For the Greater Good alignment


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Hello, we just finished Rise of The Runelords and this is the dialog between an NPC Cleric of Erastil and PC Swashbuckler.

Cleric: "You are going to do everything to protect your people, that's not a suggestion. That's a fact, I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself"
Swashbuckler: "What exactly defines everything? What is the limit in what we do?"
Cleric: "I... I really do not think there is one. As long as it is to keep your people safe I think you will do everything. Would you kill a whole family to save many many more? Yes you would. Now would you sleep at night? That's a very different question"
Swashbuckler: "Yes, I would. You are right. It's all about the people. We don't matter if we cant protect them. And yes... I could sleep at night."

After reading this I asked the DM if he's switching both of them to neutral. DM believes they are doing the right thing. You should kill an innocent family, to save a many more innocent families.

I as a player and my LG Cleric of Erastil disagree. My cleric is keeping his family away from both of them just in case they get ideas :P

So what alignment(s) would that thinking falls in, in your opinion?

Edit: To avoid any misunderstanding. Campaign is over. We were having philosophical discussion with DM and other players on the matter. I suggested I'd post on the message boards so we see what others think. They liked the idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's sort of the thing a lot of alignments can fall under greater good even Lawful evil can be justified.

Killing an innocent to save more people on the whole seems to me to be some kind of Neutral, Neutral good . Neutral good many people forget is the alignment that represents doing anything to do what is seen as right. however this is killing someone who is an innocent so True neutral might work.

This is what we call a moral grey area, the batman dilemma. where this situation an be justified with more than 1 or 2 alignments...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This sounds a lot more like Lawful Evil to me. Hell is more than willing to sacrifice a couple of people just to keep the greater stability.

Really...who are these 'people' they refer to? Appearantly they aren't families, with wives, children, husbands, grandparents... "I can't see this forest through the trees!"

Once you are willing to sacrifice SOMEBODY, then you can sacrifice ANYBODY, and thus the 'people' are expendable. Either that, or you have a social caste system ("we can sacrifice hundreds of these commoners, but how dare you sacrifice a single noble!")

There is knowing your limits, such as not sending 100 soldiers to their death to save 10 people from 1,000,000 orcs... and then there is a willingness to just actively sacrifice others for your goals.

This person just says 'yeah, I would kill 'em'. No major qualifiers or moral quandaries (like 'they are infected with an incurable disease that automatically turns them into zombies- we should put them out of their misery before they become threats'). Nope. He is just willing to kill innocents due to some vague need.

But hey, what do I know- the 'kill em all' dwarves are apparently LG. OF course, even for a god like Torag, this sounds VERY dicey. Torag can at least say that mercy given to enemies is a disservice to the community you are trying to protect, since leaving them alone will allow them to grow, fester morally, and eat a toddler. But the guy in this story is more than willing to kill the innocents of the community. Targetting people he is supposed to protect, rather than enemies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't get involved in other players' alignment issues. Your concept of morality may differ from theirs; it is not your business.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I hear "for the greater good" I know I am in the presence of evil.

Anyway, we had the should-we-kill-the-ogre-baby discussion a lot of times over the years. Best to stay out of it and be yourself.


Vatras wrote:
When I hear "for the greater good" I know I am in the presence of evil.

I would at least need reasonable extenuating circumstances to justify it and stop it from being evil.

But no- no circumstances required by this person. Just point out who to kill. No need to explain why.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello guys . The DM here , I think this "I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself" is what makes the difference between the LE and the good .. I think that just by admiting that with the " do everything " logic you can loose yourself . Is what seperates you from the rest . Yes a good character would maybe kill an innocent person to save many more . But he would exausght every other option first ... And he would think everything ..


Lawful Evil is the greater good. It means you are truly willing to forfeit everything for the good you percieve. For the greater good to be achieved you have to be willing to risk not just your mortal life, but your soul's eternal damnation in order to preserve goodness elsewhere. This was the reasoning my Inquisitor of Torag used to justify breaking his code of conduct, which was done knowingly and willingly. Take from it what you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When in doubt, assume either True Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Those two allignments have the least "but you wouldn't do/say/think that" problems associated with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

in all honesty your not going to get a straight answer, this is an alignment thing and everyone has there own take on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
in all honesty your not going to get a straight answer, this is an alignment thing and everyone has there own take on them.

Don't really expect to :) Just curious to hear different opinions. It's been interesting this far.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it's nice to discuss such dilemmas, there is usually a third, fourth etc. option. A LE person might be expert in pretending dilemmas ('oh, we have to make this tough choice between two bad things') for their own agenda, but a good person should look for further alternatives.

Heck, there is even a Wikipedia article about false dilemmas. If you encounter real life persons in positions of power using this stuff, be very alert. On the other hand, it's a nice tool for LE characters to justify their deeds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that the alignment in this case depends on how they feel about doing it. Good people have qualms killing the innocent even if it is the most rational choice. I can justify their logic applying to any alignment but the bit about being able to sleep at night to me shows they are at the very least not good. I would say this qualifies as LE in this particular case based on
A. They are doing this based upon logic
B. They apparently have no qualms about it
C. Apparently they have no limit. Lack of porportion is a classic villain trait


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Amusingly, I'm going to throw out Chaotic Good here.

That's the "do good by whatever means necessary" alignment. It's batman. Remember, killing someone isn't evil. It's illegal. Sure, sure, arbitrarily killing the innocent is evil, but purposefully killing the guilty certainly isn't. In between is purposefully killing the innocent, if needful.

It's evil to kill animals for entertainment, but it's perfectly acceptable to kill them for food. Why is that? Because their death serves a purpose. A greater good. Your ongoing life.

Well, yeah, if you have reached a situation where the only path you can find to stave off great evil is to accept smaller evil, well... you're trying to do Good, and the rules are in the way... so... Chaos time.

Chaotic Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talking about it doesn't change their alignment, ever. Acting on it once shouldn't change their alignment. Very rarely does a single act define a person. It really requires a course of conduct.

Also stay out of other players alignment issues...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chaotic Good is about individualism, lawful good is more about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
(How many of you added "Or the one"?)

Batman is NOT GOOD, he is a hero sort of (anti-hero really), but he is bug.... crazy and has been since the very first comic. You all do know that the very first Batman comic cover has him gunning down a gang of thugs with a tommy-gun. He has his codes of conduct just like any honorable sociopathic samurai, and he has Alfred, various sidekicks, and the entire Justice League to keep nudging him away from serious excesses.

BTW this was nearly meaningless as a thought experiment, 40 years ago. Hasn't gotten any smarter. This was never a test of Goodness, it was a test of Pragmatism. If you are looking at it any other way, there is no answer, it is value nuetral.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

'By any means necessary' is like the official slogan of the evil alignment. Had you described the character in a vacuum I'd have guessed they're LE true believers. With the caveat that obviously someone just having a conversation about some thing doesn't necessarily define them as characters, it's certainly an LE mindset.

Anguish wrote:
Amusingly, I'm going to throw out Chaotic Good here.

I'm can't agree with this at all. One of the main tenants of CG is freedom and individualism and executing someone for nothing they've done just for some perceived societal benefit is pretty much the ultimate expression of oppression.

Omelas is not a CG society.

I mean, obviously there's more than one way to play any given alignment, but come on, this is literally in the books as an example of something CG stands in complete opposition toward.

Quote:
Remember, killing someone isn't evil. It's illegal.

First of all. Lawful isn't really just about (or even primarily about) the law. Secondly even if it was, it's illegal in most places to kill someone meaningless, but there are a number of circumstances where killing someone is perfectly legal (like self defense or capital punishment or war). A state empowering itself to execute a number of citizens for the benefit of all is totally legal.

So yeah, I'm going to stick with LE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greater good arguments always tend towards evil. When I think about it, any such argument fails based on the limit of projected consequences, based on the available data and processing power.

Kill 10 to save 1000, but what if saving 1000 provokes the death of 100000, which saves 10000000, which provokes....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Talking about it doesn't change their alignment, ever. Acting on it once shouldn't change their alignment. Very rarely does a single act define a person. It really requires a course of conduct.

Also stay out of other players alignment issues...

I mean... depends on the act. I think 'murdering innocent families' is one of those things that cross the line.

Killing 'a' person is terrible, but not instant alignment changing. But a 'family' means at least what? A half dozen people? If we are talking about nobility and such, then it might mean hundreds of people (the family, branch families, servants, soldiers, etc.).

Basically, how many babies, widows, and grandmothers do you have to kill in a day be evil? How much can you lump that together as a single evil act?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:

While it's nice to discuss such dilemmas, there is usually a third, fourth etc. option. A LE person might be expert in pretending dilemmas ('oh, we have to make this tough choice between two bad things') for their own agenda, but a good person should look for further alternatives.

Heck, there is even a Wikipedia article about false dilemmas. If you encounter real life persons in positions of power using this stuff, be very alert. On the other hand, it's a nice tool for LE characters to justify their deeds.

In real life situations are even more complex than this, because there is no powerful magical solution to horrible dilemmas. Just because some dilemmas are false, doesn't mean there are no dilemmas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Chaotic Good is about individualism, lawful good is more about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

(How many of you added "Or the one"?)

Batman is NOT GOOD, he is a hero sort of (anti-hero really), but he is bug.... crazy and has been since the very first comic. You all do know that the very first Batman comic cover has him gunning down a gang of thugs with a tommy-gun. He has his codes of conduct just like any honorable sociopathic samurai, and he has Alfred, various sidekicks, and the entire Justice League to keep nudging him away from serious excesses.

BTW this was nearly meaningless as a thought experiment, 40 years ago. Hasn't gotten any smarter. This was never a test of Goodness, it was a test of Pragmatism. If you are looking at it any other way, there is no answer, it is value nuetral.

Depends on which Batman,really. Adam West Batman is Lawful Good to the point of being Lawful Camp. Frank Miller's Batman is practically Chaotic Neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, she said the Adam West name! Oh no, now I said it, the horror, the horror. Please, oh please, no one say it the third time!

Frank Miller's batman was pretty out of control, so I suppose you could equate it to chaotic if you like. I don't see it as philosophical stance though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not going to look at this again, and skimmed through the comments, because alignment thread, but the classic answer to this question is Chaotic Good.

CG has been the "the ends justify the means" good alignment since 1E.

Although, from a Lawful perspective, as Spock once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Oh, she said the Adam West name! Oh no, now I said it, the horror, the horror. Please, oh please, no one say it the third time!

Frank Miller's batman was pretty out of control, so I suppose you could equate it to chaotic if you like. I don't see it as philosophical stance though.

Depends on which Miller Batman at that. "Crazy Steve" aka ASBAR Bat-man probably qualifies for Chaotic Evil. So does Holy Terror's The Fixer depending on your PoV, since he was originally intended to be Batman.

Also, if CG is ends justifies the means, does anybody think it would be too out of left field to have the Serial Killer archetype's alignment restriction be changed to Chaotic? I mean, characters like Dexter exist, and if there was a Rogue who went out and secretly killed evil-doers who they could not nab for Evil reasons, would you change his alignment to Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Oh, she said the Adam West name! Oh no, now I said it, the horror, the horror. Please, oh please, no one say it the third time!

What? Is he beetlejuice? Does he run off of the same mechanics as beetlejuice? Does he dot the same damage as beetle......

...wait... no. No. I promised to never have another tim burton character in my house. Not after Edward Scissorhands ruined my grandmother's curtains.


I have no proof that he will appear if you say his name 3 times, but I ask you, is it worth the risk?

I really really try to keep from getting into the same alignment discussions that have been floating around as long as... Well as long as ever. I slip up.

So many people honestly believe they get it, They honestly believe there is simple, universal truth. This is not math, not logic, but what the heck, for the most part, they are not hurting anyone.

The two axis alignment system works just fine if you consider it as your characters ideals, that they strive for but often fail. It is a mechanic, justifiable because it orders things up so we can pretend it is all fair and sensible.


DrizztiDoUrden wrote:
Hello guys . The DM here , I think this "I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself" is what makes the difference between the LE and the good .. I think that just by admiting that with the " do everything " logic you can loose yourself . Is what seperates you from the rest . Yes a good character would maybe kill an innocent person to save many more . But he would exausght every other option first ... And he would think everything ..

I disagree.

One of the elements of alignment is that an evil act is an evil act. In Golarion these are not based on perception. If you, for example, cast "Infernal Healing" it is evil. A Paladin falls. A Cleric might lose spells. The person takes a step toward the Dark Side.

Lawful Good doesn't compromise without slipping. That is what Lawful Good does. You're describing Lawful Evil, or most likely, True Neutral.

Doing evil, even if you hope to do good with it, is still doing evil.

These moral ambiguities is why the world needs the non-Goods.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to leave this here:

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil." ~Luke Skywalker

That is all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
DrizztiDoUrden wrote:
Hello guys . The DM here , I think this "I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself" is what makes the difference between the LE and the good .. I think that just by admiting that with the " do everything " logic you can loose yourself . Is what seperates you from the rest . Yes a good character would maybe kill an innocent person to save many more . But he would exausght every other option first ... And he would think everything ..

I disagree.

One of the elements of alignment is that an evil act is an evil act. In Golarion these are not based on perception. If you, for example, cast "Infernal Healing" it is evil. A Paladin falls. A Cleric might lose spells. The person takes a step toward the Dark Side.

Lawful Good doesn't compromise without slipping. That is what Lawful Good does. You're describing Lawful Evil, or most likely, True Neutral.

Doing evil, even if you hope to do good with it, is still doing evil.

These moral ambiguities is why the world needs the non-Goods.

Good evil Law or Chaos it isn't always clear cut even in pathfinder. yes there are certain things that are very clearly labeled a good and evil such as spells, however this event is neither, this comes down to perception as it is a weird situation where someone is saving more lives than killing. everyone has there own interpretations of alignment, yours are different then some.

Hence why we all are getting different ideas


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OH yay! an Alignment thread! Shouting matches! :P
First of all, everything I say here is meant to be respectful and subjective, as alignments are extremely broad (which in my opinion is good). That said, I'm going to offer a rather extreme viewpoint.

In my opinion, not killing the family is an evil act. Keep in mind that if you don't kill them, many more families will die, who are just as innocent as the first family. Even if it's indirect, in my opinion it would still be you killing them (the second group), just as much as you would killing the first family. Yes, a good character would make sure that's their only option. Some might even sacrifice themselves if that's something they could do. Yes, some LE people might kill the first family. But every single good character would do that as well, because otherwise they are killing even more people. It is far more evil to kill 20 people than 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain collateral damage wrote:

OH yay! an Alignment thread! Shouting matches! :P

First of all, everything I say here is meant to be respectful and subjective, as alignments are extremely broad (which in my opinion is good). That said, I'm going to offer a rather extreme viewpoint.

In my opinion, not killing the family is an evil act. Keep in mind that if you don't kill them, many more families will die, who are just as innocent as the first family. Even if it's indirect, in my opinion it would still be you killing them (the second group), just as much as you would killing the first family. Yes, a good character would make sure that's their only option. Some might even sacrifice themselves if that's something they could do. Yes, some LE people might kill the first family. But every single good character would do that as well, because otherwise they are killing even more people. It is far more evil to kill 20 people than 5.

Ya see you sir understand how broad this subject is and how it is kind of a difficult situation


First let me preface this with a statement: I LOATHE the alignment system. It contradicts itself and make little sense, imho.

Now that that is out of the way here are my thoughts on the topic.

This is an evil ACT. As said before by others, anytime the statement "for the greater good" is said, it is a justification for an evil, often times a great evil.

I emphasized act because the attitude of the PC before AND after the action would determine how much of a shift of alignment was warranted. If they were hesitant and remorseful, ping them and inform them they are on a slippery slope. If they are feeling justified and do not question later there action, shift them to a neutral alignment on the Good/Evil scale. If they enjoyed it, they were evil the whole time.

On the Good/Evil Scale the actions work out like this (remember, this is about the action ONLY not characters):

Good: Would NEVER sacrifice another innocent; would work as hard as possible for a third option; may fail and doom everyone (and would sacrifice themselves before the family)

Neutral: Would search for a better option, but if none were found, would sacrifice one family to save a village

Evil: Would readily sacrifice the innocent family and find a way to enjoy or profit from it

Situations like this are why I feel alignment should not be a mechanic. This one action may or may not cause a shift, it would be up to the DM, and if alignment was not a mechanic, shifts would not be considered by either side as a major issue thus leading to less of these debates.


So amendment to my above statement. I listed the actions based on alignment, put what the good action was then promptly followed up with the way neutral and evil characters would act, whoops.

So to correct:

Good: Would NEVER sacrifice another innocent; would work as hard as possible for a third option; may fail and doom everyone (and would sacrifice themselves before the family)

Neutral: Do nothing (this one is tricky, since we have an option A and B, one could argue evil by inaction, but there really is no neutral action I can think of)

Evil: Sacrifice the innocent family

This particular situation is almost one of the dreaded message board should Paladin #455427843 fall situations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In real life morale philosophy this is a contentious question. Different (and usually considered valid) philosophies will come to different conclusions here.

The book says good just values and protects life, which doesn't help here. That means it's pretty solidly dm discretion.

For my personal opinion: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.


Andarion: Good would never doom everyone. Certain evil people would kill both groups, because they like killing. Some neutral wouldn't care, but some (LN mostly would find it within their responsibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Persephone Zahariou wrote:

It's easy for one to loose himself"

He should really tighten himself up, or he'll be so loose that he'll lose himself entirely.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:


Batman is NOT GOOD, he is a hero sort of (anti-hero really), but he is bug.... crazy and has been since the very first comic. You all do know that the very first Batman comic cover has him gunning down a gang of thugs with a tommy-gun. He has his codes of conduct just like any honorable sociopathic samurai, and he has Alfred, various sidekicks, and the entire Justice League to keep nudging him away from serious excesses.

For the first couple of Batman comics they hadn't really decided where they were going. He was basically a clone of The Green Hornet/The Shadow at the time who had a bat motif.

Even more than some of the weird 80's Batman incarnations, the first few comics probably shouldn't be considered canon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks drop batman. He is such an old and varied character he could be any alignment based on when you look at him.

The characters in question are lawful and that particular axis is to convoluted to really have an argument about it. Rather than arguing C/L how about just a good/evil consideration
G: They kill the family after looking for another solution then feel deep regret
N: They kill the family and either; A. look for another solution beforehand. B. feel regret afterwards
E: They kill the family no regret no looking for other solutions


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Persiphone Zahariou wrote:

Cleric: "You are going to do everything to protect your people, that's not a suggestion. That's a fact, I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself"

Swashbuckler: "What exactly defines everything? What is the limit in what we do?"
Cleric: "I... I really do not think there is one. As long as it is to keep your people safe I think you will do everything. Would you kill a whole family to save many many more? Yes you would. Now would you sleep at night? That's a very different question"
Swashbuckler: "Yes, I would. You are right. It's all about the people. We don't matter if we cant protect them. And yes... I could sleep at night."

Interesting conversation, but alignments don't change based on what a person says they would be willing to do. What about a killer who claims to be purifying the world of evil influences and does so by murdering criminals and their families to prevent their "corruption" from spreading? Decidedly evil, despite their claims to the contrary. Similarly, if a Taldan politician were to be appointed after promising to crack down on Sarenrae worship then used their new position and its power to aid their escape they'd still be Good. Talk without action means nothing in terms of alignment - the Cleric and Swashbuckler wouldn't become Neutral until they actually commit that act.

Consider the following - this conversation changes their alignment to Neutral, then a day later they are actually faced with the situation and realize that they are unable to commit to the act. Do they change back to Good or remain Neutral? Besides believing that they'd be able to sacrifice people for some greater good, what changed? I say that their true natures were those of Good people during the conversation and afterwards. Believing that you're capable of committing to Evil doesn't make you Evil any more than believing you are capable of doing much Good makes you Good.

TL;DR - It is my opinion that the Golarion morality doesn't care about your intent, your thoughts, or your feelings on the matter. All that Golarion's morality considers is what you've done. Thus, neither of these characters would become Neutral merely for thinking they could commit to a (potentially) evil act. Opinions on whether "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" are a completely unrelated topic.


Dastis wrote:
The characters in question are lawful and that particular axis is to convoluted to really have an argument about it.

I'm sorry, but I have to respond to that. What you just did: "the characters in question are pineapple, and fruitdom is too complicated to talk about, so we'll just go with pineapple because I said so." <Grin>

Quote:

Rather than arguing C/L how about just a good/evil consideration

G: They kill the family after looking for another solution then feel deep regret
N: They kill the family and either; A. look for another solution beforehand. B. feel regret afterwards
E: They kill the family no regret no looking for other solutions

To a large degree, I agree. Evil enjoys or is utterly indifferent to the suffering of others. Good strives to reduce and eliminate suffering and misfortune. Neutrality involves recognizing the difference between good and evil, but being willing to frequently act in either manner. So yeah, I agree.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

That's a big deal in Star Trek, right? Spock sacrifices himself to save many, many others. Sorry, I know, spoilers, but it was a couple decades ago, so hey. It's tragic and sad, but it's utterly right. It's a Good choice. Not because Spock dies. But because the masses live.

So, is it not Good then to order a crewmember into the reactor room - to save the crew - if you, the Captain are unable to do so? If the way you can prevent the deaths of many is to cause the death of one?

Sure. It sucks, but it's still what military leaders DO. Make the hard calls that supposedly save the most lives. Leadership is hard.

Where's the difference when it's your hands directly offing the one, so the many may live? There isn't one. If the circumstances merit, it's Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So here's my 2 cents on the subject.

killing the few to save more is too complicated to put into a category of good or evil

something like this should be decided by the character after the event. If the character feels and shows legitimate remorse then it cannot be an evil act as it was done with good intentions

Too many people forget that intent should matter forgetting intent and actual real emotions and such is what leads to Lawful stupid and Chaotic Stupid.

If this comes down to a situation where there is no way to change anything where if you have to kill 10 to save 1000 and there is no way around it then even the paladin is going to have to make a choice and shouldn't fall for it.

if you can save more people in the long run you should do it and no matter how you phrase it your still saving other innocent people and shouldn't be penalized by being considered evil for it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
If this comes down to a situation where there is no way to change anything where if you have to kill 10 to save 1000 and there is no way around it then even the paladin is going to have to make a choice and shouldn't fall for it.

Except on those occasions where there are no Good ways out. Which could mean bad GMing, a bad relationship between the Paladin player and the GM, or a series of boneheaded moves on the Paladin player's (or party's) part. There are times when no action is Good, and a player is forced to select a lesser evil. How they handle selecting the lesser evil is indicative of their alignment.

Just curious, any Mass Effect players here?


Yes....course i never played all paragon or renegade, i made choices based on who on the character i was making. Consequences of the game be damned


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
Yes....course i never played all paragon or renegade, i made choices based on who on the character i was making. Consequences of the game be damned

ME1 Paragon/Renegade is more Law/Chaos, whereas ME3 Paragon/Renegade is Good/Evil. What sort of monster would shoot Mordin in the back?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am going to push back against the "don't get involved in someone else's alignment" argument. Your character has every right to be skeeved out by what other characters do, and further more has every right to say something about it (if that is something they would do). Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite telling you how to run your character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:
I am going to push back against the "don't get involved in someone else's alignment" argument. Your character has every right to be skeeved out by what other characters do, and further more has every right to say something about it (if that is something they would do). Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite telling you how to run your character.

They aren't telling you how to run your character at all. They are saying what your alignment is/should be. Remember alignment is based on how you act.

I, as the GM, can strike you to Lawful Neutral from Lawful Good and I'm not telling you how to run your character. Those are the consequences for what your character did.

I, in this scenario, struggle to grasp how killing innocents is considered Lawful or Good.


Your insistence that alignment be objective is refuted by the ambiguity of language and morality. PF can assume objective morality all it wants, but it doesn't make it true and it doesn't make GMs wiser than their players about incredibly intricate and debatable topics.

Players should determine alignment, if used at all, which one shouldn't. Of course there are obvious events that seem to fall in clear categories; however there is way way more grey and fuzzy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain collateral damage wrote:
Andarion: Good would never doom everyone. Certain evil people would kill both groups, because they like killing. Some neutral wouldn't care, but some (LN mostly would find it within their responsibility.

First to respond to Captain Collateral; I never said a good PERSON would doom everyone, I said killing the innocent to save other innocents is not a good ACT. It is a very important difference.

Secondly let's address the elephant in the room; the conversation itself.

This conversation is the end result of an unstated previous conversation centuries before. This particular one evolved something like this:

Is it good to kill someone?
No

Is it evil to kill someone?
Yes

Is it evil to willingly let someone innocent die that you could have saved?
Yes

So you are saying it is Evil to kill an innocent and it is evil to willingly allow a saveable innocent to die?
Yes

So is it evil to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person?
Um, maybe?

What about killing one innocent to save two?
Not really, I don't think.

What bout if you had to kill 5 innocent people to save 2000, and if you didn't, they would all die?

The problem with this is we have gone from a 'What is good/evil action debate' to a 'Which of these two evils is more acceptable' conversation.

The OP's example exists within a vacuum, and in this vacuum we are given an evil choice and a more exaggerated evil choice that makes the first one look like a good choice (good in reference to alignment).

This is an 'I hate paladins so I will make this one fall' type scenario.

So to the OP, if you are still reading this, there is no reason to have distrusted the other character. He was given a choice between two great evils and chose the lesser. Not his fault, it was a trap conversation.

To everyone else, I am with Dastis and his break down above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just gonna quote this bit from the CRB...

Quote:
Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other.

Two people can disagree about what "good" actually is. XD Heck, Heaven is described in-setting as having quite a lot of people working hard to figure out what "good" actually is.

@GM: If you really wanna have fun with this, you could do an extra session. Heaven Unleashed has an area that's basically a celestial courtroom, and the characters could actually be summoned to argue their points. (Naturally, this assumes your players would like to do it. XD)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 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.