| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, "Good" and "Evil" are loaded terms. Call it "Merciful" and "Natural" instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always got the impression that these sorts of games used capital-letter Good and Evil deliberately. It lets players retreat into a romanticized world where wrecking face isn't fraught with the sort of moral ambiguity that it would be in the real world. It provides an outlet for the frustration and powerlessness a lot of people in the target demographic feel when they deal with real life, and see behavior tinted in very uncomfortable shades of grey taking place throughout their culture.
As I've mentioned in one or two of the eleven million recent threads, that's always been something about these games that I really didn't like, for a variety of in-game reasons (most of which boil down to the presence of a pantheon of gods).
That said, I think that the traditional approach to alignment that Pathfinder preserves does serve its meta-purpose for a lot of players. Being able to put on the three-tone RPG morality goggles and have right and wrong handed down from on high is an escape a lot of people value, even if they're not consciously playing for that reason.
Just 2cp; not a value judgement on people who are happy playing this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you mean unless you're saying that Merciful (good) is the opposite of natural (evil) as in a Hobbsian view that nature is harsh and brutal like the acts of an evil (natural) person.
That, and Evil is pretty much the Law of the Jungle, Might Makes Right. It's natural that the strong subjugate he weak. It's natural that I take what you're too weak to hold.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The law of the jungle from the Jungle book was not merely Eat or be eaten, coincidentally.
Might makes right is far better, though it still encompasses only a subset of what is evil. Someone wholly uninterested in being right, unapologetically merely taking what they want, would not be covered. Note that any philosophy that denies an objective truth to instead merely see every judgement as wholly subjective works directly toward might makes right - in the absence of objective moral rules, whoever is strongest gets to write the rules.
Natural is a word that has no business being used in discussions about morality, and needs being taken down a few notches. There is nothing more natural than dying of cholera. Cue lovely visuals.
But yes, evil is a difficult word. I don't know that there are any good replacements available, though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably evil is the most unnatural thing you can get.
If you take the view that evil represents a state of privation (There is not where there should be.) This is tied in with the idea that there is no 'pure evil' as existance itself is a positive good (its better to exist then not exist), thus implying a being who is purely evil doesn't get to exist and therefore all evil creatures are intrinsically corrupted/damaged good ones.
Then we also get into teleological approaches.
I again state that bringing RAW discussions into this is an exercise in futility, the brief non-offensive descriptions provided in the Core Rulebook are not precisely concepts that hold up to indepth philosophical analysis (nor were they meant to) just like the rules don't hold up to indepth analysis in the fields of biochemistry, economics, or physics (nor are they meant to).
|
|
"Altruism" does not by nature prevent someone from being evil.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences" - C. S. Lewis.
There's also an old medieval tale about a man named Cenodoxus, he ran charities, spoke kindly, minister to the sick and needy and then, quite terrifyingly, at his funeral when they were eulogizing him his body began to proclaim he was being sent to hell as he was vainglorious and prideful, his apparently good work being done solely for his own mollification.
The issue that a game system runs into with the alignment scale is the 'don't offender our customers' angle. Nobody wants to put things into the alignment scale that will result in customers feeling like they're being slotted into one of the dodgier categories.
Personally I view good and evil as two ends to a spectrum. A number line if you will. Evil is the negative numbers, Good is the positive numbers, and 0 is neutral. There are gradients to good and evil (and in truth to neutrality as well) but something that is just a little evil is still evil. It wont change your alignment all on its own, but repeat it enough and it might be a different story.
And I don't know Claxon. Would a little evil repeatedly (like being a cleptomaniac) eventually make someone into Chaotic Evil? I don't think so.
It's more complicated than that though. Repeatedly requires context. Is it something that happens everyday? Once a month? Once a year. If it's something that occurs everyday the small evil acts accumulate to shift your alignment to evil. If you commit only a small evil act once a year the rest of the non-evil stuff makes up the bulk of your alignment and you would likely never shift to evil.
Also, stealing isn't definitively evil. If anything it's chaotic, but not really evil. Unless you're stabbing or threatening people to get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at games from a Christian-centric viewpoint naturally skews our definition of good and evil.
It might make an interesting comparison to use a different religious tradition as the basis for morality. It might be hard to play most RPGs as we do now if good and evil were defined by (for example) Buddhism rather than Christianity. Certain radical views on interpreting Shari’a Islamism could make female adventurers automatically evil. Shinto clerics couldn't heal by touch without becoming unclean (not really evil but you get the idea).*
I like to create religions which have the occasional twist on the norm, such as it being considered evil for an unmarried man to have 'relations' with a woman. Not just morally wrong, but downright evil! Obviously, the PCs will know as much about such laws as their characters would, I'm not that nasty.
*I ought to point out that I'm not knocking anyone's religion here. Given that I personally think it is all arguing about whether one person's invisible friend is better than the invisible friend of another person, I am in no position and have no desire to say that one religion is better or worse than another. I'm just using cherry-picked examples to illustrate how morality changes according to religious belief.
That's what I mean. These minor acts are immoral, but it seems to me it would take far more severe acts to cross over from Chaotic/neutral to evil. There was a thread recently where the DM said using mind control was evil. Is it morally wrong and violating someone's privacy and free will? Yes. Evil? I'm not so sure.
Casting mind controls spell themselves are not evil, but whatever ends you use it for certainly could be. Many times it is (in my experience).
I'm not so sure it's how sporadic the acts are as much as the mentality/intent of the offender. If today you stabbed an old woman in a parking lot and did it because she was in your way escaping a crime, and you had absolutely no remorse for doing it, you'd probably be seen as evil/a monster and lacking any conscience, even if it was just once.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. I was only saying small acts of evil commitedly infrequently wouldn't change your alignment. And also that small acts of evil commited daily would over a period time change your alignment to evil. But stabbing someone (old lady or not) because they're in your way is a majorly evil act. Depending on the exact circumstance your alignment might shift immeadiately.
I would say conscience and remorse/guilt would play a large part in change of alignment. This is definitely something a DM could/should integrate into the game for the Player to RP his coping with the guilt for committing an evil act.
Conscience and remorse do play a role, at least if you want them to. It's why the atonement spell exists in the first place. It's like the Pathfinder version of Penance and saying your "Hail Mary"s for what you did.
Of course, because behind every organised religion is an attempt to draw up rules to allow humans to live together in close communities without constantly beating each other up or killing each other. No coincidence that major organised religion starts (as far as we know) at the same time as cities.
Therefore, at the heart of most organised religions there are rules to stop you randomly killing, pinching your neighbour's ox, sleeping with your neighbour's wife and so on. All things to avoid social unrest when neighbour A decides to go pre-medieval on neighbour B. There were very likely similar social rules in pre-city civilisations, but whether they were The Word Of God/Sky Spirit/The Ancestors or whatever, we'll probably never know.
Looking at games from a Christian-centric viewpoint naturally skews our definition of good and evil.
It's also worth noting that the moral compass of modern fantasy as a genre was very heavily influenced by the beliefs of the man who wrote its seminal work; Tolkein was a devout Roman Catholic. The stark Good vs Evil dichotomy LoTR is pretty clearly an allegorical reflection of his faith and the lens he viewed the world though.
We've inherited a great deal of that worldview in these games, along with his elf/halfling/dwarf/wizard/dragon cultural stereotypes.
I'm not sure what you mean unless you're saying that Merciful (good) is the opposite of natural (evil) as in a Hobbsian view that nature is harsh and brutal like the acts of an evil (natural) person.That, and Evil is pretty much the Law of the Jungle, Might Makes Right. It's natural that the strong subjugate he weak. It's natural that I take what you're too weak to hold.
Except for the fact that the "law of the jungle" applies to non-sentient animals. That is why despite being vicious killers animals are mostly Neutral. Sentient creatures have a choice in how they will act. It is this opportunity that makes their actions good or evil. Thus a savage killer human is Evil but a savage killer croq is Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, stealing isn't definitively evil. If anything it's chaotic, but not really evil. Unless you're stabbing or threatening people to get it.
No, it's Evil as a baseline. You are f#!+ing over people who have done you no wrong to benefit yourself. That is the very definition of evil. It's the shallow end of evil, and you can get away with a lot of stealing before losing your Neutral or even Good alignment, but it's still Evil.
But most heroic thieves are either subsistence thieves (Aladdin), where actual survival is the motive, not gain at the expense of others, or community champions fighting an oppressive regime (Robin Hood).
|
|
Also, stealing isn't definitively evil. If anything it's chaotic, but not really evil. Unless you're stabbing or threatening people to get it.No, it's Evil as a baseline. You are f&%~ing over people who have done you no wrong to benefit yourself. That is the very definition of evil. It's the shallow end of evil, and you can get away with a lot of stealing before losing your Neutral or even Good alignment, but it's still Evil.
But most heroic thieves are either subsistence thieves (Aladdin), where actual survival is the motive, not gain at the expense of others, or community champions fighting an oppressive regime (Robin Hood).
This got covered in another thread, I wish I had the link handy.
The 'good thief' is typically either preserving his life through the only means available, Alladin for example stops thievery once he can eat legally, or in the Robin Hood case, is actually acting in a restorative fashion towards the social order (These taxes are unjust, ergo, I am replenishing the overtaxed peasants with the stuff that was taken from them in the first place, kinda).
Just like we should be cautious of having 'altruism' be our polestar for good, we sure as hell should be cautious of having 'resisting oppression' as our polestar for good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, stealing isn't definitively evil. If anything it's chaotic, but not really evil. Unless you're stabbing or threatening people to get it.No, it's Evil as a baseline. You are f#@@ing over people who have done you no wrong to benefit yourself. That is the very definition of evil. It's the shallow end of evil, and you can get away with a lot of stealing before losing your Neutral or even Good alignment, but it's still Evil.
But most heroic thieves are either subsistence thieves (Aladdin), where actual survival is the motive, not gain at the expense of others, or community champions fighting an oppressive regime (Robin Hood).
I think context is required. Cleaning out a poor person's few coppers for fun or just to be sadistic is evil. Stealing trifles from a rich person to feed a starving kid, not so much. I think there is a difference in kind there, not just a difference in degree.
Crimes against property aren't evil? Say you make sure someone is out of their house first, then burn it down. Not evil?
Context: Your evil character has started the process of atonement. He's been order by the BBEG to chain shut the doors of the tavern and immolate everyone inside it, making sure that none escape. He knows the BBEG is too busy to go sifting through the ashes to look for corpses, but he'll definitely notice if the tavern isn't burnt down.
Instead, he warns everyone, distracts some of his evil comrades to allow the patrons to flee, and then burns down the tavern. Property crime, arson, disobeying orders. Is it an evil?
I'm not sure what you mean unless you're saying that Merciful (good) is the opposite of natural (evil) as in a Hobbsian view that nature is harsh and brutal like the acts of an evil (natural) person.That, and Evil is pretty much the Law of the Jungle, Might Makes Right. It's natural that the strong subjugate he weak. It's natural that I take what you're too weak to hold.
I have to disagree on this point. Morality is as natural as anything else. Consider this:
Lions kill and devour gazelles.
Wolves kill and devour elk.
Ants kill (and sometimes eat) other insects.
..but how often to these animals kill and slight others of their species? While I'm no zoologist, I'd make a layman's guess that the answer is not very often, but if they did, the species wouldn't survive.
The concept of morality can be seen as simply a more intricate—as every part of our minds are more intricate—than what appears to be an inherent "species-preservation" that most animals have, especially social ones like wolves and, of course, human beings. It's essential to the existence of civilization.
So I contest the claim that morality is in any way not "natural", as it's the only reason humans dominated the planet in the first place.
Dot for later. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaarg. Time.
C. S. Lewis was a hack and a liar.
That is all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lions kill and devour gazelles.
Wolves kill and devour elk.
Ants kill (and sometimes eat) other insects...but how often to these animals kill and slight others of their species? While I'm no zoologist, I'd make a layman's guess that the answer is not very often, but if they did, the species wouldn't survive.
Not a zoologist either, but I do know that lions make a routine habit out of murdering other Lion's young. Ants are perpetually at war with other ant colonies (with ants, its usually best to envision them as giant extensions of their Queen, and the Queens don't seem to get along).
Snakes attack snakes, chimpanezees behave as if they were all little Heinrich Himmlers to one another, and Dolphins are rapists and murderers.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, but animals are not moral actors.
C. S. Lewis was a hack and a liar.
Your opinions regarding Mr. Lewis are something I obviously do not agree with. I also admit I have trouble seeing how its relevant. If you raise this issue to oppose the quotes I provided earlier, its simply ad hominem tu quoqe . Or to put it simply, if a smoker tells you that smoking is bad for your lungs and keeps smoking, its still bad for your lungs regardless of him not following his own advice.
The quotes stand on their own merit, as I imagine most people can see. Even if we were to accept that Mr. Lewis were a horrible individual (which I don't, mind), this in no way impedes the statements.
Let's not step off topic to have discussions that aren't relevant and which may prove unnecessarilly inflammatory.
Lions kill and devour gazelles.
Wolves kill and devour elk.
Ants kill (and sometimes eat) other insects...but how often to these animals kill and slight others of their species? While I'm no zoologist, I'd make a layman's guess that the answer is not very often, but if they did, the species wouldn't survive.
Not a zoologist either, but I do know that lions make a routine habit out of murdering other Lion's young. Ants are perpetually at war with other ant colonies (with ants, its usually best to envision them as giant extensions of their Queen, and the Queens don't seem to get along).
Snakes attack snakes, chimpanezees behave as if they were all little Heinrich Himmlers to one another, and Dolphins are rapists and murderers.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, but animals are not moral actors.
Hang on now. This is pure anthropomorphism. Animals kill, they don't murder. They don't make war. They don't rape.
Moral Universalism among humans is one thing, (although I don't much care for it) but trying to ascribe human motivations to non-humans is folly. Even in so-called western culture, awareness of a moral transgression is required as part of the standard for determining guilt in cases where humans do such things. That's not a modern view either, go back as far as Hammurabi and you can find parallels.
Yes, "Good" and "Evil" are loaded terms. Call it "Merciful" and "Natural" instead.
Hm. Also rather loaded terms. (Although which terms won't be, at this point?)
I'd go with "Benign" vs. "Malign"
Mercy is another one of those human value judgements. Contrasting it with nature (which humans are just one strand of), seems to be an easy out for us. It lets us put nature in a conceptual box and say "we are better than this because we are capable of guilt". The only reason we're not in the box ourselves at that point is because we built a box deliberately too small to fit in.
The capacity for guilt, imo, is really the only meaningful criteria for sentience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, I compose the morality in my game in what I feel is correct or incorrect. Stuff like the Interrogation spell would be Evil, and by extension torture is Evil. I like to use the Chaotic and Lawful dynamics a fair bit, (taking the example of stealing, that would be Chaotic and possibly Evil or Good depending on circumstance and motivation). The point I'm trying to make is that Alignment is a very diverse thing, and though it is very much an arbitrary creation by the game designers, it is merely a tool that is subject to our own interpretations. Coming to a consensus about anything in this thread (or any like it) is very difficult, and even then...
bleh.
TRIGGER WARNING: Sexual Assault
Dolphins do indeed gang rape female dolphins.
No, they don't. Rape is when humans do it. Coercive intercourse in other species doesn't have any of the moral or ethical issues associated with it that human behavior does. This is a thread explicitly centering on semantic and moral distinctions. Is there coercive intercourse among non-humans? Yes, undeniably. Is it rape? No. Does the fact that other species engage in coercive intercourse provide some sort of moral or biological justification for the practice of rape among humans? No.
Dolphins don't rape each other. Primates don't murder each other. Birds don't commit theft. Jellyfish don't commit assault.
EDIT: inb4 "ZOMG ur trivializing rape!" I'm not. I'm deadly serious about it. I was raped as a child. (This is not an appeal to authority, simply a statement of fact). Rape should be punishable by death, imo. It's easily in the top 5 worst things humans do to each other. Humans.
I'd rather not veer off course here to discuss whether or not something is dolphin-rape.
Fair enough, although I'll readily admit to being confused as to why you started the discussion if you didn't want to have it. Let us move on.
If someone detects as evil there's an expectation that they've done some pretty heinous stuff.
Does that expectation actually fit the reality of the mechanics of the game though?
Baby goblins detect as evil. Do you have to wait until they grow up and actually do something heinous, or are you justified in wrecking baby-face?
And, I have actually been in that exact situation in ** spoiler omitted **
We killed them all, but when I had thought back on it, that was pretty evil. The DM didn't pay any mind to it, but infanticide is extraordinarily heinous. It was like a scene from Platoon that we killed all of them. Goblin is a PC option. For all you know one of them could have grown up to be a great hero. Since PF has more of an idea of a balance of nature vs. nurture than previous editions (goblins aren't just inherently evil), yes I'd say its evil.
Me too. Looking at the entries on goblins though, they're listed as being either CE or NE by nature (as well as incredibly unpleasant and vicious), with the "mostly" bone thrown in for goblinoid PC angsty Drizzt-clones. Honestly this is one of the reasons the alignment axis system is a white elephant, in my opinion. It mixes objective alignments with subjective behaviors and then pretends that they're equivalent.
"Treat X as objectively Evil for mechanical purposes; But it might not actually be evil at all, in which case, GOTCHA!"
"Treat Y as objectively neutral, unless you do something Evil with it; But we're not going to define which actions are Evil, so...GOTCHA!"
"Treat Z as objectively Good, no matter what you do with it, because PC's are GOOD, and the we didn't write about anything much other being GOOD in the alignment section."
No sir, I don't like it. :/
Is there a mechanical method to determine how evil things are? ie. Random encounter of 12 goblins, what are the odds that one of them isn't actually Evil by alignment? Something like that would go a long way towards uncrippling the baseline system. We don't need rules for everything under the sun, but the lack of something like that seems like a pretty basic flaw unless species are actually 'inherently' evil all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My exact wording may have given the wrong impression, but I never claimed that animals do not kill others of their own species: but predatory animals don't kill each other nearly as often as they kill animals of different species. And that's because their species wouldn't survive if they did.
I'm not anthropomorphizing animals. I'm doing the opposite. Humans developed morals because we needed to in order to survive and thrive, just like many other animals did. We simply have the ability to name the aspects of ourselves and ascribe meaning to them (meaning which may or may not be true).
And on the subject of sex habits, there are plenty of animal species that mate for life, and plenty that are promiscuous. To say that one is "unnatural" and another is not is just uninformed.