|
Both have a different measurement of the valuation of life than polite society considers proper or healthy (for us *or* them), but they express it very differently.No, one has a measure that, while often questioned by those unwilling to make the committment is ultimately derived from solid, sound, healthy principles, while the other is derived from the same unsound basis as the culture it derives from.
I'm a little confused. You feel that a sociopath has solid, sound, healthy principles?
I disagree with that. Empathy has proven to be a survival trait, not just on the species level, but on the individual level. A person with no empathy is unsound and unhealthy, as I understand it.
As for the suicide bomber thing, bear in mind that it's possible to not be a sociopath and still do awful things (and be any of seventy thousand *other* kinds of crazyflakes...). I didn't say that they were right or morally justified, merely that they weren't necessarily incapable of empathy. Some of them might suffer from having *too much empathy* (the recent rash of using widowed women as suicide bombers, convincing them that they don't have to live on without their husbands and sons, but can join them in paradise, for example).
|
I'm a little confused. You feel that a sociopath has solid, sound, healthy principles?
The context should be rather obvious given that cannot be the correct answer.
As for the suicide bomber thing, bear in mind that it's possible to not be a sociopath and still do awful things (and be any of seventy thousand *other* kinds of crazyflakes...). I didn't say that they were right or morally justified, merely that they weren't necessarily incapable of empathy. Some of them might suffer from having *too much empathy* (the recent rash of using widowed women as suicide bombers, convincing them that they don't have to live on without their husbands and sons, but can join them in paradise, for example).
Again, context. A culture, and member thereof, that is incapable of empathy for other cultures, or members of those other cultures. They still retain empathy for those within their culture. (Or subgroup of that culture, which is also common.) That makes them "sociopaths" with respect to other cultures, even if they are individually less, or alternatively, damaged.
Can we get back on track, please? Fighting over real-world cultures and religions will get us nowhere except into afternoon detention. And don't think I won't spit paper into your hair with my self-made blowgun, because I totally will.
Anyway, as far as PF is concerned, what Christians, or Swedes, or the Lone Rangers, or anyone not in the game things about good, evil, order, and chaos, doesn't really matter.
And Pathfinder has the following to say about the matter:
[quote = "Beta"]
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
[...]
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
It may be just me, but that precludes good outsiders - lawful or otherwise - that just kill people without really good cause. And I still maintain that just being different isn't a really good cause.
[quote = "Beta"]
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
[...]
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmental, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidencethat others will act as they should.
While the whole judgemental and close-minded part might support a killing-because-they-are-different, there would still have to be a law about it, and they would still have to consider it honourable.
And that's not even taking the combined alignment into consideration yet....
[quote = "Beta"]
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
That first sentence I feel is the most important here: They act as a good person is required to act. That means they have their principles from good (the self-sacrifice and respect for life) and their lawful aspects make them really stick to it.
|
|
Anyway, as far as PF is concerned, what Christians, or Swedes, or the Lone Rangers, or anyone not in the game things about good, evil, order, and chaos, doesn't really matter.
Well actually, what one person thought does.
Or do you think the intent of the original author of the alignment system is irrelevant?|
|
Anyway, as far as PF is concerned, what Christians, or Swedes, or the Lone Rangers, or anyone not in the game things about good, evil, order, and chaos, doesn't really matter.Well actually, what one person thought does.
Or do you think the intent of the original author of the alignment system is irrelevant?
Unless you've got a Speak with Dead handy, it's going to be tough to verify who he agrees with, though.
The wording Kaeyoss posted above seems pretty clear. Genocide is not a Good act even if it might be a Lawful one. A LG Outsider who commits genocide on a chaotic society just because they're chaotic (the original point of discussion before we got into real world arguments about whether there is a pure and verifiable ethics rather than a cultural definition) will fall fairly quickly.
Obviously in D&D there is a pure, definable ethics (or morals. The L/C axis isn't as well defined as the G/E one).
|
|
Unless you've got a Speak with Dead handy, it's going to be tough to verify who he agrees with, though.
Or if you just talked to him a lot about moral issues, including in connection with the AD&D game, and you can cross-reference it with similar recollections from other people.
Or if you managed to be a really big pack rat and saved tons of emails (which I did not).The wording Kaeyoss posted above seems pretty clear. Genocide is not a Good act even if it might be a Lawful one. A LG Outsider who commits genocide on a chaotic society just because they're chaotic (the original point of discussion before we got into real world arguments about whether there is a pure and verifiable ethics rather than a cultural definition) will fall fairly quickly.
Really?
So if the archons exterminated all of the green slaadi in existence they would be committing an Evil act?What about all of the bar-lgura?
All of the coure could be an issue, as could all of the bariaur or fensir. Still, it is not as automatic as you suggest.
You know, why does everyone want to have Good creatures/ character committing atrosities and not have the demons and devils and Evil creatures/characters lining up to do good?
I find it curious the number of people that seem to have a compulsive need to drag the "good" down and through the mud. If I believed in freudian analyzes I think it would speak loudly about people.
|
|
I find it curious the number of people that seem to have a compulsive need to drag the "good" down and through the mud. If I believed in freudian analyzes I think it would speak loudly about people.
Freud being a colossal quack doesn't change the truth behind the saying, 'The only thing we like more than a hero, is to watch a hero *fall...*'
It's what the Joker was trying to prove in the Dark Knight movie, that *anyone* would choose to kill a bunch of strangers to save themselves. (He was proven wrong, obviously, both by Batman and by the prisoners on the barge and various others.) And the reason he was so desperate to prove that there were no really 'good' people, was because then he didn't have to hate himself for failing to live up to standards that he had dismissed as impossible. The more someone resists the urge to behave as he did, the more they make him loathe them, because they are attacking the very core of his beliefs, the only thing that makes him able to live with himself, the justification that, 'I'm not that bad, everyone would be like me under the right circumstances, given just one bad day.'
|
You know, why does everyone want to have Good creatures/ character committing atrosities and not have the demons and devils and Evil creatures/characters lining up to do good?
I find it curious the number of people that seem to have a compulsive need to drag the "good" down and through the mud. If I believed in freudian analyzes I think it would speak loudly about people.
Thank you for expressing what I think of these sort of threads.
I had been wrestling how to put it tactfully for a while.
|
|
You know, why does everyone want to have Good creatures/ character committing atrosities and not have the demons and devils and Evil creatures/characters lining up to do good?
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an atrocity.
How could you even consider that?That any extreme of belief can be exceptionally dangerous, particularly when it is operating on a level beyond human achievement, is not a "quest" to bring it down, it is a rational recognition of power above and beyond. When an angel appears in the bible, the first thing it says is "do not be afraid", not "sunshine and sparkles".
Some may have difficulty accepting the Good, as opposed to just the Law, in something like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The author of the AD&D alignment system did not. When you understand that you realize there are no contradictions in the extremes of the alignment system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an atrocity. How could you even consider that?
Sometimes I can't tell when people are being serious, or using sarcasm.
Since I can't condone genocide, not even in the case where someone is convinced that another race of people are filthy malevolent subhuman 'mud-people' who are 'sucking the lifeblood' from one's own hardworking honest people, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the definition of atrocity.
|
|
Sometimes I can't tell when people are being serious, or using sarcasm.
Since I can't condone genocide, not even in the case where someone is convinced that another race of people are filthy malevolent subhuman 'mud-people' who are 'sucking the lifeblood' from one's own hardworking honest people, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the definition of atrocity.
"I like orange juice."
"I refuse to acknowledge any legitimacy for a foodstuff that inolves nut-based allergens."You are projecting elements onto my statement that I did not include.
Naturally if you change the parameters different standards will apply. That does not in any way invalidate the original scenario. Since I cannot condone strawmen, I am going to have to disagree with your attempted redefinition of my statement.
|
|
Sometimes I can't tell when people are being serious, or using sarcasm.
Since I can't condone genocide, not even in the case where someone is convinced that another race of people are filthy malevolent subhuman 'mud-people' who are 'sucking the lifeblood' from one's own hardworking honest people, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the definition of atrocity.
"I like orange juice."
"I refuse to acknowledge any legitimacy for a foodstuff that inolves nut-based allergens."You are projecting elements onto my statement that I did not include.
Naturally if you change the parameters different standards will apply. That does not in any way invalidate the original scenario. Since I cannot condone strawmen, I am going to have to disagree with your attempted redefinition of my statement.
Sam,
Given you changed the parameters from "barbarian culture being exterminated" to "genocide of the green slaadi" to " Soddom and Gammorah" perhaps you'd like to strawman a little less and keep to the original parameters a little more before you accuse others of it?Now, apart from an appeal to authority, could you explain how, in terms of D&D alignment, a lawful good angel can exterminate a chaotic culture that is not actively attacking his charges and still be Good? Because that's what we're discussing.
Didn't I just write something about getting back on track? Twice, both here and in an unrelated thread, and you go right back and attack each other with the "I didn't say that, don't say I said that" game?
Come on.
Focus, people.
Anyway, killing evil creatures for the good of all is different from killing good creatures for the good of all. And that difference lies in the moral alignment of the two groups.
And while the alignments always come in pairs, they're still separate parts. You cannot justify an evil act with lawfulness and think that because you used it to be more lawful, it won't make you evil.
|
|
Didn't I just write something about getting back on track? Twice, both here and in an unrelated thread, and you go right back and attack each other with the "I didn't say that, don't say I said that" game?
Come on.
Focus, people.
Anyway, killing evil creatures for the good of all is different from killing good creatures for the good of all. And that difference lies in the moral alignment of the two groups.
And while the alignments always come in pairs, they're still separate parts. You cannot justify an evil act with lawfulness and think that because you used it to be more lawful, it won't make you evil.
Sorry, I'm Chaotic. We can't focus. Oh, look, a butterfly. ;-)
Fourth, addressing whoever's point above about acts that are always good, that stumbles into the morass of intents and results. As Aslan said, whoever does Good in the name of Tash honors Me, and whoever does Evil in My name, honors Tash. Aslan said it, so it must be true.
And that's also what D&D says.
|
|
Sam,
Given you changed the parameters from "barbarian culture being exterminated" to "genocide of the green slaadi" to " Soddom and Gammorah" perhaps you'd like to strawman a little less and keep to the original parameters a little more before you accuse others of it?
Given that you are trying to conflate two separate, though topically related, statements, the strawman is in your court.
Statement One is the mindset of the author of the system.
Statement Two is a refutation of an absolute statement of the function of the system that fails to contemplate all possible scenarios, including obvious ones.
Now, apart from an appeal to authority, could you explain how, in terms of D&D alignment, a lawful good angel can exterminate a chaotic culture that is not actively attacking his charges and still be Good? Because that's what we're discussing.
Explain a rule without citing the rule?
That is rather impossible.Ignoring that:
In terms of D&D alignment, there is nothing that mandates that a Lawful Good Angel (or any type of Good planar being, or any type of Good ordinary being) cannot take pre-emptive lethal action against something that poses a potential lethal threat.
None.
It simply does not exist.
Particularly for Lawful Good which focuses, as has been noted, on securing the greatest good for the most people.
The dam may not be overflowing now, there may not be rain on the horizon, but if the structure is in need of repair then a house may be destroyed to better effect those repairs without it being a transgression. If a person living in that house objects they are aggravating a potentially deadly situation and must be dealt with in the most expedient manner possible for the good of the entire community.
Again, the appearance of an angel, or similar planar race embodiment of an alignment, should be met with concern, not glee. People should not think "Now the holy smackdown shall be unleashed on the unbeliever!" but "How did we fall so far short that the first team had to be called in, and what will the consequences be for us?"
It is a being from a level of reality where the alignments are manifest in individual, physical forms, and where the least degree of variation results in overt physical changes to the "land"scape. If you are different and it is not killing you then it is actively demonstrating mercy and self-control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an atrocity.
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an issue. However, exterminating "evil" because they don't follow the path of "good" is not a Good act. Even the "always Evil" alignments are not absolute and a truly Good individual will avoid wholesale slaughter to make sure that they do not kill someone who doesn't deserve it. Do not confuse D&D alignment with the Old Testament, the Crusades, etc.
In terms of D&D alignment, there is nothing that mandates that a Lawful Good Angel (or any type of Good planar being, or any type of Good ordinary being) cannot take pre-emptive lethal action against something that poses a potential lethal threat.
No, preemptive action is only justified in cases of imminent threat, not merely potential threat. Potential lethal threat would be killing all gun owners because they can kill someone while imminent threat would be killing someone waving a gun around or shooting at people.
|
|
Look, everybody; if Sam doesn't want to address the actual topic of the thread, we're not going to gain anything by discussing a threadjack.
Back to the OP;
Can a LG outsider condone or participate in the genocide of a barbarian culture, for no other reason than they are chaotic?
The bold part is important, guys.
We're not discussing Chaotic Evil barbarians, because the answer is clear.
We're not discussing Chaotic Neutral barbarians, who are rampaging throughout the land, killing innocents, because the answer is clear.
We're not talking about self-defence.
We're not talking about 'what would a LN outsider do?'
We're not talking about 'What would the Greek or Norse gods do?', since they were notoriously capricious and hypocritical tyrants, who ruled via fear, hence are neither Lawful, nor Good. Demanding that everyone else does as you say, while you can do whatever the hell you like, does not imply a Lawful nature.
We were talking about whether a Solar would travel to the Prime, and slaughter a tribe of peace-loving people, for wearing odd socks.
And the answer is (or should be); NO.
In one of our campaigns we had a troll.
We captured it dealing enough non-lethal damage to keep it unconicous while we locked it up. After that we fed it well everyday using a spoon of sustenance. We would then cut off a couple of limbs grind them down and sell them in our restaurant as hamburger.
Probably wasn't a good act in hindsight.
We would then cut off a couple of limbs grind them down and sell them in our restaurant as hamburger.
Wouldn't they have regenerated into arms on people's plates?
(I know, not really, but it's a funny mental image.)
O
Wouldn't they have regenerated into arms on people's plates?
No. They'd have regenerated into trolls in people's stomachs. Much more hilarious that way.
|
|
Look, everybody; if Sam doesn't want to address the actual topic of the thread, we're not going to gain anything by discussing a threadjack.
Back to the OP;
Can a LG outsider condone or participate in the genocide of a barbarian culture, for no other reason than they are chaotic?
I have addressed the topic of the thread.
The answer is yes, for the reasons I gave.
I you want to ignore the reasoning behind that answer to avoid having to address them you will not gain anything in proving your answer is correct.
|
|
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an issue. However, exterminating "evil" because they don't follow the path of "good" is not a Good act. Even the "always Evil" alignments are not absolute and a truly Good individual will avoid wholesale slaughter to make sure that they do not kill someone who doesn't deserve it. Do not confuse D&D alignment with the Old Testament, the Crusades, etc.
You are incorrect.
By not following the path of Good, those that are Evil are reducing the ability of others to be Good.As for a confusion, I am following the definitions used by the author of the alignment system. Do not confuse your post-modern concepts with D&D alignment.
No, preemptive action is only justified in cases of imminent threat, not merely potential threat. Potential lethal threat would be killing all gun owners because they can kill someone while imminent threat would be killing someone waving a gun around or shooting at people.
What is "iminent" on the time scale of an immortal being?
Now? Tomorrow? Ten thousand years from tomorrow?If you ignore the Evil (or Chaos) "now" and the numbers grow a hundred-fold by the time you decide the threat is "iminent", the task to defeat it becomes that much harder, endangering the lives of that many more Good (or Lawful) people.
It also means that if any were salvageable, say any children that might be brought up as Good (or Lawful) are left to grow up as Evil (or Chaotic), as are their children, condemning all of them to the inevitable death and damnation that comes to those of such incorrect beliefs.
Leaving Evil (or Chaos) to fester and grow in no way protects those who are Good (or Lawful). They should be dealt with at the most opportune time to deal with them.
Probably not, owing to the stomach acid. It would prevent regeneration.
Only if you're a tarrasque. Otherwise your stomach acid doesn't deal enough acid damage to outrun the regeneration.
Samuel Weiss, did you post on the WotC boards as Samwise? Because it's sounding very familiar, and it piqued my curiosity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing it.
Good is different from Evil and flat Chaos and Law. A lawful or chaotic celestial isn't going to put the good portion of his alignment on the side to commit genocide in order to prevent something that might happen. Law and Chaos on their own might seek to remove the other from the equation, but Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are different animals that should have different outlooks and relationships with Chaos and Law.
One thing that's annoying me is that in these loaded examples given to justify our supposed LG angel's extreme measures is that this chaotic culture is guaranteed to breed ruin. That's about as justifiable as an Eladrin trying to exterminate a civilization because it's a lawful culture and might lead to tyranny. And if this chaotic society is guaranteed to cause trouble in the future, there are plenty of different routes to take towards preventing that, none of which involve wholesale slaughter.
(Chaos seems to get unfairly knocked in these debates. It's always "chaos is a force for potential destruction", nevermind the creation aspects and the fact that Law can lead to it's own flavors of ruin. Pick your poison: Big Crunch or Heat Death)
Look at Golarion's cosmology for example. The greatest representatives of evil, the Archdevils, Archdaemons, and Demon Lords are divided. The Empyreals, not so much; they span all three good alignments. Hell, Torag and Cayden Cailean are drinking buddies.
Again, the appearance of an angel, or similar planar race embodiment of an alignment, should be met with concern, not glee. People should not think "Now the holy smackdown shall be unleashed on the unbeliever!" but "How did we fall so far short that the first team had to be called in, and what will the consequences be for us?"
It is a being from a level of reality where the alignments are manifest in individual, physical forms, and where the least degree of variation results in overt physical changes to the "land"scape. If you are different and it is not killing you then it is actively demonstrating mercy and self-control.
I gotta say, I have never played in a game or read any D&D material where angels/celestials were meant to inspire this kind of fear(or behave in the manner the OP described without Falling). And Planescape featured some pretty on-the-grey-edge celestials in the mix.
Brought this up with my players. The paladin player actually said he would place said angel under arrest or die trying. I kind of regret that I can't use that villain now.
|
|
I gotta say, I have never played in a game or read any D&D material where angels/celestials were meant to inspire this kind of fear(or behave in the manner the OP described without Falling).
I would have to check them again to remember exactly which book it is.
Gord was fighting the uber-evil servant of Nerull. Said cleric summoned a horde of monkey like cacodaemons from pandemonium, as well as Cabriri and Pazuzu. With his companions being trashed, including the high level bard, barbarian, cleric, and wizard, Gord used a reserve magic item to summon a solar.
The Lawful Good cleric sacrificed himself to banish one of the demons, sending himself to the Abyss in the process. The Lawful Good wizard blew up a staff of power to destroy the other demon, killing himself in the process. The bard and barbarian were dead. The solar had destroyed all the cacodaemons. The uber-evil badguy had fled.
When Gord tried to ask the solar for help, the solar first recoiled. Gord said it should not fear him. It sneered and said it was not afraid, just repelled by Gord's Neutral alignment. Gord asked for help to support the cause of Good. The solar mocked him again, saying Gord cared nothing for Good, and was just doing this Good act to advance his own, True Neutral agenda. Gord asked for any help at all, and the solar grudgingly agreed to raise one of his dead companions.
You might also read all of the Gord series, particularly the last two, for just how far Good will go, even when it achieves nothing.
Within the rules themselves, in 1st ed solars had a Charisma of 24. Given their status, they should get the divine effect of awe in creatures of 10 HD or less.
In 2nd ed, solars, and other aasimon, had celestial reverence. That ability required a save vs paralyzation or a Good creature was struct a desire to protect while an Evil creature was unable to attack, or fled if 8 HD or less. Note, that is in the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix (I).
Only if you're a tarrasque. Otherwise your stomach acid doesn't deal enough acid damage to outrun the regeneration.
Probably not, owing to the stomach acid. It would prevent regeneration.
Stomach acid would be lethal damage though, and burns through the regeneration, that only hits non-lethal damage. That's why regeneration converes all damage except for the bypasser to non-lethal: it only heals non-lethal damage. Beyond that we cooked the hamburger too, so it would be throughly dead (fire bypassing regeneration too).
I would point out that attack another civilization for that is following the rule of their law for the reason of killing off that society isn't nessecarily lawful either.
The barbarians are living in their lands, following their laws and customs and traditions, when suddenly this thing comes in and starts spreading chaos by killing people left and right. They may have advanced beyond chaos if given the time to see how the laws, customs and traditions they did have benefitted them more than just being chaotic did.
Ok so:
What did they do that was evil?
What did they do that was chaotic?
What did they do to provoke an attack?
IF we are talking about a society then we are talking about an, at least, semi lawful power structure with some from of laws, customs and mores. Invading and breaking that would not be a lawful act.
Exterminating Evil to protect the innocent is not an issue. However, exterminating "evil" because they don't follow the path of "good" is not a Good act. Even the "always Evil" alignments are not absolute and a truly Good individual will avoid wholesale slaughter to make sure that they do not kill someone who doesn't deserve it. Do not confuse D&D alignment with the Old Testament, the Crusades, etc.You are incorrect.
By not following the path of Good, those that are Evil are reducing the ability of others to be Good.As for a confusion, I am following the definitions used by the author of the alignment system. Do not confuse your post-modern concepts with D&D alignment.
In what way is a Chaotic culture (the original premise) reducing the ability of others to be Good? Even when talking about those who are Evil, where do you draw the line? At what point is a free-willed individual considered beyond redemption? What about those who are neither Good nor Evil? Are they deserving of death as well?
D&D alignment is post modern. Show me where, in the author's definitions of the alignment system (going back to 1st Ed AD&D), the wholesale slaughter of Chaotics (not just the killing of Chaotic Evil demons who are killing mortals on the Prime) is an acceptable Lawful Good act.
No, preemptive action is only justified in cases of imminent threat, not merely potential threat. Potential lethal threat would be killing all gun owners because they can kill someone while imminent threat would be killing someone waving a gun around or shooting at people.What is "iminent" on the time scale of an immortal being?
Now? Tomorrow? Ten thousand years from tomorrow?
If you ignore the Evil (or Chaos) "now" and the numbers grow a hundred-fold by the time you decide the threat is "iminent", the task to defeat it becomes that much harder, endangering the lives of that many more Good (or Lawful) people.
It also means that if any were salvageable, say any children that might be brought up as Good (or Lawful) are left to grow up as Evil (or Chaotic), as are their children, condemning all of them to the inevitable death and damnation that comes to those of such incorrect beliefs.
Leaving Evil (or Chaos) to fester and grow in no way protects those who are Good (or Lawful). They should be dealt with at the most opportune time to deal with them.
Sophistry. If the threat is not imminent (on the timescale of the populations involved), you have many other methods to accomplish the task without killing people in job lots: education, diplomacy, espionage, etc. A Lawful Good individual should promote Law as well as Good, but as others have stated they cannot maintain a LG alignment while promoting Law (or even Good) by using questionable methods.
|
|
Ok, for clarity, here is the section on Good and Evil from the Beta:
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Now, genocide really doesn't fit into that definition of Good, does it?
Now, Lawful Good:
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Again, genocide has a tough time fitting into the whole 'speaks out against injustice and helps those in need' part of that. Note, not helps those in need only if they are Lawful Good and kills the rest.
Conversely, here is Lawful Neutral:
Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Which is far more likely to think genocide is an acceptable, if extreme option.
Now, Sam, with reference to those descriptions, which are the in-game definitions of Good and Lawful Good, could you explain how genocide, especially of a non-evil, non-aggressive culture, fits into those character traits?
The problem, I think, is that some people look at alignment as teams, or, to use a common term, hats. Characters of Good alignment wear White Hats, while characters of Evil alignment wear Black Hats. Perhaps Lawful characters wear Green Hats, and Chaotic characters wear Amazing Technicolor DreamHats. For this approach to alignment, characters of any Hat are allowed to do anything to anyone of a different Hat, because they're just on opposing teams, and they're no different than the color of their Hat.
This may have been the original conception of alignment in D&D (though I hope not). It may be that the whole point of alignment was for you to feel justified in being a serial murderer, just by pointing to the Hat your enemy was wearing and saying "it's a different color."
But D&D's alignment system has either evolved, or its roots are misunderstood by those of the Hat Philosophy. Good is more than just "The Hat opposite Evil." It's not the Hat, it's what you do, and what lies at the core of your personality, that defines your alignment. Good characters can't go on genocidal killing sprees, because genocide doesn't demonstrate any regard for the lives of others. Good (and by that I mean real Good, as opposed to White Hat Good) is a difficult road to follow, which is why people are often quick to try and make it less noble, so that they can justify taking the easy road but still maintain their alignment. It doesn't work like that in D&D, which is why being a Paladin means not slaughtering every goblin you come across.
Even monsters in D&D with the "Always" alignment aren't all that alignment. Not all Demons are Chaotic Evil, though 99.99% are. But there are redeemed fiends and fallen angels, just like there are murderous Gold Dragons and civilized gnolls. Good believes that life is sacred, and will kill if need be, but would much rather convince an Evil creature to repent and change their ways. Good fights Evil by offering them a different colored Hat, rather than just defaulting to clubbing them over the head.
If a Lawful Good outsider felt that a horde of chaotic barbarians may prove a threat to the lawful good society of paladins down the way at some point, I would think it would first appear before the barbarians in peace, attempting to extol upon them the virtues of order and honor, as well as life and altruism. If it was unable to convert them, it may seek to undermine or redirect their potential damage, but it wouldn't just put them to the sword for being there and having Amazing Technicolor DreamHats on. Even Lawful Neutral outsiders wouldn't just do that, which is why I've been annoyed in general with the way that Formians and Slaadi are represented in 3.5 - I'm not a Planescape nut, but both of the Neutral outsider types seem to lean a bit more towards Evil than Good, though at least the Formians seem intent on mind control and such, rather than just murder. But that's a bit of a tangent...
|
|
In what way is a Chaotic culture (the original premise) reducing the ability of others to be Good? Even when talking about those who are Evil, where do you draw the line? At what point is a free-willed individual considered beyond redemption? What about those who are neither Good nor Evil? Are they deserving of death as well?
You draw the line at active behavior. If they are not being Lawful and Good they are doing it "wrong".
Redemption is not a mandatory external factor. It can be completely internal. By virtue of that free will the being has an inherent ability to recognize the choices. By continuing to choose to not be Lawful and Good (or whatever other combination) the being has rejected redemption.The key qualifier is not being Lawful and Good. Any other option is an active choice against the "right" way, and thus deserving of death.
D&D alignment is post modern. Show me where, in the author's definitions of the alignment system (going back to 1st Ed AD&D), the wholesale slaughter of Chaotics (not just the killing of Chaotic Evil demons who are killing mortals on the Prime) is an acceptable Lawful Good act.
It is not post-modern. It is old time, Old Testament, wrath of the divine.
You can check back to the Up On A Soapbox column where he discussed that Good is not stupid, and a Lawful Good ranger would never protect a wounded wyvern.Or, as I said, you could read the Gord books and see the behavior of Good aligned nations and beings in that.
Sophistry. If the threat is not imminent (on the timescale of the populations involved), you have many other methods to accomplish the task without killing people in job lots: education, diplomacy, espionage, etc. A Lawful Good individual should promote Law as well as Good, but as others have stated they cannot maintain a LG alignment while promoting Law (or even Good) by using questionable methods.
Those are half measures with no guarantee of success. A Lawful Good individual might try those. A Lawful Good outsider has no need, and will default to the most direct method possible. If those condemned see the folly of their ways as they are being destroyed and choose to repent then they have a chance at being saved.
And, once again, what has that got to do with the topic of this thread?Once again, if you do not understand how angels and other good outsiders will behave you cannot understand how to use them.
Problem is, that I don't agree with any of your opinions on that matter. And one could made the same reply to you. Or to anyone else.
|
|
Now, genocide really doesn't fit into that definition of Good, does it?
It does when dealing with fiends and their mortal worshipers.
Again, genocide has a tough time fitting into the whole 'speaks out against injustice and helps those in need' part of that. Note, not helps those in need only if they are Lawful Good and kills the rest.
What about from the PHB 3:
"A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."PHB 1:
While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of the the highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.
DMG 1:
Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degress of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater
number of decent thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.
Now, Sam, with reference to those descriptions, which are the in-game definitions of Good and Lawful Good, could you explain how genocide, especially of a non-evil, non-aggressive culture, fits into those character traits?
Let me see . . .
Fight without mercy, sacrifice certain freedoms, most benefit to decent thinking creatures, least woe (suffering and torment) to the rest.Yep. Killing all those Chaotic creatures as quickly as possible, sacrificing their lives without mercy, to bring order to the world, making it safer for the decent creatures, including any that repent among the Chaotic, fits perfectly with those descriptions.
There is more than enough room for the Harmonium on the Lawful Good planes.
Likewise the demi-humans of the Lortmil Mountains in the World of Greyhawk waged a genocidal war against the orcs and goblins until those races fled to the Pomarj, and there is no suggestion that the dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings spontaneously turned Evil as a result.
It's your oppinion, but not an objective truth.
If your players are okay with alignment handled that way, that's fine for them. But I see no sense in claiming that everyone else is simply not understanding how it works.
Now, genocide really doesn't fit into that definition of Good, does it?It does when dealing with fiends and their mortal worshipers.
But are the chaotic barbarians worshiping fiends? That wasn't an original part of the terms of the discussion, either. Fiend worship is likely not part of every chaotic barbarian tribe's day to day activities.
|
|
Now, genocide really doesn't fit into that definition of Good, does it?It does when dealing with fiends and their mortal worshipers.
Again, genocide has a tough time fitting into the whole 'speaks out against injustice and helps those in need' part of that. Note, not helps those in need only if they are Lawful Good and kills the rest.What about from the PHB 3:
"A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."PHB 1:
While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of the the highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.DMG 1:
Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degress of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater
number of decent thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.Now, Sam, with reference to those descriptions, which are the in-game definitions of Good and Lawful Good, could you explain how genocide, especially of a non-evil, non-aggressive culture, fits into those character traits?Let me see . . .
Fight without mercy, sacrifice certain freedoms, most benefit to decent thinking creatures, least woe (suffering and torment) to the rest.
Yep. Killing all those Chaotic creatures as quickly as possible, sacrificing their lives without mercy, to bring order to the world, making it safer for the decent creatures, including any that repent among the Chaotic, fits perfectly with those descriptions.There is more than enough room for the...
Sam,
Either you're stupid, which I know you're not, or you're being deliberately obtuse. However, one more time.The culture in question is not evil. Is that clear? Or are you going to bring in fiends, their mortal worshippers, goblins, orcs and other evil races again because you can't make your point on a chaotic neutral culture? NOT EVIL!! If you're going to keep changing parameters, there's no point continuing this.
|
|
Sam,
Either you're stupid, which I know you're not, or you're being deliberately obtuse. However, one more time.The culture in question is not evil. Is that clear? Or are you going to bring in fiends, their mortal worshippers, goblins, orcs and other evil races again because you can't make your point on a chaotic neutral culture? NOT EVIL!! If you're going to keep changing parameters, there's no point continuing this.
Obviously you are being aggressively obtuse Paul.
It does not matter.
The culture is not Lawful AND Good.
That makes it "wrong".
Period.
Focusing on the Good-Evil axis is a red herring. The Law-Chaos axis is just as critical to consider.
The only reason I mentioned fiends was to demonstrate just how easy it is to explode the statement that genocide was "never" possible.
I made the point quite simply and directly in regards to Chaotic cultures. "Order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good". I repeat, "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good". Without Law, no matter how you parse it, to a Lawful Good planar being you do not, by definition, have Good. You do not have Evil, that is true; and it is not Neutrality of course; but it is also not "really" Good.
That is reversed for a Chaotic Good planar being who will categorically reject the assertion that without freedom and chaos anything is "truly" Good. It is not. You may have some generally decent ideas, but you are constantly denying the true respect for life that defines Good within the parameters of Chaos, and so you really just do not qualify when push comes to shove.
And both are pale imitations to the Neutral Good planar being!
Again as well, alignment in D&D has physical manifestations, both of physical structure and various beings. A golden ball of Lawful Good is not a silver ball of Chaotic Good, no matter how much both are balls of precious metal.
In B5 terms:
"Green!"
"Purple!"
|
|
But are the chaotic barbarians worshiping fiends? That wasn't an original part of the terms of the discussion, either. Fiend worship is likely not part of every chaotic barbarian tribe's day to day activities.
It does not have to be.
Fiends are the "easy" refutation of the assertion that genocide cannot fit the definition of Good.Chaotic barbarians are a legitimate target because they reject Law, which is an integral part of the Lawful Good alignment. They do not have to be Evil, they just have to be non-Lawful, and that makes them non-Good as well.
"Good aligned creatures can never fight Good aligned creatures" is a false premise to assign to the alignment system.
It can be demonstrated incrementally by first considering Good vs Evil, then considering Good vs. Neutral, and finally considering Good vs Good, especially when you add in Law vs Chaos.
Which is the point I was trying to explain above. Sam's assertion is that alignment is a series of teams, all of whom are out to "beat" every other team in any way they can, because they're unable to live and let live for anything other than their team.
Once you understand that that's the direction he's coming from, it makes a lot more sense.
Though I decidedly don't agree with it, and don't agree that that's what D&D's alignment system represents, either.