JunoDivide's page

So any number huh. Name some more. There's smite evil, and....holy word? Yeah about it there bud. You lose.

Aligned weapons, aligned classes, turn / rebuke undead, sanctuary.

Meatrace, we understand you do not like the alignment system, and that's fine. You are allowed that and its your right. However the problem exsists when you try to pass your opinion off as fact. Several times you've stated the alignments are not clearly defined in the PF CRB, when if fact they are.

If you said they were not defined clearly that is different, and your opinion. But, that they are defined is not an opinion but a fact. And that fact is clear to all who bother to look at pg 66 - 68 of the PF CRB.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication here as well. To say clearly defined is to say that something is defined and available for all to see, to say something is defined clearly is to say, that something is defined and easily understandable.

The former is a fact in this matter, the latter opinion, perhaps we have a misunderstanding.

Though it could be argued that you were saving souls from eternal torment (if you only did it to evil people).

Well according to the PF Animated Dead spell, all it does is animate the skeleton or body of the target.

I have yet to read anywhere in the PF Core rulebook that states you are trapping the soul. Admittedly I have not read the book from cover to cover, so please do correct me if I am wrong.

However, this being said, you are not saving or damning anyone. RAW state the spell is an evil spell, so to cast it, regardless of intent is an evil action.

Player "I cast it to create a skeleton to save the party through!"
GM "Evil Spell."
Player "We are all alive because of the spell, isn't that good?"
GM "Evil Spell"
Player "WWJD?"
God "Evil Spell"

:)

I just read this in another post and thought it summed up perfectly the way alignment is viewed in the D&D and PF RPGs.

That's one of the crazy things about (A)D&D and by inheritance Pathfinder. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, they are not just mortal moral constructs. They are actual forces independent of mortal views.

Meaning, it make no difference of an individual characters point of view or beilefe, they are what they are and thats it.

This would explain how some magic can identify evil, and how some items can do the same. Unlike in our world where they are ideals, in D&D and PF they are forces no different than earth, wind or fire.

Same thing with the definitions set forth by the book. It makes no difference whether or not you like the difinitions, it does not change the fact the book clearly defines them for you.

Has anyone explored the option of making a MS Access character gen using the built in VB? Just curious, I started one and it seemed to be doing fine, however, that was then, and I a sad little man who never has enough time.

But seriously, has anyone thought of this, and if so what discourges you other than time, and it already been done. The reason I did not finish was time, but Ias Pathfinder is new, i might try to get started on a new one soon.

Here's a murder mystery plot 10 years in the making.

In an attempt to take control of a small town a barron sets up the local lord. By accident he overdosed the lords wife, and the Lord broken hearted and uable to accept the loss of his wife hangs himself in the bedroom of his manner. Since the suicide the lords manner has been abandoned.

Now 10 years later during the hight of winter, strange lights can be seen in the manner in which the Lord hung himself. The Baron, now in control of the land, is afraid to contact the proper athorities, turns to some adventurers who happen to be passing through.

"My people are terriffied and refuse to work. Please you got to help me."

What exactly will the players find in the lords manner? A ghost seeking justice? Or just looters and goblins trying to hide from the winter storms? Perhaps even the evidence that will put the baron on ice?

A dwarven thane has declared his own reinheitsgebot. Enforce it, smuggle witbier or roggenbier, or quell what's quickly turning into a civil war. Beer is Serious Business.

LMAO!!! Loved it!

Meatrace, I agree with you, evil people can and often do love. In many cases that is the motivation behind their actions or their chosen path in life. Its just that along the way they become confused about whats good and evil. This is a classic villian story.

Vice versa, good people can hate and do evil things, and still be good people.

Alignments (and this has been said many times before) are not straight jackets that characters must adhear to, but guidlines that advise on the behavioral patterns of a character.

When character's behave outside their alignment, it can cause a moral delima within the character that stresses the character as it reflects on the recents events, and regrets and or wonders "why". This is why some DM's / GM's impose and ezperience penalty, to relfect the stress. Is it 100% accurate system? Nah. But so far it's worked for most.

I purposfully did not comment on the fact that you mentioned the alignments are not clearly defined. The reason for this is because I choose to let that one go, you believe what you will, and I will believe what I know. :) So to each his own my friend.

To start this thread i am using a post (or at least part of a post) from Set. The Idea of this thread is to submit your own story hook ideas and or expound on others already submitted.

Remembering as well that we are all individuals, so lets keep it civil.

The origional post is as follows;

It would be interesting to see a scary, scary group of ascetic fanatics who are dedicated to the eradication of fiends (maybe daemons in particular), by gathering up volunteers who are willing to dedicate their lives to containing the evil outsiders. Not 'containing their threat,' but actually, physically *containing* them. The volunteers bodies are tattooed and enscribed with binding sigils and glyphs and they are assigned to special cells, within summoning circles. The leaders of the sect call up daemons (devils, demons, whatever) and bind them to possess the volunteers. Once inside, the fiend finds that the magical sigils prevent it from escaping, and the volunteers body is restrained in such a way that the demon can't just 'suicide' it's way to freedom (and, even then, the sigils remain potent, and the demon would just be trapped in the corpse!).

For the lifetime of each mortal volunteer kept within the cells, ranting and shrieking with the rage of a trapped fiend, one immortal unkillable creature of irredeemable evil is removed from the universe, unable to work it's wickedness. The Damned...

Or what if the cult evil and thought they were doing good? What if they KIDNAPPED others to be these vessels?

I have to ask, What does RAW mean?

Especially if it were a devil (or a devil's cat's paw) that convinced them.

Starting a new thread based off this idea so we can keep things on topic, but I would like to look futher into this.

Set i like your idea about the fanatics going around hunting outsiders to bind the permently. Sounds like it could make for an interesting story hook.

And reviving an outsider can be done by casting the Revive Outsider spell on the dead bodysoul.

No doubt the manual of the planes, but my above mentioned post, come from the core rulebook Monsterous Manual 3.5. Am am sure D&D has a rule to change every rule they've ever made so, eh, Revive Outsider is no exception.

Good work though and thanks for pointing that out to me.

azhrei_fje wrote:

Can it be used to build a "cocoon" around an unwilling target? Does the target receive a Reflex save to avoid? What if the creature had SR?

There are no rules so there is no RAW.

Should it be allowed? No
If allowed, should it have a Reflex? Yes
If allowed, should it have SR? Yes

If it were allowed, and there is no logical reason why not, I agree there shouls be a reflex save, however no SR should be allowed.

Here is an idea for a dark paladin / cleric like npc / villian I've been pnodering.

Golderot (Goal - dër - ot)
Age 32
Human
Chaotic Evl
Attributes,
Should be strong and charismatic. Prides brute force over finesse.

Appearance,
Pale translucent flesh, he smells of rotted meat and urin. He wears black platemail, that seems battered and worn, yet radiates a magical aura strong enough to wilt the life from grass around his feet.

He stands a towering six feet and eight inches, and draped from his waist is a greatax, silver with black and gold trim. A faint red glow betrays its magical nature.

As he moves the leather black binding holding his mail in place loudly stretches and rubs over his muscular physique. His rugged face, as equally abused as his armor, has a strong well set bone structure. However the scars that cover those bones have stripped all the beauty, the flesh could have shown, away.

His eyes, one white and scared, the other as blue as a clear sky, stare violently through slits of rage and hate. But in both of them pain and suffering can easily been seen. His hair is short, unkept and brown, think and full. A single scar dares to create a bald spot starting just above his left eye traveling left and up, about four inches into his hairline.

History,
(Pick your favorite god of chaos, I chose Talos)
Golderot was born as a twin to his sister. But at birth he was thought to have died and laid to rest. However he was not, and he was buried alive. As an infant he laid in the coffin, starving and crying, his horse screams unable to penetrate the 6 feet of earth above his coffin.

On the fifth night his cries now only a mere whisper was finally heard. Near death and completely exhausted, he headr his tiny coffin begin exumed by tiny violently moving hands. The imp known as Hethinel had heard him and was curious as to the noise.

Upon the realization that there was an infant human in the coffin, still alive, albeit barely, Hethinel began to rub his gritty little paws together in anticipation of this mean. The child weakly, whispering a cry, and slowyly lifting his arm begged for nurishment, but the imp began to drool at thought only of desire.

As the imp lunged forward to gnaw a thunderous voice echoed in its tiny brain thrusting it back and to the ground, sending it a fury of appologies to its dake master. It crawled on its belly its face in the freshly dug soil, for it dared not look up in fear that its master would be there. Tears began to well in the oimps eyes as it continued to beg.

Although he was not there, Talos, saw through its servants eyes, and thought its thoughts, and now it would seem the dark god of chaos has seen an opportunity in this small, human, child.

"Bring the child to me, Hethinel," Talos's dark voice thundered through the imps head maddeningly. With every word the imp would slam its face into the ground harder and harder each time in hopes to overcome the voice, "your reward for this will be the silence of my voice."

With that the imp did its masters bidding. He traveled to the Dretched Caverns, and down for miles to the pools of chaos. There he tossed the human child into the pool, the pool which would take it to Talos.

For twenty years, Golderot, knew the dark love of Talos, a love no living creature should have ever known. He was taught to serve, to lust for pain and suffering, to hate irrationally, and to envy those in higher station and suppress those weaker. He learned new ways to inflict pain, a master of pain and torture an act he so loved.

But he was never shown an ounce of love, and he was reminded everyday of how his human parents threw him aside, never really knowing why. He was rapped and desacrated, beaten and torn, and molded into the perfect human image of Talos.

He was released back into the physical world, and serves Talos. He is a wondering cleric with Hethinel at his side. He travels with a small band of about twenty soldiers and they too are beginning to know the dark love of Talos. Rapping and killing men and women alike. They have been called by most the Human Monsters.

In the ten years or so that Golderot and Hestinel have been released, they have both learned more of the physical world than they ever knew. Hestinel secretely desires freedom of both Talos and Golderot and will do what ever it takes to achieve that. Golderot is hellbent on carrying out his dark fathers plans of plunging the world into as much chaos and destruction as possible, but he has also seen other who love, who help, and who care for their children. He wages a secrete war within, not knowing wether his adopted father told him the the truth. What if he was kidnapped? Is there more to existance than Talos?

This character explores several possibilities. What happened to the sister? What would happen if they met? What if he found out who is parents are and met them? Could he be redemed? If so how?

Playing Golderot;
Act confused at all times, but knowing full well what you intend to do and how you plan to act. You are insane, you have ZERO regards for life, human or otherwise. Cry irrationally, and pretend to force to laugh, Golderot has much to cry about but nothing to laugh for. Belittle other constantly, define your station as master of all you see, for you are the son of Talos, the rightful god of this world. You are smart, you are not stupid, do not pretend to be such. Human morals are nothing, only the laws of Talos have meaning.

Ok this is him, tell me what you think.

Remember Mirror, Mirror,
Some campaigns use only only domains to govern clerics, and they gain their abilities from them. In these settings clerics worship ideals rather than gods. But this is off topic.

Let me correct myself, I just read the outsider subtype, and according to that an outsider's body and soul form a single unit. So if you slay it, it's gone, only wish / limited wish can bring it back.

I would say no you cannot animante an outsiders corpse (with the exception of a native outsider) based on this, but its still a judgement call on the DM since there is no definate rule. My apologies for my earlier post.

edited because I can't spell

But if the weapon proficiencies were earned due to class levels, they go away because the class levels go away, correct?

Based on what I've read in this thread, I don't think there should be any problem animating an outsider's body. The outsider themselves may be permanently destroyed, but the soul/spirit/consciousness of the original creature isn't required to animate the body anyway.

Yes all level benifits go away. As well as outsiders bodies go away, so i don't think you can animate an outsiders body, unless it has the Native Outsider descriptor. i am sure I am correct, but check me if I am wrong.

I was just thinking, if you have a system that says "alignment is based on a characters perspective", than in theory a barbarian who's tribe took what they wanted by force, "because its just there way, its not personal, thats just how they get their goods", would be just as lawful good as a paladin who honors life and freedom and risks all to protect them.

Both are following their perspective of what is socially acceptable within their individual societies, both follow the rules of their respective society, yet both are totally opposite of one another. So according to the Paladin the Barbarian is CN and to the Barbarian the Paladin would be CN. Do you mean to tell me that when an evil cleric cast detect good both will ping good?

Using this type of alignment system is obviously broken when trying to maintain a balance and or create a standard. I am not even going to throw in Drow society. The point I am trying to make it that what has gone into the current rule set governing alignments has been there for sometime now, and has maintained. So apparently it works, at least for the majority of us. You may not like all of it, but changing it for better or worse is your option, but when someone ask for clearification, offering homebrew rules as fact or game rules, is not the best idea.

Just throwing thatout there.

But history doesn't matter to the GODS, and since D&D fantasy has such absolute beings, there must be an absolute morality.

However true you are, remember not all campaigns have deity's in them. So be carful with that argument.

The main reason any game creates an absolute definition of good and evil is because either mechanics call a need for it, or the setting does. I think in the case of fantasy D20 its mostly a combination of both.

In D20 modern, campaigns use the aligence system. I can't say that i am a fan, but hey if it works, maybe you should look into it. It could be easily applyed with little game alterations. Alignment Based items will now only work with certain alligences now for example.

Yea, a human one! ;)

Seriously, how many orcs do you know, much less orcs that could write a book, even less, orcs that could do the math to creat / reinvent a game as complicated as D20? :)

Once more I will reiterate. According to the rules, not our world or real life opinions, but the rules set forth by the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, pages 166 - 168, alignments are clearly, and I stress the word clearly, defined.

You keep stating that you disagree and that they are not defined, or not defined clearly, I am starting to wonder if we are looking at the same book?

According to the rules, your personal beliefs or an orcs personal beleifs on what good and evil is, is irrelivant. If a character in the games performs an act that is described as evil according to the book, that was an evil act. It a character behaves as an evil character as described by the rules in the book, or somewhat close to it, than said character is evil. How is this so hard to understand?

Keeping in mind good people have commited evil acts, and vice versa, however this does not mean they change alignments. This just means they are normal.

Not all orcs are evil, not all gnomes are good. Good and evil are based on the reasoning behind actions not the actions itself. In the case you gave of the Orc defending his village, if he raised arms in defense no that does not make him EVIL, however enjoying the slaughtering of life would.

Hope this Helps

My big bad evil guy had used the fly spell on himself. When he was cornered by the party, he decided to flee. What are the rules to use?

I would give my player the option to use the higher of the tow, which will most likely be tumble. You could honestly argue for either or neither. This would be a rule judgement the GM would have to make IMO.

And it only takes 1.21 Gigawatts, a delorian and a flux capacitor to time travel. OMG BROKEN NECRO!

LMAO!!!

For the record, unless anchored by magic, if an outsider is slain, it goes home to its native plane. If I am not mistaken, so please correct me if I am wrong I havent looked it up recently.

For the record, according to the Alignment System, they are universal concepts, meaning just because a kobold thinks its ok the pick on the weak and the drow find it acceptable to backstab and betray and murder, they are still EVIL.

Hope this helps.

Alignment is such a nebulous topic as it means so many things to different people.

To be honest that is why I fail to see the delima. I think now that Zurai are on the same page, perhaps the same things exist between the rest of the forum, miscommunication.

The alignments, according to the rules of the PF core rulbook, are static. They are left to interpretation just as much as the mechanics of a Magic Missile spell. It is clearly printed and stated what the games definition of good, evil, law and chaos are. So to say the is no clear definition is the same as saying there is no clear definition of level progression. You may not agree with the printed rules, but that is your choice, and your right. But to say that there is no static definition is false.

Please note that when I speak of the alignemnts, I do my best not to argue my opinion, but rather convey in more lamens terms what the PF core rulebook has already written. So when discussing the Alignment System as set forth by the PF core rulebook, it is hardly a "nebulous topic."

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that mixing up "good vs evil" and "right vs wrong" will just confuse the whole alignment system.

Good and Evil are absolute under the alignment system. The paladin (assuming he killed the kobold baby's parents in self-defence, etc) is Good in the metaphysical sense, regardless of the perspective of the viewer. However, he was wrong and/or bad from the perspective of the kobold baby.

Good point, and remember that the rules clearly define what is good and evil in hte game, so no matter how others percieve the act it is still what it is, good or evil.

In the example of the kobold, if he never knew otherwise, and grew up a good kobold and saved millions, then one day saw old palidan and wheled him over a cliff in a fit of rage, he is still a good kobold and a good aligned character.
Good Characters can do evil things for good reasons. Kobold thought of palidan as evil, and simply decided to act rather than to give pally the upperhand. He had good reason, because he never knew the truth. Assuming he never figured it out on his own.
If a palidan killed a "good" aligned skeleton if one existed by accident, he would still be a Good aligned caharacter. Sometimes you have to use your best judgement, and for the Hundreth time, Its not what you do, but WHY you do it that defines your alignment.
In the to cases above the kobold thought of the pally as evil or a murderer, and the Pally thought the skele as an evil undead.

Hope this helps.

If you succumb to the thinking that "the good thing to do is the right thing to do" then you are not using the Alignment system properly. There are all kinds of wonderful gameplay opportunities you're missing by reducing everything to black and white (wrong and right).

After rereading your post I see now your meaning. I apologise for missing it earlier. It just dawned on me that you were assuming I was placeing my own moral judgement on defining Good as the right thing to do and Evil as bad. Whilst that is my ethics, I was not referring to my own, but rather the ingame perspective of the social common. Meaning the average person in a fantasy campaign or our world to be honest, would agree that saving anothers life is a Good act and the Right thing to do. To cover the opposite, taking a life for selfish reasons is Evil, and the wrong thing to do and or bad.

So yes you are %100 correct when you say applying personal, (how did you say it?) "Value Judgements", on good, evil limits the player, however the entire fantasy concept of Good vs Evil is based off of the "Mostly Western" social idea of good and evil.

Sorry for the confusion.

[sarcasm]For the record I am sure if you are in alligence with Bin Laden or his minions you are simply going to have to rewrite the entire alignment system for your games. Curse Paizo for forgetting the american haters[/sarcasm]

Perceived alignment depends on what side of the fence you're from.

Now if I was that little Kobold baby sat in the cave while the LG Paladin slaughtered my kith and kin I would see him as the most evil thing that walked the earth.
FWIW I have dropped alignments but get each player to draw up a simple guideline of their PCs morals similar to that of the Paladin code and make a judgement call when aligned items/spells crop up accordingly.

The problem with dropping the alignment system in the game is the mechanics that have to altered with it as well. Perhaps you could explain to the forums how you sdapted such changes in your games so that GM like meatrace could use the advice.

Meatrace I truly see your delima. However here is the best answer that I can think of to provide you at this point. As with any game rule it is up to YOU the GM to intrepret and explain to your players. So what ever you decide for yourself to be good, evil, law or chaos is in your campaign. Ask advice of others if you will, but the decision is, in the end, yours alone to make. Once you decide what these alignments mean convey that to your players and all is done. Everyone has an understanding and the game can begin. Remember when noone can agree it is the GM's duty to creat the standards by which others must abide. Remember the golden rule, "there are no rules". its your game, play it how you see fit. Noone on any message board can tell you how to use that 50 dollar book, its yours for better or worse now. If you don't like something, its your right to toss it, it does not make it a lazy decision, or a bad decision, just yor thoughts.

But there is one point you keep dancing around, in your previous example of the orphaned child, yes indeed every alingment would have a logical reason to adopt the child, even if it was only to eat it later. However its not so much what you do that defines you as why you do, what you do.

Hope this helps.

In the past I've always only allowed the core PHB, and the Conplete series. That was pretty much it. I don't care for book delving to be honest.

If I am running a character specific campaign I tell the players the options of classes. These are generally shorter campaigns lasting 20 sessions or less so the players appreciate the higher levels with limited classes.

meatrace wrote:

I don't, and that is MY point. We should abolish the alignment system altogether. Good and Evil are almost completely arbitrary terms based on cultural norms, biases and so forth. No two people seem to be able to agree on what constitutes good or even in a GAME where it is spelled out (obviously not well enough).

there's no reason you need to throw away Absolute Good and Absolute Evil as concepts in your D&D game: as a GM, decide roughly what Good and Evil mean, with some negotiation with the players.

After that, they can decide what their characters think is right and wrong, and that may or may not line up with Good or Evil exactly or even approximately. Roleplaying is fun.

Agreed, GM, PC cooporatin is the key element to any game session and should be. Before every game start I like to sit and talk about what the PC's want and what I want, we go over any notible discrepancies and character design options. Alignment interpretation should not be left out as well. I must admit that I am apparently the lucky one, I have never had to have the "alignment" talk, we all seem to have read the book.

I would like to start by stating that noone, myself included, said that good is right or evil is wrong. But I have said and I stand by it, which is what the earlier mentioned debate has been over, If your character enjoys killing, then it is Evil. You can murder evil beings just as fast as good ones.

I would agree with you if you said otherwise, but then we would both be wrong. The core book plainly states "healthy respect for life." It did not specify good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It did not say native or outsider, it did not say celestial or deamonic, it said life. Although you could argue that deamons and celestials are not technically alive, as well as undead. So you could say that the character loves to destroy celestials, deamons, and undead. ;) It you want to argue semantics. Which some seem to do a lot of.

Apparently I should change my name to Pandora. :D

I emphatically agree with Zurai about alignment having nothing to do with right and wrong. Alignment reflects the personal value systems which individuals use to decide what's right and wrong for themselves.

Zurai was simply arguing semantics. He felt I should have used the word Evil instead of Bad. However, more often than not, we refer to the Evil guy as the Bad guy, but hey, thats just my grammer.

In the real world it is true that Good, Evil, Right and Wrong are all subjective and based solely on the interpretations of the one using the words.

However in a RPG they are not subjective and to the contrary they are clearly defined. To say doing good is the right thing to do, is subjective in the real world, but in the RPG it would be acceptable because the common place citizen would say so. Hell even the common place citizen in our reality would say doing good is the right thing to do. As well it would be equally as safe to say the Evil is bad and or wrong. Yes these ideas and wording make the statement opinion but it is a social acceptance, at least in the USA. This is admittedly on the same level to say that milk is good for you, but not if your lactose intollerant. Semantics, argue them if you will, but the fact still remains, you're beating a dead hourse that I've already put away.

This does not mean that good is right or that evil is wrong, but even in our world it is acceptable to say such. To say otherwise is argument for the sake of it, or "splitting hairs".

Juno, I think you slightly missed the point I was making with my initial post: the more time you spend trying to explain and describe it, the more points you'll find where others simply disagree. I minimized my word count specifically because I was trying to boil down to a lowest common denominator. (Also, I completely disagree with several of your examples. Boba Fett was LN, Han Solo was CN, Odysseus was probably just flat-out neutral. And to add one, Achilles was CE.)

I love the game, even though I rarely play I love to read and study it. I've written and published several d20 adventure modules and have written several articales for R.Talsorian games Cyberpunk. I love to tell stories and in telling stories I've leared to interpret the rules beyond the print. I know its not always easy to do but in the case here you accuse me of over indulgence, however I saw the chance to offer my onw interpretations to attempt to aid others in their understanding? Since semantics seem to play a very important role in the thread, was that not your initial attempt? To clearify for those who did not understand and simplify? If so then how did I miss your point? ;). that too was my attempt, through explanation.

I feel Boba Fett was NE, because he was a bounty who often did bad things to good people, knowingly and intentially, not dismissing the countless murders he comitted. In the comics he was no saint either, and even worse in the novels. He was clearly evil, and enjoyed his hunting. Once he even took time to sever a twileks head tenticles just to prove a point. I am sure you get my jest now.

I thought of Han as CG because he came back, despite the act he had his money and was home free, he risked his life and future to help someone he knew for a few days. He could have left, paid Jaba and been fine, but even all throughout the movie he displayed a healthy respect for life. Many times he could have abandoned them but he did not. When captured by the imperials, he could have just as easily sold out luke and obi wan to save his own neck while hidding chewy. Prior to ep4 he gave up his career as an imperial officer to save chewbacca. I'd say those were the traits of a good character, IMO.

Odysseus had a moral code which he obeyed. He maintained his codes allthroughout the poem, which is kind of the message, I am assumming you never read the poem, becasue this one is really spelled out.

hope this helps.

Why cant someone be both?

They can ;). That's just my prefference. I was just asking bout others experiments with NPC's.

The best thread is always a player and GM idea thread. I am curious of any NPC builds you have come up with using the new Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

I myslef am a "Role"player vs "Roll"Player, so hit me with some great stories to back up your heros and villans. I will be posting mine soon as well.

If you succumb to the thinking that "the good thing to do is the right thing to do" then you are not using the Alignment system properly. There are all kinds of wonderful gameplay opportunities you're missing by reducing everything to black and white (wrong and right).

You are correct, it should not be so black and white, but then again I was not trying to debate my opinion with yours. I was atempting to answer another who had questions in regards to a previous posts.

It would seem that since you wish to argue semantics, I will indulge this with finality. According to the rules, killing for pleasure, enjoyment, or without cause or justification, this would not be a healthy respect for life, thus it is an evil act.

Now for the rest of us who understood the initial wording I apologise and beg to move forward.

If it works for your group, fine, your group's got a good thing going. Personally, I play with people who can't even agree on ordering a pizza, so we leave ill-structured nonsense like law/chaos alone, and I tend to be extremely skeptical of anyone who has an "ultimate" explanation of law and chaos.

Well said, in a rather humorous way, well said myfirend.

In the end it is not about what I as an individual work with, its about you the players and the community of GMs that sit at the head of the table prefer.

Go with what works, forget the rest. Remember even if someone quotes a booked rule it doesn't matter, go with what you know works. My above posts worked for me so i thought to share them with you. If it works for you good, if not than perhaps you will find the answer elsewhere.

Good Gamming Ladies and Gents

I have to say I had to look up what you meant by "Value Judgement" and according to the definition of that it means;

A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view.

Since I quoted you the book, not my interpretation of the book, but the book itself which clearly said "healthy respect for life", what I said was not based on personal view but rather the exact wording of the source. So I ask you what validation do you have that supports your opposing OPINION?

JunoDivide wrote:

So I dare say I am correct.

No. The Alignment system says that enjoying killing others is evil, not that it is bad. Again, it makes no value judgments. Ascribing value judgments to the Alignment system is a warning sign that you might not fully understand it.

Frgive I assumed you were debating your point not my grammer. I am not a good speller and not always good at delivering my point.

When I wrote;

"So this being said, enjoying the slaughter of ones enemies is bad. No matter the reason you kill them, if you like it, you're wrong, according to the Alignment System."

Apparently this needs to be clearified.

So this being said, enjoying the slaughter of ones enemies is bad.

The key word here seems to be "bad" since you so delibrately pointed it out. Now my grammer is not the best I know so bare with, but I thought that here in the english speaking world we thought of Evil and being a Bad thing. Thus when I wroe Bad I should have wrote "Evil". Forgive my lacking grammmer.

But setting that aside (now understanding I have bad grammer), I just quoted the Book, not my opinion, yet you still say that its not evil to enjoy killing? Perhaps it is you who does not understand the alignment system?

Edited due to quoting errors.

Law and chaos are defined completely contradictorily in 3.0, 3.5, and 3.PF core. They've never really been well-defined; the source material for Law versus Chaos (e.g. Poul Anderson and Operation Chaos) Law is Team Good and Chaos is Team Badguy.

If you really want law and chaos to mean something, get your entire group on the same page about what Law and Chaos mean, then go with that.

You are correct in that as the itterations of the game has progressed the ideals of what go into the alignments have changed as well. Unlike our world, there is a static good vs evil and law vs chaos in the fantasy rpgs mentioned here. These ideas are as core to the system as the classes are. Why else make spells to identify alignments?

But to compare auther's ideals of what good and evil is, is rather off key for the game since it clearly states what IS good, evil, law, and chaotic. Despite the fact it has changed, the fundamental (that if you read my earlier posts, I stated) aspects have always remained the same.

JunoDivide wrote:

So this being said, enjoying the slaughter of ones enemies is bad. No matter the reason you kill them, if you like it, you're wrong, according to the Alignment System.

Incorrect. The Alignment system makes no value judgments. You are just as "right" to enjoy killing as you are to loath killing.

Agreed, you have the right to enjoy what you will in the game, however this does not make it a good thing. And the Aalignment system does say that to enjoy killing others is bad;

I quote Pathfinder Core RPG Book pg 66 Paragraph 7, line 1 "Good implies altruism, respect for life,and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

Let us define altruism just in case, and to futher reinforce my argument;

Altruism (from Latin: alter: the other) is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.

So I dare say I am correct.

As well Revil Fox, understand LG people can make dumb decisions. It is possible that the earlier mentioned LG PC could have made a mistake only to find out later that he was lied to by a crafty deamon. Does this make him evil? Gullible, yes... Evil, no.

I guess the best way to say it is;
"Its not so much what you do, but rather why you do what you do."

Hunting a kobold villa who has done nothing but mind its own buisness because the PC hates kobolds for whatever reason is bad, even worse if he picks the fight. Doing this does not make the LG pc evil, but it does incure penalties to reflect the emotional delema the pc is facing, thereby stunting his developement.

But a LG pc who initiates a conflict with said kobolds because they are trafficing slaves is well within his alignment. He has reason. But in either case if the pc's attitude is one of enjoyment at the deaths of the kobolds, then he is again out of alignment.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. Apparently I have a differing view on evil creatures than everyone else (and that's fine). So let's take a human baby for example. Say there are two PC's in the room, a LG character and a CG character. Now say that both of these characters, through magic or what have you, know that there is a 99% chance this human baby will grow up and become an evil tyrant, killing tens of thousands of people in the process. What would the PC's do? I would argue that the LG PC, maintaining that the good of sociaty is more important than the good of this one human, would kill the baby. Whereas the CG PC, who feels that the individual is always important, would try and raise the baby as a good person, banking on that 1%.

Perhaps I was unable to clearly convey the static aspect of alignments, its pretty straight forward. Yes if a LG PC KNEW FOR A FACT AND THERE WAS KNOW WAY TO CHANGE THIS, AO HIMSELF HAS DECREED THIS WILL HAPPEN AND AO TOLD HIM TO DO IT based on the fact that the child was going to grow up and kill thousands, he would be within his alignment to dispatch of the child. But he is damn sure going to have moral issues with it.

Even if he truly believed that was the case, I could accept that he would still be within his alignment. However I believe the proof would have to be irrefutable for a LG character to take such action. But even if all the above was stated the LG character would still be within his alignment to try and raise the child to be a better person.

The CG character could go both ways as well. In our world good and evil is subjective. In most fantasy RPG's good and evil is NOT subjective thus it stands and accordance to D&D and Pathfinder RPG to kill without justification and or reason is murder and thus Evil.

In the case you provided, however vague the reason is, there is a reason. But if the same LG PC decides to walk into a peaceful Kobold Villa because someone told him they were evil and slaughter everyone there, unprovoked, he will be acting out of alingment.

What I am trying to say is that good people kill for good reasons. They do not enjoy it, in fact they should loath it, but see it as a necessity to live so they can serve their cause. So this being said, enjoying the slaughter of ones enemies is bad. No matter the reason you kill them, if you like it, you're wrong, according to the Alignment System.

Quote:

Also just for the record, a Pally who goes off half cocked and kills 1000 kobolds just for giggles is an Evil pally and should be punished. Just putting that out there for the slow ones (you know who you are.)

Why is that, exactly? Last time I checked, Kobolds were inherently evil. Thus they should be eradicated. That's like saying a Palladin is evil if he goes off half cocked and kills 1000 Imps is evil.

To answer your question, the alignment system infers several inherient ideas. Many of which are our own morals and ideals on how WE should live our lives. So since killing for any other reason than to survive is bad, then killing Kolblds for giggles (meaning for the shear pleasure of killing kolbolds) is equally bad. Evil or not, it is wrong to kill unprovoked, thus the pally needs to be punished.

Good should not enjoy killing, a good fight yes, vanquishing evil maybe, but killing should always weigh heavy on a good heart.

Does that help to clearfy my point?

First, Thank you Darien for your kind words. By the way you should play NG, they like to kill monster and take their stuff too. ;)

If I may I would like to expound on my earlier post. As I was reading I thought to myself I would appreciate futher detail. For example what do each of the core alignment attributes really identify as? What does it mean to be neutral or good, evil or lawful?

Understanding the core elements of each alignment would grant easier comprehension of the combinations and how they can effect one another.

In all there are nine alignments, LG, CG, NG, LN, TN, CN, LE, NE, CE. But if we break the alignment system down we find that there are three main alignment attributes; Good, Evil, and Neutral, and two alignment descriptors; Law and Chaos.

Good, Evil and Neutral are your attributes that define a characters moral ethics or lack there of. They tell where the heart of the character lies and how he may view others.

Law and Chaos are descriptors that primarily define how the character goes about upholding his ethics or social beliefs. They are not good or evil, right or wrong, but simply ways of living ones life. Because one is Lawful or Chaotic does not mean they are bound because these are wide ranges. The guy who sets fires to random things is chaotic and so is the rebellious child who simply does not like being told what to do.

Lawful does not mean without the abilty to bend or change, nor does chaotic mean insane.

Neutral
Lets start with everyone's favorite "N for Neutral". N is a balance. It simple means that a character has an understanding and healthy respect for all opposing forces (good, evil, law and chaos), or he simply does not care for either and refuses to pick a side. In either case N characters tend to do what is necessary rather than allowing personal feelings to get in the way of the decision making.

N characters may chose a side from time to time, but this decision is generally made as a balancing act or to begin a series of events that will trigger a balancing act. For example; A monk of the Order of Kage set himself on fire and dies before a battle starts. He knew the battle would still insue but the long term effects would possible rally others to lay down their arms as well in hopes of ending a onesided war.

N characters can have all the feelings and emotions of all the other characters, but they are more likely to favor on the side of reason and simply the best course of action. This can even be to the extremes of sacrificing relationships with friends and loved ones, and even sacrificing themselves or the firends and loved ones. They tend to have the understanding that the los of the few to futher the many is a worthy cause. But on that same note, the logic of sacrificing all so the one can live in the face of total loss is common as well.

Believe it or not, most people are more neautral than anyother alignment.

Examples of Neutral Characters in Films:

• Boba Fette; Star Wars
• Han Solo (Episode 4); Star Wars
• Odysseus; Odyssey
• Snake Plissken; Escape from New York
• Lucy Westenra; Dracula

Good
Obviously good characters like to do, well... good things. This does not always mean the right thing, or that they will always succeed but as a general rule they tend to do good things.

Good characters have a healthy respect for life and freedom. They tend to protect others in need and take care of those who are without. They do without gain or desire for reward. They do simply because they beileve it is the right thing to do, and the right thing must be done.

Good characters often seek evil and try to destroy it where ever the can find it. More often than not they will quest for it. Good also tends to be be more suseptable than evil because good will have restrictions that evil will not.

Examples of Good Characters in Films:

• Han Solo (Episode 4); Star Wars
• Judge Dredd; Judge Dredd the Movie
• Kara Thrace; Battlestar Galactica

Evil
Evil characters tend to be selfish and destructive. They tend to like the sufferings of others for whatever reason, and often seek out to cause the sufferings of others as well.

For whatever reason a character is evil, they are evil because they enjoy it. Evil is not evil because they have to be. Good people do bad things because they have to. Evil does evil because it wants to.

The biggest diference between Good and Evil is that Good will do what it does because it believes it must be done, a selfless act, where as evil does what it does because it wants to, a selfish act.

Examples of Evil Carachters in Films:

• Rico; From the Movie Judge Dredd
• Boba Fette; Star Wars
• Pinhead; Hellraiser

Lawful
The big L word. Lawful means that characters with this alignment attribute tend to have a healthy respect for order and structure, rather than misguided effort. They tend to be guiding and leaders and can as well make good followers as they respect those who can offer more than they can.

Lawful characters tend to be more logical minded than chaotic ones and they tend to make more sound decisions and judgement calls.

Examples of Lawful Carachters in Films:

• Judge Dredd; From the Movie Judge Dredd
• Pinhead; Hellraiser
• Odysseus; Odyssey

Chaos
Chaos is a word to dscribe the absence of order. So a chaotic character would be a character without structure or code. It could even be a character without an identifiable purpose for being. Thus you have a character who seemingly acts randomly and unpredictably. Or it could be as simple as a rebellious youth.

This does not mean your character is a nut job or that you cannot make up your mind, or even that you leave things to chance. It means just that you don't abide by structure and you are more apt to do what you think is necessary despite the rules of others.

Chaotic characters are misjudged in that most think chaos means that you can do what you will within the confines of your alignment attribute. However to the contrary, chaos only means that you prefer not to follow the rules. You are still bound by your primary attribute which I have taken the time to define here in GREAT detail for you. Even neutrality has its limitations.

Examples of Chaotic Carachters in Films:

• Riko; From the Movie Judge Dredd
• Snake Plissken; Escape from New York
• Kara Thrace; Battlestar Galactica

Edited for clearification

If I may add, the definitions of each alignment have been clear for some time now. I have never understood why there is always confusion especially over the neutral allignments. If I may add my opinion;

NG - A good hearted person who has no judgement call over order or chaos. Its possible that he sees and understands when to be orderly and abide the laws, while at the same time he equally knows whe to say the hell with them. Or, He simply disreguards the concepts all together. In either case we have a person who believes in doing the right thing whether it goes with the law or causes a ruckus.

LN - This one is a no brainer: "There is only the law". Whether it be the laws of a the land, the laws of a Deity, or personal code of conduct, there is only the law. The law does not bend, and it for sure is not broken.

CN - I love the controversy over this one. Yeah sure a CN character can be classified as a bit nutty, but this is far from a do what you want AND GET AWAY WITH IT alignment. This alignment, albeit hard to judge, is one of the most narrow of them all.
Let me start by saying that any alignment can have friends and loved ones AND remain loyal to them. Yes I said ANY alignment, even CE, albeit they are less likely. The most important thing to remember about alignments is that they are guide lines that offer a generalization on character behavior, not absolutions. Not every LG character is going to do the right thing all the time. But I digress;
CN is no different than anyother alignment, in that it is a guide line. But it can seem more lienant. A CN character can have friends and if his friends are of good alignments then it may seem as he helps his friends he is a good character, when in truth he does so simply because he enjoys the company of his friends. There is no greater moral to it, he simply like to hang out with friends. As they do good things and he aids them, he ends up doing good things as well. Again, not for the sake of doing good, but rather for the sake of his friends. And if a CN has a blast with his friends while at the same time they save countless of thousands, he still remains perfectly with the boundries of his alignment.
The opposite could hold true with a CN who has evil friends. He could destroy countless of thousands while enjoying the company of his friends and still not be evil, and still within the boundries of his alignment, however it is less likely he would do so due to the fact, Evil tends to turn on itself over time. But it could happen.
Only when the character begins to do a constant set of actions on his own that tends one way or the other should penalties apply. But don't allow crafty players to offer petty excuses as to why they are justified. Here is my favorite. "I've helped those people, because I was trying to impress the women of each town. I really don't care about the people."
My rebuttal "Since your characters saught to impress by doing good selfless acts that endangered yourself as an initial attempt then your PC is tending towards good and has been for sometime. Why not simply by flowers or court them?" A CN pc would not constantly involve others in his decision making and base each decision on the best possible outcome FOR HIM/HERSELF. Helping in one town while bullying in the next just for the sake of doing so is not acceptable either, unless ofcourse there was gain.

NE - Possibly, however arguably, the worst of all the evils, is Evil for the sake of evil. CE is rebellious, and in that predictable, LE at least has a code or a set of rules, but NE is neither and both. Truly unpredictable, NE characters are capable of belnding in and conforming when necessary, unlike their CE counterparts, and at the same time they are not bound by rules or legislation. They have no need to impress only the need to fufill their darkest most selfish desires.

LG - LG is NOT Lawful Stupid. Its doing the right thing within the confines of the Law or personal Code. Sure LG characters want to help all they can when they can, but they also know when they are outnumbered, out classed, and especially out armed. They are not mindless crusaders for all the is Good and Orderly, but more often than not they are Champions of cause, beliefe, or ethic.
This is perhaps one of the most Noble alignments there is, argued only by CG. I've often heard the term "LG is not Lawful Stupid! There is no way I am charging that horde by myself, no matter howmany slaves they carry!" But in this forum is the only time I've heard LG = Lawful Stupid.

CG - Rebellious do gooders. The robin hoods of the game so to speak. They challenge athroities ability to do the right thing. Offering the "blitzkreig" as the first battle plan, and enjoying the victory parties more than the rest.
CG pcs tend to do the right thing despite the laws rather in spite of them. They may follow them when they have no option, but they tend to be disrputive and first in line when the rebellion starts. In the military they are quick to disobey orders to save lives, and on the streets they are the rebellious youth who save others from oppressive athority.

LE - LE is simple enough to define; evil with a purpose. LE characters, are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain their goals within the comfines of the rules or codes they have set up. Lord Soth was LE and although he Loved Kitiara he would destroy anyone who stood in his path to her, yet he appreciated structure and order. He saw the need for maintaining his code and would often arm unarmed enemies.
Sure he would still mow through them, but that was his way. However perverted his code was, he followed it. LE characters sometimes don't even realize they are evil. Some mislead themselves they are doing the necessary things. The tyrant who is hard on his people, he believes he does so to make them a stronger nation. The nation which kills the weak, misshapen, youth in order to have strength and wholeness, these are evil acts yet many who practice this think it necessary.

CE - The most destructive form of evil. CE is more often than not the truest Crazy alignment. Evil for the fun of it, and often aware of it. Rebellious and uncontrollable, CE tend to stand out as a force and challenge good at every possible turn. If LG is the champion of good then CE is the Champion of Evil.
CE tend to work alone and attempt to control everything rather than work with it. CE is hard to oppress, and assuming it is, when it breaks free it has but one goal, revenge. The majority of CE characters cannot be trusted, they tend to care for no one or no thing.

TN - Every one's favorite. What does it mean? Well first off, it doesn't mean that the PC is going to swap sides in the middle of a fight just to balance things out (unless of course the character is derranged). It doesn't mean he is just going to sit there and watch the world go by. It doesn't mean the character is a nature loving freak.
It means, the character simply acts according to the best intrest of his / her goals, agends, needs, or simple necessity. This is not selfish motivation, nor is it always selfless, but rather the character's sense of necessity.
A TN pc who loves his / her companions will fight to protect them so long as the long term effects to not forseeably disturb other long term goals or necessary plans. However on the same note a TN pc may as well allow a character to die if that would save his home and those that live there. Sacrifice one to save the many.
IMO TN thinks more on logic "Simply the best thing to do, that benifits the most", rather than worring about his onw feelings in the matter. Not unlike a vulcan. :D

Remember that alignments are guidlines and characters are not always going to abide by them. That Pally is going to slip up. The rogue is going to help to maintain order at one time or another. In desperate times characters do desperate things, but so long as the characters maintain the guidlines let them have their slips, or make a plot out of it ;).

Also just for the record, a Pally who goes off half cocked and kills 1000 kobolds just for giggles is an Evil pally and should be punished. Just putting that out there for the slow ones (you know who you are.)

Happy Gamming Friends!