Lawful Good Question

[Bardofcyberspace]

First I don't think there is a right answer per say but I want to see what people think of Lawful Good.

A group of assassins try to kill the party. One or more of them are captured in they failed assassination. Can the Lawful Good Magus take party in torture to get answers out of the attackers?

The Lawful Good Magus has a military background and Served in the Kingdoms army.

If you think he can or cant please list rules and or your opinions that support your view. Thank you.

[DominusMegadeus]

Hurting people is bad. You're hurting someone who cannot defend themselves. You're bad.

That's my argument. Don't torture people.

[Claxon]

Torture is definitely an evil act.

But that doesn't mean the magus can't participate in it, though as a lawful good character he might have reservations about doing so. But there could be plenty of compelling reasons why he might decide to act outside of his alignment.

Alignment isn't a straight jacket. A player should come up with an idea of how his character would behave, regardless of their alignment.

But regardless, he will be committing an evil act.

That doesn't mean his alignment will automatically change, but it might depending on how despicable the torture is. This also might just be a stepping stone to other evil acts, and bring him on the way to lawful neutral or eventually lawful evil.

As the magus' power is dependent on his alignment, it's largely irrelevant what his alignment is.

[Stone Dog]

Generally I play that both good and lawful types avoid torture as a direct means of information gathering. Good types because it is cruel and lawful types because it is unreliable.

The Lawful Good Magus might find it distasteful and refuse to take part in the actual torments, but might be able to play the "good cop" and finesse information through mercy.

[Entryhazard]

Why practice torture when you have magic?

[Bardofcyberspace]

So if torture even for just reasons to save other people etc find the person trying to kill you ect is still evil?

So evil done to evil people still evil?

[Davor]

The question isn't "Can a LG Magus participate in torture", but rather " WOULD a LG Magus participate in torture". A character can do whatever the player says he does. Whether or not he would given his back story and alignment is a different story altogether.

[Bardofcyberspace]

The magus does not have to be the one doing the torturing but if he allows it is it still evil

[Claxon]

Pathfinder morality doesn't really include an "ends justify the means" clause.

Torture is evil, even if it's for a good reason.

Now the good you might do with the information might outweigh the evil of torture, but that doesn't change that you committed an evil act in the process.

Remember, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

[Entryhazard]

"the end justifies the means" vs "two wrongs don't make a right"

anyway depending on how smart you character is he might even know that torture isn't really effective at gathering information

[Bardofcyberspace]

OK so same group kills all assassin in the battle. Town guards arest the party to stand trail, the party wants to make a brake for it , would the Lawful good Magus have to stay behind and go to trail or would he go with the party?

Also what if torture in this kingdom is legal then could the magus do it?

[Bardofcyberspace]

Does being ordered to commit evil alleviate your moral responsibility to the crime.
Example
The king orders no survivers kill every man woman and child. E

[Isonaroc]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

Can the Lawful Good Magus take party in torture to get answers out of the attackers?

Absolutely.

Oh, wait, are you asking if it's LG to torture a prisoner? No, no it's not. The magus isn't bound by a code like a paladin, so there won't be any mechanical effects from it, but no, it's not LG. In general torture is not a good act, and depending on where you are it is possibly illegal as well.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

Does being ordered to commit evil alleviate your moral responsibility to the crime.

Example
The king orders no survivers kill every man woman and child.

Nope, still evil, but it's not chaotic.

[blackbloodtroll]

Real life torture usually gives you nothing.

They end up saying whatever they think you want to hear, to stop the torture. It doesn't make it true.

Manipulation, or Compulsion, are better methods.

[Bardofcyberspace]

True but I am looking for more of a moral compass. Lawful good does not mean holy. A lawful good character who obeys the laws of the land and does good to further the land and its laws is lawful good. But that doesn't mean he is holy or should be held to religious rules of lawful good

[Bardofcyberspace]

If killing is evil,
And evil done to evil people is evil,
Then how can any combatic character be lawful good? Sooner or later your actions will cause someone's death you killing the goblin or not killing him and he kills your party.

[blackbloodtroll]

Obeying the law, and being good, are two very different things.

[Bardofcyberspace]

Yes you are correct so then how can someone be a lawful good character? If lawful and good are different

[LazarX]

Law and Good, as well as Chaos and Evil are defined by the "objective" standards of the game, not what the local kingdom declares.

[Stone Dog]

In general (which is what I think alignments are, generalities), I think that the Big E depends mainly on motivation. Basically, the more that you are actually motivated to inflict or have pain inflicted to acheive your goals, the more likely that you are getting that Big E on your record. But merely allowing Evil to happen isn't wicked enough to warrant the capital letter. It just isn't going to get you the bright, shiney G either.

But yes, if something is dark enough in method and motive to be considered Evil, then doing it to Evil people is still Evil. Demons don't get any heavenly rewards just for slaughtering devils, after all.

[Bardofcyberspace]

So braking a kindoms law because you are lawful good, by game standard would not make your character evil. So killing guard who are defending there homes, which happen to be where a evil wizard lives is OK even if said gards are lawful good by game standard?

[Stone Dog]

Breaking the law all by itself is most likely to be a Chaotic act, not necessarily Evil. It is more likely to be Evil the more likely it is to hurt the people involved, especially if the hurting is considered a feature and not a bug.

Good people should avoid killing guards who are just normal citizens doing their jobs, no matter what the alignment of the guards are. Subduing is a better option for Good people. Guards who abuse their power and terrorize the town aren't just normal citizens though, so a little less mercy might be more forgivable.

Evil people might just fireball the whole house, innocents and all and call it a "tragic accident" when talking about it later.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Can the Lawful Good Magus take party in torture to get answers out of the attackers?

My logic on this:

1) Torture doesn't actually work for getting answers. It is therefore simply hurting people for no even utilitarian reason. Which is unambiguously evil.
2) The gods of Golarion would know this. And since this isn't exactly advanced technological knowledge or anything, and they communicate openly with followers and can be asked direct questions with commune, and have no reason to keep this secret if hurting people needlessly is not in their best interests, Golarions have no excuse not to know this either if they ever stop and ask or hesitate or studied under the church of their good god, etc.
3) Thus, torture can result in a judgment of negligence at best and is liable for removal of powers from relevant clerics, rangers, druids, or paladins, depending on extent, consistency, severity.

In gameplay terms, the PLAYER might not be aware of #1, so I would inform them of such, and their character if necessary, before asking for a confirmation of their choice, then proceed accordingly.

[Bardofcyberspace]

Remember he is a magus and may not talk to any god. He is not a holy or divne character only a lawful good one

[My Self]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

Remember he is a magus and may not talk to any god. He is not a holy or divne character only a lawful good one

Being servant to a deity does not alter the lawfulness or goodness of an act.

[Bardofcyberspace]

When faced with a impossible choice is the lesser of two evils still evil? Does one act of evil make one evil? Does the evil wizard who on a whim safes a child make him good by his one act of kindness?

[My Self]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

When faced with a impossible choice is the lesser of two evils still evil? Does one act of evil make one evil? Does the evil wizard who on a whim safes a child make him good by his one act of kindness?

Yes but no.

It's still evil if you don't repent, atone, or otherwise feel guilt and act to redeem yourself in a good-aligned manner.

Evil wizard who saves a child on a whim does not suddenly become good unless he has consistently been behaving good, goes through great pains to save the child, gets a Helm of Opposite Alignment plopped on his skull, or receives an Atonement spell. Saving a kid once a week does not make up for a lifetime of evil.

[Claxon]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

OK so same group kills all assassin in the battle. Town guards arest the party to stand trail, the party wants to make a brake for it , would the Lawful good Magus have to stay behind and go to trail or would he go with the party?

Also what if torture in this kingdom is legal then could the magus do it?

Please bear in mind the lawful does not necessarily means follows the law of the country a character is in.

A lawful good magus may await his trial and defend himself. He may also decide that his mission is more important and attempt to escape (while non-lethally subduing guards on the way). He may also wait until the trial shows that it is likely he would be convicted of a crime rather than being set free.

As far as if torture is legal, it would mean that it would not be an un-lawful act to participate in torture. But it would still be evil.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

Does being ordered to commit evil alleviate your moral responsibility to the crime.

Example
The king orders no survivers kill every man woman and child. E

No. Being ordered to commit evil does not make you less culpable for evil in a moral sense. It might alleviate your legal responsibility, but commit evil when ordered is still evil. The Nuremberg Trials are an example of when people tried to use the defense of "but we were ordered". It did not help them.

Following an obviously evil order makes it a lawful evil act. But its still evil.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

True but I am looking for more of a moral compass. Lawful good does not mean holy. A lawful good character who obeys the laws of the land and does good to further the land and its laws is lawful good. But that doesn't mean he is holy or should be held to religious rules of lawful good

A lawful good character does not necessarily follow the laws of the land. That's a misconception. Lawful means the individual has a strict code that they follow.

A paladin in a country with evil laws that say they must kill a puppy each day would not be committing a chaotic act by ignoring that law. Because it would violate his code (which is a greater law to him).

And the religion part is irrelevant. Holy or unholy is irrelevant. It only means that he does not lose his powers because his class isn't dependent on having a particular alignment or following a particular god or code.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

If killing is evil,

And evil done to evil people is evil,
Then how can any combatic character be lawful good? Sooner or later your actions will cause someone's death you killing the goblin or not killing him and he kills your party.

Killing isn't necessarily evil. Murder is evil, but murder is different from killing. Killing in self defense is likely neutral. Killing a BBEG who is threatening the entire world with destruction is possibly a good act, provided that you do it in a humane way and don't try to inflict pain unnecessarily to end him as a threat. Although if you really wanted to be good you would probably try to convince him not go through with his action. But when he most likely refuses you will be in the right to kill him.

[Crimeo]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

Remember he is a magus and may not talk to any god. He is not a holy or divne character only a lawful good one

There are things called libraries / other people. Only a few folks need to have been individually informed of such information for anybody who cares to have access to it.

(So yeah, eventual alignment change instead of lost powers, same difference. I think, I've never actually looked carefully at Magus rules, never played or GMed one.)

[Bardofcyberspace]

A magus has no alignment restrictions which is why I choice it as the center of the questions.

So breaking into someone someone house killing everyone and taking everything of vaule evil?

[Isonaroc]

So...is the point of this thread to be obvious? I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve.

[Bardofcyberspace]

Lawful Good
Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light, I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end. Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.

Of paizo website for alignment

[Claxon]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

When faced with a impossible choice is the lesser of two evils still evil? Does one act of evil make one evil? Does the evil wizard who on a whim safes a child make him good by his one act of kindness?

Impossible choices are usually bullsh*t. There's usually other options that are being overlooked. You would have to come up with a very contrived scenario. Even then, if your choices are kill guy a for no reason, or kill guy b for no reason then you can always choose neither (with the likely outcome being dying yourself). Choosing to kill either would be evil. Choosing to let yourself die would be neutral. Attempting to subdue the person who set up the scenario would be good. Such situations are usually the result of scumbag DMs who want to force terrible situations on people, not because they have any legitimate reason to exist.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

A magus has no alignment restrictions which is why I choice it as the center of the questions.

So breaking into someone someone house killing everyone and taking everything of vaule evil?

The class is irrelevant. The only part relevant about the class is that the magus will not lose his powers if he stops being good or lawful. It does not change the morality of his actions.

And yes, obviously breaking into someone's house, killing them, and taking all their stuff is clearly evil.

[Bardofcyberspace]

So how can lawful good characters going goblin caves uninvited kill all goblins and take the loot and still be good characters?

The point to the three is to gain perspective on lawful good so I don't assume all lawful good characters are paadins.

[Bardofcyberspace]

One I am driving at does a lawful good Magus who torture for information become lawful netral or does no one act say this character is good or bad.

[Claxon]

A group of good characters going into a goblins home and killing the goblins isn't evil because the goblins have most likely done something evil to get the party's attention in the first place. Like raiding a city and killing people/livestock.

As I covered, not all killing is evil. Murder is evil. Killing evil goblins which have raided towns is not evil. It is most likely a neutral act. If you needlessly inflict pain and relish in killing them, that's evil.

If you find a group of peaceful non-evil goblins which haven't done any raiding or other evil acts, it would be very evil to kill them. Just as it would with humans.

The only differences is that goblins are normally evil and subsist by raiding small villages, killing animals and people as they desire.

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

One I am driving at does a lawful good Magus who torture for information become lawful netral or does no one act say this character is good or bad.

Generally, a single act is not enough to change someone's alignment. Extreme acts might be sufficient to do so.

Paladins are different because a single act of evil causes him to not be a paladin anymore. But a single chaotic act wouldn't necessarily make him chaotic instead of lawful. A single evil act might not necessarily make him evil instead of good, but it is enough to cause him to lose his powers (because that's a restriction of the class).

[Renata Maclean]

If there's evidence that the goblin community is not dangerous, murdering them is indeed an evil act. Generally though, if they've attracted the attention of PCs, they've probably been raiding nearby settlements, etc.

[Bardofcyberspace]

See your right on the money party's of players never ask the right questions if you have a raiding party of goblins raid a village you slay everyone in the cave yeah hero's , but wait there was a two different clans in those cave and you killed them all. How many times as players or Dm did you make sure this cave was home to those goblin you killed in town?

[Claxon]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

See your right on the money party's of players never ask the right questions if you have a raiding party of goblins raid a village you slay everyone in the cave yeah hero's , but wait there was a two different clans in those cave and you killed them all. How many times as players or Dm did you make sure this cave was home to those goblin you killed in town?

Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If something like that were to happen, well it seems very unusual that a group of violent evil goblins would coexist in the same place as peaceful good goblins. But lets assume they do, the good goblins would probably surrender or try to profess their innocence and explain the situation.

Of course the PC characters would need to be able to sort out the truth from the liars, because the evil goblins would probably try to feign innocence. Of course that's what Sense Motive is for as well as an array of magical spells that are aimed at helping you determine the truth.

But if a GM doesn't give you any indication that some of the goblins aren't evil, well that's just bad GM'ing. The players and their characters can't be expected to act on things that the GM doesn't make them aware of.

[Davor]

Remember, alignments are all about generalizations, not about totalitarian action. A Lawful Good character will generally obey the laws, but would probably disobey them if he found the laws unjust. Likewise, a Lawful Good character might follow the laws, even if they're evil, if he believes that the greater good may come of it.

These choices, however, are rare in the case of a Lawful Good person, who typically does things that are lawful and good. One evil act does not make one evil, just as one good act does not make one good. If someone expects to keep that LG on their character sheet, they need to act in a way that befits that alignment on the whole. A few slip ups won't change that. If, however, they routinely act out of that alignment, it's entirely possible that they just put the wrong alignment on their sheet, or their character is gradually changing through the story.

[Hellknight #685,340]

Just make sure to be Lawful, and everything else will go well.

[Bardofcyberspace]

I think plays are to use to video game the see the world in look and exp nothing more this moral compass thread was to help open up my ideas to new ideas and hopefully find a way to bring lawful good character as into my world. Maybe even paladins but most avoid them like the plague.

Thanks Everyone

[Lord Twitchiopolis]

How badly does the evil of the action weigh against the good gleaned from the action?
Is torturing a cultist the only way to get the information needed to prevent the demon lord from crossing over to the material plane? Heck, the paladin can enact the torture at that point.
Is the torture completely unnecessary, like torturing a captive AND compliment cultist who will willingly give up the information? That's an alignment shift.

Does the LG guy enjoy the torture, or is it a necessary evil? Motive goes a long way.

[Renata Maclean]

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

How badly does the evil of the action weigh against the good gleaned from the action?

Is torturing a cultist the only way to get the information needed to prevent the demon lord from crossing over to the material plane? Heck, the paladin can enact the torture at that point.
Is the torture completely unnecessary, like torturing a captive AND compliment cultist who will willingly give up the information? That's an alignment shift.

Does the LG guy enjoy the torture, or is it a necessary evil? Motive goes a long way.

Torture isn't reliable, though, as mentioned earlier. And it's still an evil act, especially with other means of gathering information.

[lemeres]

Stone Dog wrote:

In general (which is what I think alignments are, generalities), I think that the Big E depends mainly on motivation. Basically, the more that you are actually motivated to inflict or have pain inflicted to acheive your goals, the more likely that you are getting that Big E on your record. But merely allowing Evil to happen isn't wicked enough to warrant the capital letter. It just isn't going to get you the bright, shiney G either.

But yes, if something is dark enough in method and motive to be considered Evil, then doing it to Evil people is still Evil. Demons don't get any heavenly rewards just for slaughtering devils, after all.

But what if you are so focused on your goals that inflicting pain doesn't seem like a problem?

That is a slippery slope there, my friend. 'road to hell is paved in good intentions', and all that.

If you think that the pain of others is a minor problem compared to your goals...yeah....

even evil people can want to save orphans. It is all about the extent to which one goes to do so.

For a less abstract discussion- the punisher. Even though the people he fights are generally 'evil', and he does it to protect people....he ain't no clark kent. He isn't even batman.

Batman is an even better example- he is generally seen as LG...and he is VERY lawful, so that he doesn't stop being good. He binds himself with rules so that he doesn't just become some maniac vigilant.

Overall...there is a basic "roughing them up" with some 'love taps'...and then there is getting the daggers out. And then there is getting the spoons out.

Anyway...I would say nonlethal damage is probably alright, now that we are talking about it. The image of a hero or detective giving a punk a good jab and yelling at them to tell them what they want to know... it is more in the grey area compared to more...explicit torture. I could totally see the bruiser of a team on a saturday morning cartoon cracking his knuckles, a discretion shot, and then the enemies having black eyes while the protagonists discuss the info they got- and no one really would ask too many questions about that. A bit more 'loose canon' (ie- chaotic good) than anything else.

[HWalsh]

Bardofcyberspace wrote:

First I don't think there is a right answer per say but I want to see what people think of Lawful Good.

A group of assassins try to kill the party. One or more of them are captured in they failed assassination. Can the Lawful Good Magus take party in torture to get answers out of the attackers?

The Lawful Good Magus has a military background and Served in the Kingdoms army.

If you think he can or cant please list rules and or your opinions that support your view. Thank you.

No. Torture is never good, even if the kingdom allows it. Remember lawful is by no means region locked. Lawful generally refers to a code of honor, namely what the objective morality of the world would consider lawful.

Remember that Pathfinder uses OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE morality. This is not, necessarily, decided on by the Gods but rather by the UNIVERSE as a whole.

So, if the Kingdom says it is okay, the Universe generally does not think it is okay, as Pathfinder/D&D tend to use a more common parlance moral compass.

Quote:

OK so same group kills all assassin in the battle. Town guards arest the party to stand trail, the party wants to make a brake for it , would the Lawful good Magus have to stay behind and go to trail or would he go with the party?

Also what if torture in this kingdom is legal then could the magus do it?

Have to stay behind? No. Remember, for characters that aren't specially restricted one evil, or unlawful, act does not an alignment shift create. Also, and this is important, you are asking the wrong question.

The question that you should ask is if fleeing justice for a crime you did not commit a Chaotic action?

I'd generally say this is so minor in the grand scope that it is little more than a blip. Now, fleeing from a crime you DID commit, that would be a different story altogether.

Quote:

Does being ordered to commit evil alleviate your moral responsibility to the crime.

Example
The king orders no survivers kill every man woman and child.

Nope. Remember, objective morality. Doing evil, even if someone else tells you to do it, is still doing evil. Depending on the order this may also be considered a non-lawful (but not chaotic) order.

Killing, in and of itself, is not an evil action. What you are killing, does in fact, matter. Killing a Demon, for example, is not evil, even if it is a Demon child. Generally though, most characters of good alignment should be struck pale by the thought of killing any child.

Quote:

So breaking into someone someone house killing everyone and taking everything of vaule evil?

Yes.

Quote:

So how can lawful good characters going goblin caves uninvited kill all goblins and take the loot and still be good characters?

The point to the three is to gain perspective on lawful good so I don't assume all lawful good characters are paadins.

Goblins are dangerous creatures that, in general, threaten the lives of all non-Goblin sentient beings around them. They are vile, disgusting, creatures that, in general, hate all life.

The following is a line from the Bestiary

Goblins are voracious and can eat their body weight in food daily without growing fat. Goblin lairs always have numerous storerooms and larders. While they prefer human and gnome flesh, a goblin won't turn down any food—except, perhaps, vegetables.

They eat human flesh. Not only do they eat human flesh they prefer human flesh.

That right there changes the situation as far as Goblins go, because, usually, to leave them alive means to allow humans (and other sentient creatures) to be victims.

Generally speaking...

There should be little difference in the moral compass of a Paladin and a non-Paladin Lawful Good. They are both Lawful Good. The Paladin is not more Lawful Good.

The main difference is that the Paladin instantly loses their Paladinhood if they ever do an evil act. (Which is NOT the same as a non-lawful act. A Paladin can ignore the law as much as any other character and suffer no ill-effects until he or she shifts alignment because of it)

It is not okay, to, as you seem to be trying to do, make a Lawful Good character that slaughters willingly, engages in torture, and other horrible acts while remaining Lawful Good.

[Paulicus]

Torture is one of the few acts defined as evil. Though, I think the meaning behind your use of the word "torture" is important. Cutting off fingers? Pretty bad. If you're just "roughing him up" a little, that's much easier to justify. Still not good, but it's not unreasonable for some LG characters. I don't think a paladin would even fall for that unless they made a habit of it. It could definitely lead to someone slipping from good, though.

One of the PF Tales novels (Worldwould Gambit) has a fallen paladin in it, and we find out that he started slipping from Iomedae's grace by beating up criminals to find out their information. Didn't help that the main character was really good at egging him on, though. The paladin ended up serving a demon lord in the end.

[Serghar Cromwell]

When trying to be Lawful good, you just have to ask yourself, "Would Paragon Shepard do this?" If the answer is no, then don't do that thing.

[My Self]

HWalsh wrote:

There should be little difference in the moral compass of a Paladin and a non-Paladin Lawful Good. They are both Lawful Good. The Paladin is not more Lawful Good.

I'd like to respectfully disagree. Lawful Good is a spectrum, and Paladins are expected to be paragons of law and good beyond what is regularly expected. Some lawful good non-Paladin characters may occasionally take selfish, evil and/or chaotic actions, yet consistently be both lawful and good when push comes to shove. Lawful good monarchs, lawyers, or spies may have to lie consistently to achieve worthy ends, or may perform lawful good services for more selfish reasons. This is a lower standard of law and good and it is also an acceptable one. Evil is still evil, but a little evil on occasional is acceptable. Repeated, blatant evil is not.

In short, Lawful Good does not need to Lawful Perfect to function.

[blackbloodtroll]

The Paladin Code, is a separate entity from alignment.

The code does not represent any alignment.

It is it's own thing.