|
From Burnt Offerings:
So actually, it's not even the Sczarni... Titus Scarnetti is LN, in fact.
EDIT: I would personally put the various bigotries as a lawful (conservative) trait more than an evil (malicious) trait. We see racism in the game quite frequently (elves, dwarves, etc) that isn't lampooned as outright evil, so I would assume the same goes for other "isms". Just look at Erastil--he's LG but is nonetheless very conservative when it comes to gender roles.
That said, I would think that it would be very easily to dip into Evil with this kind of thing. Someone who bashes up gay people is doing an Evil thing.
From Burnt Offerings:
** spoiler omitted **
So actually, it's not even the Sczarni... Titus Scarnetti is LN, in fact.
Yep, I just looked it up myself. So it looks like it doesn't even warrant the manufactured outrage Cory is giving it.
Contributor
|
Which raises an interesting question: if I were creating an NPC who was a brutally-racist individual, I would probably consider tacking an "E" onto his alignment simply as a reflection of how he chooses to treat others. I've never even considered what sort of alignment I would give a raging homophobe, but now that I've given it some thought I'm inclined to treat it the same way. After all, what cause would I have to treat the homophobe any differently than the racist?
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?
I think that there are degrees of phobia (such as the Riddle scale). Only the "Repulsion" category is anywhere near that. Pity through Acceptance is clearly a neutral act. However, we have to view people (and NPCs) as holistic individuals. Being biased against someone may or not outweigh whatever good they do in the rest of their lives. It also depends on the degree of consciousness of bias that a person has. Many white people feel uncomfortable around nonwhite people. This is something that reflects on their character primarily if they are aware of it and refuse to change. We get a lot of baggage from our culture and our upbringing and it can be hard to shift these thoughts or reactions.
When my sister came out as trans - though in my heart I wasn't surprised - my first thought was fear for her and what she was going to experience, based on what I knew about hate crimes against tradespeople. It was only after pondering this reaction for a few days that I realised that being who you are is more important than how people react to you, and I would have to be proactive in taking her side.
|
Cory if it bothers you that much just change the gender or whatever of the character. As to homosexuality mucking up the game, it's not as if you're getting detailed accounts of any sexual acts taking place, so not really an issue.
The days of DnD being a game for white male hetero teens is ending it's ok dude everyone can roll some dice, slay the monster, n get the loot.
Yeah that's true. He's a Lawful Neutral guy from a country where they worship Asmodeus. I'd say Lawful Neutral is good, given his description and background.
From Burnt Offerings:
** spoiler omitted **
So actually, it's not even the Sczarni... Titus Scarnetti is LN, in fact.
EDIT: I would personally put the various bigotries as a lawful (conservative) trait more than an evil (malicious) trait. We see racism in the game quite frequently (elves, dwarves, etc) that isn't lampooned as outright evil, so I would assume the same goes for other "isms". Just look at Erastil--he's LG but is nonetheless very conservative when it comes to gender roles.
That said, I would think that it would be very easily to dip into Evil with this kind of thing. Someone who bashes up gay people is doing an Evil thing.
Which raises an interesting question: if I were creating an NPC who was a brutally-racist individual, I would probably consider tacking an "E" onto his alignment simply as a reflection of how he chooses to treat others. I've never even considered what sort of alignment I would give a raging homophobe, but now that I've given it some thought I'm inclined to treat it the same way. After all, what cause would I have to treat the homophobe any differently than the racist?
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?
I think that there are degrees of phobia (such as the Riddle scale). Only the "Repulsion" category is anywhere near that. Pity through Acceptance is clearly a neutral act. However, we have to view people (and NPCs) as holistic individuals. Being biased against someone may or not outweigh whatever good they do in the rest of their lives. It also depends on the degree of consciousness of bias that a person has. Many white people feel uncomfortable around nonwhite people. This is something that reflects on their character primarily if they are aware of it and refuse to change. We get a lot of baggage from our culture and our upbringing and it can be hard to shift these thoughts or reactions.
When my sister came out as trans - though in my heart I wasn't surprised - my first thought was fear for her and what she was going to experience, based on what I knew about hate crimes against tradespeople. It was only after pondering this reaction for a few days that I realised that being who you are is more important than how people react to you, and I would have to be proactive in taking her side.
I completely agree, which is why I referred to extreme homophobes (whom I would definitely place in the Repulsion category). I can see the case being made for justifying a Neutral alignment with significant good acts and an absence of additional evil acts. But, all else held equal, would extreme homophobia (or extreme racism, or extreme misogyny, etc.) warrant an Evil alignment?
** spoiler omitted **
For some reason I've always seen things like the Dwarf-Elf racial rivalry that seems so prevalent in fantasy as being akin to fans of rival sports teams hating on one another. I think the severity of the racism (or whatever you want to call it) is dampened by the fact that - typically - neither race has a significant degree of control over the other, and neither is being actively oppressed by the other.
Anyways, we should veer back onto the topic since we've gotten the issue of the NPC out of the way.
|
|
Extreme bigotry is almost always going to attract an Evil alignment in my eyes. Look at Hell: super misogynistic, also super Lawful Evil. I suspect similar things would happen with other bigotries.
I think of it as more akin to nationalism. The French and English may hate each other in general and even get into wars for little reason other than past hatreds, but they're also willing to make exceptions for individuals.** spoiler omitted **For some reason I've always seen things like the Dwarf-Elf racial rivalry that seems so prevalent in fantasy as being akin to fans of rival sports teams hating on one another. I think the severity of the racism (or whatever you want to call it) is dampened by the fact that - typically - neither race has a significant degree of control over the other, and neither is being actively oppressed by the other.
Yep, that's probably a much better way of looking at it.
|
From Elves of Golarion, pg 9-10: "Elves and dwarves are essentially friendly in the sense that good fences make good neighbors... Some expect such elementally different peoples to clash, but in fact their complete lack of interest in each other’s territory and commercial pursuits makes conflict rare, and the two get along fine as different types of isolationists."
From Dwarves of Golarion, pg 17: "Although dwarves and elves have not always gotten along, they are not naturally enemies; life is simply too long for both races to nurse grudges. Instead, they trade back and forth, and consult on matters of relations with the humans, particularly when it concerns both nations."
I think a lot of the perceptions of racism amongst Dwarves and Elves is a hold over from other settings. I haven't seen anything else besides these two quotes that speak of their relationships with each other.
As for homosexuality in Golarion, I actually haven't noticed any of the references. Where are the references to Ezren and the couple from Sandpoint? Who is Ezren's lucky fella? What other references are there?
Since i´m generally sceptic i think that bigotry thing could very well be LG, under certain aspects also CG, it all depends on the writeup of gods and societies.
Erastil for example is more of a backland god, just look at his introduction in Kingmaker. It´s then pictured as being backwarded, so the woman stays at home etc...
This is also a creative challenge to break up all such stuff and find new and refreshing variations without using too much RL clichee. There could be stuff like a LG matrimony (not sure if right word), where women are generaly lesbian but choose a man to mate or something like that.
It´s cooler to play in an environment that is not so much like RL somehow. While i want things to stay medieval or earlier in a way (compared to renaissance and steampunk stuff), it´s pretty cool to break up european middle age and the other well known pictures.
I´m actually still missing Amazons, quite a staple i know.
Having drow society always being outlawed because of being so evil sucks in my eyes, because it was/is so sweetly different. But i would also go so far and remove the human race and the common tongue from the game without blinking.
So just to mention some super gay/bi places in RL that are actually among THE rpg/fantasy/fiction inspirations: SPARTA, wild west, pirates and ships and generally all places where there are men (or women but that i can´t speak of representatively) on small and or lonely space for a long time.
You also never know what some folk and their animal companions or mounts do they get such a close bond.
Also, you are incorrect to why the guy is evil. I found two NPCs in my anniversary copy of Rise of the Runelords (Aliver Podiker and Jubrayl Vhiski) that are listed as evil and the real reason they are regarded as evil is because they work with the Sczarni. They are the local thieves's guild and are real bad guys. One of the evil character actively sells poison to them while the other is the leader of the local chapter. So that is why they are evil. Unless I'm forgetting someone.
I'm sorry if I caused any misunderstanding by working from memory. (Also I don't own the Anniversary edition, just Burnt Offerings.) I didn't mean to imply that the text went "these guys disapprove of the paladin and his boyfriend being together, therefore they are evil." I wouldn't personally mind were that the case, but it's not what's in the text.
Exactly, I don't need sexuality mucking up my D&D or Pathfinder fun. It's not supposed to be part of the game. I must say that I am extremely disturbed about this little tidbit about Sandpoint. They make the one guy that isn't okay with the homosexual couple evil? That truly is bigoted. Yes, let's villify everyone that has moral objections to homosexuality. That sort of thing definitely has no place in Pathfinder.
Who elected you to decide what is and is not supposed to be in the game? I've got a moral objection to that. (I know, you own morality too. Silly me.) In weighing our moral objections, Paizo has opted to include gay characters. It includes them in the least obtrusive manner, with an incidental sentence or two that does no more than name the partners and mention that not everyone is content with their pairing. Just like for a heterosexual relationship! Why if you don't like it, it takes less than a second for you to mentally change the sex of one partner.
|
Just as their silent communion is about to reach it's blossoming climax, suddenly a wild pugwampi pack appears!
Why do you hate freedom?
"ONLY ON THE BATTLEFIELD DOES TRUE LOVE BLOSSOM"!
Okay, this earns forgiveness. ;)
This is akin to an inquisitor (heretic of course) of Sheylin I thought of. He understands there's beauty in pain, and art in the style of inflicting it. He's dove into the methods of the Kuthites to bring to them the love of beauty through their 'language'.
I have a Changeling Paladin of Shelyn in a RotRL campaign who's kinda bi-....Now I really want her to meet Gein Kafog.
For example, we have a rather strong (if somewhat self-loathing) BDSM community with the Zon-Kuthon worshippers. That's a start, but as someone mentioned before, it may do to present some people who enjoy those forms of relationships as truly good people (as many in real life are) rather than as mentally damaged, dysfunctional and/or self-loathingly evil (a la Zon-Kuthon and most of his worshippers) or uninhibitedly hedonistic (a la Calistra, Lamashtu or Urgathoa and most of their worshippers).
Honestly, there could probably be a Shelynite aphorism about how roses have thorns.
@Irnk - Yeah, Gein Kafog is going to be a lot of fun to see what he brings out of certain PCs, particularly Shelynites, Sarenraens, and other "heretic" types. The guy's a theological monkeywrench. :D
** spoiler omitted **
Oh wow. There's a story waiting to be told there!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, there could probably be a Shelynite aphorism about how roses have thorns.
Brent Michaels, Shelynite.
|
|
Brent Michaels, Shelynite.
Honestly, there could probably be a Shelynite aphorism about how roses have thorns.
Meanwhile Calistria has Stryper. Or at least their fashion sense.
Music tangent:
Sarah McLachlan's "Sweet Surrender", Shelynite song or Kuthonite?
Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game", Shelynite, Calistrian, or Kuthonite?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who elected you to decide what is and is not supposed to be in the game? I've got a moral objection to that.
The truly hilarious part is that he's actually backed himself into ranting that something that was written into the very first Pathfinder product ever printed has no place in Pathfinder.
Seriously?
|
|
And bringing back Kaer Maga's Irridian Veil for a moment:
Wasn't it hinted that some of the veiled folks in those pairs may actually be women somewhere? Not to question that group's status a guy's club for the most part, but I thought there was a bit on how a few of them may not be what they seem.
There are just so many unanswered questions about that group that they could be damn near anything relationship-wise?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as love potions go...anytime you are playing with people's emotions, you stand a strong chance of getting burned. There is a reason the "Love Potion gone bad" is a popular trope in magical fiction. Some one downing a bottle could easily become obsessed with the target (ala Buffy), or if the wrong people drink it you could get into some seriously messed up situations (a short story in the Dresden Files Universe explore what happens when a love spell gets cast...on a pair of siblings). I could see a ton of plot threads that could easily spin off from the misuse of a love potion
That's kind of why I had an idea for an alternate love potion which, instead of forcing someone to fall in love with you, compels the drinker to go a certain way with a sort of unconscious "tug" to find someone they're likely to be compatible with. Sort of like the Luck Potion in Harry Potter.
Also, on a sillier note on this topic, anybody think there needs to be a High Level Bardic Performance called "It's Raining Men"? It'd involve a rain of deadly force constructs shaped like exactly what you'd think, with the enemies unable to take any actions for a certain amount of time due to the "Oh God What?!" nature of the piece. Like "Vengeful Gaze Of God" for the party Loony!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@tbok1992: Really, like my Bard needs anymore Bardic Masterpieces to make.
Not gonna lie I love seeing threads like this. Especially since one of my group tends to use the BoEF at least once a Month.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing new to add to this discussion, really, other than to offer Paizo a thanks from the bottom of my heart that there ARE gay characters in Golarion. The creative staff have chimed in numerous times throughout this thread, each time to uniformly shut down the people who would attack them for this, and however trivial a detail this may seem to some people, I have a hard time expressing how deeply this touches and impresses me.
Thank you for being inclusive and tolerant, Paizo. I don't necessarily think your treatment of things is always perfect or always what I would like it to be, but when I compare it to what the options were, say, fifteen years ago-- and when I see creative staff coming in to a discussion to say, very plainly, yes, we are going to be inclusive, if you don't like it, feel free not to buy our product.... I just. I won't lie, I get a little teared up.
Keep up the good work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I second dien's praise. Thank You Paizo!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Also, on a sillier note on this topic, anybody think there needs to be a High Level Bardic Performance called "It's Raining Men"? It'd involve a rain of deadly force constructs shaped like exactly what you'd think, with the enemies unable to take any actions for a certain amount of time due to the "Oh God What?!" nature of the piece. Like "Vengeful Gaze Of God" for the party Loony!
I don't know bardic masterpiece rules that well, but a high level summonin spell that summons warriors with the celestial template would be funny. Something like a 7th levle spell that summons 1d4X100 celestial templated Warrior 2s? Not useful against the dragon, but a boon on the battlefield.
I've seen a couple You Tube vids where 300 was cut to It's Raining Men. My partner had one bookmarked.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?I would say they'd be evil, with a personal code that guides them toward good actions in other areas.
Wouldn't that make every adventuerer evil?
|
|
Who elected you to decide what is and is not supposed to be in the game? I've got a moral objection to that.The truly hilarious part is that he's actually backed himself into ranting that something that was written into the very first Pathfinder product ever printed has no place in Pathfinder.
Seriously?
Although part of the Gamemastery line (at the time), Hollow's Last Hope was the first Golarion product. Predating Burnt Offerings by two months =)
|
|
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?I would say they'd be evil, with a personal code that guides them toward good actions in other areas.
I'm going to have to come down hard in disagreement there.
I would say that homophobic NPCs and characters, just like racist characters, can run the gamut from being surprisingly good (Walt Kowalski from "Gran Torino") to being completely, utterly, irredeemably evil (Amon Goeth from "Schindler's List").
It is not the attitudes that one has towards certain people, but the actions ones takes. Some people demonstrate a far better nature than we think their prejudices would permit. While those prejudices can be real palpable character flaws, I am far more interested in characters who do the right thing in spite of their biases and bigotry. Because, hey, it makes it more real and relatable.
As such, I generally prefer a far more nuanced look at morality and alignment, rather than simply saying, "anyone who believes X, or does not believe Y is automatically evil. No further inquiry is needed." A person can hold an immoral or downright evil belief without themselves becoming an evil person, and I think it is important to recognize that these people can be good as well, certainly not because of their prejudices, but again, in spite of them.
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?I would say they'd be evil, with a personal code that guides them toward good actions in other areas.I'm going to have to come down hard in disagreement there.
I would say that homophobic NPCs and characters, just like racist characters, can run the gamut from being surprisingly good (Walt Kowalski from "Gran Torino") to being completely, utterly, irredeemably evil (Amon Goeth from "Schindler's List").
It is not the attitudes that one has towards certain people, but the actions ones takes. Some people demonstrate a far better nature than we think their prejudices would permit. While those prejudices can be real palpable character flaws, I am far more interested in characters who do the right thing in spite of their biases and bigotry. Because, hey, it makes it more real and relatable.
As such, I generally prefer a far more nuanced look at morality and alignment, rather than simply saying, "anyone who believes X, or does not believe Y is automatically evil. No further inquiry is needed." A person can hold an immoral or downright evil belief without themselves becoming an evil person, and I think it is important to recognize that these people can be good as well, certainly not because of their prejudices, but again, in spite of them.
Perhaps, then, a clarification: assuming that, absent said homophobia, the person qualified for essential neutrality (they were neither particularly good or particularly evil), would a high level of homophobia (enough to qualify as repulsion) be enough to earn them an alignment of Evil?
Perhaps, then, a clarification: assuming that, absent said homophobia, the person qualified for essential neutrality (they were neither particularly good or particularly evil), would a high level of homophobia (enough to qualify as repulsion) be enough to earn them an alignment of Evil?
Depends. If they hold those beliefs but don't otherwise act in any evil way on them, I wouldn't budge them from their neutral qualification. Plus, there's a difference between being repulsed and wishing harm on them. If they are disgusted by their behavior and just want them to go away - that's not really a hallmark of evil. It's worlds away from rounding them up and lynching them.
Don't cheapen evil and what it means. Save the evil labels for the truly evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That gets into the matter of alignment and thoughtcrime. The way I run games only actions determine alignment not bad thoughts. If an npc is incredibly homophobic and displays it by trying to ruin the lives of a gay couple (using the sandpoint example) that would constitute an evil act.
Agreed. Else like I said, adventures would be branded evil all the time, unless they stop and ask every goblin in the warren if they've done wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you wouldn't want that would you? Racists!!!
|
Production Specialist
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing new to add to this discussion, really, other than to offer Paizo a thanks from the bottom of my heart that there ARE gay characters in Golarion. The creative staff have chimed in numerous times throughout this thread, each time to uniformly shut down the people who would attack them for this, and however trivial a detail this may seem to some people, I have a hard time expressing how deeply this touches and impresses me.
Oh, we don't do it to be inclusive, Dien. A good chunk of Paizo falls somewhere in the LGBT spectrum, and like you, we're sick of never seeing people like ourselves in stories :)
That gets into the matter of alignment and thoughtcrime. The way I run games only actions determine alignment not bad thoughts. If an npc is incredibly homophobic and displays it by trying to ruin the lives of a gay couple (using the sandpoint example) that would constitute an evil act.
The Sandpoint example really isn't one (the character in question is LN, and isn't actively trying to ruin their lives as far as we know).
I agree with the idea that evil impulses kept in check by self-control (of whatever kind) can stave off an Evil alignment. What about someone who exercises political (formal or informal) action to oppress homosexuality? If the Scarnetti family wields its (not insignificant, I'd wager) informal political muscle in Sandpoint to prevent a homosexual couple from being able to express their love in the same manner as a heterosexual couple, is that an evil act?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Centuries from now, alien scholars will write elaborate theses on the contents of your search history and wonder what that means for humanity as a whole.
I hope you're proud.
[Blushes]
Hee hee!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, I don't need sexuality mucking up my D&D or Pathfinder fun. It's not supposed to be part of the game. I must say that I am extremely disturbed about this little tidbit about Sandpoint. They make the one guy that isn't okay with the homosexual couple evil? That truly is bigoted. Yes, let's villify everyone that has moral objections to homosexuality. That sort of thing definitely has no place in Pathfinder.What is it about the mere mention of a non-hetero attraction between two consenting adults that somehow crosses the line into being harmful to impressionable players/readers? Yeah, it's your home game, do what you want... but why are LGBT people automatically censored in it?
I believe it's to do with our very existence being objectionable, a regrettable fact that they prefer not to be reminded of in their fun time reading. Of course calling it an agenda is a way to stigmatize and vilify: We act from carefully-considered principles; They have the agenda.
There are certainly things I don't want in my fun time reading, but I can't say that I always want it purged of, say, homophobes. A setting where nobody ever objects to LGBT people is very nearly as bizarre and impossible to relate to (if in a more positive way) than one where LGBT people simply don't exist. It's nice for an occasional break, of course.
But really I think Paizo did a great job way back in the original Sandpoint write-up. There's a closeted gay couple that everyone in town knows about and nobody cares except one guy that has an E in his abbreviated alignment. It strains my credulity a lot that a somewhat isolated small town (like the one I live in) is that broad-minded, but I'm willing to spot that as Sandpoint is meant to endear itself to the players and it comes from a world that does not have the same obsessive sexual hangups that ours has so often suffered.
Just stop. You've been told multiple times to knock off your hate on these forums. Go out, experience more life, and grow up. The western world is steadily getting more progressive, and inclusionary and you'll find that you're going to be on the wrong site of history, just like the bigots were during the civil rights struggles in the US during the 60s saying many of the same things you're saying now.
Paizo, thank you for simply recognizing that us gay folks aren't anything more or less than straight folks.
I personally feel the alignment/ hatred debate is cloudy than we would care to admit in Pathfinder.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, both Dwarves and Gnomes possess the offensive trait "hatred", which could be viewed as a thematic racism ingrained into the very essence of these two races. The mechanics of hatred targets other races (Orc/ Half-orcs, Goblinoids, and Kobolds) for addition bonuses in combat. Let us imagine a party consisting of a LG Dwarf Paladin and a CG Half-Orc Barbarian. The Dwarf character, despite being LG, possesses the trait "hatred" because it is tactically desirable. In essence, this Paladin is racist towards Orcs, so much so that he is more likely to inflict harm against them if he engages them in combat. This "racist bonus" extends even to his traveling companion, the half-orc barbarian. Yet, as this archetype has never been censored.
(It is also interesting to note that Orcs, Half-Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, or Kobolds do not possess a racist trait equivalent to hatred, or even an optional trait equivalent to hatred, yet are traditionally consider the evil races)
Clearly, in our world, racism is abhorrent, because hatred of any kind is abhorrent. Yet, things are more complicated in Pathfinder.
You can remain a LG Paladin while still being a proactive racist, as evidenced by the lack of a rule stating "Dwarf Paladins must select a different trait to replace hatred, as racism is inherently evil" (Though it would be interesting/ compelling/ praise-worthy if they did).
I feel this speaks to the heart of hatred is depicted in Pathfinder, be it racially or sexually based. Hatred, in Pathfinder, does not appear to be evil. Clearly, and again I stress CLEARLY, hatred of any form is wrong in our world. I am simply stating that we cannot so easily correlate hatred, racism, homophobia, sexism, or intolerance with evil in Pathfinder. Although, I will in my game.
I always knew there was a reason I didn't dwarves...
|
That gets into the matter of alignment and thoughtcrime. The way I run games only actions determine alignment not bad thoughts. If an npc is incredibly homophobic and displays it by trying to ruin the lives of a gay couple (using the sandpoint example) that would constitute an evil act.The Sandpoint example really isn't one (the character in question is LN, and isn't actively trying to ruin their lives as far as we know).
I agree with the idea that evil impulses kept in check by self-control (of whatever kind) can stave off an Evil alignment. What about someone who exercises political (formal or informal) action to oppress homosexuality? If the Scarnetti family wields its (not insignificant, I'd wager) informal political muscle in Sandpoint to prevent a homosexual couple from being able to express their love in the same manner as a heterosexual couple, is that an evil act?
Then the bulk of humans are evil for using the law to control and punish others. I suppose you have never advocated a law that others might find punitive or unfair.....
Then the bulk of humans are evil for using the law to control and punish others. I suppose you have never advocated a law that others might find punitive or unfair.....That gets into the matter of alignment and thoughtcrime. The way I run games only actions determine alignment not bad thoughts. If an npc is incredibly homophobic and displays it by trying to ruin the lives of a gay couple (using the sandpoint example) that would constitute an evil act.The Sandpoint example really isn't one (the character in question is LN, and isn't actively trying to ruin their lives as far as we know).
I agree with the idea that evil impulses kept in check by self-control (of whatever kind) can stave off an Evil alignment. What about someone who exercises political (formal or informal) action to oppress homosexuality? If the Scarnetti family wields its (not insignificant, I'd wager) informal political muscle in Sandpoint to prevent a homosexual couple from being able to express their love in the same manner as a heterosexual couple, is that an evil act?
There is a difference between laws which exist to better society, protect individual rights, and to punish those who would act against those interests, and laws which exist to oppress the rights of a group of individuals for the self-interested gain of a few.
You get that, right? This is setting off some warning bells in my head about how you see society as a whole.
This holds true in Pathfinder as well. There's a reason that both Lawful Good and Lawful Evil are valid alignments. The purpose and mechanism by which laws are implemented and executed can reflect the intentions of those who craft them.
Either way, however, I was explicitly calling out the Scarnetti family's informal political power, which means I wasn't talking about actual laws at all.
|
|
So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?I would say they'd be evil, with a personal code that guides them toward good actions in other areas.I'm going to have to come down hard in disagreement there.
I would say that homophobic NPCs and characters, just like racist characters, can run the gamut from being surprisingly good (Walt Kowalski from "Gran Torino") to being completely, utterly, irredeemably evil (Amon Goeth from "Schindler's List").
It is not the attitudes that one has towards certain people, but the actions ones takes. Some people demonstrate a far better nature than we think their prejudices would permit. While those prejudices can be real palpable character flaws, I am far more interested in characters who do the right thing in spite of their biases and bigotry. Because, hey, it makes it more real and relatable.
As such, I generally prefer a far more nuanced look at morality and alignment, rather than simply saying, "anyone who believes X, or does not believe Y is automatically evil. No further inquiry is needed." A person can hold an immoral or downright evil belief without themselves becoming an evil person, and I think it is important to recognize that these people can be good as well, certainly not because of their prejudices, but again, in spite of them.
For me, alignment isn't based off of actions - it's a metaphysical marker on a character's soul. While actions are a factor in how your soul is shaped before it passes on to the afterlife, I feel it's more the internal struggle of a character that determines their alignment. Case in point, if a character has unquestioned and unchallenged bigoted beliefs, those beliefs push the character into the evil spectrum of alignments. Now, there is a chance that the character has other redeeming qualities that may give them enough "good points" to balance it out into neutral, but that (to me) lies in the field of interpretation.
Long answer shortened: I think the essence - and alignment - of a character is defined by their thoughts moreso than than their actions.
For me, alignment isn't based off of actions - it's a metaphysical marker on a character's soul. While actions are a factor in how your soul is shaped before it passes on to the afterlife, I feel it's more the internal struggle of a character that determines their alignment. Case in point, if a character has unquestioned and unchallenged bigoted beliefs, those beliefs push the character into the evil spectrum of alignments. Now, there is a chance that the character has other redeeming qualities that may give them enough...So should all highly homophobic NPCs receive an Evil alignment in Golarion? Or would the ones with some redeeming qualities just earn a Neutral label?I would say they'd be evil, with a personal code that guides them toward good actions in other areas.I'm going to have to come down hard in disagreement there.
I would say that homophobic NPCs and characters, just like racist characters, can run the gamut from being surprisingly good (Walt Kowalski from "Gran Torino") to being completely, utterly, irredeemably evil (Amon Goeth from "Schindler's List").
It is not the attitudes that one has towards certain people, but the actions ones takes. Some people demonstrate a far better nature than we think their prejudices would permit. While those prejudices can be real palpable character flaws, I am far more interested in characters who do the right thing in spite of their biases and bigotry. Because, hey, it makes it more real and relatable.
As such, I generally prefer a far more nuanced look at morality and alignment, rather than simply saying, "anyone who believes X, or does not believe Y is automatically evil. No further inquiry is needed." A person can hold an immoral or downright evil belief without themselves becoming an evil person, and I think it is important to recognize that these people can be good as well, certainly not because of their prejudices, but again, in spite of them.
What does this mean, then, for the deluded or twisted individual who truly believes that what he is doing is for the greater good, even when it involves wholesale puppy slaughter? Is that person still evil if he commits evil acts? Or is he the victim of someone else's evil manipulation, and is himself blameless? Or somewhere in between?