For the Greater Good alignment


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:

I believe this thread now qualifies for

This is why we don't start Alignment threads, they cause nothing but trouble

Where in tarnation were you 198 posts ago, Ammon!?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i stopped posting in the thread with hopes it would die or everyone would start agreeing that everyone has there own opinion and that alignment threads are ultimately pointless because of opinions.

Nothing no matter who posts what or what things are presented as facts none of it actually is. Anything alignment is ultimately an opinion because everyone has different standards what good and evil.

For example i believe that this is a neutral scenario because there is no absolute good or evil option. one cannot exist without the other.

Someone is killing innocents to save other innocents, that is the fact here nothing else can be assumed or taken or added to this. Either you kill no one and more people die or you kill less. Either way someone dies there are no third roads or choices. it's neither good nor evil.

People bringing in outside sources like definitions or stating things as absolutes are the only wrong people here


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My response to all of this arguing over the tram dilemma, or the police officer pulling the gun: there is a distinct difference between not acting out of apathy, not acting out because you've made a decision, and not acting because you refuse to become an agent.

Focusing specifically on the tram dilemma, I have, ostensibly, two options: pull the lever and change the tracks, or not. Now, obviously if I pull the lever it's because I've made a judgment call. The statistics dictate that the person who pulls it or not based on a judgment call is going to go with saving the most lives, so a good number of people who don't pull the lever fall under that category too. Me, I take a different train of thought, one that informs why I don't believe that participating can ever be the truly good option: I don't have the right to decide who lives or who dies. Don't get me wrong, if I see a man about to shoot another man I'm gonna try to put a stop to it, and if I really have to I'll use lethal force. I'll kill a man who's threatening my life if I must, although I'm gonna try to resolve it without having to do so. But put me in a situation where I have to choose between two groups of people and I can't resolve it without one of them dying, unless one of those groups intentionally created that situation I'm not going to make that choice because the second I do, I put a value on human life, and I don't have that right.


HWalsh wrote:

The likelihood of Orcs not participating in raids in aa raiding village is very slim.

If this justifies the paladin murdering raiders & possibly (though rarely) innocent families,

then the killer
murdering criminals and their families
Is justified


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:

I believe this thread now qualifies for

This is why we don't start Alignment threads, they cause nothing but trouble

Whats the point of playing a completely open ended RPG if you can't have fun with the idea of burning a few hypothetical orphanages


D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The likelihood of Orcs not participating in raids in aa raiding village is very slim.

If this justifies the paladin murdering raiders & possibly (though rarely) innocent families,

then the killer
murdering criminals and their families
Is justified

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

Also, in particular, the poster referenced "Orcs."

You need to stop acting like Orcs are like normal player races where most people are neutral, basically good. That isn't how it works. Orcs are, for the most part, evil. So yes, you have some non-evil Orcs, though rare... And they wouldn't be in a raiding village... Or even part of Orc culture.

You aren't going to find good Orcs in an Orc village. Not even children. Their culture would kill them or drive them out. That is even mirrored in our real world.

Raiding cultures were known to allow members who wouldn't participate or who didn't have the drive to do it, who weren't violent enough, to be killed. The same is true of evil races in Pathfinder/D&D.

Children who didn't have the desired violent streak were outcast and ostracized for being "weak" and were often cast out. Men and women were cast out or killed usually. That is how those kinds of violent cultures worked, which is also why they are described racially as being evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.

Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?


Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.

Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.


HWalsh wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The likelihood of Orcs not participating in raids in aa raiding village is very slim.

If this justifies the paladin murdering raiders & possibly (though rarely) innocent families,

then the killer
murdering criminals and their families
Is justified

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

Also, in particular, the poster referenced "Orcs."

You need to stop acting like Orcs are like normal player races where most people are neutral, basically good. That isn't how it works. Orcs are, for the most part, evil. So yes, you have some non-evil Orcs, though rare... And they wouldn't be in a raiding village... Or even part of Orc culture.

You aren't going to find good Orcs in an Orc village. Not even children. Their culture would kill them or drive them out. That is even mirrored in our real world.

Raiding cultures were known to allow members who wouldn't participate or who didn't have the drive to do it, who weren't violent enough, to be killed. The same is true of evil races in Pathfinder/D&D.

Children who didn't have the desired violent streak were outcast and ostracized for being "weak" and were often cast...

The poster also didn't specify "raiding village" whether in proper historical context or not. He in fact mentioned women and children being present, so it's obviously not this thing you describe.

Nor, in my experience, do the vast majority of GMs or module authors stick to this concept - witness any of a hundred scenarios where the PCs follow raiding humanoids back to their village, complete with women and children.

Personally, I wouldn't call the thing you're talking about a village at all - "base" or "encampment" are clearer.

It's not a bad basic approach to dealing with humanoids though - if the party's expected to kill all of them, make it a war party or camp of some kind. If you're going for some kind of negotiation or other non-slaughter solution, then you can use the actual home village.


HWalsh wrote:

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

So are we talking Orc raiding culture being organized like this? or are you claiming some sort of generalized raiding culture, plucked from many many different places, people and time periods when discribeing these raiding villages?.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.

Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.

Your last point is what I'm saying. Being a paladin in a no win scenario doesn't excuse you from trying. As long as you tried and didn't "Oh. We must cull the city". And actually agonized over your decision, I wouldn't fall a paladin. Sometimes there isn't a way out irl, though. Why should there always be a way out in the game?


Kjeldorn wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

So are we talking Orc raiding culture being organized like this? or are you claiming some sort of generalized raiding culture, plucked from many many different places, people and time periods when discribeing these raiding villages?.

Constructed utilizing the common threads between raiding cultures. Even the norse did this, the raiding parties didn't work out of their home area, because (specifically) that would welcome retribution on them.


Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.
.
Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.

Your last point is what I'm saying. Being a paladin in a no win scenario doesn't excuse you from trying. As long as you tried and didn't "Oh. We must cull the city". And actually agonized over your decision, I wouldn't fall a paladin. Sometimes there isn't a way out irl, though. Why should there always be a way out in the game?

Because it's a game.

For the same reason you don't just kill the party off with overwhelming force - which happens in real life too.


HWalsh wrote:
Kjeldorn wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

So are we talking Orc raiding culture being organized like this? or are you claiming some sort of generalized raiding culture, plucked from many many different places, people and time periods when discribeing these raiding villages?.

Constructed utilizing the common threads between raiding cultures. Even the norse did this, the raiding parties didn't work out of their home area, because (specifically) that would welcome retribution on them.

Well then I would recommend you keep doing that historical research to make a more accurate model of a "Raiding Culture".

Since what you´ve shared until now most closely resemble the idea that Vikings created permanent or semi-permanent military installations where they would gather before setting out to raid foreign costal areas.

It does not how ever resemble how germanic tribes conducted raiding into the Roman Empire in the 3rd century for example.


Furthermore, it doesn't really change the larger picture. Even if the group in question operated that way, in order to stop the raiding in the long term, the party would have to follow the trail back to the central village and there run into the original dilemma.


thejeff wrote:
Furthermore, it doesn't really change the larger picture. Even if the group in question operated that way, in order to stop the raiding in the long term, the party would have to follow the trail back to the central village and there run into the original dilemma.

I actually agree. Just missed the first post where you made that argument. ^^'


Kjeldorn wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Kjeldorn wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

So are we talking Orc raiding culture being organized like this? or are you claiming some sort of generalized raiding culture, plucked from many many different places, people and time periods when discribeing these raiding villages?.

Constructed utilizing the common threads between raiding cultures. Even the norse did this, the raiding parties didn't work out of their home area, because (specifically) that would welcome retribution on them.

Well then I would recommend you keep doing that historical research to make a more accurate model of a "Raiding Culture".

Since what you´ve shared until now most closely resemble the idea that Vikings created permanent or semi-permanent military installations where they would gather before setting out to raid foreign costal areas.

It does not how ever resemble how germanic tribes conducted raiding into the Roman Empire in the 3rd century for example.

You are confusing the practice of launching raids with being a raiding culture. The Germanic Tribes had already developed inter-tribe trading and formalized defenses. The Germanic Tribes had a summit and formalized war with the Roman Empire.

They weren't a raiding culture at that point.

That is more akin to a warring nation launching a raid than independent raiding cultures and societies.


thejeff wrote:
Furthermore, it doesn't really change the larger picture. Even if the group in question operated that way, in order to stop the raiding in the long term, the party would have to follow the trail back to the central village and there run into the original dilemma.

Not really.

Slaughtering the raiders would cripple the village as it cuts off the supplies they need to function. It would cause them to break up and separate. Thus there is no need to hit the central village.

Remember. Raiding cultures raid because they have to. If they lose their raiders the village collapses.

Cut off the raiders and the central village dies.


HWalsh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Furthermore, it doesn't really change the larger picture. Even if the group in question operated that way, in order to stop the raiding in the long term, the party would have to follow the trail back to the central village and there run into the original dilemma.

Not really.

Slaughtering the raiders would cripple the village as it cuts off the supplies they need to function. It would cause them to break up and separate. Thus there is no need to hit the central village.

Remember. Raiding cultures raid because they have to. If they lose their raiders the village collapses.

Cut off the raiders and the central village dies.

I am actually very interested in what cultures you have based this on. Since I can't, from the top of my head at least, come up with any culture where raiding was the primary means of subsistance for protracted periods of time. Actually the closest thing i can think of would be some of the germanic tribes during the Migration Period.

Oh and to the original question asked by the OP...I could see it as wide range of alignments. I would be much more interested in seeing how he carried out the whole killing/saving thing before I would give it a definitive this or that alignment.

Sovereign Court

HWalsh wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The likelihood of Orcs not participating in raids in aa raiding village is very slim.

If this justifies the paladin murdering raiders & possibly (though rarely) innocent families,

then the killer
murdering criminals and their families
Is justified

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

Depends upon the culture.

The Germanic tribes, specifically the Cimbrians (probably Germanic - historians aren't 100% sure), all of their men participated in battle. The women and children would also show up to cheer them on and yell at them if they started to falter. The women would literally start killing any of them that ran away. (dressed in black) Other than little kids, they didn't really have non-combatants.

The Cimbri were freakin' nuts, and the closest thing I've ever heard about to orc tribes. (Late Republic Rome was almost wiped out by them. The only reason they were saved after the Cimbri & Teutones smashed basically all of the Roman armies was that they were distracted and ran off to Spain to raid/pillage for a couple years before coming back to Italy, giving Gaius Marius time to raise/train new armies to fight them.)

Though - probably shouldn't be considered a raiding village since there were tens if not hundreds of thousands on the march.

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Though - probably shouldn't be considered a raiding village since there were tens if not hundreds of thousands on the march.

Yeah, by the game rules that would be classified as a raiding metropolis, not a village.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:


your talking about a morale absolutist view in that case all murder of sentient life is evil therefore all dnd characters (with the exception of maybe a very few closet cases) are evil (i'm going to call this the murder hobo example.)

I would point out that "Murder" is illegal killing, not just killing or even immoral killing.

From Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of murder

1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2
a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

so adventurers don't murder? I guess they slay (gwar approves) then what would be the correct term? (and then murder hobos are sometimes slaugther hobos? killing hobos eh don't like that one.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

hmmm, I'm skipping the whole thread to post this, but actions of "the greater good" variety I think transcend the alignment system all together.

On one hand, it's chaotic good, because they intend to save lives and don't believe anything even the social structure of a family changes the weight of any one life.

At the same time it's lawful evil, because you ARE killing someone to for your goal and think of a justifacation for it.

there's more alignments hidden in there but the point is the overall system isn't good, evil or neutral or lawful or chaotic, it's all 5 at the same time. Morality isn't like Basic math, good doesn't cancel out evil nor the reverse

So for the question of what alignment is it? The answer is Yes.

This is basically what I consider the Flaw of the alignment system in pathfinder, for some reason people can't be good and evil at the same time as if your alignment can be tallied up, yes a person can be more evil than good, but really if someone tried to use detect alignment on you and scanned each alignment, a Real person would come out more or less positive in each category with differing levels of strength. It's as if the system believes you can't have multiple feelings about something at the same time.


Bandw2 wrote:

hmmm, I'm skipping the whole thread to post this, but actions of "the greater good" variety I think transcend the alignment system all together.

On one hand, it's chaotic good, because they intend to save lives and don't believe anything even the social structure of a family changes the weight of any one life.

At the same time it's lawful evil, because you ARE killing someone to for your goal and think of a justifacation for it.

there's more alignments hidden in there but the point is the overall system isn't good, evil or neutral or lawful or chaotic, it's all 5 at the same time. Morality isn't like Basic math, good doesn't cancel out evil nor the reverse

So for the question of what alignment is it? The answer is Yes.

This is basically what I consider the Flaw of the alignment system in pathfinder, for some reason people can't be good and evil at the same time as if your alignment can be tallied up, yes a person can be more evil than good, but really if someone tried to use detect alignment on you and scanned each alignment, a Real person would come out more or less positive in each category with differing levels of strength. It's as if the system believes you can't have multiple feelings about something at the same time.

I agree where your coming from in today's society very true but i think DnD and pathfinder society dictates that the killing of evil monsters is a good act and society as as much a bearing on morality as anything

although you can still always see an action from any alignment if you try hard enough I think its best to just keep alignment in the far background and remember your playing a sentient being who makes mistakes and doesn't always follow their alignment not an outsider who is the embodiment of his alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just find it hard to believe that so many refuse to accept that situation arise where the circumstances of events, random luck, and power differentials lead to morally grey choices where there is no option C that permits a virtuous response to a morally correct situation that is not virtuous because it ends in the harm of more people.

It destroys realism and it is actually far more realistic than always believing there exists a virtuous solution to all problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I just find it hard to believe that so many refuse to accept that situation arise where the circumstances of events, random luck, and power differentials lead to morally grey choices where there is no option C that permits a virtuous response to a morally correct situation that is not virtuous because it ends in the harm of more people.

It destroys realism and it is actually far more realistic than always believing there exists a virtuous solution to all problems.

I don't know I feel like any situation could have an endless amount of possible outcomes. now maybe person X can think of another option besides A or B but I do believe there is an infinite amount of other possibilities just maybe person X doesn't have the ability to see them.

maybe its just a glass half full situation.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I just find it hard to believe that so many refuse to accept that situation arise where the circumstances of events, random luck, and power differentials lead to morally grey choices where there is no option C that permits a virtuous response to a morally correct situation that is not virtuous because it ends in the harm of more people.

It destroys realism and it is actually far more realistic than always believing there exists a virtuous solution to all problems.

But we're playing a game. A game where situations don't "arise", they're created by the GM.

Sure the GM can create situations where there is no virtuous response. The GM can contrive a situation where torturing innocent children is the only alternative to worldwide catastrophe if they want to. But there's nothing inherently realistic about it. It's being made up by the GM, just like the case where heroism always works.


<<spoilers for torchwood> I think Torchwood did an episode to save like a million children jack had to kill his nephew <and he did seeing no other way out> always felt that was in such stark contrast to Dr. Who who would of found a way to beat them without even thinking about sacrifice, but its like saying almost regular guy figure out a solution to a problem only superman can truly solve. I think that was kind of the point of the show was to show the difference between The Doctor who pretty well saves everyone or thinks of a way to do whats right while keeping the morale high ground and what someone without that level of intellect and resources at hand has to handle similar impossible problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to think about Daredevil.

If you haven't for some reason watched Daredevil. You really should.:
I consider Daredevil to be LG. Some people might say chaotic but he still believes in the legal system. Everyone will agree Good however. All the characters say he has to kill Fisk, or sacrifice all his loved ones. He finds a way to work within the law and imprison Fisk. It doesn't really work 100% in season 2, but that's the conflict giving the writers room to expand the show. Although he does hurt people, he only hurts bad people, who willingly kill others. This kind've seems to go into a tangent about murderhobos, so I apologize.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deontology: Do good by following a set of rules - don't hurt innocent people, etc.
Utilitarianism: Do whatever will bring the greatest good to the greatest number.

I think of Lawful Good as the former, and Chaotic Good as the latter.

Both sides are unselfishly trying to do the right thing, but they may disagree with each other so profoundly about what the right thing is that they perceive each other as evil.

The dangers of Deontology: You have chosen a set of rules to follow - probably whatever are the traditional rules of your society. What are the chances that they're really the right rules? What if they're right in some situations and not in others? If you adopt a rule of "never lie" and you find yourself in some unlikely situation where lying is the only way to save someone's life - do you really have the right to let them die just to keep your purity? But if you'd break the rules to save the world, then you're not really following the rules at all, you're just a hypocrite who only follows the rules when they're convenient.

The dangers of Utilitarianism: The problem is, you don't have perfect knowledge of what the ultimate consequences of your actions will be, so you're basically just guessing. All people have confirmation bias, especially those who are able to convince themselves they don't. Since you don't have any strict rules to follow, what's to stop you from convincing yourself that the thing that benefits you is also the best thing for the world as a whole, even when it isn't? Suppose an angel appears before you and tells you that a particular baby will grow up to be the next Hitler - should you murder the baby? Answer: probably not, because it's more likely you've gone insane than the situation you describe is actually happening.


Just play Neutral if you want to play pragmatic PC's that are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. Trying to pick which of the good alignments is most palpable to that line of thinking is a worthless venture in my view since all of them freak out about any decision that would involve the sacrifice of the innocent or the few. Being a good guy isn't supposed to be easy or convenient, and yes that does mean you have to save those orc babies if you decided to be good.

People may bemoan Neutral for being boring or non-descriptive but it is the one alignment that's all about looking at every situation in the most unbiased way possible and figuring what action is the most effective to accomplishing something without good or sadism to get in the way.

A Neutral character will kill of prisoners if they have a reasonable concern that said prisoners could escape and kill the party in their sleep. Sarenrae be damned.

A Neutral character will let a hundred people die to save a thousand if no other alternative is available.

A Neutral character will leave a bunch of orc babies to die alone of exposure if bring them along would compromise the world-ending threat the party needs to stop.

Sorry you don't get to be a Paladin though.

None of these acts are capital-G Good, but I don't think their Evil either. If want to have a character that is something of a moral-relativist whose willing to do shady things than Neutral is your best bet in my opinion. Trying to turn any of the Goods (especially LG Paladins) into grim pragmatic killers that murder babies or unarmed prisoners is no better than trying to pass off a Chaotic Evil serial killer as a "funny" Chaotic Neutral rascal. Just admit to yourself what your doing and stop arguing with your GM, being Neutral isn't that bad.

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / For the Greater Good alignment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.