Scarab Sages

Im still not sure how he can be evil yet every charector who has cast charm person on something to get what they needed isnt considered evil. Its about the same thing in my opinion, he just has tasty muffins as the case. I mean charm person doesnt have the evil descriptor, why should Charming Muffins? On that note if i were the OP i would certainly be an even bigger annoyance to everyone by naming my goods along those lines, give them the innocent truth in advertising.


TheNine wrote:
Im still not sure how he can be evil yet every charector who has cast charm person on something to get what they needed isnt considered evil. Its about the same thing in my opinion, he just has tasty muffins as the case. I mean charm person doesnt have the evil descriptor, why should Charming Muffins? On that note if i were the OP i would certainly be an even bigger annoyance to everyone by naming my goods along those lines, give them the innocent truth in advertising.

Fireball doesn't have the evil descriptor but I am fairly sure if I use it to blow up an orphanage I am probably in line for an alignment infraction.

Just because something doesn't carry an [EVIL] tag doesn't make everything you do with it OK.

Scarab Sages

I was more going with the idea that he isnt asking these people specific questions with these pastries. It would be one thing if he was there feeding guards goodies and 'innocently' asking things like "so where are you patrolling the next two weeks" versus things like guards coming in agetting a donut (guards love them donuts) and the guard now feeling talktive talks about his patrol, or his great aunt gertrudes scandalous affair with that elf mage, or how he got the rash from the local barmaid. They are volunteering the info, who said it was useful. It just seems like people are quickly jumping on the OMG thats evil to me without hearing enough to make a firm judgement. Much like you said, its how he uses it and what he gets from it.
I used the charm spell as an example for the people claiming he is taking advantage of mind control like effects. What do they use their charm spells for? Im sure its not to make the target do something helpful to society and them.

Shadow Lodge

TheNine wrote:

I was more going with the idea that he isnt asking these people specific questions with these pastries. It would be one thing if he was there feeding guards goodies and 'innocently' asking things like "so where are you patrolling the next two weeks" versus things like guards coming in agetting a donut (guards love them donuts) and the guard now feeling talktive talks about his patrol, or his great aunt gertrudes scandalous affair with that elf mage, or how he got the rash from the local barmaid. They are volunteering the info, who said it was useful. It just seems like people are quickly jumping on the OMG thats evil to me without hearing enough to make a firm judgement. Much like you said, its how he uses it and what he gets from it.

I used the charm spell as an example for the people claiming he is taking advantage of mind control like effects. What do they use their charm spells for? Im sure its not to make the target do something helpful to society and them.

Did you miss the part where the OP said it makes them more truthful not more talkative? The 2 spells are 'come back for more' and 'be more truthful', seem to me that someone has be asking question for the 'be more truthful' to be useful.

Scarab Sages

if that is the case then sure he might be going a little evil... i saw it as like how drunk people lose a little sense and start talking overmuch or losing inhibitions. AS a few other posters said, i really dont think there is a whole lot of information. And some of that is pretty pertinant information. Is he using the info to make a ton of gold and sell out the good guys? Did he use the info to stop an evil cult from burning an orphanage and kicking puppies. Both? its hard to tell


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheNine wrote:
if that is the case then sure he might be going a little evil... i saw it as like how drunk people lose a little sense and start talking overmuch or losing inhibitions. AS a few other posters said, i really dont think there is a whole lot of information. And some of that is pretty pertinant information. Is he using the info to make a ton of gold and sell out the good guys? Did he use the info to stop an evil cult from burning an orphanage and kicking puppies. Both? its hard to tell

Do you not think it is wrong to drug people without their knowledge?

Shadow Lodge

TheNine wrote:
if that is the case then sure he might be going a little evil... i saw it as like how drunk people lose a little sense and start talking overmuch or losing inhibitions. AS a few other posters said, i really dont think there is a whole lot of information. And some of that is pretty pertinant information. Is he using the info to make a ton of gold and sell out the good guys? Did he use the info to stop an evil cult from burning an orphanage and kicking puppies. Both? its hard to tell

Very true. But there are several posts by the OP that give a little more info but still hasnt been very specific.

Scarab Sages

I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket. Thats my personal opinion.

Whats your take on all the spying the american (and im sure other nations do it too) does on even its own people. Do you consider america evil now because it uses shady means to collate data from texts and the like to try to find 'bad' guys? Or do you think the government is doing it to find the bad guys before they harm us.


TheNine wrote:
I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket.

You're right.

They're both evil.


Jaelithe wrote:
TheNine wrote:
I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket.

You're right.

They're both evil.

How so?

Not necessarily disagreeing but I'm wondering if it's because of the theft or the attempt to get out of punishment or the method USED to get out of punishment.

If the theft, I can see (though don't agree, depending on the motives).

If the attempt to evade punishment, I can sort of see (though definitely don't agree, t seems weird to classify an attempt to weasel your way out of punishment as evil rather than dishonorable/"unlawful").

If it's the method, do you ascribe the same evilness to something like Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out of the situation?


This thread is an assertion fest. To some of you these activities appear to be evil. To others they seem useful, thus neutral or even good. No one is going to be able to give an objective argument for the evilness of this because morality is complex. Which is why the only person who can really determine alignment is the player themselves.

And if you're going to come on here and say and activity is evil, don't just say, taking away someone else's free will is evil, thus this is evil. It's circular.

Shadow Lodge

I look at it this way. If the general populous found out what was happening, would they burn the shop and hunt him down? If yes, then definitely not good.

To me probably somewhere on the border of neutral and evil since what info he doesnt personally find useful he has his lackey sell to the highest bidder without quality control to minimize potential damage.


TheNine wrote:


Whats your take on all the spying the american (and im sure other nations do it too) does on even its own people. Do you consider america evil now because it uses shady means to collate data from texts and the like to try to find 'bad' guys? Or do you think the government is doing it to find the bad guys before they harm us.

Shady? They announced they were doing it. Also I highly recommend you research the process before making such an assumption.

In any event, the problem here is that he's decided that his fellow man should have his mind altered to suit his own desires. He does so through a very deceptive way while the target is unaware. Disregard what he uses said information for, this act is vile to say the least.

Furthermore he targets specifically the people in power and has stated that he'd have someone "removed" if they were to speak up against his business.

That reeks of evil.


TheNine wrote:

I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket. Thats my personal opinion.

Whats your take on all the spying the american (and im sure other nations do it too) does on even its own people. Do you consider america evil now because it uses shady means to collate data from texts and the like to try to find 'bad' guys? Or do you think the government is doing it to find the bad guys before they harm us.

The answer, hidden in the question is.


Jaelithe wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The problem is that it is also being used to benefit a lot of others. This fact seems to be getting repeatedly overlooked by people in the "it's evil" camp.
Not at all. It's just the people with more than a rudimentary understanding of morality realize than good acts do not cancel out evil ones in some sort of cosmic tally sheet. If you save the lives of two innocent persons, and then go out and intentionally, with malice aforethought, kill an innocent person, you're a murderer, and evil. You don't get to say, "Hey, I'm still one to the good." Get past that concept. It's laughable.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly how alignment works in pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

Please link, or quote with page number and book name, an example of where it states that alignments are just tally sheets?

Do so many of THIS and you can get away with doing THAT and still be XX alignment. Not.

Dark Archive

Who ever thought a moral grey area could taste so good? Hope you're at least peddling some of those little cherry cheesecake pastries; supreme winning if you are.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Please link, or quote with page number and book name, an example of where it states that alignments are just tally sheets?

Do so many of THIS and you can get away with doing THAT and still be XX alignment. Not.

.. This begs the question of exactly how you think alignment change should work, then. You don't think doing a lot of good in the world can balance out some evil you might've done? If that were the case, the only way to shift your alignment towards good would be atonement spells. Let me assure you, I've had some of my characters in the past be threatened with an alignment shift to good; it is a thing that does indeed happen. Doing good things tends to cause your alignment to drift back that way. The thing to keep in mind here is that actions dictate alignment, not the other way around. A character could be assigned "evil" by their GM for a handful of evil acts, but that won't stop them from behaving like they're good if that's how they roll.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
TheNine wrote:
I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket.

You're right.

They're both evil.

How so?

Not necessarily disagreeing but I'm wondering if it's because of the theft or the attempt to get out of punishment or the method USED to get out of punishment.

If the theft, I can see (though don't agree, depending on the motives).

If the attempt to evade punishment, I can sort of see (though definitely don't agree, t seems weird to classify an attempt to weasel your way out of punishment as evil rather than dishonorable/"unlawful").

If it's the method, do you ascribe the same evilness to something like Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out of the situation?

In the OP case the theft is constant, repeated, against all the city inhabitants without real discrimination and not motivated by hunger or the need to survive. The magic is the mean used, but it would be evil the same if he were gathering informations with mundane means (blackmail, spying, drugging people and so on) and selling them to the guy that pay more.

The OP isn't selling what is useful for him or what will rock the boat too much and will risk to endanger his operation so there is no real discrimination on what he sell beside his self interest.

If you steal something to eat and use magic, "Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out" to avoid going in jail it is not evil.
If you steal something from a rich guy that can afford the damage and use magic, "Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out" to avoid going in jail it is chaotic but not necessarily evil (depend on the method used).
If you steal something from everyone, regardless from your needs and his ability to cope with the damage, and use magic, "Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out" to avoid going in jail it is evil.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:


If you steal something from everyone, regardless from your needs and his ability to cope with the damage, and use magic, "Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out" to avoid going in jail it is evil.

Please cite for the rest of the class exactly how what you've described is enough to instantly shift the OP's alignment to evil, not to mention why the various good deeds being enacted do not count at all towards preventing an alignment shift. What you have described is no different than the practices of most big business owners. Hell, you'll be describing Walmart if you omit the word "magic."

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The problem is that it is also being used to benefit a lot of others. This fact seems to be getting repeatedly overlooked by people in the "it's evil" camp.
Not at all. It's just the people with more than a rudimentary understanding of morality realize than good acts do not cancel out evil ones in some sort of cosmic tally sheet. If you save the lives of two innocent persons, and then go out and intentionally, with malice aforethought, kill an innocent person, you're a murderer, and evil. You don't get to say, "Hey, I'm still one to the good." Get past that concept. It's laughable.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly how alignment works in pathfinder.

Not on a one to one basis as you people claim.

Especially when the "good" deeds are done to avoid an alignment shift.

As you guys are playing the "rule" card, let's see those rules. They are in the Player guide to wrath of the righteous.

Quote:

Becoming Good

Each character has her own unique path to good.
Many creatures are set in their ways and don’t vacillate between distinct ethical philosophies, making such a fundamental change in thinking and acting an arduous road. The notion of good is as much about intention as it is about action. Simply committing a series of good acts is not enough to change a creature’s alignment—it must want deep down within itself to be good. As such, finding true redemption involves the creature passing through a number of stages on its path to goodness.

....

Relapse: Each minor evil act a creature performs (casting spells with the evil descriptor, praying to an evil deity, using an evil magic device, mind controlling good creatures to commit evil acts, and so on) counts against whatever penances the character has already performed, effectively cancelling one out. Any major evil act (knowingly slaying an innocent creature, spreading a disease among a community, inflicting pain on an innocent subject, or animating the dead) undoes all of the good work done for the current stage, and the creature must begin that stage anew. A GM may rule that a particularly heinous act reverses all work done, and shifts the creature back to its original evil alignment.

So how "enchanting someone to divulge informations that will damage him or others" fall? I would list each of those acts as "minor evil acts". From the OP posts it repeat that minor evil act several times every day.

But he give to the poor!
Covered in the same set of rules:

Quote:
Donating at least 50 gp to a good organization or faith. Each time you do so, the amount needed for the donation to qualify as a penance doubles.

You know how fast that sum escalate? The third penance is 200 gp. The eight 6.400, the tenth 25.600.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon wrote:


I believe there has been commentary to the effect of "murdering people and then giving gold to charity to assuage your guilt doesn't make you any less evil for being a murderer". At some level your intentions do matter. Good is unarguably good, but doing small acts of good to counter your evil acts doesn't erase them or mean they've been nullified. Especially if you motivation is only to do such, not because you genuinely want to help.

@Claxon pretty much summed it up earlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's quite a leap to quote "mind controlling good creatures to commit evil acts" as an evil act, then say that mind controlling someone to do a non-evil act is also evil.

Because that's what you're doing, right there.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


If you steal something from everyone, regardless from your needs and his ability to cope with the damage, and use magic, "Bluffing, bribing, or talking your way out" to avoid going in jail it is evil.

Please cite for the rest of the class exactly how what you've described is enough to instantly shift the OP's alignment to evil, not to mention why the various good deeds being enacted do not count at all towards preventing an alignment shift. What you have described is no different than the practices of most big business owners. Hell, you'll be describing Walmart if you omit the word "magic."

Again the hyperbole. "instantly shift the OP's alignment to evil". someone spoke of instantly shifting? No, but the OP character is doing that on a routinely basis.

And the Wallmart is selling you food and items. It can try to convince you that you need something that you don't really need, but that is a far cry from taking something from you without giving anything in return and then using what it has taken to damage you or other people.

And from what I hear of the wages paid to the workers, Wallmart is pretty evil.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Claxon wrote:


I believe there has been commentary to the effect of "murdering people and then giving gold to charity to assuage your guilt doesn't make you any less evil for being a murderer". At some level your intentions do matter. Good is unarguably good, but doing small acts of good to counter your evil acts doesn't erase them or mean they've been nullified. Especially if you motivation is only to do such, not because you genuinely want to help.
@Claxon pretty much summed it up earlier.

Yes, this. It doesn't help that the OP seems to be giving to the poor more for pragmatic reasons (it looks good, and make the poor grateful to their benefactor) than out of a genuine charitable impulse. It's not like the idea of "evil" people/organizations giving to charity for non-good is particularly rare IRL or in fiction.

Dark Archive

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Claxon wrote:


I believe there has been commentary to the effect of "murdering people and then giving gold to charity to assuage your guilt doesn't make you any less evil for being a murderer". At some level your intentions do matter. Good is unarguably good, but doing small acts of good to counter your evil acts doesn't erase them or mean they've been nullified. Especially if you motivation is only to do such, not because you genuinely want to help.
@Claxon pretty much summed it up earlier.

Hasn't the OP actually clarified that a lot of that information is also being used to benefit both the party and the city free of charge? The fact that I haven't slept in what seems like an eternity might be causing me to imagine this, but I could've sworn this was brought up.

Diego Rossi wrote:


And from what I hear of the wages paid to the workers, Wallmart is pretty evil.

... Okay, you've got me on that one. I used to work there; whatever stories you heard probably weren't exaggerated.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

I think it's quite a leap to quote "mind controlling good creatures to commit evil acts" as an evil act, then say that mind controlling someone to do a non-evil act is also evil.

Because that's what you're doing, right there.

Really?

So the BEEG minion that control you to get all the possible informations on your party so that the BEEG will have a easy time in defeating you and your companions is neutral?

The dear OP is doing exactly that. "Oh, James is cheating his wife. That is worth a pretty penny if my man will say that to the wife."
"Oh, the merchant Guild will move a big sum by carriage next week, I know some bandit that will love to know that."
"Oh, the Magistrate to the Waters is embezzling the city founds. That should keep secret, it is a good information to have when I need something from him."

Any of those actions can wreak someone life.

Dark Archive

I honestly don't think I'd consider blackmailing people evil, just like tearing information out of someone's mind (or making them talk) aren't necessarily evil. Any form of misuse, information brokering aside, could quickly become all kinds of unlawful, but it doesn't strike me as necessarily evil. Wrong doesn't necessarily have to equate to evil. That's what makes this situation so amusing to sort through, I guess. There are valid points for both sides (really more like four different sides) of the issue floating around.

301 to 350 of 582 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment Shift...Because of Pastry!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.