Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

651 to 700 of 904 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

Yes, he fails. As I explained, MT was never what ANYONE could call Good. Seriously people, she "cared for dying people" by NOT GIVING THEM ANALGESICS!!! Because "their suffering was given as a gift from God".

Excuse me. I feel sick just thinking about it.


Sissyl wrote:
As I explained, MT was never what ANYONE could call Good.

...Except plenty of people have, and DO, so this is false. Her name has literally become synonymous with "Good person who does good things and helps people".

Whether she actually was this is iffy at best, but she is definitely what A LOT OF PEOPLE would call Good.

Silver Crusade

Sundakan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I explained, MT was never what ANYONE could call Good.

...Except plenty of people have, and DO, so this is false. Her name has literally become synonymous with "Good person who does good things and helps people".

Whether she actually was this is iffy at best, but she is definitely what A LOT OF PEOPLE would call Good.

That's not what Sissyl meant and you know that.

She didn't mean literally, cause lots of people do, and that's the problem.


Sundakan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I explained, MT was never what ANYONE could call Good.

...Except plenty of people have, and DO, so this is false. Her name has literally become synonymous with "Good person who does good things and helps people".

Whether she actually was this is iffy at best, but she is definitely what A LOT OF PEOPLE would call Good.

That is of course because many people only know about the surface and don't realize the less pleasant stuff beneath it.

I suspect most of those people who call her good wouldn't do so if you could convince them of the claims Sissyl made. At one point I would have done so, now I know better.
So they don't think that what she actually was was good, but that what they thought she was was good.


FatR wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

A lot of things are evil/bad/dishonorable in D&D/Pathfinder because of fantasy tropes. Poison is almost always something only the villain would use. The heroes don't go around raising undead to fight for them. Making bargains with demons is something that evil people in fantasy stories.

So D&D in its attempt to bring it over made it objectively bad to do these things.

Oh, I understand that. The problem is, DnD does so without really understanding reasons why those things are objectively bad

Bargaining with demons is what evil people do because only people who would not rather ask Heaven for help are people whose goals are too selfish and repellent. But given how Planar Binding works, using it to summon angels can be hardly different. (Conversely, enslaving sapient beings for power through binding magic and breaking their will, which is closer to how DnD demon-summoning works by rules, is also what evil people do... but when those beings are purely evil and every day they spend in servitude is a day they cannot spend trying to kill and torture everyone, arguments that enslaving demons can be ethical are not difficult to construct.)

Heroes gather living troops instead of going around raising undead, because creating puppets stripped of free will to fight for you is what a villain does.

But DnD has so many more ways to place combat puppets on the battlefield, such as Summon Monster, that this argument stops holding water - disposable minions who are extensions of a caster's will are just a part of combat tactics.

Heroes do not use poison because it is either a tool for covert assassination under the mask of friendship (if used somewhat realistically) or, at best, a way to take opponents of greater skill with you, instead of training to beat them fair and square (if applied to a blade). But in DnD poisons outside of combat are laughably ineffective and in combat your ability to use them effectively depend on your skill, in fact, potence of a creature's poison is...

The reasons are the same ones they are evil in the stories. D&D just assumed they didn't need to explain it, which was a mistake.

As an example raising undead is done with dark and forbidden magic. Never is necromancy called out as forbidden in direct terms, but understood that dealing with that school of magic likely means you are on Team Evil.

PS: It would be nice if they went deeper into the explanations, but I dont know if people really want to go that way since it will be more hardcoded and restrict options. They might just think they want it, which is what I was also saying in my last comment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the problem is inherently different, but Wraithstrike hits it.
D&D is a game with many editions. 1E and 2E minted ways to play with unwritten laws like necromancy being evil and something the villain does.
But times have changed. While we still have very loud people here who played first edition or something shortly after and they still enjoy great influence, there are also other people.
People who grew up in a different era, with different beliefs and different expectations for this game. For many of them 1E and everything inherited means nothing.
They don´t care about Core races, they want other, more "obscure" races to play and they also want to dabble with different things.
I believe it doesn´t really help to use the term evil here, because most of those players don´t want to play a villain, they just want darker choices, options and characters.
And that´s allright. Because we are not playing 1E here and most things inhabited from there don´t make a lot of sense anymore anyway.
Be it mechanically or rp-wise.

That´s something to think about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:


People who grew up in a different era, with different beliefs and different expectations for this game. For many of them 1E and everything inherited means nothing.
They don´t care about Core races, they want other, more "obscure" races to play and they also want to dabble with different things.
I believe it doesn´t really help to use the term evil here, because most of those players don´t want to play a villain, they just want darker choices, options and characters.
And that´s allright. Because we are not playing 1E here and most things inhabited from there don´t make a lot of sense anymore anyway.
Be it mechanically or rp-wise.

That´s something to think about.

Intentional or not, this easily seems dismissive to an entire generation who are the ONLY reason this game exists.

I could easily say that those things make plenty of sense and those who can't understand that probably don't have judgement that can be trusted.

You sound a lot like the stances between G.R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien in a certain epic rap battle.

I, personally, find Martin's work long winded, preachy, and not representative of a good fantasy narrative. Deaths are simply done for the sake of shock value with no consideration for the narrative and structure.

The genre is fantasy. It's supposed to be unrealistic.


HWalsh wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:


People who grew up in a different era, with different beliefs and different expectations for this game. For many of them 1E and everything inherited means nothing.
They don´t care about Core races, they want other, more "obscure" races to play and they also want to dabble with different things.
I believe it doesn´t really help to use the term evil here, because most of those players don´t want to play a villain, they just want darker choices, options and characters.
And that´s allright. Because we are not playing 1E here and most things inhabited from there don´t make a lot of sense anymore anyway.
Be it mechanically or rp-wise.

That´s something to think about.

Intentional or not, this easily seems dismissive to an entire generation who are the ONLY reason this game exists.

I could easily say that those things make plenty of sense and those who can't understand that probably don't have judgement that can be trusted.

You sound a lot like the stances between G.R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien in a certain epic rap battle.

I, personally, find Martin's work long winded, preachy, and not representative of a good fantasy narrative. Deaths are simply done for the sake of shock value with no consideration for the narrative and structure.

The genre is fantasy. It's supposed to be unrealistic.

Believe it or not, outdated concepts are outdated. And outdated things should invariably be replaced as soon as it can be reasonably accomplished. People who want to hang on to outdated stuff is what has caused US infrastructure to reach the point it's at.

I mean look at how bad people are at reading at the tide of history. There's people in the modern world that still think it's OK to oppress people that happen to be different them. I find it odd people against this stuff haven't realized they are on the wrong side of both morality and history. But that's the danger of outdated concepts. People cling to them despite them having long become useless or worse actively harmful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


I mean look at how bad people are at reading at the tide of history. There's people in the modern world that still think it's OK to oppress people that happen to be different them. I find it odd people against this stuff haven't realized they are on the wrong side of both morality and history. But that's the danger of outdated concepts. People cling to them despite them having long become useless...

It's a roleplaying game. Objective more white and black morality isn't an outdated concept it's the core of the genre. Methinks you're putting way too much importance on the shades of gray gritty fantasy nonsense.

They aren't a useless concept by any means they are just a different one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


Believe it or not, outdated concepts are outdated. And outdated things should invariably be replaced as soon as it can be reasonably accomplished.

You mean outdated concepts like making broad sweeps generalisations about people based on arbitrary groupings such as, oh I don't know, the edition they started playing, that kind of outdated concept?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well that escalated quickly^^

It seems some read a little bit too much into stuff. I just point out two perspectives of many, the two of them kind of clash pretty often.
And pretty often it´s the older one trying to forbid the newer one in my eyes. Overall, that´s unhealthy for this game and hobby.
That´s what i´m saying, nothing else.

If you think that´s dismissive to an entire generation, sorry. It surely isn´t meant that way, since i know some real great people from that generation who are the opposite of that and wouldnt feel that way either.
There´s some others though who cry foul as soon as someone has a differnt idea or playstyle and that´s just not gonna work out long term.
Some of those ruined parts of the game and environment already, like with the tech stuff in season 6 of PFS.

Paizo made great decisions in many ways so far. I´m afraid should they decide to clarify some things a bit too much, taking away some freedoms and ultimatively turning more towards 1E morals again, they would loose a large number of people. It´s way better to leave things open and accomodate different groups of people, what they do with their latest AP´s for example.
Maybe people should learn to live with each other and be a bit more tolerant. Ultimatively this is just a game, it has nothing to do with anything real world and ingame morals and decisions are totally disconnected to real life stuff. I sincerely hope anyone playing this game doesn´t consider slaughtering random people in basements for loot in his real life....

One wants to be a shining knight rescuing the prince, the other one a sinister necromancer rainsing his dead siblings to send them take revenge on their murderers. Both is ok.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:
Maybe people should learn to live with each other and be a bit more tolerant.

Unfortunately the problem is that the newer, "Morals are dumb!" movement isn't very tolerant given the fact that they lash out at any morals in the game. Even the very loose ones it has.

In this case, in Golarion at least, there are morals. Certain things are evil. Casting Infernal Healing? Evil. Live with it. Doesn't matter why you cast it, it's an evil act. Using poison? Dishonorable. We know it is. We should accept it.

If you don't want to accept these things then don't play in the Golarion setting. Go find your own setting, or at least house rule it and admit that it is a house rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:
One wants to be a shining knight rescuing the prince, the other one a sinister necromancer rainsing his dead siblings to send them take revenge on their murderers. Both is ok.

See, I think the problem is nobody from the old guard, the moralistic fans, is saying that you can't be a sinister necromancer raising his dead siblings to send them to take revenge on their murderers.

Nobody is saying that.

We are saying if you play a sinister necromancer who raises his dead siblings to sent them to take revenge on their murderers then just admit, "I am playing an evil character."

It's fine. Nobody cares. The issue comes when they then insist that raising the dead and using them isn't an evil act when, in the setting, we are TOLD it is an evil act.

We have even been told that in order to raise an undead you are trapping and torturing part of a soul to do that.

So, let's look at the "sinister necromancer."

In Golarion doing so is an evil act, supposedly because it takes a piece of the target's soul to do it, which is incredibly painful and torturous. So, let us get this right, this person is going to tear a piece of his dead sibling's soul, trap it in their former body, torture it, to raise the dead body as an assassin to use against the killer.

That's NOT good. That isn't neutral either. That is pure evil.

If someone wants to play evil, play evil, just accept that it is evil. Its not like your alignment matters in-game aside from a few spells, a few items, and how some characters might look at you.


The problem, again, is that is indicated nowhere in the rules, and outright contradicted by many of them. A dead guy can be both a Shadow and a Zombie...and still be True Resurrected without destroying either.

Clearly the soul is not trapped.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That´s your point of view and you´re welcome to it.
Obviously though, more than enough other people to make that significant have a different point of view.

In my eyes, Paladins, the arbiters of pure good, are most times borderlining on evil, partly due to that sad, sad pice of game mechanic that turns large parts of this game into a hack and slay tabletop, because hey level 1 detect evil, kill all those guys, game won.

All those supposedly evil options are presented as player options right from the start. Some spells are tagged evil yes, but casting them doesnt make you evil in an instance. Neither does using necromancy in some way, even repeatedly. Alignment shifts and alignment are up to player and especially GM judgement, to be negotiated in the game.

As for playing evil, some just don´t want to really be evil, they just want to dabble with dark forces or give their character a darker flair. That´s a very big difference. You make some things sound there as very clear even when they actually aren´t. A Paladins code and all the stuff written around that doesn´t rule the rest of the game. Look at samurai, those shouldn´t do dishonorable stuff either, but still can do evil things or even be evil.

I get it, there are some people who just want this game to be black and white, good and evil, all the time in every single instance. Make it a one way dungeon crawl where there´s never a doubt about who the enemy is and you can just attack and kill all of them.
For at least as many people, that makes a boring game though. Ever asked yourself why Eberron was one of the most popular game worlds?
Golarion is a modular and huge gameworld catering to a lot of different players. Please stop trying to enforce that one view of it. Thanks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Golarion is set up with objective alignment and certain spells being objectively evil to cast. Those are the setting rules. So, how about you stop trying to enforce your preferences on us, huh? We antiquated, outdated old farts are the one with the setting supporting us. Its you darn kids with your newfangled shades of grey who want to change things. Get off my darn* lawn.

*=And yes, its darn not damn because cussing isn't something decent folks do. At least not in my day. Honestly, kids today. No respect, I tell ya.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't antiquated, outdated old farts only recognize lawful, neutral and chaotic as alignments?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Apparently it's easier to be an antiquated, outdated old fart these day. I blame the parents.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Believe it or not, outdated concepts are outdated. And outdated things should invariably be replaced as soon as it can be reasonably accomplished.

You mean outdated concepts like making broad sweeps generalisations about people based on arbitrary groupings such as, oh I don't know, the edition they started playing, that kind of outdated concept?

Except the fact that there are different editions kinda proves that things are replaced as they get outdated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Believe it or not, outdated concepts are outdated. And outdated things should invariably be replaced as soon as it can be reasonably accomplished.

You mean outdated concepts like making broad sweeps generalisations about people based on arbitrary groupings such as, oh I don't know, the edition they started playing, that kind of outdated concept?

Except the fact that there are different editions kinda proves that things are replaced as they get outdated.

Editions yes, the people who played them, not so much. I'm not quite ready to admit being outdated or replaced yet...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

That´s your point of view and you´re welcome to it.

Obviously though, more than enough other people to make that significant have a different point of view.

In my eyes, Paladins, the arbiters of pure good, are most times borderlining on evil, partly due to that sad, sad pice of game mechanic that turns large parts of this game into a hack and slay tabletop, because hey level 1 detect evil, kill all those guys, game won.

Paladins don't (at least shouldn't) kill a target simply because they are evil. A Lawful Evil banker, for example, is not someone a Paladin should kill. Also, at level 1, how in the bloody heck is a Paladin even detecting evil unless its an undead or something? You know you have have a certain HD before the aura shows up (unless you are a Cleric, Warpriest, or AntiPaladin) and THAT is why I don't take a lot of the shades of gray crowd seriously.

It's always these outlandish claims about Good alignments. It's always ways to justify evil by coming up with the most completely dishonest claims.

"I use Infernal Healing to heal dying orphans!"

No you don't. We know what you use it for. You use a wand of Infernal Healing because it is, especially at low levels, the most efficient reason and I highly doubt it has ever been used to save a dying orphan, even if it has, I am pretty sure that it is darn rare.

"Paladins kill all evil things!"

No they don't. Heck many Paladin codes, especially in Golarion, tout the redemption of others. Also a lot of us old timers play Paladins, most likely more than newcomers because of the odd stigma they have, and most of us don't do the mythical "Lawful Stupid."

Quote:
All those supposedly evil options are presented as player options right from the start. Some spells are tagged evil yes, but casting them doesnt make you evil in an instance.

A PC who knowingly, repeatedly, casts evil spells knows what they are doing.

Quote:
Neither does using necromancy in some way, even repeatedly. Alignment shifts and alignment are up to player and especially GM judgement, to be negotiated in the game.

This is true to a point. A GM who ignores repeated alignment violations is probably a bad GM though and might as well just house rule away alignment altogether.

Quote:
As for playing evil, some just don´t want to really be evil, they just want to dabble with dark forces or give their character a darker flair.

Raising the dead, again, something the setting tells us is evil, isn't really a "darker flair" that is being truly evil. A darker flair might be casting an evil spell once in a while, possibly summoning an evil thing rarely. That is "flair" if it becomes a central point of a character that goes well beyond the point of flair.

Quote:
That´s a very big difference. You make some things sound there as very clear even when they actually aren´t. A Paladins code and all the stuff written around that doesn´t rule the rest of the game. Look at samurai, those shouldn´t do dishonorable stuff either, but still can do evil things or even be evil.

Nobody has said non-Paladins should live by the Paladin rules. The Paladin's code DOES help codify some things that are evil and/or dishonorable within the Golarion setting though.

Quote:
I get it, there are some people who just want this game to be black and white, good and evil, all the time in every single instance. Make it a one way dungeon crawl where there´s never a doubt about who the enemy is and you can just attack and kill all of them.

This is basically one of the exaggeration attacks I called out earlier. You can live in a black and white universe, which, YES, Golarion largely is, without it being a dungeon crawl hack and slash without a mystery.

Why? Well, for one, being evil isn't a death sentence and never was. Not even for Paladins.

Here is an example of how to do it in a way that isn't a "dungeon crawl" that still uses black and white:

-----

So I did this one for a group once:

The party was in Sandpoint, and there were complaints about a local fringe group of Barbarians (They weren't all Class Barbarians, their leader was a Fighter for example). They were rowdy, they were disruptive, but so far hadn't done anything to warrant the settlement taking action.

Suddenly, someone comes in asking for help, saying that their cart was just ransacked by these Barbarians. The PCs offer to come check it out. Sure enough the PCs find a destroyed cart. The NPC begs them to help get rid of these Barbarians explaining that the Sandpoint militia wasn't going to do it.

The PCs decide to take action. The leader of the group was, indeed, evil. The PCs decided that was justification enough. They took the Barbarian leader alive.

This leads to the Barbarians as a group to begin plotting retribution. The Barbarian leader professes that he's innocent that, as far as he knew, none of his men had attacked anything. He was, FYI Neutral Evil. He just knew if his men started anything too bad it would bring down the militia and his group weren't able to withstand that kind of attack... Yet.

Anyway... The PCs eventually decided to at least look into it... Sure enough there were clues. The True Neutral NPC had set up the Barbarians. Tired of the threat he saw them posing he staged the damage to his cart and blamed it on them.

Black and white universe. Not a dungeon crawl. Not a slaughter-fest.

----

Quote:
For at least as many people, that makes a boring game though. Ever asked yourself why Eberron was one of the most popular game worlds?

Popularity doesn't equate facts. Eberron was also very unique in overall setting. As such it was going to be more popular. It still ranked less popular over-all than Forgotten Realms.

Quote:
Golarion is a modular and huge gameworld catering to a lot of different players. Please stop trying to enforce that one view of it. Thanks.

We aren't trying to "enforce one view of it" we are trying to "support the setting as it is written." You are trying to *change* it to be something it isn't. Please stop doing that. Thank you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:
Maybe people should learn to live with each other and be a bit more tolerant.

Unfortunately the problem is that the newer, "Morals are dumb!" movement isn't very tolerant given the fact that they lash out at any morals in the game. Even the very loose ones it has.

In this case, in Golarion at least, there are morals. Certain things are evil. Casting Infernal Healing? Evil. Live with it. Doesn't matter why you cast it, it's an evil act. Using poison? Dishonorable. We know it is. We should accept it.

If you don't want to accept these things then don't play in the Golarion setting. Go find your own setting, or at least house rule it and admit that it is a house rule.

Morals need reasons. Given reasons, you'll find exceptionally more tolerance, because the crowd you describe are intolerant of lack of reason. They are, pretty much universally, more likely to be more tolerant of any character based on grounds of circumstances surrounding them than not.

For example, in 1E through 3E, mindless undead were Neutral aligned because they were mindless. Not once did I ever utter a single word in argument over their alignment, until 3.5->Pathfinder, where in 3.5 a dev just turned them all evil nonsensically, so that Paladins could smite them. Suddenly, we're presented with a situation where you take a neutral object, channel neutral-aligned energies into its corpse, provably and demonstrably doesn't affect the soul of the original owner of the corpse, and we produce a creature that is incapable of moral thought or action who is then given not the Evil subtype but an actual alignment (the alignment that describes the moral attitude of your character, which can be different even from beings that have alignment subtypes like angels and archons).

That gets railed against pretty hard. Because it's stupid.

Meanwhile, over here, we have a conversation about how the alignment rules themselves tell you what is weighed as good and what is weighed as evil (altruism, respect for life, concern for dignity of sentient creatures; hurting, oppressing, killing), where it says nothing about spell-tags changing your alignment. When we're presented with a system where burning a wand of protection from evil makes you more of a good guy, or mending a broken leg with infernal healing makes you more of a bad guy...

Well, that gets railed against pretty hard too. Because it's just as stupid. And when responses are stupid, such as claiming some sort of moral absolutism where things don't have to be explained because they just are, we rail against that for being the same kind of stupid that we put up with in our day to day lives, with religious people saying things like homosexuality is evil.

So yeah, we're pretty intolerant to certain things, because those certain things get in the way of our being more open minded and tolerant concerning everything else.


Ashiel wrote:
...

Okay.

Why do spells have a Save DC 10 + Spell Level + Casting Stat Modifier
That isn't explained.

Why does Heavy Armor reduce a person with 30 Base Movement speed by 10?
That isn't explained.

We don't need every rule explained.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Okay.

Why do spells have a Save DC 10 + Spell Level + Casting Stat Modifier
That isn't explained.

Why does Heavy Armor reduce a person with 30 Base Movement speed by 10?
That isn't explained.

We don't need every rule explained.

While your attempt at being capricious likely feels very witty and smart, those things are actually defined much better. Armor is detailed in the Additional Rules as being an issue of encumbrance, one of two ways that a character can be encumbered: either by wearing heavier category armors, or through sheer weight of their collective possessions.

Ergo, it slows because it restricts your movement moreso than light armor.

Meanwhile, the mechanics note that your casting stat modifier is intrinsically linked to how difficult it is to resist your spells, and functions similarly to how being stronger improves your ability to penetrate AC and inflict damage. Even if it's not given a narrative explanation, it's existence in the rules is purely mechanical.

However, the subject of this discussion, has three major issues that are going to keep popping up.

  • It's about a narrative aspect of the game that by its own declaration acts as a shorthand for how a character generally acts, and has implicit definitions for what defines those characteristics.
  • It's contrary to what the actual rules say concerning alignment, because according to alignment, doing altruistic, life-protecting, dignity-concerning things is good, and evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing; so when you're doing the former and none of the latter, eyebrows are raised when you're told to be more of the latter persuasion.
  • Because it invalidates the point of alignment. If alignment is as meaningless to who your character is as the number crunch behind an attack roll or saving throw, then those that truly care about alignment are going to be bothered, and those who aren't particularly attached to it simply won't care because it is no longer relevant to them.

EDIT: So yes, when it comes to alignment, especially when it conflicts with the alignment rules, it really does need to be explained.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, Ash, so, explain why explicitly channelling the power of Hell, a definitely evil plane, is good. not 'not evil' actively good. Explain how calling on Asmodeus, master of the pit, and infernal tyrant, is good. Ends AND means matter. Is casting Infernal Healing an especially evil act? No. Its a venal sin, but it is evil. Can you accomplish good with evil tools? Yes, otherwise they'd be lousy tools for temptation, but that does not make the tool less evil. You can be good and use the tools of evil, but that doesn't change the fact that its evil. You won't necesarily become evil, but you are normalising the power of evil and making it seem less evil as it can be used for goood ends, thus giving hell free propaganda points and increasing its power in the world, thus evil. There, explanation.

I mean, for a counter example, if in the game I murder innocent people for money and use the money to set up orphanages, is that good? How about if its just stealing rather than assassination? Wire fraud? What crime can I commit to provide for the poor, homeless little orphans that the crime is actually a good act in your opinion?
Better example, if you could torture one soul everyday but it wpuld guarantee a blissful life for 1000, is that evil? If not, adjust either way until it is and explain the difference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ashiel is making real good points. It also seems i remember even less about previous editions than i thought^^
It´s a funny thing, just like with wanting an "old school" game. I stated somewhere else that this says nothing about the game, since so many different people understand different things about it. The same seems to apply here.

So Paul Watson and HWalsh, what editions of the game have you actually been playing? I mainly played Pathfinder admittedly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hayato Ken wrote:

Ashiel is making real good points. It also seems i remember even less about previous editions than i thought^^

It´s a funny thing, just like with wanting an "old school" game. I stated somewhere else that this says nothing about the game, since so many different people understand different things about it. The same seems to apply here.

So Paul Watson and HWalsh, what editions of the game have you actually been playing? I mainly played Pathfinder admittedly.

Red box and eveything up to 4E. Now mostly Pathfinder. And several oher non-D&D types.


Hayato Ken wrote:

Ashiel is making real good points. It also seems i remember even less about previous editions than i thought^^

It´s a funny thing, just like with wanting an "old school" game. I stated somewhere else that this says nothing about the game, since so many different people understand different things about it. The same seems to apply here.

So Paul Watson and HWalsh, what editions of the game have you actually been playing? I mainly played Pathfinder admittedly.

Oiy...

I started with the Red Box and Gold Box in 1988 that I bought in a pawn shop... (I never got to use the Gold Box, it was the Immortals rules.)

Went on to 2nd Edition AD&D after a bit of running it... There was no internet back then so it took me a while to find a copy as I was in a small town.

Played 2nd Edition AD&D forever, I was a late adopter of 3.0 and I wanna say around 2001-ish?

Then went right from 3.0 to 3.5, I had been playing 3.0 with a friend, when 3.5 came out I bought the books for the group because that was just how it went.

Then I was a late adopter of Pathfinder only getting into it maybe a year ago.

So... I've been doing this game for... I dunno... 28 years... Darn I feel old.


HWalsh wrote:


So... I've been doing this game for... I dunno... 28 years... Darn I feel old.

I know how you feel! I've got 2-3 years on you, but never played the D&D boxed sets, jumped straight into 1eAD&D.


Sundakan wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I explained, MT was never what ANYONE could call Good.

...Except plenty of people have, and DO, so this is false. Her name has literally become synonymous with "Good person who does good things and helps people".

Whether she actually was this is iffy at best, but she is definitely what A LOT OF PEOPLE would call Good.

Hence why I mentioned her. It was tangent to my main point anyways.

Patrick C. wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:

Challenge accepted.

[...]

Now, where is my cookie?

Nowhere.

You had to summon up three plot devices (a demon, an unspeakable horror AND a spell to prevent the king from talking about both) and you STILL couldn't give me an Evil character who believed everyone had fundamental rights.

Klara Meison wrote:
As for a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, read something about Mother Teresa that wasn't written by her fan.

No.

You fail. Utterly.

And which part did I fail at? Was the character not Evil enough for you or do you claim they have no respect for fundamental human rights?


dragonhunterq wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


So... I've been doing this game for... I dunno... 28 years... Darn I feel old.
I know how you feel! I've got 2-3 years on you, but never played the D&D boxed sets, jumped straight into 1eAD&D.

As a kid of 8 years old, the guy at the Pawn Shop (okay, small town, so we didn't have a bookstore, we had a pawn shop that bought books) actually took in the D&D set for me when someone wanted to sell it because he knew my dad and I would go in there from time to time.

I was a dorky kid and was still in the wheelchair at the time so I would get as many books as I could from that place. He knew I loved fantasy so he made sure to show it to me when my dad took me there next.

I thank my stars that he did because gaming, be it D&D, White Wolf, Star Wars, etc got me through a lot. Even after I learned to walk again gaming was my absolute favorite hobby.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:

Challenge accepted.

[...]

Now, where is my cookie?

Nowhere.

You had to summon up three plot devices (a demon, an unspeakable horror AND a spell to prevent the king from talking about both) and you STILL couldn't give me an Evil character who believed everyone had fundamental rights.

And which part did I fail at? Was the character not Evil enough for you or do you claim they have no respect for fundamental human rights?

I'd say it was the part where the character trampled all over those fundamental human rights he claimed to respect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:
Ok, Ash, so, explain why explicitly channelling the power of Hell, a definitely evil plane, is good. not 'not evil' actively good.

In the same way that creatures made of the very same evil planes, born of the pit, and literally composed of [Evil] can be good. By doing altruistic, protective, concerned things for people. By doing those things, but not hurting, oppressing, or killing.

Quote:
Explain how calling on Asmodeus, master of the pit, and infernal tyrant, is good.

By doing altruistic, protective, concerned things with your call. Having your imp familiar cast commune to ask Asmodeus where a kidnapped child is, so she can be rescued, is literally calling up elder evils and asking them to point you in the right direction. Just because the source is evil, doesn't mean the action is.

Quote:
Ends AND means matter.

You haven't established that the means is morally evil, however. Because as I noted, in both cases, you're not doing evil with those things. You have to show that it's hurting, oppressing, or killing.

Quote:
Is casting Infernal Healing an especially evil act? No. Its a venal sin, but it is evil. Can you accomplish good with evil tools? Yes, otherwise they'd be lousy tools for temptation, but that does not make the tool less evil.

I'm going to point out that evil is a tangible force in Pathfinder. You can literally be made up of evil. A sorcerer can be born, literally filled with evil, naturally being filled with evil magics because they have abyssal or infernal blood running through their very veins. However, whether or not they themselves are evil is determined by what they choose to do with that power (whether they use it for good, evil, or something else).

Quote:
You can be good and use the tools of evil, but that doesn't change the fact that its evil.

But we're talking about it being the same as acting evil, in the sense that it changes your alignment. A +3 unholy sword is [Evil] aligned. It bestows a negative level on non-evil creatures wielding it. However, if a Paladin picks up the blade and uses it to bypass a creature's DR (say their DR is bypassed by +3 weapons) the Paladin isn't being evil for wielding the weapon. It's a matter of what he is doing with that weapon (such as slaying a fiend).

In the same way that infernal healing is [Evil], but using it in ways other than hurting, oppressing, and killing is using it in a non-evil way.

Quote:
You won't necesarily become evil, but you are normalising the power of evil and making it seem less evil as it can be used for goood ends, thus giving hell free propaganda points and increasing its power in the world, thus evil. There, explanation.

Again, it's a tangible power that is independent of your alignment as proven by the aligned subtypes and their interaction with Alignment itself. What you are describing is akin to suggesting that using fire for cooking is a terrible idea because you're normalizing the destructive force of fire that makes it seem less dangerous and inviting more people to make more fire which could produce more danger.

It's not wholly a poor argument, but your argument is that it could improve the reputation of badguys, but that's wholly irrelevant to what you're actually doing with it as far as alignment is concerned. Because unless you are doing something that is hurting, oppressing, or killing, you are not doing evil. It's not rocket science. You might be using evil, but you're not doing evil.

Quote:
I mean, for a counter example, if in the game I murder innocent people for money and use the money to set up orphanages, is that good?

Murder involves hurting, oppressing, and of course killing. Obviously no.

Quote:
How about if its just stealing rather than assassination? Wire fraud? What crime can I commit to provide for the poor, homeless little orphans that the crime is actually a good act in your opinion?

Hurting, oppressing, or killing. Stealing from people is a form of oppression. Obviously no.

Quote:
Better example, if you could torture one soul everyday but it wpuld guarantee a blissful life for 1000, is that evil? If not, adjust either way until it is and explain the difference.

HURTING, OPPRESSING, KILLING.

"English ****** ****** do you speak it?" - His Lordship Samuel L. Jackson.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:
What crime can I commit to provide for the poor, homeless little orphans that the crime is actually a good act in your opinion?

Off the top of my head, crimes that could be considered good acts might include things like...

Breaking embargo laws to provide food to people in need.

Breaking someone wrongfully jailed out of captivity (such as a witness intended to be silenced by an authority figure).

Jaywalking to push someone out of the way of a runaway ox.

Not murdering your brother for being an apostate (in certain cultures).

Not murdering people at the order of your liege, even if your refusal is an act of unlawful treason.

Fighting off authorities intent on abusing their legal power.

Pretty much any law that you can break that doesn't involve hurting, oppressing, or killing someone, while being altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for the dignity of others.

Many examples of breaking laws will fall into the neutral standpoint, where you're committing evils for good purposes; such as Paladins killing orcs, Aladdin stealing bread, or Robin Hood robbing from the rich to give to the poor. They might be doing good things but these also involve actually doing evil things too (hurting, oppressing, and killing), which in turn means you're sitting in the middle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hell, there are ways to break laws that fit a lawful alignment. Are we seriously surprised that breaking the law can be good?

Consider the civil rights struggles. Many forms of protest or self-defense were judged as "unlawful". But when the legal system is broke, what're you gonna do, break with it?

I would actually go further than Ashiel—stealing food from a wealthy merchant to give to starving people, for instance, would be "Good" in my book. Especially if the merchant is a jerk who abuses his authority over hungry employees.


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

Hell, there are ways to break laws that fit a lawful alignment. Are we seriously surprised that breaking the law can be good?

Consider the civil rights struggles. Many forms of protest or self-defense were judged as "unlawful". But when the legal system is broke, what're you gonna do, break with it?

I would actually go further than Ashiel—stealing food from a wealthy merchant to give to starving people, for instance, would be "Good" in my book. Especially if the merchant is a jerk who abuses his authority over hungry employees.

The act of theft itself I don't think would be good, but you're also putting yourself at risk of punishment (alrtuism, good), doing so out of a concern for others (also good), to protect/improve their lives (also good).

So it's not surprising you'd find that good. It's more good than not, and even if the actual act of theft isn't particularly good (more neutral in this case) everything else surrounding it is super good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, no, the act of theft isn't, but I feel like, as arbitrary as our set of moral standards is, we have to be practical at some point. "Most possible good through least possible evil", y'know.

I'm not saying I'd necessarily extend that to all the "torture this baby to save the baby factory" scenarios people are cooking up, but when it's a loaf of bread, it's pretty clearly weighted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, no, the act of theft isn't, but I feel like, as arbitrary as our set of moral standards is, we have to be practical at some point. "Most possible good through least possible evil", y'know.

I'm not saying I'd necessarily extend that to all the "torture this baby to save the baby factory" scenarios people are cooking up, but when it's a loaf of bread, it's pretty clearly weighted.

That's fair. I wouldn't have counted it as evil either, because the act of theft in this case would be about as neutral-resulting as a Paladin slaying an orc.

Because the ability to not merely use evil but to actually DO EVIL for GOOD ENDs is actually the very reason that Paladins can exist. They are literally warriors who kill things for the greater good. They use swords to kill things for the betterment of others.

If doing evil, which includes hurting, oppressing, or killing wasn't weighed against the good you are attempting to further, then Paladins would simply fall for hurting orcs. But the thing is, we're assuming that the Paladins are fighting and killing for good reasons (being altruistic, protective, concerned, etc).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Preach it! We need to break from this idea that killing (non-undead/plant/construct/pugwampi/other universal evil) creatures can be a Good act. It's always going to be Neutral at best—accepting the evil of violence to prevent further harm to others. The world is not a better place because that orc is dead, it's a better place because that man the orc was about to murder got to survive where otherwise he would have died.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Preach it! We need to break from this idea that killing (non-undead/plant/construct/pugwampi/other universal evil) creatures can be a Good act. It's always going to be Neutral at best—accepting the evil of violence to prevent further harm to others. The world is not a better place because that orc is dead, it's a better place because that man the orc was about to murder got to survive where otherwise he would have died.

Well, orcs are creatures and you can hurt, oppress, and kill them. They just tend to also be violent, bloodthirsty, evil guys (because they often hurt, oppress, and kill, as a rule). Often you're doing a mixture of good and evil when you're killing them.

I mean, if you kill them for fun & profit, rather than because you're trying to help those they would hurt, you're probably gonna ping evil pretty soon. :)

Of course, a few protection from evils later and you can go to heaven too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we are changing topics.

There is a difference between "_____ is not evil by the game's intended rules" and "This rule is not logical and it should not be a rule."

At various points people were arguing different points and not realizing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I feel like we are changing topics.

There is a difference between "_____ is not evil by the game's intended rules" and "This rule is not logical and it should not be a rule."

At various points people were arguing different points and not realizing it.

True that. To summarize what I've been saying is.

1. Paizo released a splatbook saying X is true.
2. People question this because it doesn't fit.
3. If actually doing good and evil isn't the deciding factor, then it doesn't really matter to those of us who actually care about alignment as it was defined in the core rulebook, because we'll just keep acting like good guys and be immune to the spells badguys throw.
EDIT: 4. Morality without reason is stupid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Essentially, if we believe that Evil is as Paizo's splatbook declares, "Evil" ceases to have any meaningful connection to the real-world definition of "Evil". It's just a game term, like "level" or "damage", and is entirely unconnected to real-world moral questions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The algnment "rules" are vaguely written for loose interpretation. I can see 3 main benefits

1. it allows us to move past an area of the game that no one can agree on.
2. It means we can play it how we like at our table.
3. It gives us something to talk about on the Paizo forums.

Arguing about alignment in a rules context is like arguing about shades of blue not realising that everyone might be seeing completely different colours and you will never really know what someone else is seeing.


Didn't Paizo just release an entire AP predicated on the premise that good-aligned PCs must break the law if the law is corrupt or unjust (Hell's Rebels)?

That seems relevant.


Ffordesoon wrote:

Didn't Paizo just release an entire AP predicated on the premise that good-aligned PCs must break the law if the law is corrupt or unjust (Hell's Rebels)?

That seems relevant.

While that's true, Hell's Rebels, based on what I read from the AP and the player's guide, is hardly a story of good guy heroes rising up against terrible evils and oppression. The reasons that are given for people to rebel are, frankly, stupid. Starting a life-threatening rebellion because some doofus decided that Mint was outlawed (and the ban on mint was the only law decree that wasn't sensible or was just needlessly oppressive or nonhelpful to their society).

That's not to say that worse things aren't going on behind the scenes, but the whole premise of the start of things is just dumb and doesn't exactly scream heroic goodguys.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:

Didn't Paizo just release an entire AP predicated on the premise that good-aligned PCs must break the law if the law is corrupt or unjust (Hell's Rebels)?

That seems relevant.

While that's true, Hell's Rebels, based on what I read from the AP and the player's guide, is hardly a story of good guy heroes rising up against terrible evils and oppression. The reasons that are given for people to rebel are, frankly, stupid. Starting a life-threatening rebellion because some doofus decided that Mint was outlawed (and the ban on mint was the only law decree that wasn't sensible or was just needlessly oppressive or nonhelpful to their society).

That's not to say that worse things aren't going on behind the scenes, but the whole premise of the start of things is just dumb and doesn't exactly scream heroic goodguys.

Um, Ash... you might want to read the AP.

The Mint ban was just one proclamation meant stir people up, pulling A f~+%ing Night of Broken Glass, establishing martial law, and ordering the execution of protestors is what actually sets off the rebellion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was speaking to the concept, not the execution, which is kinda dumb. Though I would recommend taking a second look at the Player's Guide. The proclamations (and it's not just the mint thing that's arbitrary and bizarre) are a really small part of why Thrune is hated. He's also closed down all non-Asmodean places of worship, is suspected of capturing/killing prominent and beloved citizens (including the previous mayor of the town), and he closes the world-famous opera house so he can live there and watch operas by himself.

I have problems with the setup of Hell's Rebels myself, but let's be fair.

EDIT: Also, what Rysky said. As cartoonishly evil BBEGs go, Thrune is a pretty good one. The way the opening encounters are designed is what kinda drives me nuts.

Silver Crusade

Ffordesoon wrote:

Was speaking to the concept, not the execution, which is kinda dumb. Though I would recommend taking a second look at the Player's Guide. The proclamations (and it's not just the mint thing that's arbitrary and bizarre) are a really small part of why Thrune is hated. He's also closed down all non-Asmodean places of worship, is suspected of capturing/killing prominent and beloved citizens (including the previous mayor of the town), and he closes the world-famous opera house so he can live there and watch operas by himself.

I have problems with the setup of Hell's Rebels myself, but let's be fair.

Pretty sure it goes way beyond just "suspecting" of murdering most of the critics and burning down their homes :3

That and the martial law thing, that's never fun.

Edit: Posted before I saw the edit Fford, and yes, Thrune is very cartoonishly evil, which is what makes him scarier, since he's the only one operating under that mindset, and has the power to back it up.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Essentially, if we believe that Evil is as Paizo's splatbook declares, "Evil" ceases to have any meaningful connection to the real-world definition of "Evil". It's just a game term, like "level" or "damage", and is entirely unconnected to real-world moral questions.

That is how I see it too. It might not be evil to me but it(random thing) is evil in Fantasyland.

651 to 700 of 904 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People... All Messageboards