Alignment shift threats on the other end of the spectrum sound like they could be kind of funny.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I don't much care for the whole, your a good aligned character with a stunning track record of being a pretty awesome dude, but I try to do one thing that's kind of callous or dark and I'm threatened with an alignment shift? So you do one thing that is questionable and suddenly you're entire outlook on the world has changed in an instant and you are an evil douche bag?! PLZ. <_<

However the concept of what would cause these situations for an evil character sound like it could be somewhat comical.

Evil pc gets a parcel from a courier addressed to him, the letter explains his despicably evil grandmother who raised him/her, (I blame her for how I turned out) is running out of retirement money and can't pay her rent. "Ugh... Alright better bail out granny." GM says "NOPE! The only two responses befitting your alignment are to ignore her or tell her to go suck an egg. If you help her you will suffer an alignment switch."

Player with paladin pc responds to GM's alignment shift threat, "What do you mean it is a "good act" to not kick that piglet into the lake?!"

Horrid examples I'm sure, but having one of these threats thrown at me in a PFS game for an eh reason coupled with a really stupid one has seriously left me feeling a little bit of a bough feeling when it comes to this sort of thing, but it did make me wonder what if evil alignments were allowed in PFS, what would cause GM's to throw this kind of threat at them. I started just thinking of really silly reasons. :P


Certain mechanisms to keep a fantasy role playing game balanced and/or playable will never be logical or comparable to real life.


Similarly, anytime a chaotic character follows the laws, they should risk shifting to neutral/lawful alignments. Paid for your meal? Lawful. Didn't murder the maid who looked at you funny? Lawful. Wore clothes, thus following public indecency laws? Oh boy, you can bet that's a lawful act.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

but what if i do good things for bad reasons?

my CE barbarians steals food shipments from prisons and gives the left overs to an orphanage. you just have to ignore the fact that i rent out the orphans as cheap labor.

does that make up for feeding them?


"Do these pants make my ass look fat?" asks the party bard.

"...yes," replies the Lawful monk, unwilling to suffer a shift to Chaotic due to a white lie. Later that day, the monk would have to stride into the enemy fortress in broad daylight, through the front door, because any use of deception or stealth would have been deemed too "Chaotic".

Skreeeeeeeeee wrote:
Similarly, anytime a chaotic character follows the laws, they should risk shifting to neutral/lawful alignments. Paid for your meal? Lawful. Didn't murder the maid who looked at you funny? Lawful. Wore clothes, thus following public indecency laws? Oh boy, you can bet that's a lawful act.

Chaotic is not Evil. Murder is an evil act, not a chaotic one. "There's a law against this" doesn't automatically make that thing chaotic when committed.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Skreeeeeeeeee wrote:
Similarly, anytime a chaotic character follows the laws, they should risk shifting to neutral/lawful alignments. Paid for your meal? Lawful. Didn't murder the maid who looked at you funny? Lawful. Wore clothes, thus following public indecency laws? Oh boy, you can bet that's a lawful act.
Chaotic is not Evil. Murder is an evil act, not a chaotic one. "There's a law against this" doesn't automatically make that thing chaotic when committed.

This a thread for the absurd and the stupid, it totally counts.

Antipaladin falls because he looked both ways before crossing the street.


noble peasant wrote:
Personally I don't much care for the whole, your a good aligned character with a stunning track record of being a pretty awesome dude, but I try to do one thing that's kind of callous or dark and I'm threatened with an alignment shift? So you do one thing that is questionable and suddenly you're entire outlook on the world has changed in an instant and you are an evil douche bag?! PLZ. <_<

Just cite the rules to the DM:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."


Guru-Meditation wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
Personally I don't much care for the whole, your a good aligned character with a stunning track record of being a pretty awesome dude, but I try to do one thing that's kind of callous or dark and I'm threatened with an alignment shift? So you do one thing that is questionable and suddenly you're entire outlook on the world has changed in an instant and you are an evil douche bag?! PLZ. <_<

Just cite the rules to the DM:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

The GM is in charge of the game. The rules are what they say the rules are. Don't like how they run alignment in their game, find a different game.

I don't actually believe this, but if a GM treats alignment like that I would expect the above to be how they think. Showing a rules quote is unlikely to change the mind of someone that apparently doesn't mind taking a dump on their players' enjoyment in order to follow some rules that they don't understand but do have strong opinions about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A cleric of a chaotic deity falls because he is following the God's teachings and not striking out his own path like a chaotic person should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
A cleric of a chaotic deity falls because he is following the God's teachings and not striking out his own path like a chaotic person should.

Does the chaotic deity switch to lawful simply because he/she/it is always concerned about following their own dogma?


I had a GM compliment me on a chaotic act a few weeks back for erasing a blackboard containing the docking information at a harbor. It helped that I was playing my Lamashtan cleric at the time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Demon walks past peasant without killing them. Suddenly redeemed.


marcryser wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
A cleric of a chaotic deity falls because he is following the God's teachings and not striking out his own path like a chaotic person should.
Does the chaotic deity switch to lawful simply because he/she/it is always concerned about following their own dogma?

I now understand why so many chaotic creatures are insane.

It is because they have to be able to follow their gods while not following their gods because they should be following their heart while not following their heart because that is what their god wants because their god is chaotic but their god doesn't want it because their god is chaotic and wants them to follow their own heaaaAAAAAAHHHHH*starts pulling out hair*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Skreeeeeeeeee wrote:
Similarly, anytime a chaotic character follows the laws, they should risk shifting to neutral/lawful alignments. Paid for your meal? Lawful. Didn't murder the maid who looked at you funny? Lawful. Wore clothes, thus following public indecency laws? Oh boy, you can bet that's a lawful act.
Chaotic is not Evil. Murder is an evil act, not a chaotic one. "There's a law against this" doesn't automatically make that thing chaotic when committed.

This a thread for the absurd and the stupid, it totally counts.

Antipaladin falls because he looked both ways before crossing the street.

Chaotic alignment has now been replaced with the YOLO alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kyrrion wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Skreeeeeeeeee wrote:
Similarly, anytime a chaotic character follows the laws, they should risk shifting to neutral/lawful alignments. Paid for your meal? Lawful. Didn't murder the maid who looked at you funny? Lawful. Wore clothes, thus following public indecency laws? Oh boy, you can bet that's a lawful act.
Chaotic is not Evil. Murder is an evil act, not a chaotic one. "There's a law against this" doesn't automatically make that thing chaotic when committed.

This a thread for the absurd and the stupid, it totally counts.

Antipaladin falls because he looked both ways before crossing the street.

Chaotic alignment has now been replaced with the YOLO alignment.

I have played in entirely too many games in which that is exactly how the players perceived Chaotic Neutral, to the point at which my pre-third ed Paladin specifically preferred having dealings with Chaotic Evil individuals rather than Chaotic Neutral ones due to the simple fact that their behavior managed to make some measure of sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(

Chaotic characters now change alignment because they have a consistently bad rap.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is tough to keep in a game, and I typically exclude it, but there are a few points that I always bring up for these things that eliminate 90% of the silly examples people use:

1) Alignment is a result of your actions, not the cause of them. Anyone can do anything they want regardless of their alignment. If this act is not in accordance to their alignment, then the alignment may shift, but nothing about being alignment X forces you to act like someone with alignment X. The confusion stems from the fact that all NPCs are assumed to have hit a stable alignment point whereby their alignment and their behavior are in harmony. And most PCs too. But players are allowed to do whatever they want and simply must expect that their alignment will follow them to their destination.

2) Chaotic doesn't mean "random". It means intuitive. You don't do things by the letter or based on concrete data, you do them by what feels like the correct thing to do. This often means flying in the face of tradition, outright ignoring the law, or even behaving in an apparently random fashion, but those are consequences of what chaotic is rather than a core part of it. And it isn't random, you just have an inarticulable way of looking at things.

3) Alignment doesn't shift for a single action unless that action is unusually extreme. Lighting an innocent person on fire and healing them just enough to keep them from death a while longer so that they suffer more, and doing so for the sheer pleasure of it, would shift anyone one step away from good. But kicking a puppy is unlikely to shift anything on its own. The sticking point is where to draw the line, and what counts as non-zero in the first place. (Incidentally, this is why I don't use alignment...)

4) You don't have to be Evil with a capital E to be evil in many traditional senses. BBEGs are as likely to be neutral as evil, and in rare cases might even be good! It's crazy world out there. Also, it's a common trope to mess with the head of the good guys by showing the antagonist performing good deeds, like charity work, and be doing such deeds in earnest. Then they turn around and try to kill some s*#@ with minimal prompting.

The fact is, people need to describe what their character does *then* pick alignment, not the other way around. It would make things a lot easier. And this applies to both PC and NPC creation.


xenlev wrote:
Certain mechanisms to keep a fantasy role playing game balanced and/or playable will never be logical or comparable to real life.

What mechanisms are this?

This is an alignment thread, you know. I sincerely hope you don't think alignment is necessary to keep the game balanced and/or playable.


Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(

I don't know.

Robin Hood(the typical representation of him in pop culture) is chaotic good, and he is kind of cool.

Paladins are lawful good, and stereotypically they are stick-in-the-mud jack***s.

OTOH, lawful evil characters frequently have the magnificent b*****d thing going for them, while chaotic evil characters are as nutty as a lune.

Liberty's Edge

I think much of the problems with Alignment come from DM side and people being uptight about it or using it as an excuse to abuse players for what ever childish reason someone may have for making someones time at the game table miserable.

You want a good example of how strict Aligmnet should be? read some novels or comics based on pathfinder or older D&D settings that clearly have an alignment (even better if you can find them stated on paper) and you can see just how much leeway you get in an Alignment.

Alignment doesn't make your rp, your rp makes your Alignment what it is and if a DM is being a jerk about then they have a problem or like picking on people.


Alignment is not a straight jacket. It's a general description of how an individual will probably approach a situation.

Nothing about any alignment makes a person stupid or crazy. They are just loose behavioral descriptions. That's all. Don't try to turn them into mechanical fetters. That will do nothing but make your game harder to play.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know a person who really wants to bring in an antipaladin.

This thread made me imagine her having said antipaladin having to hide the spiky armour and infiltrate a small town; as he befriends its populace, he finds himself unwilling to kill any of them. When the time comes to put his evil plan into effect, he balks.

His prayers abruptly go unanswered. Searching aimlessly for something to give himself purpose again, he finds himself at the town's temple of Erastil.

His repentance is wholehearted; his re-training, rapid. By the next session, the GM has let him trade in all his levels.

He has risen.

Though I don't think that's what she'd want her guy to do.

Liberty's Edge

Ravenovf wrote:

I think much of the problems with Alignment come from DM side and people being uptight about it or using it as an excuse to abuse players for what ever childish reason someone may have for making someones time at the game table miserable.

You want a good example of how strict Aligmnet should be? read some novels or comics based on pathfinder or older D&D settings that clearly have an alignment (even better if you can find them stated on paper) and you can see just how much leeway you get in an Alignment.

Alignment doesn't make your rp, your rp makes your Alignment what it is and if a DM is being a jerk about then they have a problem or like picking on people.

I agree with your third paragraph, and can see your point on the first paragraph, but feel that there is also a more fundamental problem worth pointing out.

Morality is something everyone holds dear to their heart. They cannot be reasoned out of their morality. Any conflict between the morality of two people will end in violence (at least metaphorically) or an agreement to disagree. Alignment always, eventually, forces such a discussion, and "agree to disagree" is not a valid outcome of such discussions as there is a game outcome to the result and few are willing to set aside their morals easily. A clever diplomat will find a third option, but most of us aren't so clever.

At the end of the day, so long as alignment is based on the morality of the players (and DM) rather than some external entity, it will be flawed. It would be much better if the lore said "these X individuals decide what 'good' means" and so on, because then any arguments would be an analysis of the morality of those creatures instead of the players and/or DM. Ostensibly there is some such force, but without giving that force an explicit anthropomorphized personality it may as well not exist. Once it's based on another personality you can have an outcome of "DM rules that this god views it this way" without insinuating anything about the moral system of any present at the table. It doesn't prevent arguments, but it allows agree-to-disagree to be a valid, maybe even amiable outcome.

If I were to include alignment in a game, I would state that what counts as good was decided via a negotiation between the gods, and likewise for each other axis. This may mean that the definition of "good" varies from setting to setting, place to place, or even from era to era, but I'd rather have that than the alternative. It also lets me introduce "WTF? Why is HE good/evil?!" as a fun element.

None of this is to say that alignment is worthless. Far from it! It has many uses in both crunch and fluff that are tough to throw out. Even in games where I don't truly include alignment, subtyped creatures (and those with such creatures strongly present in their blood) are still aligned so that such tropes can exist at some level.

Now I'm very curious to see a story where an anti-paladin rises.


Snowblind wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(

I don't know.

Robin Hood(the typical representation of him in pop culture) is chaotic good, and he is kind of cool.

Robin Hood was consistently loyal to the crown. Therefore, he is Lawful and looses all of his ranger powers.


Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(

I don't know.

Robin Hood (the typical representation of him in pop culture) is chaotic good, and he is kind of cool.

Robin Hood was consistently loyal to the crown. Therefore, he is Lawful and looses all of his ranger powers.

I don't remember "loyalty to the crown" being a notable thing with the typical pop culture perception/representation of robin hood.

I put the pop culture thing in for a very good reason.

Of course, the loyalty thing would still be a valid reason to "Fall" in some GM's books. Even if he is still robbing the rich, giving to the poor, and generally doing whatever the **** he wants, legality be damned.


Chaotic people can be loyal to things. Even Chaotic Evil Antipaladins are loyal to the gods they worship.

Don't conflate loyalty, personal codes, or ethics of any kind with Lawfulness.


Doomed Hero wrote:

Chaotic people can be loyal to things. Even Chaotic Evil Antipaladins are loyal to the gods they worship.

Don't conflate loyalty, personal codes, or ethic of any kind with Lawfulness.

A personal code is specifically mentioned as an expression of lawfulness under the description of the lawful neutral alignment published by the game developers. Synonyms for ethics and loyalty such as honour, obedience, trustworthiness and reliability are in the description of lawfulness provided by the developers as well so I'm super curious: if loyalty, personal codes and ethics are not representative of lawfulness, what is?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed! I mean, everyone knows that Lawfulness is about oppressing the individual, grinding everyone down to a uniform paste, suppressing original thought, upholding useless traditions, scorning progress and regulating every aspect of your life. ;D


Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Chaos gets such a bad rap. :(

I don't know.

Robin Hood(the typical representation of him in pop culture) is chaotic good, and he is kind of cool.

Robin Hood was consistently loyal to the crown. Therefore, he is Lawful and looses all of his ranger powers.

Because ranger has a non-lawful alignment rest... oh, wait.

Snowblind wrote:

I don't remember "loyalty to the crown" being a notable thing with the typical pop culture perception/representation of robin hood.

I put the pop culture thing in for a very good reason.

Actually, loyalty to the crown is the biggest addition made by the pop-culture perception. It wasn't in the originals.


Doomed Hero wrote:

Chaotic people can be loyal to things. Even Chaotic Evil Antipaladins are loyal to the gods they worship.

Don't conflate loyalty, personal codes, or ethics of any kind with Lawfulness.

Loyalty is for lawful people. Therefore, the Antipaladins who worship Gods all fall.

In fact, Antipaladins will fall anyway if they are consistently evil, establishing a pattern.

Patterns are lawful, you see.


Having read the Guide to PFS recently... I do have to ask the OP. What exactly did you try to do that had your GM reaching for the nuclear launch button?

Cleric loses his powers and must get Atonement to get them back. Why? He stubbed his toe and yelled "Augh! G%* d&%mit!" Yay blasphemy!

Paladin loses his powers because, during a debate with an atheist, the atheist's perspective forced him to think... doubting your loyalty to Iomedae, after, all, is leaning way too far chaotic.

Wanting to be a blacksmith instead of a tavern wench, and working consistently toward your goal, is neutral with respect to law and chaos. (Consistency is lawful; defiance is chaotic. Just ignore the Iconic Gunslinger's stated alignment, please.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here are the answers you're looking for.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
noble peasant wrote:
Personally I don't much care for the whole, your a good aligned character with a stunning track record of being a pretty awesome dude, but I try to do one thing that's kind of callous or dark and I'm threatened with an alignment shift? So you do one thing that is questionable and suddenly you're entire outlook on the world has changed in an instant and you are an evil douche bag?! PLZ. <_<

it's more likely, that the character is neutral if he's doing that kind of stuff, also it won;t change your outlook it will change if you detect as good/evil or neither.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

chaotic people are anti-establishment.

your typical pirate attacking spanish ships because A. it's profitable and B. you hate rich as hell spain, is your typical chaotic neutral character.


Man, tell me about it. My evil characters are always in danger of getting lax and slipping up into neutral.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Asmodeus jaywalks... becomes Chaotic Evil.

Does it again... becomes Lawful Evil.

Scolds someone else for jaywalking, becomes Lawful Good.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Here are the answers you're looking for.

Not really. Redefining the question does not answer to existing definitions. It was an interesting article though, thanks.


^While it does a bit of redefinition and isn't exactly how I would have made the definitions in the case of the Law-Chaos axis, it's a really good start.


Bandw2 wrote:

chaotic people are anti-establishment.

your typical pirate attacking spanish ships because A. it's profitable and B. you hate rich as hell spain, is your typical chaotic neutral character.

However, attacking Spanish ships implies you have a personal code which automatically makes you lawful.

Also, attacking someone else for profit? That's evil. So your pirate character is Lawful Evil. Thus, he loses all of his pirate class features.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pirate Myth Debunking

Yes pirates did have codes or articles. If all you ever did was watch pirate movies, you’d think that being a pirate was easy: no rules other than to attack rich Spanish galleons, drink rum and swing around in the rigging. In reality, most pirate crews had a code which all members were required to acknowledge or sign. These rules included punishments for lying, stealing or fighting on board (fighting on shore was OK). Pirates took these articles very seriously and punishments could be severe.

Spoiler:
ARTICLE 1: Every Man has a Vote in Affairs of the Moment; has equal title to the fresh Provisions, or Strong Liquors, at any Time seized, and use of them at Pleasure, unless a Scarcity make it necessary, for the good of all, to Vote a Retrenchment.

ARTICLE 2: Every man shall obey civil command; the captain shall have one full share and a half in all prizes. the Quartermaster, Carpenter, Boatswain, and Gunner shall have one share and quarter.

ARTICLE 3: If any man shall offer to run away, or keep any secret from the Company, he shall be marroon'd with one bottle of powder, one bottle of Water, one small Arm, and shot.

ARTICLE 4: If any Man shall steal any Thing in the Company, or game, to the value of a piece of Eight, he shall be Marroon'd or shot.

ARTICLE 5: If at any Time we should meet with another Marrooner (that is, Pirate) that man shall sign his Articles without Consent of our Company, shall suffer such Punishment as the Captain and Company shall think fit.

ARTICLE 6: That man that shall strike another, whilst these Articles are in force, shall receive Moses's Law (that is 40 Stripes lacking one) on the bare Back.

ARTICLE 7: That Man that shall snap his Arms, or smoke Tobacco in the Hold, without cap to his Pipe, or carry a candle lighted without lantern, shall suffer the same Punishment as in the former Article.

ARTICLE 8: That Man that shall not keep his Arms clean, fit for an Engagement, or neglect his Business, shall be cut off from his Share, and suffer such other Punishment as the Captain and Company shall think fit.

ARTICLE 9: If any man shall lose a joint in time of Engagement, he shall have 400 Pieces of Eight: if a limb, 800.

ARTICLE 10: If at any time you meet with a prudent Woman, that Man that offers to meddle with her, without her Consent, shall suffer Death.

Pirates are not as bad as people make them out to be. Pirates are just sailors who said "F- IT!" it. The overwhelming majority of pirates were honest sailors who ditched their jobs because the conditions were awful. Only a small minority became a pirate because they actually enjoyed being an outlaw. Being a sailor during pirate times was one of the worst jobs ever, and if they lived under British rule, most of them didn't so much "sign up" as "get kidnapped by the Royal Navy."

The typical reasons a pirate would raid another ship is:
#1: Medicine (Which would be considered a very valuable find)
#2: Gold/Silver (If Lucky)
#3: Food
#4: Spices/Exotic Goods (If Lucky)
#4: Mundane Items (Soaps, clothes, etc)

^
That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Pirates were very lawful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another good article about how alignment works and how it influences the game world.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Antipaladin on not murdering a puppy:
This puppy will turn into a dog. Either a stray dog that will spread parasites, diseases, and contribute to canine overpopulation; or a beloved pet that will worm it's way into a child's heart only to perish fifteen years later, being their first experience of death and loss! Mwahahahaha! PRAISE BE TO ROVAGUG!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Witch Doctor wrote:

Pirate Myth Debunking

Yes pirates did have codes or articles. If all you ever did was watch pirate movies, you’d think that being a pirate was easy: no rules other than to attack rich Spanish galleons, drink rum and swing around in the rigging. In reality, most pirate crews had a code which all members were required to acknowledge or sign. These rules included punishments for lying, stealing or fighting on board (fighting on shore was OK). Pirates took these articles very seriously and punishments could be severe.

** spoiler omitted **...

having a code is one thing, hating large governing bodies is much more chaotic than agreeing to smart rules is lawful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
noble peasant wrote:

Personally I don't much care for the whole, your a good aligned character with a stunning track record of being a pretty awesome dude, but I try to do one thing that's kind of callous or dark and I'm threatened with an alignment shift? So you do one thing that is questionable and suddenly you're entire outlook on the world has changed in an instant and you are an evil douche bag?! PLZ. <_<

Flipping that question back to you. If you ARE that good and awesome, then why would you intentionally be doing evil? It's supposed to be tougher to live up to the standards of Good as opposed to Evil or Neutrality... just like it is in the real world.

If you're looking to operate on the modality that Good and Evil are nothing more than two flip sides of the same coin, you're not operating under the default assumptions of Pathfinder, and certainly not Golarion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Witch Doctor wrote:

Pirate Myth Debunking

Yes pirates did have codes or articles. If all you ever did was watch pirate movies, you’d think that being a pirate was easy: no rules other than to attack rich Spanish galleons, drink rum and swing around in the rigging. In reality, most pirate crews had a code which all members were required to acknowledge or sign. These rules included punishments for lying, stealing or fighting on board (fighting on shore was OK). Pirates took these articles very seriously and punishments could be severe.

** spoiler omitted **...

The "reality" is probably considerably more different than either scenario, if modern day piracy is any clue.


LazarX wrote:
noble peasant wrote:


Flipping that question back to you. If you ARE that good and awesome, then why would you intentionally be doing evil? It's supposed to be tougher to live up to the standards of Good as opposed to Evil or Neutrality... just like it is in the real world.

If you're looking to operate on the modality that Good and Evil are nothing more than two flip sides of the same coin, you're not operating under the default assumptions of Pathfinder, and certainly not Golarion.

Where do you get that it is supposed to be tougher to live up to the standards of good than evil or neutrality?

The definitions of alignments in the pathfinder core RPG do not say it is tougher to be good, it just says they are different.

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life"

"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment"

Doing some evil but on the whole having the balance come out to good and having a good alignment seems completely supported by the concepts of alignment in pathfinder.

Dark Archive

Personally I label my thieves who follow a thieves code as lawful neutral usually, thieves guilds are 100% lawful neutral organizations in my book as they follow their own rules to the letter rather than the rules of the city/country. In fact I think that lawful people no matter their alignment on the good/evil axis come into conflict more than chaotic people.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
2) Chaotic doesn't mean "random". It means intuitive.

Spoken just like a lawful person, trying to force your definitions on us!

Witch Doctor wrote:
ARTICLE 3: If any man shall offer to run away, or keep any secret from the Company, he shall be marroon'd with one bottle of powder, one bottle of Water, one small Arm, and shot.

the wording of this one can be taken several ways

Spoiler:

Crew leaves Mutinous Crewmember on shore, dropping off powder, water, and handgun

Captain pulls out pistol

Mutinous Crewmember: hey! you are supposed to leave me shot
Captain: I am going to leave you shot

Captain points pistol at Mutinous Crewmember

Mutinous Crewmember: no, the articles mean that you are supposed to leave me shot for this pistol.
Captain: I would not shoot you for your pistol. The articles are clear I'm supposed to leave the pistol with you.
Mutinous Crewmember; No, it means you are supposed to leave me ammunition for my pistol
Captain: but then what's to stop you from shooting me?
Mutinous Crewmember: I'm not going to shoot you! With all your friends here? Do I look stupid?
Captain: Let us think about it

Captain and Crew confer, murmuring to each other

Captain: you may have the right Rule As Written, but we believe we have the right Rule as it was Intended. I'm sure if the pirate developers were still here (and had not been left on an island and shot) they would agree with me. I am to leave you water, powder, a gun, and I'm to leave you shot.
Mutinous Crewmember: That doesn't make sense though, why leave me the water, powder, and gun?
Captain: To build your hopes up?

Captain aims pistol at Mutinous Crewmember

Mutinous Crewmember: Wait, I have a list of frequently asked questions in my pocket, it addresses this specific issue when it came up on Captain Blackhelm's ship.

Mutinous Crewmember slowly reaches into pocket and pulls out paper, holding it out. Captain quickly grabs it and begins reading.

Captian: to himself regarding contracts with water elemen... no that's not it ... regulations on widths of planks .. no ... Ah! to everyone Here it is! The crewmember left behind will be left a bag of shot that he can put in his pistol, so he is not left undefended against the local flora or fauna. Well, it seems you are right. I must leave you a bag of shot. Boy, those poor rule developers, no wonder they looked so surprised. Oh well here you go.

Captain tosses bag of shot to Mutinous Crewmember

Mutinous Crewmember: Hold on, just let me make sure this is the right size shot for this pistol.

Mutinous Crewmember puts shot in pistol, arms it with powder, points it at Captain, and shoots.

Captain: Tricked!

Captain dies

Mutinous Crewmember: Well duh, of course I was going to shoot you, why do you think I wrote the FAQ entry that way? Ever since you instituted wiki faqs any bozo can write anything. to crew Ok you lousy scallawags! Row me back to the boat, this is your new captain speaking!

Mutinous Crewmember gets in dingy, crew begins rowing him.

Mutinous Crewmember: while on the way let me just erase this FAQ entry so this can't happen again

exeunt

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Voadam wrote:
LazarX wrote:
noble peasant wrote:


Flipping that question back to you. If you ARE that good and awesome, then why would you intentionally be doing evil? It's supposed to be tougher to live up to the standards of Good as opposed to Evil or Neutrality... just like it is in the real world.

If you're looking to operate on the modality that Good and Evil are nothing more than two flip sides of the same coin, you're not operating under the default assumptions of Pathfinder, and certainly not Golarion.

Where do you get that it is supposed to be tougher to live up to the standards of good than evil or neutrality?

What part of the Hero in Heroic Fantasy do you not get? If you really think that Good requires no more effort than evil, you not only do NOT get the genre, you've missing out on a lot that's been happening around you the bulk of your life. And if you are truly that unobservant, than there is absolutely nothing further I can say to answer you.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment shift threats on the other end of the spectrum sound like they could be kind of funny. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.