Easy or reasonable faith should really be faith ?I'm sorry, I don't follow.
Because he deliberately confuzzles his grammar.
I think he was saying "Should a faith worth following be easy or reasonable?"
If a bear can hash this stuff out, a Karman should be able to! =P
Your tank is BS, btw.
|
But they get back up because they think there's a point to doing it. The point is often that you learn not to fall, at least not that way and probably not easily other ways. From what I'm hearing the Pathfinder APs don't provide that lesson as you're just going to be made to fall again. If falling's inevitable all you learn is that getting back up is useless.
The point is that there is no point. Falling and getting up is a matter of faith. Having faith in good, having faith in justice, having faith in freedom, having faith in evil. There is no point in any of that.
Of course those things give mighty powers and etc. But none are winning anything anyway, so why care ? Keeping faith in doing good (or any other thing you believe) is the only justification someone need to try even if it means sometimes falling. To the faithful failing is to quit, even if it´s not her fault.
Because he deliberately confuzzles his grammar.Sorry. Actually i learned english by watching movies and reading 80´s RPG books, so my grammar is very flawed. If it becomes really annoying, i ´ll keep to myself.
Not at all! I was poking a bit of fun, not trying to silence you. And I apologize, I thought you were RPing (something a lot of people on these boards do) I didn't realize English wasn't your first language.
|
|
But if the only option is to go against that it shows that the opposite force is stronger or more necessary. If evil is more necessary than good then what use is good?
As if evil don´t do good things for their own interests. A Evil cleric who heal the sick to gain their trust to tempt them to evil later is raising to good side ? A evil warrior who is tricked into killing a invading army of orcs in his daily bloodbath sacrifices is worth of paladinhood ?
Given these premises, i would say that is even harder to be evil than good, because you have to eventually help the next to live in society.
While I love Paizo and their invention of the Adventure Path, I've noticed a trend in almost all the Adventure Paths (even those from Dragon Magazine) published so far. From Cauldron to the Council of Thieves it seems like you have to do something evil to win. Or more likely make a deal with an evil entity to gain an advantage. This is seriously getting kind of repetitive.
Paizo thinks that a)evil is cool and b)PCs must be regularly reminded how insignificant they are, therefore they must be forced into moral compromises. Had you only noticed that now?
Also, you missed Age of Worms. In there you pretty much must suck up to an evil prince, and then to Big Bad's chief lieutenant. (Although their dickery and obvious duplicity, respectively, is such, that PCs of evil alignment will be even more inclined to attempt smiting them on the spot and then interrogating their spirits, if necessary.)
|
|
But in a grand scheme hasn't that Evil shown that being Good gets them something? They may be trying to use it to do Evil, but they are showing the power of Good.
Ok, "Asmodeus is a good fellow, he healed my daughter. So it´s ok to pray for him and smite the enemies of my new faith."
Good can be used for evil, and evil can be used for good. Good can be tempted, is true. but evil an be redeemed also.
I don't really consider killing to be Good in any sense, so this is a bad example for me.
Sorry, forgot to say that the evil orcs were charging to raze a orphanage full of little children. Adventurers kill evil all the time, and in some cultures it can be seen as an act of mercy (so the soul is free to be reborn as something not corrupted by the actual flesh).
Ultimately my argument is about which side is more useful. If being Good gets a person more desired results they will be Good. If being Evil then Evil they will be. So if Evil gets the better — and by the statements I've seen here only — results in the Adventure Paths then Evil is what will be learned and win.
My argument is that everyone will do evil acts and good acts anyway. So what the person truly believes (or have faith into) is what really matters, as good and evil don´t have point anyway (neutrality and balance rulez !!).
Good and evil are at war, if in the APs evil plays dirty and make himself useful, good shouldn´t be crybabies and accept as adults that he can´t win everytime and strife to make amends later.
Villains get boring if all they do is be villains.
On the contrary. All the best and most iconic villains in fantasy were/are irredeemable monsters (often literally).
Giving the PCs an opportunity to interact with bad guys in things other than combats is something that Paizo adventures have always had an element of.
This statement does not follow from the previous one. The fact that other characters did interact with Saruman or Steerpike doesn't mean that either of them weren't rotten to the core.
By the same token, we often make our good guys have flaws or elements that might make them not the perfect ally. It's all about giving dimension to characters, be they friend or foe or friend who becomes a foe or foe who becomes a friend.
Once the character starts doing things that can make The Joker queasy (yes, worshippers of Pinhea... er, Zon-Kuthon, I'm looking at you), no one cares about dimensions, in the unlikely event said character can believably have any.
And setting up situations where the PCs have to choose between the lesser of two evils helps to model the fact that there are degrees of evil and degrees of good. And finally... what's the point of trying to be a virtuous soul filled with good if there's not evil to tempt you? How will you know you're TRULY good if you don't have evil to tempt you with and then prove yourself the better by avoiding it?
For this to be true, APs should give PCs the chance to avoid striking the deals with evil. Which they not always do. In Savage Tide you need to completely scrap all of the endgame adventures, if you believe that heroes aren't supposed to bargain with demons, but destroy them. Age of Worms is even worse, because there are no indications whatsoever, that PCs can't just toast Zeech after first visiting Redhand (Erinies? Puh-leeease, PCs are level 15th!), for being an evil tyrant and/or a bad host. Yet if they try, they'll get eaten by a vampire dragon and her demonic horde. In Rise of the Runelords PCs are pretty much shafted if they decide that the magic of Sihedron is not something worth resorting to - they can work around it by twinking their characters some more, but AP still punishes PCs for a genre-appropriate decision. In Second Darkness you must relax and enjoy it, while at least two capital-E Evil characters tell you what a loser you are, and there is not a lot you can do about that, besiders pointlessly dying, because said characters have Bigger CR Than You. And those are only the most obvious examples.
When you get right down to it... the bad guys are usually more interesting than the good guys is all.
Only under the bad writers.
That vampire dragon and her horde certainly didn't menace my party that much.
In fact, I've never had a character that was afraid to do what he saw as right, doesn't matter if it looks hopeless. I'd say that's what makes a real hero (regardless of alignment or the methods they favor) - the willingness to protect their ideals at the cost of their lives.
Anyway, let's flip this on its head. Why does nearly every single module ever made require you to deal or aid "the angels". Why do so many modules expect good deeds? Good is one third of the possible options for alignment, but most modules imply that to move forward you have to favor dealings with it. I say we only ever interact with Neutral NPCs. It will keep all our feathers unruffled.
When you get right down to it... the bad guys are usually more interesting than the good guys is all.Only under the bad writers.
You are being dramatically unfair. He is not the first, successful, published writer to state that.
Even if you don't agree with his point, see my next comment.
By the same token, we often make our good guys have flaws or elements that might make them not the perfect ally. It's all about giving dimension to characters, be they friend or foe or friend who becomes a foe or foe who becomes a friend.Once the character starts doing things that can make The Joker queasy (yes, worshippers of Pinhea... er, Zon-Kuthon, I'm looking at you), no one cares about dimensions, in the unlikely event said character can believably have any.
But, if the good aligned NPCs were as interresting/brave/resourceful as the heroes, they would be the heroes. That role is reserved for the Players. I have played in a couple of campaigns were the NPCs ended up being more important then the PCs. I didn't like it very much.
As to priests of Zon-Kuthon doing things to themselves making them unbelievable to you.
Villains get boring if all they do is be villains.On the contrary. All the best and most iconic villains in fantasy were/are irredeemable monsters (often literally).
Really? Most of the interresting and iconic villains where individuals first, and villains second.
And, to pick on one of your other examples, have you read Alan Moore's "Batman: The Killing Joke." Giving the Joker depth and non-evil characteristics does not make him any less evil, but it does make the character more interresting.I did. The Joker isn't any "deeper" for having a history before being a serial killer, and the moral of that story is that having a reason for becoming an amoral sociopath is not a justification for being an amoral sociopath.
His history before becoming a psychopath does make him both deeper and more interresting. No, I do not claim that it makes what he does justified in any way.
In fact, three of your four villains (and arguably all four) were utter blackguards who had sympathetic backstories retconned in because they were popular. Authors Spikeify their villains all the time, but that doesn't mean that the villains were popular because they were Spikeified. Rather, the process goes in reverse.I disagree with that point to.
Rowling had Voldemort's backstory planned from the start of her series.
Saruman would not have been given his position as head of the wizard's order if he had been a villain at the start of his story.
I do conceed that the Lucas should never have made the "prequil" trilogy. If anything it weakened Darth Vader's character.
|
And, to pick on one of your other examples, have you read Alan Moore's "Batman: The Killing Joke." Giving the Joker depth and non-evil characteristics does not make him any less evil, but it does make the character more interresting.I did. The Joker isn't any "deeper" for having a history before being a serial killer, and the moral of that story is that having a reason for becoming an amoral sociopath is not a justification for being an amoral sociopath.
In fact, three of your four villains (and arguably all four) were utter blackguards who had sympathetic backstories retconned in because they were popular. Authors Spikeify their villains all the time, but that doesn't mean that the villains were popular because they were Spikeified. Rather, the process goes in reverse.
I'm not commenting on the APs because I don't know them too well, but any argument that rests on the idea that the Joker is sympathetic is on pretty thin ice.
If this is the direction of this discussion, then good/evil is just a lame plot device. There is a protagonist, there is an antagonist. They oppose each other. Lets see who wins.
And, to pick on one of your other examples, have you read Alan Moore's "Batman: The Killing Joke." Giving the Joker depth and non-evil characteristics does not make him any less evil, but it does make the character more interresting.I did. The Joker isn't any "deeper" for having a history before being a serial killer, and the moral of that story is that having a reason for becoming an amoral sociopath is not a justification for being an amoral sociopath.
In fact, three of your four villains (and arguably all four) were utter blackguards who had sympathetic backstories retconned in because they were popular. Authors Spikeify their villains all the time, but that doesn't mean that the villains were popular because they were Spikeified. Rather, the process goes in reverse.
I'm not commenting on the APs because I don't know them too well, but any argument that rests on the idea that the Joker is sympathetic is on pretty thin ice.
As far as the point he was trying to make, might I suggest that Dr. Doom would fit it a little better?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The Joker is not sympathetic. Jack is sympathetic. If anything the Joker is more horrifying because of what he was.
The fallen hero is one we should feel for, but for the grace of God and all that.
A couple of tangents.
Remember the Dr. Who Episode, Doomsday? The head of Torchwood one, Yvonne Hartman, even when converted still did her duty for queen and country. Lisa (from the 'cyberwoman' episode in Torchwood) was not able to hold on to her love for Ianto to avoid being evil, both are sympathetic. Lisa because we would hope something of us would survive but fear that we'd end up like her, Yvonne, because on some levels, she 'fell' (like the Deva/Erinyes link) but also rose in that she found her way, if not back to the light, to at least not wholely the darkness.
Back in Burnt offerings...
In CotCT
In LoF
So there are pleanty of chances for redemption/heroism/doing the right thing, as much as siding with the devil.
You are being dramatically unfair. He is not the first, successful, published writer to state that.
Considering, what sort of books can give you a considerable success these days, this doesn't say anything. Sort of a low blow, but: "Eragon" is a commercial success, yet I'll die a thousand deaths before agreeing that Paolini is a good writer.
But, if the good aligned NPCs were as interresting/brave/resourceful as the heroes, they would be the heroes. That role is reserved for the Players. I have played in a couple of campaigns were the NPCs ended up being more important then the PCs. I didn't like it very much.
Don't know why you're saying this in response to me, but, just as a note, this is a false dilemma. Good NPCs don't be as cool and resourceful as PCs, to still be cool and make themselves helpful.
As to priests of Zon-Kuthon doing things to themselves making them unbelievable to you.
I'm more concerned about things they do to others. Also your RL analogues are meaningless, because, first, I, in RL, don't have power to go hunt some nutjob terrorists before the breakfast or otherwise scourge things I hate from the world. My DnD characters are supposed to eventually have it. And second, in RL we don't have forces of objective, quantified supernatural evil, literally made of desires to dominate or cause suffering, that grant actual black magic to their mortal followers. Your notion that a self-admitted Cenobite wannabe needs to do something in the presence of PCs to make herself untrustworthy is mind-boggling. By definition, offing her is as much of a moral duty for anyone with a shred of human decency as offing a known and self-admitted serial killer.
(As a side note, total genocide of races that are proven to be irredeemably evil is a moral duty of anyone, with both compassion and knowledge about the workings of most DnD universes, as well. Not only they cannot help but threaten others, they are literally born already doomed for ages of suffering in Hell/Abyss. Making, say, Golarion ogres cease to exist is the most merciful thing you can do to them. That's why I stay clear of always Evil mortal races in my games.)
# Anikan Skywalker could easily have been a hero if not for the Jedi Council already being so badly screwed up.
BS. He chose his damnation himself, with Jedi Council being guilty mostly of being too lenient with him. Primarily, he could have avoided the fall by, you know, not being a possessive dick, and asking Padme what she thinks about the whole deal.
# Even Tom Riddle could have been different, had he not be taught from a very early age to hate is half-blood status.
He has a single blink-and-you-miss-it moment in 7 books demonstrating the remote possibility of him not becoming the superpowered serial killer. In the present, he pretty much spends all of his pagecount raping dogs and refuses repeated offers of redemption. That almost all villains weren't born evil, doesn't yet automatically make them gray. Even tragic backstories not necessarily excuse them in any way (explain, yes, excuse - not always).
I believe A Man In Black already covered Saruman and Joker.
Sometimes these forums are Bizarro land. How often do you have to justify the claim that Saruman and the Joker are irredeemable monsters?
I'm not certain it's possible to justify that claim unless you created the characters. Redemption is typically available to anyone, it's the level of difficulty or interest that varies.
|
|
Now now. i don´t see people judging gods and religions by their entry in the books. Golarion have no notion of a one god who says what is right and what is not. Every god who exist have a cosmo function, sub-facets and many sects and religions. Just as there are atheist, there should be heretical good followers of Zon-Kuthon, who believes that following the god of pain will wash the sins of their souls or something alike.
If every god can have a neutral cleric, there should be clerics of evil gods doing good acts sometimes (and clerics of good gods doing evil).
So even if someone does follow an evil god and be evil, isn´t the same as "kill him now" status, as he can be convinced to be more neutral and attain a diplomatic victory.
If the good gods demand immediate slaying of followers of evil gods wouldn´t we know that ? (It happened in our world, but not there everywhere).
I still believe that a good guy can act side by side with a evil guy to do a good thing and hope that the evil guy be inspired to change.
Why only good is wrong siding with evil ? Why the villains don´t get punished for siding with the good guys also ?
I'm going to toss in a bit of RL religious talk for a second, I ask that you bear with me and don't start reacting knee-jerk style, I'm just using it as a lead in, take a deep breath and be calm.
A few years back, I think Harry Potter was still big then, I happened to be listening to a christian radio station (did a lot of driving, same old music was boring, NPR was playing nothing but classical music,...). The host was asking this guest, what type of books they thought good christians should be reading (see the Harry Potter mention).
The guest made a point, that I would have agreed with, even if I hadn't been a christian. The point was that people should read and support stories where people succeed by being good people. Stories where things might be hard and tough times occur, but if the characters act in good fashions, that they can succeed in the end. That being good is ultimately successful. Reading and supporting stories where doing bad things is rewarded and causes one to ultimately be successful is not a good type of story to fill one's head with (see discussions of torture and 24 all over the place).
So my thought is, are the stories ultimately rewarding people for playing "good" (not necessarily Good) characters, or are they rewarding people for playing characters quite happy to do really awful things. And what type of person do you ultimately want to promote. Sure playing the bad guys can be fun (from time to time), but is that ultimately the type of person you feel you are. That glorifies the bad guys winning? As a DM, I like the bad guys that I run to lose, they are not the heroes, they are there as the foil for the heroes.
I didn't read the whole 200+ posts, but put me in the camp that thinks the APs are okay... but it would be nice if a sidebar existed listing some options for an Exalted group to finish the AP without succumbing to temptation.
I loved the Book of Exalted Deeds, just because it discussed the difference between good and Good, and how to handle players and characters who were the latter.
|
While I love Paizo and their invention of the Adventure Path, I've noticed a trend in almost all the Adventure Paths (even those from Dragon Magazine) published so far. From Cauldron to the Council of Thieves it seems like you have to do something evil to win. Or more likely make a deal with an evil entity to gain an advantage. This is seriously getting kind of repetitive.
Examples:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
So what happens if the players simply don't?
|
Take the evil path you mean? Well as I stated in my original post, it's not that they're encouraged to take the evil path, it's that the PC's will not get the stated advantages (information, magic items, or troops) unless they ally or make deals with minor villains. My main complaint wasn't that it was in there at all, but that it kept cropping up every AP. That and there weren't any provisions if the PC's didn't want to make that choice.
On another note, perusing "The Twice Damned Prince" I spy another "I'm not Evil I'm Neutral" character.
|
|
Take the evil path you mean? Well as I stated in my original post, it's not that they're encouraged to take the evil path, it's that the PC's will not get the stated advantages (information, magic items, or troops) unless they ally or make deals with minor villains. My main complaint wasn't that it was in there at all, but that it kept cropping up every AP. That and there weren't any provisions if the PC's didn't want to make that choice.
On another note, perusing "The Twice Damned Prince" I spy another "I'm not Evil I'm Neutral" character.
** spoiler omitted **
i could see the arguement that abberatins are a funny lot and might not fully understand the remifications of thier actions having an alien mindset, but...
I think your right, sounds NE to me.
you're on pretty safe ground describing a character as irredeemable.
Unless you're Buddhist or a (rare) practicing Christian.
Irredeemable is a term best applied to situations, work, and coupons.
I've seen characters switch things up at the sixth or seventh or etc. chance to redeem themselves. It's not about whether they have the opportunity but the motivation. It's certainly true that most villains are never redeemed but whether it's an impossibility is something that only they would know the answer to.
stuff
It will be a shame to remove all tragedies from the library.
i could see the arguement that abberatins are a funny lot and might not fully understand the remifications of thier actions having an alien mindset, but...
I think your right, sounds NE to me.
I believe that's actually the issue. Aberrations in general and PF aberrations especially owe a great deal to Lovecraft. Their thoughts are supposed to be as alien to us as those of a microbe (if they could be considered thinking beings) and trying to hang our morals on them is just going to fail.
All of which makes me kind of miss Aberrant. I've got to get those books back.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Take the evil path you mean? Well as I stated in my original post, it's not that they're encouraged to take the evil path, it's that the PC's will not get the stated advantages (information, magic items, or troops) unless they ally or make deals with minor villains. My main complaint wasn't that it was in there at all, but that it kept cropping up every AP. That and there weren't any provisions if the PC's didn't want to make that choice.
On another note, perusing "The Twice Damned Prince" I spy another "I'm not Evil I'm Neutral" character.
** spoiler omitted **
i could see the arguement that abberatins are a funny lot and might not fully understand the remifications of thier actions having an alien mindset, but...
I think your right, sounds NE to me.
Interesting. My PDF of the Bestiary lists the type as 'monstrous humanoid' and then clicking the hyperlink takes me to abberation. Centaurs are also monstrous humanoids, but their link takes me to monstrous humaniod. Did the spoiler change type in Pathfinder?
|
|
Interesting. My PDF of the Bestiary lists the type as 'monstrous humanoid' and then clicking the hyperlink takes me to abberation. Centaurs are also monstrous humanoids, but their link takes me to monstrous humaniod. Did the spoiler change type in Pathfinder?Take the evil path you mean? Well as I stated in my original post, it's not that they're encouraged to take the evil path, it's that the PC's will not get the stated advantages (information, magic items, or troops) unless they ally or make deals with minor villains. My main complaint wasn't that it was in there at all, but that it kept cropping up every AP. That and there weren't any provisions if the PC's didn't want to make that choice.
On another note, perusing "The Twice Damned Prince" I spy another "I'm not Evil I'm Neutral" character.
** spoiler omitted **
i could see the arguement that abberatins are a funny lot and might not fully understand the remifications of thier actions having an alien mindset, but...
I think your right, sounds NE to me.
You know, I was going off memory, so I could have been thinking of the old 3.5 rules. I honestly don't know if the monster mentioned in the spoiler is typo'ed or not.
stuffIt will be a shame to remove all tragedies from the library.
All, yes, that would be a shame. But if all the stories in the library were tragedies, that would also be a shame.
[
I do conceed that the Lucas should never have made the "prequil" trilogy. If anything it weakened Darth Vader's character.
And as a minor nitpick. Yes, I know, hating PT is trendy, but the sympathetic backstory was retconned in for Vader in Eps V-VI.
Creative Director
|
Take the evil path you mean? Well as I stated in my original post, it's not that they're encouraged to take the evil path, it's that the PC's will not get the stated advantages (information, magic items, or troops) unless they ally or make deals with minor villains. My main complaint wasn't that it was in there at all, but that it kept cropping up every AP. That and there weren't any provisions if the PC's didn't want to make that choice.
On another note, perusing "The Twice Damned Prince" I spy another "I'm not Evil I'm Neutral" character.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah... that's a typo. The "spoiler" should indeed be neutral evil.
Now now. i don´t see people judging gods and religions by their entry in the books. Golarion have no notion of a one god who says what is right and what is not.
Except, what is right and what is not is hardcoded in the very fabric of the universe. And even if we, for a moment, imagine that alignments are mere labels, it is g#$!*!n clear, that people who decided to associate themselves with E-label (or were born with it) get to be sodomized by local equivalents of Satan for ages after their death, and people who decide to associate themselves with G-label get to chill out in Heaven. Therefore we know with absolute, unshakeable certainty, that driving mortals to accepting E-label is the most horrible thing one can do to them without high-level magic. And therefore we know with equal certainty that any proponents and prozelitizers of E-label are objectively worse than Ted Bundy and Hitler (combined). And therefore, unless you're total callous douchebag, or too low-level to check firsthand how the universe works, smiting them is imperative, and the situations where you are forced to cooperate with them should be totally galling. Anything else violates suspension of disbelief massively. (And, inversely, no mid-to-high level follower of Evil can possibly entertain any illusions about his own utter monstrosity).
I still believe that a good guy can act side by side with a evil guy to do a good thing and hope that the evil guy be inspired to change.
A worthy goal, but often not very realistic in the world where a lot of beings are wired to be evil. By the way, that's another reason why I'm against "Always Evil" mortal races.
Why only good is wrong siding with evil ? Why the villains don´t get punished for siding with the good guys also ?
Being able to use any means to achieve their ends is one of the perks of being a villain.
All, yes, that would be a shame. But if all the stories in the library were tragedies, that would also be a shame.
It certainly would. Good thing no one advocates that just like no one advocates abandoning good characters altogether.
Except, what is right and what is not is hardcoded in the very fabric of the universe.
That we might prefer one side of the spectrum over the other does not preclude other points of view. Right and wrong aren't hard-coded. They're values assigned to points on the spectrum. Wouldn't you at least agree that a NE character would feel that it is wrong to prevent them from getting what they want?
"I'm against "Always Evil" mortal races"
Agreed.
And as a minor nitpick. Yes, I know, hating PT is trendy, but the sympathetic backstory was retconned in for Vader in Eps V-VI.[
I do conceed that the Lucas should never have made the "prequil" trilogy. If anything it weakened Darth Vader's character.
I am not sure it was a "retcon" but, this is true.
The core elements of the prequil were "foreshadowed" in Episode VI.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Except, what is right and what is not is hardcoded in the very fabric of the universe.That we might prefer one side of the spectrum over the other does not preclude other points of view. Right and wrong aren't hard-coded. They're values assigned to points on the spectrum. Wouldn't you at least agree that a NE character would feel that it is wrong to prevent them from getting what they want?
"I'm against "Always Evil" mortal races"
Agreed.
I've been through way too many alignment debates to dive into the deep end, but I'll just say this: "right" and "wrong" are NOT hard-coded into the universe in D&D. "good" and "evil" (and "law" and "chaos") ARE.
A demon or devil (or any other nominally evil creature) is absolutely free to believe what they do is "right" and for the greater "good" from their perspective.
The catch is that their alignment isn't determined by their perspective. It's also not determined by the perspective, opinions, culture, traditions, or point of view of angels, eladrin, guardinals, humans, elves, dwarves, drow, duergar, modrons, proteans, inevitables, slaadi, flumphs, xvarts, norkers, nilbogs, nonafels, nycadaemons, or protein polymorphs.
It's determined by how they align with the objectively, universally defined D&D game cosmological facts of what constitutes "good" and "evil." You can say it's decided by the gods, by the proto-creator that predated the gods, by the primal sentience of the universe itself, or just by the DM. The relevant point is that, in D&D, what is good and evil is defined by the game. Social relativism is a moot point. What someone calls themselves is a moot point. Philosophical arguing about the nature of good and evil itself is a moot point, because from the game's perspective the argument has already been decided.
Good is this.
Evil is that.
A good creature can think themselves to be "evil" (in the common, real-world sense) and an evil creature can think themselves to be "good" (in the common, real-world sense), but in D&D they are either:
1. Wrong;
2. Lying;
3. Delusional/insane; or,
4. Just being emo and full of teen angst.
In the real world, we debate what's good and what's evil (or even if those concepts exist). In D&D, the existence of good and evil and what they mean is spelled out in the rules. The fictive creatures that exist within those rules don't have any say in the matter; we, the game-players, have already decided the issue for them. It's our world; they're just living in it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It certainly would. Good thing no one advocates that just like no one advocates abandoning good characters altogether.
All, yes, that would be a shame. But if all the stories in the library were tragedies, that would also be a shame.
Actually... some people do seem to advocate that, in the implied message of "these adventures are grim and gritty and you should just learn to like them, because every AP has been this way and every AP in the future should also be this way."
Some people are simply advocating that, as a change of pace, an adventure path might be created where PCs did not have strong encouragement (if not a pseudo-requirement) to ally themselves with the forces of evil or dabble in fringe evil themselves in order to succeed.
The degree to which PCs are forced to ally/dabble with evil in each AP is both variable and debatable. The fact that some flavor of this has come up in virtually every AP thus far, however, has been demonstrated.
Nobody on the "it's too much" side of the argument has, to my observation, asked that Paizo stop making such adventures and APs. Instead, they are asking if some creative space can be made for an adventure or AP that did NOT use this plot device, or if they must use it, that they might more robustly support good or neutral alternatives.
The folks on the "no it's just right" side repeat the canard that "making tough moral choices is interesting"; those on the "it's too much" side say that there *IS* no real choice when the APs, as written, given little to no support for alternative solutions to the adventure, implying to DMs that siding with evil is the preferred and supported method for solving the adventure ("you can just make up your own alternate stuff as a DM" is weak sauce as a counter-argument; people buy published works so they don't HAVE to just make it all up on their own, but then they're a "lazy DM" and then... NERDRAGE!!!!).
Whatever you think of the back-and-forth of the argument, the point is this:
1. It seems like virtually all Paizo APs have had some flavor of "side with evil in them." From Shackled City to Council of Thieves, that's 8 of em. The next two are coming up, but it's uncertain whether they will have this flavor in them.
2. Given that 8 APs in a row, and potentially 10 depending on how the two new ones go, have had this element, is it not reasonable and rational to think that plot element has been overplayed a bit? Even if it's a GREAT plot element, folks can get fatigued by it and tired of it (I'm looking at you, pocket dimension!).
3. Given that the overwhelming preponderance of APs have leaned toward the Grim and Gritty side, does it seem excessive to suggest that one AP out of every dozen might take the opposite tack, going in the purely Good for Good's Sake direction? Heroism for heroism's sake. Good allying with good, and stomping evil in the face because it's evil? I mean, would that really compromise the flavor of Golarion as a game world and Paizo's products?
Having an all-in-for-Good AP doesn't in any way have to mean some kind of retarded Care Bears/Rainbow Brite/Dudley Do-Right caricature. In another thread (The Next AP, I think) I posted a quick brainstorm on a Worldwound/Mendev AP that could easily be done and be completely balls-out awesome without ever having to ally/dabble with evil to succeed.
Nobody's asking Paizo to ditch the Grim and Gritty. Some folks are saying "We've had a lot of that. How about we try some of this for a change." For those who want Grim and Gritty, we would point you toward the immense catalog of AP adventures already published, as well as the no-doubt immense catalog of AP adventures likewise lined up for the future. Is it too much to ask for just one goody-goody AP, even as an experiment?
Look, I love a good steak or burger, but I don't want cow every time I go to the store or a restaurant. Having the salmon or some shrimp egg foo young doesn't mean I don't like steak any more; I just want some of this right now, I've had enough steak for a little while. Maybe I'll go get a burger next time.
I believe that's actually the issue. Aberrations in general and PF aberrations especially owe a great deal to Lovecraft. Their thoughts are supposed to be as alien to us as those of a microbe (if they could be considered thinking beings) and trying to hang our morals on them is just going to fail.
There is nothing particularly "alien" in the sense of "existing on different and unknowable wavelength" about most of Lovecraft bestiary. Colour out of Space might qualify for that, barely. Cthulhu or Nyarlathotep or Mi-Go are your garden-variety evil. Cthulhu disregards lesser beings because he has power and they have not. Nyarly is a petty bastard who toys with people for lulz. Mi-Go are greedy, paranoid and ruthless. Neither of them are hopelessly hard to understand, just hard to stop.
As about DnD aberrations, you know the inter-fiction association of vampires intends to sue certain species for stealing the idea that choosing to eat sentient beings for prolonging your existence puts you "above good and evil". Others are just power-tripping dicks.
...wrote stuff I agree with...
+1
I've always been a proponent of celebrating the good by giving good, heroic PCs every opportunity to showcase their goodness. It's okay to hit them with trials, tribulations, and temptations. But, don't always paint them into a corner where the only way out is to compromise their morals and ethical beliefs.
Shades of gray are okay sometimes. A fall from grace can be cool if there's a chance for redemption, too. And evil PCs coming along for the ride and learning a valuable lesson on self-sacrifice is awesome at times.
But let's celebrate the good for goodness' sake from beginning to end in a shining crusade sometime.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil