|
One little problem with that foolproof plan. Knowing what you've got planned for him, he can refuse reviffication out of spite.
Well, the man in question was a vile so'n'so who had unleashed a lethal plague on the world, and would not give up the cure. So it was to make for easier handling of him on the way back to town where hopefully someone could magically extract the cure from him. Yes, I agree it was brutally pragmatic, but not cruel or punishment. Lay on Hands immediately after should solve most of the pain problem.
Seeing as how all my paladin was doing was cutting off his thumbs to keep him from using any tools to escape, I don't see how him being able to refuse rez has anything to do with it.
Look at the chaos-neutral-law axis. A lawful character can choose to act according to laws put in place by authorities or they can choose to act according to a personal code. Furthermore, a monk's necessity for a lawful alignment simply refers to discipline.
Really? That's not why my book says.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, 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 confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
I don't see anything in there about adherence to laws or codes of honor or anything like that.
What it does say is that Lawful people keep their word and obey valid authority, while Chaotic people value freedom and flexibility over honor or trustworthiness.
There's also no mention of the Monk alignment restriction being 'because they're disciplined'.
|
@Zurai:
Read the description of Lawful Evil.
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
bolding mine
I guess they removed the description of why a monk is lawful between 3.5 and PF, apologies.
EDIT: Although the lawful alignment can be inferred from this:
These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines)
@Zurai:
Read the description of Lawful Evil.
I don't see how that conflicts with my quote.
|
|
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
Those don't conflict at all...because a person who adheres to a personal code no matter who it hurts obeys authority, is honorable, trustworthy and reliable, right?
Regarding the OP's dilemma, is that generally, a single evil act (or single act on any discernible end of the ethics/morality alignment scale) does not render a character immediately evil (or what have you) but rather indicates a slow slide toward that alignment.
Given that a number of the character's acts, by the rules' descriptions of the alignment types, would fall into the "selfish, not altruistic" area, I would say that by this point he has slid from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral, and if he continues to do acts of cruelty to get what he wants, and has no interest in making personal sacrifices to protect innocents (this is how the rules more or less define good and evil) he will eventually slide from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil.
You do not have to do anything to necessarily show that the character's alignment has slid, unless it's in the world's paradigm that the gods show up personally to punish you for an alignment shift (the exception being that if he is a Cleric or some other alignment-dependent character class--if he was the priest of a Chaotic Good god, the god would probably send him a message that he's straying from his path). If you wanted to be melodramatic, you could, say, let him have a vision--he is dead, and his soul is flying toward beautiful Arborea, only to suddenly be wrenched away suddenly just before he is able to greet his loved ones. His soul plummets through windswept planes of Limbo, straight into the waiting arms of the demons of the Abyss.
It does not matter that the character believes he is good. The character can believe he is good, and the alignment on his character can still be something completely different. I would wager most people believe they are good, when very few people are actually good (where "good" equals an altruistic person who always puts the needs of others before his or her own).
Morality and ethics in real life are a complicated thing that can be interpreted according to a number of perspectives. Alignment is, in the end, a game mechanic. It is well described in the "description" section of the core rulebook in the PRD. If your character's actions do not match the description of "Good" in the rulebook, then according to the rulebook, your character is not "Good." That's all.
Alignment only becomes frustrating when people try to blow it out of the game mechanic function that it has, or conflate the rules and guidelines in a game with their far more personal complex code of beliefs, which Alignment can only barely begin to approach or simulate.
Those don't conflict at all...because a person who adheres to a personal code no matter who it hurts obeys authority, is honorable, trustworthy and reliable, right?
Yes.
Harming others has nothing to do with law vs chaos, so I'm ignoring that. There's nothing inherent to a code of conduct that places it at odds with obeying authority, honor, trustworthiness, or reliability.
Take the Lawful Evil exemplars, Devils:
So they fulfill 3 out of the 4 listed traits of a Lawful creature. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
One of my players tried got frustrated with the a prisoner's unyielding loyalty to his now deposed king (even though he was a hardcore loyalist since the king was deposed 5 years previous) and decided to hack him to pieces to show prove something to the other prisoner they had.
They laid out torture implements and mutilated a corpse in order to intimidate him, but really they didn't ask him any questions the demands of the NPCs group was a boat in exchange of the hostages still held and they did not waver. Before they got around to torturing the other prisoner I DM magiced a cyanide pill tooth just to move on from that mess.
He says he is Chaotic Good, and I shouldn't try to pigeon hole him into an alignment. I told him that it is defiantly an evil act. He says he would do anything for the good of his country, whatever it takes.
Here is a little of the background about the setting. We are running the Iron Kingdoms RPG it is a steam punk setting, one of the factions is a Stalinist-like empire which this character works for.
If you heal someone in this world who is of opposed alignment your gods instantly punish you in horrible ways, so alignment in the group is pretty important.
Where do you draw the line? Do you move him one step towards evil? How would you DM a character who makes these choices?
I don't think killing helpless prisoners in any makes you evil. It no different than throwing the switch to execute someone in the electric chair. I'm sure executioners are not evil, they are just doing their job which is killing. So by law they are allowed to do and sending a criminal to their death is good.
|
|
Those don't conflict at all...because a person who adheres to a personal code no matter who it hurts obeys authority, is honorable, trustworthy and reliable, right?Yes.
Harming others has nothing to do with law vs chaos, so I'm ignoring that. There's nothing inherent to a code of conduct that places it at odds with obeying authority, honor, trustworthiness, or reliability.
Take the Lawful Evil exemplars, Devils:
Do they obey authority? Yes. Hell is strictly hierarchical and each devil's interaction with other devils is strictly defined and rigidly followed.
Are they trustworthy? Yes. If a devil tells you something directly, you can be sure he's not lieing. Devils are very good at lieing by omission or telling partial truths, but they don't lie directly.
Are they reliable? Yes. A devil will do what it says it will and what its superior tells it to do. (But see above about lies of omission)
Are they honorable? Not really. So they fulfill 3 out of the 4 listed traits of a Lawful creature. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
We're not talking about devils, we're talking about PCs (or at least i assumed we were). The LE description specifically refers to a code of conduct for the law portion of the alignment. That doesn't jive with the "traditional" LG lawful.
I don't think killing helpless prisoners in any makes you evil. It no different than throwing the switch to execute someone in the electric chair. I'm sure executioners are not evil, they are just doing their job which is killing. So by law they are allowed to do and sending a criminal to their death is good.
I always pegged a typical executioner at lawful neutral.
|
|
I don't think killing helpless prisoners in any makes you evil. It no different than throwing the switch to execute someone in the electric chair. I'm sure executioners are not evil, they are just doing their job which is killing. So by law they are allowed to do and sending a criminal to their death is good.One of my players tried got frustrated with the a prisoner's unyielding loyalty to his now deposed king (even though he was a hardcore loyalist since the king was deposed 5 years previous) and decided to hack him to pieces to show prove something to the other prisoner they had.
They laid out torture implements and mutilated a corpse in order to intimidate him, but really they didn't ask him any questions the demands of the NPCs group was a boat in exchange of the hostages still held and they did not waver. Before they got around to torturing the other prisoner I DM magiced a cyanide pill tooth just to move on from that mess.
He says he is Chaotic Good, and I shouldn't try to pigeon hole him into an alignment. I told him that it is defiantly an evil act. He says he would do anything for the good of his country, whatever it takes.
Here is a little of the background about the setting. We are running the Iron Kingdoms RPG it is a steam punk setting, one of the factions is a Stalinist-like empire which this character works for.
If you heal someone in this world who is of opposed alignment your gods instantly punish you in horrible ways, so alignment in the group is pretty important.
Where do you draw the line? Do you move him one step towards evil? How would you DM a character who makes these choices?
Executioners have the benefit of the criminal having been found guilty by some means. What have your PCs got? Do they carry Grisham's Instant Jury in their backpacks?
|
|
In a world based on Medieval Europe, if a king (or one of his representatives) granted jus gladii to your PC, then the answer to that question is 'yes'. It was a jury containing one member.
Executioners have the benefit of the criminal having been found guilty by some means. What have your PCs got? Do they carry Grisham's Instant Jury in their backpacks?
Yes. IF. In most cases, they do not have this authority, though, thus making my point.
We're not talking about devils, we're talking about PCs (or at least i assumed we were).
I don't understand your objection. Alignment is universal. Devils are the same Lawful Evil as the (strongly discommended by the book) Lawful Evil PCs.
The LE description specifically refers to a code of conduct for the law portion of the alignment. That doesn't jive with the "traditional" LG lawful.
How does it not? You keep saying that, but you've offered no substantiating arguments for your statement whatsoever.
I don't believe anyone has yet addressed the question of whether the executioner has been so legally empowered.
I did, actually:
According to BoED, executing a prisoner isn't an Evil act, but it's not a Good act, either.
The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated. The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief thatredemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness during their imprisonment. Torturing prisoners,either to extract information or simply as a means of punishment, is unequivocally evil, however.It would also be a Chaotic act if the LG character wasn't a duly appointed legal authority (for example, a paladin of Abadar would probably be OK acting as JJE, assuming he followed established procedure; a paladin of Sarenrae would probably not be).
In a world based on Medieval Europe, if a king (or one of his representatives) granted jus gladii to your PC, then the answer to that question is 'yes'. It was a jury containing one member.
Executioners have the benefit of the criminal having been found guilty by some means. What have your PCs got? Do they carry Grisham's Instant Jury in their backpacks?
The alignments of PRPG are NOT based on medieval europe. Throwing someone in a lake to see if they have arcane power with no previous evidence is considered evil, keeping slaves is considered evil, beating your wife is considered evil, and so on. Those things were not considered evil in medieval europe. The alignments of PRPG are more akin to todays thoughts on right and wrong.
The alignments of PRPG are more akin to todays thoughts on right and wrong.Are you serious?
Well, more or less yes. While there is of course a far larger spectrum on thoughts about good and evil now than there were in the medieval times, what is seen as good in pathfinder is generally seen as good by a large part of todays population, and what is seen as evil is generally seen as evil by a large part of todays population. PRPG has far more equality between the sexes, far less racism (among humans, I'm not talking about specieism or whatchamacallit), far more religious and social freedom and so on than medieval europe. I don't think any country in golarion has capital punishment for sodomy or cheating. None of the good religions have a "kill all the infidels"-policy like the religions of peace (who were seen as good in medieval times) had.
Stringburka is pretty much dead on with that point. I agree that good and evil are terms that vary from society to society. However, the guidelines defined in Pathfinder and D&D are all based on our society's definition of good and evil
I think where we disagree is in the notion that the majority of people today agree as to what "good" is and what "evil" is. Take, for example, anything from abortion to euthanasia to gay marriage. Such an objective polarity between good and evil as the game presumes simply does not exist in our real world.
Well, yes, of course there people have different opinions of things today, but most things seen as truly evil in pathfinder is seen as truly evil by most people IRL too (NOT saying the reverse is true!). Murder of innocents, rape, slavery and so on. I don't mean that the objectivity of Golarion exists in our world or vice versa, I mean that the moral standards in PRPG are more close to todays standard in the western world than medieval europe's. Gay marriage and abortion are matters that rarely are part of the gaming experience, and they certainly aren't mentioned in the rulebook. The thing most debated IRL that will come up more than rarely would be capital punishment - IRL, there are differing opinions, where most people see it as either 1. unacceptable or 2. a last resort, while a minority see it as 3. a useful method against the most hineous crimes. In game, there's ALSO differing opinions among good and neutrals - 2 and 3 seems to be the more common views, while 1 is a minority view. But in medieval europe it wasn't even debatable; it was common practice to hang everything from murderers to thieves.
In many other areas, most notably slavery, it was common practice during the medieval ages and not seen as evil, while it in both the modern world and PRPG is considered evil.
Killing a helpless prisoner is not a good act. Period.
At best, it *MAY* be a neutral one, however without a legitimate reason (fair trial and due process) it would almost certainly be Evil.
Murder of innocents, rape, slavery and so on.The issue isn't that murder of innocents, rape, and slavery are wrong, but defining what counts as murder of innocents, rape, and slavery (for example, I'm still shocked that legally, in some places, if an underage boy has consenting sex with an underage girl, it can be legally treated as statutory rape, also, sex between an adult woman and an underage teen boy is much less likely to be considered rape than the reverse).
Yes, and I agree with you fully on the IRL statements (though I'm not shocked; I'm far too cynical for that), but there are still the classic examples which no one will contest today, and these are the same in PF. Yes, today we might discuss if wage-slavery is wrong (and I think it is), but most will agree that a country that allows people to legally own other people does wrong. This is the same in PRPG, but not in medieval europe.
Those issues of definition on the IRL matters apply in PRPG as well in many cases (is it okay to execute someone who's cooperated with evil guys), which is again a sign they are closer to modern times than medieval ages, where things like that weren't discussed as much.
EDIT: And murder has a legal definition, that's the definition I went with. Though some may say "abortion is murder" or "meat is murder", that's not what I'm discussing.
1. Recognition of and deference to a hiearchy, if there isn't one, a lawful character will seek to establish it, a lawful good character will put himself where it best serves society, a lawful evil character will seek to put himself as close to the top as he can manage.
Where is this mentioned in the book? The only thing I can see that's even close to this is that lawfuls "respect authority", and that lawful evils like being in a hierarchy. Nowhere does it say that lawfuls try to establish hierarchies.
Regarding the OP's dilemma, is that generally, a single evil act (or single act on any discernible end of the ethics/morality alignment scale) does not render a character immediately evil (or what have you) but rather indicates a slow slide toward that alignment.
If it's a truly heinous act with no mitigating circumstances, a Paladin (ordering a whole town of innocents to death), he'd get the Evil brand slapped on him so fast, you'd smell the smoke from the burned skin.
And if you have a player who seeks to "game" alignment, that's probably a good indicator that the class is not suited for him.
Actually anyone would get the evil brand slapped on them -- it's just a matter of how many classes it actually matters for (answer five -- barbarian going to lawful would care, cleric going more than a step from their god, paladins, monks going away from lawful, and druids leaving a neutral alignment of some sort). For the fighter it doesn't really matter if he's evil or not from a mechanical perspective (up until spells like holy word come out) but that doesn't mean the act isn't still evil.
Murder of innocents, rape, slavery and so on.Who is 'innocent' and what killing is 'murder' is highly contested in today's world. You're stacking the deck by pointing to an action (the taking of another life) -and- marking it as evil (murder) and then saying 'see, everyone sees it as evil'.
Slavery is the same way, so is rape.The issue isn't that murder of innocents, rape, and slavery are wrong, but defining what counts as murder of innocents, rape, and slavery (for example, I'm still shocked that legally, in some places, if an underage boy has consenting sex with an underage girl, it can be legally treated as statutory rape, also, sex between an adult woman and an underage teen boy is much less likely to be considered rape than the reverse).
The flip side of the coin in the "what society norms of good and evil" is the question of even IF a society or culture accepts slavery/rape/murder as a "normal" act..does that make it less evil?
Example..in real life it has been standard for pillaging armies to rape prisoners or women living in taken cities. It was the society norm, and in the case of religious wars, the fighters just reward for being "good". Does the simple fact that the society accepts this act make it good..or at least "less" evil? And if you or your family is the victim..is it still not evil, because it is normal? Or are some acts evil by nature, no matter what the norms?|
|
The problem is, some of the parts of alignment are subject to interpretation and some are not. Look at the chaos-neutral-law axis. A lawful character can choose to act according to laws put in place by authorities or they can choose to act according to a personal code. Furthermore, a monk's necessity for a lawful alignment simply refers to discipline. So which is it since alignment is absolute?By leaving the door open on one axis of the alignment, the floodgates have been left open for interpretation on the other axis as well.
No matter whether the character is following the laws of the land, or a personal code there are things that define lawfulness..
1. Recognition of and deference to a hiearchy, if there isn't one, a lawful character will seek to establish it, a lawful good character will put himself where it best serves society, a lawful evil character will seek to put himself as close to the top as he can manage.
2. Constancy: A lawful character will follow a consistent set of standards, he's not the kind of go with the flow a chaotic or neutral might be.
So if there is room for different definitions of lawfulness (ie.-following laws of the land vs. a personal code), then why isn't there room for interpretation on the good-evil axis?
Read the thread, yes all of it, last night / today. Typical alignment thread :) Yes, I like reading this stuff. I could just about cast the parts and predict rhe responses. A couple of point though...
In the "real world" everyone likes to think they are "right / good" because we equate the two. In a D&Desque world good sees itself as being "right / true" and evil also sees itself as being "right / true". Imo, if you ask an evil character in D&D / PF if he's evil (and he has no reason or desire to lie) and he'll just say "Of course". And probably ask you if you're one of those deluded followers of "good"...
As for personal codes being lawful, no imo. Your "personal code" could include a host of non-lawful behaviors. Your personal code could be to lie randomly about anything you are asked. Not exactly lawful. If you are following a specific code (i.e. Chivalry) then you are a follower of an established lawful norm. That is to say, it's not a personal code, it's an accepted legal code and you are lawful. If you follow a personal code of conduct, you're placing your values above everyone elses and that, to me anyway, is probably chaotic (perhaps neutral, possibly lawful depending on the behavior you are espousing).
As for good and evil. Killing the helpless and torture are evil. Sorry, you may find it "necessary" (more likely expedient) or "right" (and an evil SOB you'd be) but it's not good.
Anway, if people would seperate good / evil from right / wrong about half these arguments would dissapear. Good and evil are absolutes in D&D / PF. Right and wrong are the parts that are subjective.
My 2 cp on the perennial alignment brawl.
*edit* Er, Xpltvdeleted, see the above :D
Killing a helpless prisoner is not a good act. Period.
At best, it *MAY* be a neutral one, however without a legitimate reason (fair trial and due process) it would almost certainly be Evil.
Still not evil to not have a fair trial or due process. That's more matter of law. So a Chaotic Neutral would be fine there. I think the intent in killing a helpless prisoner is important here.
Clearly the players are evil. I think that's been established without it being necessary for me to point anything out.
It gets me thinking about Kingmaker, though. I plan on playing a Monk/Alchemist (batman as a spymaster...why yes, yes indeed) with a high INT, LN, and basing my tow-line of morality on "The Greater Good". My feel from the boards here is that "The greater good" isn't.