Ravingdork |
This was a group of Monks, so Lawful? Maybe they where a strict sect of not normal Duergar? I mean it is the GM's story.
Except it's NOT the GM's story. This is an organized society game and the GM has no ability to change the story any more than a Pathfinder Society GM does.
Neo2151 |
Who is to say the cultists weren't victims themselves? This IS a cult we're talking about, after all.
Maybe the leader has them brainwashed. Maybe they're under the effects of a spell. Who knows? Definitely not the PCs - they didn't even consider any other possibility.
Killing them was simply the most convenient thing to do in their situation. And, as Rynjin already defined in a quote, killing simply because it's convenient is Evil.
*shrug*
Ravingdork |
Who is to say the cultists weren't victims themselves? This IS a cult we're talking about, after all.
Maybe the leader has them brainwashed. Maybe they're under the effects of a spell. Who knows? Definitely not the PCs - they didn't even consider any other possibility.Killing them was simply the most convenient thing to do in their situation. And, as Rynjin already defined in a quote, killing simply because it's convenient is Evil.
*shrug*
I suppose that's possible, and is often the case in real life (where brainwashing and manipulation are rampant among such groups), but I pretty much never see that reasoning in fantasy games and literature.
If they're in a cult, then they made a choice to be in it, and are fair game--or so it seems in nearly every game I've ever played.
The Godd*mn Avatar |
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:This was a group of Monks, so Lawful? Maybe they where a strict sect of not normal Duergar? I mean it is the GM's story.Except it's NOT the GM's story. This is an organized society game and the GM has no ability to change the story any more than a Pathfinder Society GM does.
Oh I didn't see you say anything about organized play.
If that is the case then yeah make sure they explain themselves on the issue with the Divine Sense mix up because if the cultist were suppose to be neutral or good aligned and their description messed you up that is kind of a big deal. Especially if the person playing the Paladin was used to 3.5/PF or anywhere that the Paladin gets a Evil Radar detector ability.Divinitus |
Who is to say the cultists weren't victims themselves? This IS a cult we're talking about, after all.
Maybe the leader has them brainwashed. Maybe they're under the effects of a spell. Who knows? Definitely not the PCs - they didn't even consider any other possibility.Killing them was simply the most convenient thing to do in their situation. And, as Rynjin already defined in a quote, killing simply because it's convenient is Evil.
*shrug*
Depends on whether you quantify 'saving innocent lives by eliminating cultist threat' as being 'convenient'. Given the large number of evil cultists here, I presume that it wasn't just convenient, it was necessary. Part of the paladin code, in most games, is protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked. Did the paladin fulfill both? Yes. Did the paladin contradict part of their code to do so? If yes, then weigh the options they had and determine whether it was worth falling over, given the situation. If not, then what's the big deal? Evil cultists = the bad guys. What do you traditionally do with bad guys in RPGs? Have a spot of tea with them and discuss their upbringing? No. Unless you see some evidence in-game that they are redeemable, you grant them the mercy of the swiftest death that you can.
Apart from this, how many characters in a fantasy setting are going to even know what 'brainwashing' is? Claiming that is a possibility is pure OOC knowledge unless it is clear that psychology is a thing in the setting. Bad form to bring OOC knowledge of real-world psychology into a game setting where it doesn't exist. False parallels.
ElyasRavenwood |
I guess this depends on weather you think the ends justify the means. Killing these acolytes was easier and more convenient. If you don’t think the ends justify the means…well killing a helpless foe while they can't defend themselves…..not only is it unchilvarous it is murder. Adventurers haven't earned the nic-name of "murder-hobo" for nothing!
But at the end of the day, it’s the GM who decides what parameters and acts constitute a a good act, and evil act, a chaotic act, and a lawful act in his game.
Neo2151 |
Neo2151 wrote:Who is to say the cultists weren't victims themselves? This IS a cult we're talking about, after all.
Maybe the leader has them brainwashed. Maybe they're under the effects of a spell. Who knows? Definitely not the PCs - they didn't even consider any other possibility.Killing them was simply the most convenient thing to do in their situation. And, as Rynjin already defined in a quote, killing simply because it's convenient is Evil.
*shrug*
Depends on whether you quantify 'saving innocent lives by eliminating cultist threat' as being 'convenient'. Given the large number of evil cultists here, I presume that it wasn't just convenient, it was necessary. Part of the paladin code, in most games, is protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked. Did the paladin fulfill both? Yes. Did the paladin contradict part of their code to do so? If yes, then weigh the options they had and determine whether it was worth falling over, given the situation. If not, then what's the big deal? Evil cultists = the bad guys. What do you traditionally do with bad guys in RPGs? Have a spot of tea with them and discuss their upbringing? No. Unless you see some evidence in-game that they are redeemable, you grant them the mercy of the swiftest death that you can.
Apart from this, how many characters in a fantasy setting are going to even know what 'brainwashing' is? Claiming that is a possibility is pure OOC knowledge unless it is clear that psychology is a thing in the setting. Bad form to bring OOC knowledge of real-world psychology into a game setting where it doesn't exist. False parallels.
Except, again, "saving innocent lives by eliminating cultist threat" was never the group's goal.
The group's goal was, "oh crap, we're gonna get caught... hey, if we murder these sleeping cultists and make it look like it was an animal attack, we can bluff it off - they're evil anyway, so who cares?"In fact, fighting the cultists at all was never a goal. Only assassinating their leader was.
You don't get to claim the moral high ground when your goals were purely selfish in nature and your methods were violent for the sake of convenience.
As to brainwashing being "ooc baggage," you've gotta be kidding me, right? Mind Control is DEFINITELY ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY going to be a potential threat in a world with MIND CONTROL MAGIC. And "behavioral conditioning" is a very very old thing. The only thing the D&D world might not have is the same terminology (ie: they might call "brainwashing" something else.)
You definitely don't need a working knowledge of real-world modern day psychology. What a laugh!
Ravingdork |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this depends on weather you think the ends justify the means. Killing these acolytes was easier and more convenient.
Easier and more convenient than what pray tell? Waking them up and convincing them to join our cause? Fighting our way through the fortress' cultist army? What exactly were we to do that would allow us to fulfill our mission and not get horribly killed in the process?
Divinitus |
But if the leader is evil enough to warrant assassinating by an aligned good organization, does that not extend to the followers? If not, why not?
Regarding brainwashing, it is NOT something found in most campaign settings. And mind control is FAR different and, moreover, a tool that most cultists would not use. If the goal is to get converts to give their souls to a dark god, then what is the point int mind-controlling somebody, when a soul cannot be given away under mind control, something clear in past forms of D&D and Pathfinder, presumably also in 5th edition? Apart from that, if the GM wanted them to know of any mind-control, would there not have been checks for PCs to determine that? The OP clearly didn't think as much, given the lack of stated information in the first post, so making that assumption is not even close to being a good idea.
All in all, I think that people have gotten on way too much of a moral high horse with this issue. Calm down, get off your pedestals, and realize that this situation was likely a 'dirty tactics or TPK' situation. Paladin codes also say to be bold and courageous in the face of evil, but both in 3.X and Pathfinder after it, it states that a paladin may retreat from a foe that is superior to them. Now, if we're being moralists here, we could argue 'oh, well, running is not bold and courageous... you lose your paladin powers'. But who wants to be THAT guy, the one who places PCs in impossible situations where it comes down to death or dishonor?
The Godd*mn Avatar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if the leader is evil enough to warrant assassinating by an aligned good organization, does that not extend to the followers? If not, why not?
Regarding brainwashing, it is NOT something found in most campaign settings. And mind control is FAR different and, moreover, a tool that most cultists would not use. If the goal is to get converts to give their souls to a dark god, then what is the point int mind-controlling somebody, when a soul cannot be given away under mind control, something clear in past forms of D&D and Pathfinder, presumably also in 5th edition? Apart from that, if the GM wanted them to know of any mind-control, would there not have been checks for PCs to determine that? The OP clearly didn't think as much, given the lack of stated information in the first post, so making that assumption is not even close to being a good idea.
All in all, I think that people have gotten on way too much of a moral high horse with this issue. Calm down, get off your pedestals, and realize that this situation was likely a 'dirty tactics or TPK' situation. Paladin codes also say to be bold and courageous in the face of evil, but both in 3.X and Pathfinder after it, it states that a paladin may retreat from a foe that is superior to them. Now, if we're being moralists here, we could argue 'oh, well, running is not bold and courageous... you lose your paladin powers'. But who wants to be THAT guy, the one who places PCs in impossible situations where it comes down to death or dishonor?
Where did the OP state something about a dark god?
And no not really two opposing groups could want to kill each other off without one being better aligned then the other. Is there any proof the group that the OP joined is actually LG? Or do they just claim they are LG?The Godd*mn Avatar |
And saying that just because someone is Evil aligned means you are free to butcher and slaughter any and everyone who has the evil alignment.
Also saying that the Leader is evil so its ok to slaughter the entire cult/order which btw its an Order not a cult in and of itself. Calling it a cult is to make it seem more evil. It is an Opposing Order.
So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.
Brain in a Jar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Divinitus wrote:But if the leader is evil enough to warrant assassinating by an aligned good organization, does that not extend to the followers? If not, why not?
Regarding brainwashing, it is NOT something found in most campaign settings. And mind control is FAR different and, moreover, a tool that most cultists would not use. If the goal is to get converts to give their souls to a dark god, then what is the point int mind-controlling somebody, when a soul cannot be given away under mind control, something clear in past forms of D&D and Pathfinder, presumably also in 5th edition? Apart from that, if the GM wanted them to know of any mind-control, would there not have been checks for PCs to determine that? The OP clearly didn't think as much, given the lack of stated information in the first post, so making that assumption is not even close to being a good idea.
All in all, I think that people have gotten on way too much of a moral high horse with this issue. Calm down, get off your pedestals, and realize that this situation was likely a 'dirty tactics or TPK' situation. Paladin codes also say to be bold and courageous in the face of evil, but both in 3.X and Pathfinder after it, it states that a paladin may retreat from a foe that is superior to them. Now, if we're being moralists here, we could argue 'oh, well, running is not bold and courageous... you lose your paladin powers'. But who wants to be THAT guy, the one who places PCs in impossible situations where it comes down to death or dishonor?
Where did the OP state something about a dark god?
And no not really two opposing groups could want to kill each other off without one being better aligned then the other. Is there any proof the group that the OP joined is actually LG? Or do they just claim they are LG?
It's not listed. We only know that the Order of the Sun Soul hired the PCs to assassinate the leader of the Order of the Stone Hand.
Followed by this; "We managed to get ourselves similarly recruited by the Order of the Stone Hand. Through our paladin, it quickly became clear to us that every member of this order possessed an evil alignment--and the many duegar walking around their temple didn't help their case either."
That's the relevant information given to us.
So no mention of dark gods, no mention of them being cultists, no mention of them being evil other than from the paladin's "detect evil" ability and the fact that they saw Duergar.
The only information provided is that the PCs took a job to assassinate the Order of the Sun Soul's rival, the leader of the Stone Hand.
They infiltrated this organization under the pretense of joining them. Then slipped out of the rooms given to them and attacked a member of the Stone Hand, who was keeping guard, after killing this superior they killed four sleeping acolytes. Followed by mutilating the bodies to make it seem like animals.
So the PCs took an assassination job to kill a rival leader, with little information provided, in return for power.
They earned the trust of the Stone Hand, by joining their ranks, only to betray them in the night; killing guards and sleeping acolytes. Oh and don't forget the mutilation of the bodies.
How is that not evil?
Edit: I'm not advocating alignment change for any PCs, with the exception of the Paladin, I'm not sure if in 5E he broke his code or not since I'm not familiar with it.
But repeated actions like this would certainly be a bias for alignment change.
Divinitus |
Real world comparisons are ridiculous because they compare two unlike things and only come off as ultra-neurotic and, in my opinion, hopelessly desperate. "Look folks, I can't prove my point with fantasy logic, so let me prove it by making emotionally-charged real-world comparisons that have NO REAL COMPARISON in the game world!!!".
Putting that aside though, look at your comparison. Hitler and the SS CHOSE to do what they did (Unlike many of the citizens in Germany at the time,), same as the cultists chose to join the cult. They deserved what they got as much as those cultists surely did. The average citizen did NOT join the SS, hence there was no point in executing them. Get real.
The Godd*mn Avatar |
Real world comparisons are ridiculous because they compare two unlike things and only come off as ultra-neurotic and, in my opinion, hopelessly desperate. "Look folks, I can't prove my point with fantasy logic, so let me prove it by making emotionally-charged real-world comparisons that have NO REAL COMPARISON in the game world!!!".
Putting that aside though, look at your comparison. Hitler and the SS CHOSE to do what they did (Unlike many of the citizens in Germany at the time,), same as the cultists chose to join the cult. They deserved what they got as much as those cultists surely did. The average citizen did NOT join the SS, hence there was no point in executing them. Get real.
Get Real? Really in a world were Wizards are akin to gods in most aspects. Where your mind is a plaything to anyone who happens to have a bit of bat poop in their pocket and knows a few words?
Your logic fails, the only excuse we keep getting is "We are the PCs and they are not, we were sent to do a mission, so all of them must be irredeemably evil so that we do not even have to contemplate anything but slaughtering the lot of them."
Ok you want a fantasy set up, I have one.
A king has an alignment of Lawful Evil. Why is he evil? Well he is absolutely the greediest person around he always wants more money, more women, and more power. But he is nice to his subjects, he keeps the streets clean and cleared of bandits, he does not overly tax them, he does not let his soldiers butcher peasants for amusment or the like. Otherwise he is a fairly common king.
The logic that has been presented in this thread is that because he is LE the PCs can kill him without having to worry about doing a evil deed, because he is evil and he deserves it.
Now for the guards of the castle, they are all NG but chose to work for the LE king, they are doing their jobs and upholding the peace and stability of the kingdom. But because they are serving someone of a LE alignment it makes them canon fodder and the party can slaughter them all and butcher the body in anyway they see fit because their the good guys.
Divinitus |
Get real as in step back into reality and stop using real-world analogies. They never accomplish anything.
Need I remind you that the cult consisted primarily of Deurgar? Ask yourself: in a fantasy world, are PCs going to use this lackadaisical reasoning that 'there must be ONE good cultist at least'? No, they are going to see a gathering of evil dwarves (Which is what Deurgar are,), detect evil all around them with their detection (And who cares that it technically can't, the GM ruled that it did,), and they were sent by an organization that is, from my understanding, some sort of good, to eliminate the group's leader. What person, hero or not, from that world would NOT think 'these are evil, we're cornered, we need to wipe them out stealthily, lest they kill us all'?
And again, you fell into the bad example trap. If you need an explanation of why, I don't believe any sort of argumentation will convince you of why I have said so.
Shadowlord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shadowlord wrote:Neo2151 wrote:Shadowlord wrote:C'mon, don't be "that guy."Damon Griffin wrote:Sleeping creatures are by RAW helpless. You slew helpless creatures in their sleep, so yeah, I'd say you definitely committed an evil (small "e") act.You mention that by RAW they are helpless. But, where are the rules to support that killing helpless enemies is an Evil act?The CDG rules exist for a reason. They exist right next to flanking and other combat tactics. There is nothing in the description that says it's Evil. Everything in the CRB that is inherently Evil explicitly says so.
And just like the Combat Rules fail to cover Every. Single. Issue. Of. Combat., the Alignment Rules fail to cover every single issue of alignment.
Hence, "don't be 'that guy.'" Because the Rules are not perfectly written and they will not (and should not) address literally every conceivable thing.
You are right, in that the rules are not perfect. However, the rules DO call out everything that is considered inherently Evil. If CDG isn't called out as inherently Evil, which it is not, then saying it's Evil to kill helpless enemies, as a blanket statement, is unfounded. In which case, there must be some other way to determine whether killing helpless enemies is Evil. How that is determined boils down to one question: Is the alignment system Objective or Subjective?
You don't even need real-world morality to explain that "blanket" statement: The game has defined killing for profit as Evil (hence the Assassin alignment restriction). Assassination is killing for profit.
Which almost every single party ever does. Even the most Good character keeps some of the spoils of battle and the profits of reward for killing NPCs and monsters. That is the mechanic that the entire game revolves around. "I kill things, I make money and get treasure, I pay for better equipment, I kill bigger things."
So, IMO, the question is: Is the alignment system Objective or Subjective. If it's Subjective than "why" and details of "how" are important factors in determining G, N, and E actions. If it's Objective than an act is an act; no matter who does it, why, or how. If it's Objective killing is killing and that base act carries a base alignment consequence: G, N, or E. In that case the only determining factors are 1. Is this inherently G, N, or E? and 2. Are there non-subjective, discriminating elements that make it G, N, or E?
So, is the Alignment system Objective or Subjective? I keep hearing people say that it's Objective, while their arguments revolve around wholly Subjective points. Things like "that's murder" are subjective. Demonstrated very aptly by Honor Killings, which are considered murder in Western Society but are legal, righteous, and demanded by god in other cultures. The idea of murder is subjective.
In an Objective system that cannot be the case, a thing simply is what it is, unless some other Objective point modifies it from it's base form.
Ravingdork |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.
That's not a Straw Man at all. *rolls eyes*
Purple Dragon Knight |
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.That's not a Straw Man at all. *rolls eyes*
You roll eyes but you're the one who came here asking for opinions. I don't think his example is completely without merit. I personally don't like real world comparisons either, but I believe his point is that there are degrees of evil. A guy who just joined the cult by sacrificing a chicken and drinking its blood, and then doing the 10-week intro to evil course will probably ping as much as the guy that's been there for 15 years and murdered 34 people and recruited 345 acolytes... Indoctrination can be undone. Kill the leader, bring the others to justice. That's probably the best a good character can do. The young one who just killed the chicken might get out early on good behaviour and become the best bloody Sarenrae high priest there's ever been (remember, this is fantasy, where wonderful, magical and beautiful things can happen! lol)
nicholas storm |
I agree with the post that says all adventurers are evil. At it's base, adventurers break into peoples houses, kill them and take their stuff. Does it matter that the victims are sleeping or not?
I once read that the so called "honorable" Arthurian knights would kill whomever they pleased. They would give a commoner a sword, then fight them. Since they are trained in combat and their opponent is not, these "fair duels" were really executions - no different than cutting the commoner's throat when he is sleeping.
That is kind of why I don't think there is any difference in alignment in killing someone while awake and in their sleep. The end is the same - you are killing them.
Shadowlord |
According to some of the people here PCs are incapable of being evil no matter if they walked into the home of a local farmer and raped and butchered his wife and child and force fed them to the farmer. So long as the farmer 'detected evil'
If you're referring to anything I said, this is an absolutely false impression:
1. The farmer alone is Evil, his wife and child are not responsible for, nor guilty by proxy of, his Evil.
2. The wife may be Evil of her own accord. But you didn't state that in your hypothetical so I'll assume she's not. Thus killing her would be Evil.
3. Anything under 4HD cannot detect as Evil. Additionally, children under a certain age lack the ability to make moral determinations and so fall under:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
Thus a child cannot be Evil (well, maybe if it's a half demon baby). Now, what is the age of accountability in PF? Well the rules for young characters allow for characters to have NPC ages at age 9 (human), so you could go with that if they have an NPC class, IMO that would have to be a pretty extreme case. Otherwise they naturally reach adulthood at 15 (human), so I would generally go with that.
4. Rape inflicts a great deal of physical and mental/emotional suffering both during and long after. IMO it falls under the umbrella of torture, which is inherently Evil.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork wrote:You roll eyes but you're the one who came here asking for opinions. I don't think his example is completely without merit. I personally don't like real world comparisons either, but I believe his point is that there are degrees of evil. A guy who just joined the cult by sacrificing a chicken and drinking its blood, and then doing the 10-week intro to evil course will probably ping as much as the guy that's been there for 15 years and murdered 34 people and recruited 345 acolytes... Indoctrination can be undone. Kill the leader, bring the others to justice. That's probably the best a good character can do. The young one who just killed the chicken might get out early on good behaviour and become the best bloody Sarenrae high priest there's ever been (remember, this is fantasy, where wonderful, magical and beautiful things can happen! lol)The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.That's not a Straw Man at all. *rolls eyes*
Or he might just continue doing the same s@@* he already intended to do by joining the evil cult that has priests that murdered 34 people.
Either way the point is moot, as nobody an tell the future.
What is clear right now, both in your scenario and in the original scenario:
1.) The cultists are evil.
2.) The cultists are your enemy.
Evil enemies can be killed. In many cases MUST be killed. Sorry Tommy, I'm not buying your "I haven't killed anyone YET" excuse when you joined a f&*&ing murder cult of your own free will. In fact, I don't even know you exist, because the only thing dumber than waking up a sleeping enemy so they can do their best to kill you is asking them for their life story afterwards and then expecting them to respond.
I get that Avatar and Boomerang believe the game should be fluffy bunnies and rainbows where no Good character ever kills anyone and a few kind words and a Diplomacy check can "redeem" anyone, but not everyone wants to play My little Pony or Naruto (yes I'm lumping these two together, what of it?) where a little Talk no Jutsu and the power of friendship can get the protagonist(s) out of almost any situation (seriously I don't think Naruto actually kills anyone in the whole series except a guy who was already dead and a deity. Unless talking a guy into suicide counts).
Those kinds of stories can be fun, but they're not the default assumption of Pathfinder or D&D by a long shot.
The Godd*mn Avatar |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Ravingdork wrote:You roll eyes but you're the one who came here asking for opinions. I don't think his example is completely without merit. I personally don't like real world comparisons either, but I believe his point is that there are degrees of evil. A guy who just joined the cult by sacrificing a chicken and drinking its blood, and then doing the 10-week intro to evil course will probably ping as much as the guy that's been there for 15 years and murdered 34 people and recruited 345 acolytes... Indoctrination can be undone. Kill the leader, bring the others to justice. That's probably the best a good character can do. The young one who just killed the chicken might get out early on good behaviour and become the best bloody Sarenrae high priest there's ever been (remember, this is fantasy, where wonderful, magical and beautiful things can happen! lol)The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.That's not a Straw Man at all. *rolls eyes*Or he might just continue doing the same s%%# he already intended to do by joining the evil cult that has priests that murdered 34 people.
Either way the point is moot, as nobody an tell the future.
What is clear right now, both in your scenario and in the original scenario:
1.) The cultists are evil.
2.) The cultists are your enemy.
Evil enemies can be killed. In many cases MUST be killed. Sorry Tommy, I'm not buying your "I haven't killed anyone YET" excuse when you joined a f+@!ing murder cult of your own free will. In fact, I don't even know you exist, because the only thing dumber than waking up a sleeping enemy so they can do their best to kill...
Not at all I love dark stories of bloody avengers who slaughter the bad guys on mass. But not everyone in an evil group is evil. Most would be aligned Neutral more then evil.
Also my comments were more toward the people who keep saying that nothing a player does is ever evil. Mostly because they are the PCs and thus aren't held to the same standard.
My examples of using good order members that they kill is because that could easily have been the scene.
Just because a group is LG does not mean they would not kill another G order. They might believe that order is susceptible to corruption and want it destroyed before it can be used for dark ends. Or just the fact that their zealots who see an order to another deity as heresy and want it destroyed on principle.
You seem to have this mentality that if the PCs are set against a group that they have to be irredeemably evil because the pcs are set out against them. No gray area they are monsters and need to be put down.
Why do you like so simple of a story? Complexity is interesting and fun. In fact finding yourself in a game were you realize your new order just set you up would be very interesting. Especially if you found yourself to have just slain a holy man under false pretenses and only after find out your Order used you as pawns to kill off a rival and then throw you all away.
Aranna |
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:But not everyone in an evil group is evil.Is that not the very definition of an evil group; that its members are, you know, evil?
Not necessarily, neutrals have a way of filling in the ranks just to collect that paycheck especially the ones that lean toward evil but lack the balls to do evil themselves.
Ravingdork |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork wrote:Not necessarily, neutrals have a way of filling in the ranks just to collect that paycheck especially the ones that lean toward evil but lack the balls to do evil themselves.The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:But not everyone in an evil group is evil.Is that not the very definition of an evil group; that its members are, you know, evil?
I fail to see how that excuses them from lawful and just punishment.
Nobody really cares that the Nazi may never have actually murdered a Jew, it's enough to know that he is a Nazi and an enemy combatant.
Jodokai |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So ambushes have now gone from valid tactics to evil. A Rogue who uses stealth to attack from hiding is evil. Anyone who attacks in the surprise round is evil. When there isn't a surprise round, anyone who wins the intuitive and takes it before the opponent is evil, because in all those instances the opponent hasn't had a chance to defend themselves. Yeah this is just absurd.
The Godd*mn Avatar |
So ambushes have now gone from valid tactics to evil. A Rogue who uses stealth to attack from hiding is evil. Anyone who attacks in the surprise round is evil. When there isn't a surprise round, anyone who wins the intuitive and takes it before the opponent is evil, because in all those instances the opponent hasn't had a chance to defend themselves. Yeah this is just absurd.
Yes that is exactly right.
Because we all know that sleeping or unconscious people are the same as people who are carrying their swords and weapons at the ready.
Charon's Little Helper |
So, is the Alignment system Objective or Subjective? I keep hearing people say that it's Objective, while their arguments revolve around wholly Subjective points. Things like "that's murder" are subjective. Demonstrated very aptly by Honor Killings, which are considered murder in Western Society but are legal, righteous, and demanded by god in other cultures. The idea of murder is subjective.
Just because morality is objective doesn't mean that everyone (or even anyone) understands it perfectly, much less is able to prove it.
Heck - no one truly understands quantum physics (at least in any way that they can prove) - that doesn't mean that quantum physics is subjective.
The Godd*mn Avatar |
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
Yes that is exactly right.Because we all know that sleeping or unconscious people are the same as people who are carrying their swords and weapons at the ready.
I hope that was irony.
Otherwise, it's impossible to play Good assassins (like the 3.5 Slayer of Domiel).
It was sarcasm
Neo2151 |
Regarding brainwashing, it is NOT something found in most campaign settings. And mind control is FAR different and, moreover, a tool that most cultists would not use.
This is entirely, 100%, your subjective opinion, and not at all objective truth.
If the goal is to get converts to give their souls to a dark god, then what is the point int mind-controlling somebody, when a soul cannot be given away under mind control, something clear in past forms of D&D and Pathfinder, presumably also in 5th edition?
Who said that was the goal of this organization? Why are you making such baseless assumptions?
Apart from that, if the GM wanted them to know of any mind-control, would there not have been checks for PCs to determine that? The OP clearly didn't think as much, given the lack of stated information in the first post, so making that assumption is not even close to being a good idea.
Why would you assume that conditioning is visibly obvious? Did they even bother to consider the possibility? By all accounts given, no. Dealing death was step 1.
All in all, I think that people have gotten on way too much of a moral high horse with this issue. Calm down, get off your pedestals, and realize that this situation was likely a 'dirty tactics or TPK' situation. Paladin codes also say to be bold and courageous in the face of evil, but both in 3.X and Pathfinder after it, it states that a paladin may retreat from a foe that is superior to them. Now, if we're being moralists here, we could argue 'oh, well, running is not bold and courageous... you lose your paladin powers'. But who wants to be THAT guy, the one who places PCs in impossible situations where it comes down to death or dishonor?
Again, as already mentioned, no one said being Good was easy. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Good people try to find ways to solve problems without resorting to killing. This party went for killing as option #1. And again, not for a righteous cause - just because it suited their needs.
Neo2151 |
You are right, in that the rules are not perfect. However, the rules DO call out everything that is considered inherently Evil. If CDG isn't called out as inherently Evil, which it is not, then saying it's Evil to kill helpless enemies, as a blanket statement, is unfounded. In which case, there must be some other way to determine whether killing helpless enemies is Evil. How that is determined boils down to one question: Is the alignment system Objective or Subjective?
Animating Undead is always considered Evil with a capital E. Every Paizo employee ever who has commented on it has said as such, and it's why spells like Animate Dead have the [Evil] tag.
The Skeleton Crew spell not only animates corpses, it animates many corpses. It does not have the [Evil] tag (never even been errata'd), so it is not an Evil act.Except it's totally an evil act, right? Which is it?
Again, the rules are not perfect.
Neo2151 wrote:You don't even need real-world morality to explain that "blanket" statement: The game has defined killing for profit as Evil (hence the Assassin alignment restriction). Assassination is killing for profit.Which almost every single party ever does. Even the most Good character keeps some of the spoils of battle and the profits of reward for killing NPCs and monsters. That is the mechanic that the entire game revolves around. "I kill things, I make money and get treasure, I pay for better equipment, I kill bigger things."
My favorite part of your argument is that you feel 100% comfortable with entirely ignoring context.
By your logic, if the good and/or neutral party was offered a substantial reward for seeking out and slaying the crying baby that was keeping the King awake at night, they'd happily take it. After all, killing for profit is just what adventurers do (and are expected to do), right?Shadowlord |
And saying that just because someone is Evil aligned means you are free to butcher and slaughter any and everyone who has the evil alignment.
I'm not saying a Good character could do this and remain Good. I also didn't say anything about no consequences. I'm just saying that in an objective system, it's not Evil. If killing, as a base act, is Neutral, then the Good character would rapidly become Neutral if he wholesale slaughters Evil wherever he finds it. If killing a helpless enemy is a CN act, then he will be hard pressed not to become CN if he is slaughtering people in their sleep. Even if he does a few Good things, that won't be enough to balance the overwhelming CN karma he's building up. But that still doesn't make him Evil, unless he's destroying innocent life.
Also saying that the Leader is evil so its ok to slaughter the entire cult/order which btw its an Order not a cult in and of itself. Calling it a cult is to make it seem more evil. It is an Opposing Order.
Or is it a cult because all religious orders are cults?
Regardless, they did not say, "Leader is Evil slaughter everyone." The followers detected as Evil independently of the leader.
So lets put this into a real world perspective. Hitler was evil, so was the SS. Under the logic proposed here then the Allies could and more over should have slaughtered every single German citizen man women and child because they had an evil leader and thus were all evil and you can do whatever you want to someone who is evil and it not be counted as evil.
The German people in your hypothetical are not Evil, so this does not parallel the OPs scenario, as the leader's people were Evil.
Also, refer back to farmer scenario as to how you can't be guilty of Evil by proxy.
Also, who said you can do whatever you want to Evil people? The arguments have been that killing Evil isn't Evil, not that you can do whatever you want to them.
A king has an alignment of Lawful Evil. Why is he evil? Well he is absolutely the greediest person around he always wants more money, more women, and more power. But he is nice to his subjects, he keeps the streets clean and cleared of bandits, he does not overly tax them, he does not let his soldiers butcher peasants for amusment or the like. Otherwise he is a fairly common king.
This is a bad example. This king doesn't qualify to be Evil in an objective system; or a subjective system for that matter. This king is LN. Alignment is a result of actions. If the King has done nothing Evil then he is not Evil. Being selfish is not an Evil only trait, Neutrality also cares primarily about self and what is important to self.
The logic that has been presented in this thread is that because he is LE the PCs can kill him without having to worry about doing a evil deed, because he is evil and he deserves it.
Well he's not LE. He would have to do some Evil stuff to be Evil. Being self-centered is a Neutral trait. Even in a subjective system self-centeredness is still a Neutral trait. So, this is really just a bad example. Evil has to be earned, and if he earned Evil, in an objective system, he is worthy of death.
A Good character will still consider the ideal of redeeming him, because that's the Good path. However, killing him doesn't carry any negative karma. It's a Neutral act.
Now for the guards of the castle, they are all NG but chose to work for the LE king, they are doing their jobs and upholding the peace and stability of the kingdom. But because they are serving someone of a LE alignment it makes them canon fodder and the party can slaughter them all and butcher the body in anyway they see fit because their the good guys.
That must have been in a post I didn't read. The scenario in the OP was that the guards were detected as Evil (regardless of whether the GM screwed up, that's how it played out). So it's Evil guards working for an Evil leader. In your hypothetical every effort should be made not to kill the guards. But that's not the scenario they were handed.
Shadowlord |
You seem to have this mentality that if the PCs are set against a group that they have to be irredeemably evil because the pcs are set out against them. No gray area they are monsters and need to be put down.
You keep arguing that they might not actually be Evil. But they actually detected as Evil.
Why do you like so simple of a story? Complexity is interesting and fun. In fact finding yourself in a game were you realize your new order just set you up would be very interesting. Especially if you found yourself to have just slain a holy man under false pretenses and only after find out your Order used you as pawns to kill off a rival and then throw you all away.
You could try to redeem them; which would be an act of Good. However, that doesn't make killing them Evil.
Shadowlord |
Shadowlord wrote:So, is the Alignment system Objective or Subjective? I keep hearing people say that it's Objective, while their arguments revolve around wholly Subjective points. Things like "that's murder" are subjective. Demonstrated very aptly by Honor Killings, which are considered murder in Western Society but are legal, righteous, and demanded by god in other cultures. The idea of murder is subjective.Just because morality is objective doesn't mean that everyone (or even anyone) understands it perfectly, much less is able to prove it.
Heck - no one truly understands quantum physics (at least in any way that they can prove) - that doesn't mean that quantum physics is subjective.
Real life morality, is very subjective actually. And you're right, it's difficult, maybe impossible, to totally understand much less prove.
However, an objective game alignment system should be understandable and provable. Because objective is binary.
Shadowlord |
Shadowlord wrote:You are right, in that the rules are not perfect. However, the rules DO call out everything that is considered inherently Evil. If CDG isn't called out as inherently Evil, which it is not, then saying it's Evil to kill helpless enemies, as a blanket statement, is unfounded. In which case, there must be some other way to determine whether killing helpless enemies is Evil. How that is determined boils down to one question: Is the alignment system Objective or Subjective?Animating Undead is always considered Evil with a capital E. Every Paizo employee ever who has commented on it has said as such, and it's why spells like Animate Dead have the [Evil] tag.
The Skeleton Crew spell not only animates corpses, it animates many corpses. It does not have the [Evil] tag (never even been errata'd), so it is not an Evil act.
Except it's totally an evil act, right? Which is it?
Again, the rules are not perfect.
I don't think comparing a CRB combat tactic that has existed since before PF, at least D&D 3.0, to a spell first published in Pirates of the Inner Sea really proves your point.
Do Player Companion books even get errata?
Got any CRB examples?
Shadowlord wrote:Neo2151 wrote:You don't even need real-world morality to explain that "blanket" statement: The game has defined killing for profit as Evil (hence the Assassin alignment restriction). Assassination is killing for profit.Which almost every single party ever does. Even the most Good character keeps some of the spoils of battle and the profits of reward for killing NPCs and monsters. That is the mechanic that the entire game revolves around. "I kill things, I make money and get treasure, I pay for better equipment, I kill bigger things."My favorite part of your argument is that you feel 100% comfortable with entirely ignoring context.
By your logic, if the good and/or neutral party was offered a substantial reward for seeking out and slaying the crying baby that was keeping the King awake at night, they'd happily take it. After all, killing for profit is just what adventurers do (and are expected to do), right?
If you've been reading my posts and actually think that you 1. Didn't read my posts, 2. aren't comprehending what I've been writing, or 3. Are being sarcastic because you lack a better argument.
The fact is the game is built around slaying Evil to gain rewards and improve your gear so you can slay more Evil. There are plenty of Neutral and even Good PC options that are capable of Assassination. What's the difference between an Assassin and a Mercenary? Either can accept money to kill people. Would you label them as equally Evil? Or are Assassins more Evil for some reason?
Many adventurers are paid by some patron to go eliminate X threat. Are they any more/less Evil than the Assassin or Mercenary? Why? Have you honestly never played or GMed for a character who accepted a reward from a patron for killing someone? Where those characters all Evil?
However, killing babies is Evil, even in the Objective system I've been assuming. Babies are incapable of being Evil, even Goblin babies, they are innocent life. Destroying innocent life is Evil, no matter who does it or why. So no, your hypothetical does not reflect what I think, and I've posted as much several times in this thread.
That said, Alignment is the effect not the cause, a Good or Neutral person could very well kill a baby. But that act would be Evil and their Alignment would shift to reflect that decision.
Shadowlord |
Shadowlord wrote:Basically, yeah. I wouldn't say that the good neutralizes the bad, rather that their actions are generally split between good and evil, but yeah.Davor wrote:Shadowlord wrote:Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.Davor wrote:And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.
I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:
Davor wrote:I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.Like I said, I really believe those groups I mentioned were LN, I was just trying to make a point. So we agree they are N, we just disagree why.
I believe they are Neutral because they predominantly act with Neutrality.
You believe they are Neutral because they do enough Good to zero out their Evil? Is that right.
So do you believe that all killing is inherently Evil?
So I guess my only other question is this: How do Paladin's exist in your games if killing is always an Evil act?
Paladin's instantly fall if they commit an Evil act.
Ravingdork |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jodokai wrote:So ambushes have now gone from valid tactics to evil. A Rogue who uses stealth to attack from hiding is evil. Anyone who attacks in the surprise round is evil. When there isn't a surprise round, anyone who wins the intuitive and takes it before the opponent is evil, because in all those instances the opponent hasn't had a chance to defend themselves. Yeah this is just absurd.Yes that is exactly right.
Because we all know that sleeping or unconscious people are the same as people who are carrying their swords and weapons at the ready.
Fair and unfair doesn't really equate to good and evil.
Boomerang Nebula |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So ambushes have now gone from valid tactics to evil. A Rogue who uses stealth to attack from hiding is evil. Anyone who attacks in the surprise round is evil. When there isn't a surprise round, anyone who wins the intuitive and takes it before the opponent is evil, because in all those instances the opponent hasn't had a chance to defend themselves. Yeah this is just absurd.
In the majority of circumstances it is not a valid tactic for good characters at our table. It is often viable for neutral characters and always for evil characters. It makes it easy to differentiate one alignment from another. When our evil characters encounter Angels, even when they know we are coming they buff and wait. They don't usually initiate combat, which is fortunate because they are tough opponents for their CR.
The: ambush the monsters, loot the bodies, power up, kill bigger monsters get better treasure loop, was heavily criticised by Gary Gygax (cofounder of D&D) right from the very beginning of the hobby. He referred to that style of play as 'Monty Haul' style gaming. That style of play bypasses a lot of the richness of the role-playing aspect of the game, effectively reducing it to a table top war-game.
What I believe is absurd is treating Pathfinder like a war-game instead of the RPG it was intended to be.
Edited for clarity.