I see the topic come up on various threads and often want to comment but it's generally a derail. Let's have a thread for alignment discussion. :)
To kick it off, here's my minimally verbose take on the polar alignments.
Good: Assist others...
Evil: Use others...
Law: ...as is proper.
Chaos: ...by whatever means.
As an aside, I generally allow LE but disallow CN for my players.
In keeping with your verbosity:
Good: Selfless
Evil: Selfish
Lawful: Serve society
Chaos: Individual freedom
Neutral: All are important (as opposed to none are important)
Right, LE and even NE can be extremely non-disruptive, IMHO. (+ intelligent & charismatic CE?)
Being a homicidal maniac is not a requirement of those alignments - "Playing along" with goody two shoes can be a completely valid approach for personal-power orientated characters to pursue that goal.
And in actual game-play, there's many officially "Good" characters who's main goal is in reality personal power and wealth enhancement - the fact they don't kill or loot "Good" people or "Innocents" is not particularly more a true indicator of "Goodness" vs. a simple judgement that outwardly following norms and not choosing to ally with unstable pathologically Evil monsters/NPCs (an attitude of racial supremacism would exclude a large chunk of those anyways) is the best/safest path to that outcome. If looting the corpses of evil schmucks doesn't land them in any trouble (and IMPROVES their image in the eyes of the good schmucks), and there doesn't seem to be any lack of evil schmucks to profit off of, why bother getting a bad rep by targetting 'innocents'? As I see it, an Evil being of intelligence (and who has options) would NOT necessarily be inclined to hang around/associate exclusively with other Evil characters (who'd trust 'em?) as long as they are able to conceal their true motivations from Good companions.
And more specific to Paizo's take on it:
Evil also tends to have a correlation with specific "Sins" (and Good with Virtues)
"NEXT ON SAINT OR PSYCHO...
True Neutral: Only for eco-nutjobs or sometimes you just don't give a $%!#!?!?
|
In my experience, TN and CN never mean that that PLAYER Character views them all as important as much as either the player doesn't want to play with any morals, (that is restrictions), or because Law, Good, Evil, and Chaos are not important to them, thought chaos and evil sound cool.
I really do not like LN, TN, & CN. LN is the only one I've ever seen played well (not in an attempt to bypass alignment or screw other players fun), except in Dragonlance were those alignments still actually mean balance and require just as much moral issue as Good. Most of my issues with morally Neutral don't apply to LN, which I half like and can actually believe.
I've heard stories of other trying to vindicate CN and TN in particualr, but honestly never one that couldn't be done with a Good or Evil alignment better.
Good alignments kind or require the player to bring something to the table. They believe and act a certain way and are more realistic (than Neutral). Evil requires the player to play smart and act appropriatly to the group and the society they live in. Neutral,. . . don't. "Because I'm Neutral".
I allow LE and NE, but not so much CE. Partially for the inherent abuse it almost always brings and partially to keep it for good use with NPCs. CE is pretty much everyones enemy.
Right, LE and even NE can be extremely non-disruptive, IMHO. (+ intelligent & charismatic CE?) ... As I see it, an Evil being of intelligence (and who has options) would NOT necessarily be inclined to hang around/associate exclusively with other Evil characters (who'd trust 'em?) as long as they are able to conceal their true motivations from Good companions.
Right! I've had a character who I really want to run as a player and haven't yet convinced another GM to allow: a sadistic psychopath, probably CE (NE would be a stretch); but clear-headed and observant enough to see that the good guys hunt people like him, and there's no shortage of good guys, and he prefers to keep himself among the living. So he gets his jollies from gnolls and goblins.
Edit: mainly in reply to Beckett, let me quote Mr. Geddes:
Neutral: All are important (as opposed to none are important)
This is the way to make neutral work well: not "I don't care," but "I'm torn between."
|
|
I agree that LE and NE evil can also be pretty non-disruptive.
It really depends on the maturity of the player, the group, and how the other players deal with metagame knowledge.
Now if they go around in black spiked armor with dead babies still impaled slaughtering commoners for fun, that's a different story. But look at Jayne from firefly/serenity. I'd say its fair to say NE working (mostly) fine with mostly good party. He betrays the party once before realizing it was a bad move, for his own reasons, not mroal issues.
I hate Alignments. They give me a headache.
|
Our worst experiences in play have been with LG and CN. We haven't use nearly as much evil, but the few times we've had LE types, they've been more team-oriented and 'played better with others' than the CG types!
I'm wary of players who seem excited to play CE or NE, since, along with CN and LG, they make the best 'excuse' alignments used after the fact to justify being a dick to other players.
I don't really think that the alignments themselves are a huge problem, it's just that certain alignments seem to be catnip to players who are, 1) on a power trip and want to boss the rest of the party around (LG), 2) want to go nuts and attack everyone and then hide behind their alignment as an excuse (CN, CE, NE).
My own personal favorites are NG, CG, N, LN and LE, unsurprisingly, and even my evil and neutral characters tend to 'play well with others' and take risks to save allies (since cooperation in a game based around encounters that can challenge four people of your power level is not just a good idea, it's really the only sane option!).
My group has always had players develop beliefs. Even CN characters believe in something, have certain goals. If you ask the player to work that out ahead of time, it lends itself well to roleplay even with things like CN alignments. I have always viewed CN for instance, not as a 'do whatever I want' alignment, but instead as someone who has no respect for authority, and measures every situation individually (as opposed to the LG paladins black and white view of the world).
I have really enjoyed playing LE or NE characters, as it is an interesting dynamic in the party. It doesn't work if there is a lawful stupid paladin in the party, but it can work otherwise. I remember one campaign I ran where one of my players was a LE ranger rogue mix, that was actually a serial killer. He had a code about who he would kill (mostly people who offended or attacked him). It was years ago, but it now retroactively reminds me of the show Dexter, since he was working with the good guys, and often worked to steer the party away from his latest kill by pointing them at 'bigger' problems. It made for some great roleplay moments, and also some interesting uses for skills and abilities in ways not normally used. (What kind of check is it to eliminate evidence of a murder for instance?).
Our worst experiences in play have been with LG and CN.
One of the rules at my table is that the alignments
- Lawful Stupid (LG) -- the "kill everything that's chaotic or evil" paladin
- Chaotic Stupid (CN) -- the "I'm CN so I'm a psycopath and can do anything without alignment repurcussions" character
- True Stupid (TN) -- the "I enforce the balance, so as soon as the party starts to win over the bad guys I swap sides!" character
are banned and any character acting in a manner consistent with such an alignment will be subject to bombardment by Orbital Bovine Launcher until dead.
Personally, I tend to ignore the Paladin's "May only associate with X alignment" rule; a Paladin attempting to reform a Chaotic Evil character could be an interesting in-party dynamic - especially if the evil character wants to change but doesn't see how it's possible.
For starters, you'll be happy to know that there is no longer any such rule. :) This text is separate from Code of Conduct:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Second, the pre-generated party in the back of The Bastards of Erebus (first episode in the Council of Thieves AP) includes both a paladin and an evil half-elf, with a specific note that the former is working to bring the latter around to her way of thinking. So yep, that's explicitly condoned hereabouts. :)
This is the best alignment thread I've seen so far I think :-)
Anyhow, about the whole 7 Sins/Virtues things
(I don't see the problem with Lust personally... :-) )
One way to look at characters' overall alignment is as simply the average of their balance on each of the 7 scales, "Neutrality" between a given Sin and Virtue also an option (as well as varying degrees of inclination one way or the other). So as long as you are OVERALL more Virtuous than Sinful, you are "Good" (though if you are close enough to Neutral, it'd probably be more the classic "Neutral with Good Tendencies"). That's just for NORMAL Alignment.
For Paladins, they pretty much need to stay Virtuous in EVERY category, not just "over-all".
Likewise, it would make sense for Clerics that their Deities might care especially only about one or two certain categories (in terms of following the Diety's ideals to continue receiving their powers). So a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon could for general purposes be a great kind of guy, generous, loving, etc... just with a dark side (and his overall balance should be at most Neutral).
For Paladins, they pretty much need to stay Virtuous in EVERY category, not just "over-all".
D&D: the Ultima Edition!
:P
You could probably classify every PC that's ever existed as any of the nine alignments.True, hence the interminable 'What alignment is Batman / James Bond / Luke Skywalker / Malcolm Reynolds' threads that show up from time to time, that end up covering every alignment under the sun.
Unlike that dirty dirty CN Luke Skywalker...
Like father, like son! And then there's Yoda, the runty LN bastard...
Incidentally I think Batman one of the best examples of true neutral out there. He hunts evil and takes pride in protecting the innocent, but is motivated primarily by selfish vengeance (and no corporation gets that big and profitable without cutthroat practices). His own methods are entirely criminal, but he tries to keep 'em alive and fit for trial and incarceration (not because it's the Right Way, but because the spectacle has a desirable effect on other would-be thugs). In short, he holds ideals, but only when they don't get in the way of solutions.
Alignment is one of the vestigial limbs of D&D/PF which I think should go onto the heap along with Vancian magic and armor making you harder to hit.
I generally play TN characters only because I feel that no other alignment describes them adequately. TN to me just means that you have goals, aspirations, and personality that doesn't fit into rigidly ascribed lines and may act accordingly in any situation. I think most people in the real world fit into this. Most people like to live in an ordered society and would rather take the moral high ground, but in a situation where their wellbeing depends on doing something questionable they will rationalize that questionable act so they don't have to think of themselves in a harsher light.
In real life there is far more grey than there is black or white in any situation, and I like my characters (as well as fiction I read and write and the world I run) to reflect this. I suppose in this sense I prefer the "alignmentless" option of 4e.
That's why I think looking at over-all alignment score as the "average" of their proclivities in more specific areas is a more useful approach, rather than treating the 1 of 9 alignment combinations as by itself prescriptive for all moral questions a character may encounter.
Like measuring the average income of a given country doesn't tell you if the whole population is equally moderately successful, or if there is a handful of ultra-rich families with the rest barely feeding themselves. Or measuring statistics for car-robberies: A given number of car robberies might be committed by a dozen or so small-time gangs, or one guy could just be REALLY REALLY good at stealing cars and not getting caught.
A "Lawful Good" character could respect and follow laws/institutions to the hilt, except they have no loyalty to companions or never finish a job. Or vice-versa. Seeing over-all alignment as the CLOSEST fit (of 9) for their over-all personality, instead of a straight-jacket that EVERY action of theirs must meet 100% seems more realistic and more fun.
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!
What alignment should I play? I want a character that kills creatures, then takes their stuff. :)
Seriously, excelent post Juno, I agree completely.
Also as stated several time all alignments should be used as a tool for role-playing a character, not a staitjacket for the player.
Having an alignment system just lets the player get into the character, so the player does not have to think "What would I do in this situation?" it is one more tool to allow the player to think "What would Tiera Spellsword do in this situation?"
|
|
A red dragon is an evil outsider. A kobold is a sentient reptilian who will most likely be evil, but not necessarily. Killing them for no good reason is still murder. Self defence is, of course, a perfectly good reason.Fair enough. Replace "Imp" with "Red Dragon".
I did, it doesn't work. A red dragon is not an evil outsider. :D
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.
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
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 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
The big 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 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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Um, isn't this splitting hairs? CAN I go to the bathroom vs MAY I go? By "bad" he means "evil", obviously.
No, it's really not. Bad/wrong and evil are two very distinct concepts that need to be kept distinct if you're going to discuss alignment in an authoritative manner. Evil is not the same as wrong. Good is not the same as right. Sometimes, the Good (in the moral sense) thing to do is still the wrong thing to do, and vice versa. That is important to understand if you want to understand alignments.
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?
In this most jury-rigged situation the ‘true’ paladin will not hesitate to produce the right answer.
He/she will let the child live and take that 1% chance of an alternative ending…and should the worst come it will be a simple matter of what to do then. After all you said it yourself:
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.
Bolded for emphasis. By the time the child becomes able to commit such evils the child wont be a ‘child’ anymore, he/she will be an adult and thus fully responsible for their actions (in which case it will end with a volley of Smite!).