Alignment paradox


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:

I don't agree with your Watchmen example, either.

But now we're getting into ethics and philosophy much more deep-seated than even the D&D alignment system.
Curious, what alignment would you put him then, and why?
Chaotic Neutral, personally. What with the 'trick the whole world to save it' and 'evil means to a good end' beliefs.

While I put him squarely in Lawful Good. Everything must be planned and calculated for the good of all.


@ Caineach:
Currently, you are encountering the lack of psychological divide most people have between their personal beliefs and the logical argument form. I for one do not necessairly think your arguments are all solid, but I acknowledge they ARE supported in D&D cannon and RAW.

For most, it is difficult to seperate their personal opinions of what the answer should be from what the logical argument tells them the answer is. It's just proof we are really human here (as opposed to say, Elves).

NOW: D&D alignment assumes an objective view of alignment. That postulates that there IS Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. It actually exists as an objective reality, and could therefore be potentially be measured, weighed, etc. Since we know that actions in D&D CAN be considered G/E/L/C, then some portion of the objectively real alignment must be part of the action.

Argument 1 wrote:
IF alignment esists objectively, AND IF actions can be considered to be aligned in some way, THEN for any action there should be some component of alignment (or lack thereof) intrinsic to the action.

If D&D accepts the premises, the conclusion MUST be true. The premise that is argues most often is the second: "actions can be considered aligned in some way".

One POV is that actions are not themselves intrinsically aligned. This usually refrences intention as a necessary component of aligned actions. This, in and of itself, is very natural for us to think. We reason normally that the intent is more important than the action of the outcome. It is not a purely consequential "end justifies the means" stance either. It means that intention to act [alignment] is necessary for the action itself to be considered [alignment].

I propose that this POV does not exist in D&D, and is, in fact, incompatiable with an objective alignment premise.

First, some actions ARE, in fact, considered aligned REGARDLESS of their actual alignment or intentions. Specifically, spells with the [Evil] descriptor are considered to, in some way, evil. But more importantly, the only spells that can give an objective reading of the "alignment substance", namely the Detect line, actually DETECT such spells as EVIL. This is an objective reading, disregarding intention entirely. The spell can even quantify the level of [Evil] (see spell description).

This basic fact of D&D points to the alignment component as being somehow intrinsic in at least SOME actions. Being that intention is disregarded (notice how Paladins lost the Detect Evil Intent ability, replaced with Detect Evil?), it therefore stands to reason that the intention either does not affect the alignment component at all, or affects it in a smaller way than the existing alignment component of the action.

I propose that the case is the latter. Intention does matter, but the action itself matters more. Theologically, this mirrors Judiasm and Hinduism, so it is not an entirely foreign concept. It also preserves the intuition of most that intention somehow does matter.

And so, I conclude:

1) D&D alignment is an objectively measurable "substance" (thus the Detect spells and [Alignment] descriptors)

2) D&D alignment is strongly intrinsic to the action

3) D&D alignment is weakly intrinsic to the intention (thus why [Alignment] spells register regardless of intention)

4) Since D&D alignment is objectively measurable (exists), and actions are aligned (strong interraction), then alignment must be intrinsic to the action.

5) Since alignment is intrinsic to the action, any action X must therefore have a value Y, where Y is the alignment of the action (lack or balance of alignment yeilds a neutral result).

So, to the OP:

The act itself decides the alignment. Lawful adherance to an inherrantly chaotic system is a function of INTENT. The objective actions that result make the character CHAIOTIC.

Or, alternatively, "Actions speak louder than Words".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:


While I put him squarely in Lawful Good. Everything must be planned and calculated for the good of all.

Lawful Good treats no one as a means. They treat all people as ends. That reasoning is at best Neutral, more likely Evil.

Quote:
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.

Chaotic.

Quote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Neutral.


The Black Bard wrote:

Right, I'm going to do my best not to respond to Caineach's posts with the depth I would normally use,

snip (lots and lots and lots of stuff)

Might I say, it is well that you kept it shallow as the in-depth version might have read like a novel. ;)

(I jest, because it's usually everyone else saying that to me...)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:


While I put him squarely in Lawful Good. Everything must be planned and calculated for the good of all.

Lawful Good treats no one as a means. They treat all people as ends.

Quote:
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.
Chaotic.

Agree. Chaotic.

Quote:


Quote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Neutral.

Disagree. Evil. He debased and destroyed innocent life for profit. His self-deceptive justification doesn't mitigate this. Evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:
Disagree. Evil. He debased and destroyed innocent life for profit. His self-deceptive justification doesn't mitigate this. Evil.

Thank you. You're right, I was going with my first reaction.

He claims it was to protect innocent life, but that was all based on the hypothetical doom of nuclear war. And as Dr. Manhattan pointed out, nothing ever lasts forever, so the murder of those millions saved or protected no one.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Chaotic Neutral, personally. What with the 'trick the whole world to save it' and 'evil means to a good end' beliefs.

I would disagree with the Chaotic element. Deception isn't solely the province of chaos.

That said, a single act wouldn't necessarily change his alignment from good to evil, but killing millions in New York isn't a single act either. He murdered all of the artists and scientists involved in the plot, he murdered the Comedian, he murdered Moloch and framed Rorschach for it, he set up a patsy to kill him and then murdered the guy (meanwhile, another person took a bullet meant for him), he poisoned his own servants, and, as Dr. Manhattan says "It never ends." He will have to continue to kill and destroy in order to protect the myth he has created. Ozymandius has put himself on the road straight to hell. Every step he takes is a logical step to take to protect his "good" intentions and every one blackens his soul further. Even the amoral and cynical Comedian was shaken to his core by Ozymandius's monstrosity.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


Chaotic Neutral, personally. What with the 'trick the whole world to save it' and 'evil means to a good end' beliefs.
I would disagree with the Chaotic element. Deception isn't solely the province of chaos.

See my next post upthread. I do agree now that I've thought it through more that he is Evil.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


See my next post upthread. I do agree now that I've thought it through more that he is Evil.

Oh, no doubt. I was thinking more along the lines of sticking him in as Neutral Evil rather than Chaotic. But thinking more about his history of exploring philosophies and moral systems, I'm coming around more to the idea that he's picking and choosing his moral axioms based on his personal preferences. So I guess I am coming around to CE, though not with the badass, power is everything, destroyer mentality that you see from demons.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
Disagree. Evil. He debased and destroyed innocent life for profit. His self-deceptive justification doesn't mitigate this. Evil.

Thank you. You're right, I was going with my first reaction.

He claims it was to protect innocent life, but that was all based on the hypothetical doom of nuclear war. And as Dr. Manhattan pointed out, nothing ever lasts forever, so the murder of those millions saved or protected no one.

Yes, but he believed it did. Evil is "Fun or Profit." It is self serving. This was niether. This was to save others, a definetively good act. At no point did he not value the lives he was destroying. Evil is "debasing human life." He did not do this. He knew he was destroying something valuable that he himself cherrished and he did it because he believed it prevented a greater inevitability.

As for Law vs Chaos. Lawful is also being programatic and systemic. I argue that he followed lawful past the point other people can see to the point where he appears chaotic, but he was not in fact chaotic. Everything he did had a strict purpose and was planned out far in advance. Thus, he told himself what to do and when years in advance. He judged his friends for falling short of his ideals, since they could not see the greater good he tried to bring about.

As for the other evil acts he justified, he knew what had to be done. If they survived, they would threaten the peace that he created. He needed to do them, else the rest of his actions would be worthless, and kill thousands for nothing.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Hmmm...are alignment threads themselves inherently chaotic and evil given that they always devolve into these ridiculous arguments about alignment?

Is creating an alignment thread an evil act?

Is posting in an alignment thread an evil act even if the post is attempting to clarify how alignment should be viewed and thus generate harmony among gamers?


I am being reminded of annother alignment thread where someone made a similar argument that deception is chaotic and I used Sherloch Homes as my counter. He Follows his own consciences, resents being told what to do, favors new ideas to tradition, lies and is disceitful all the time, but I don't know a single person who would put him as a chaotic character. He is analytical and follows everything to its logical conclusion. That is his defining trait, and that is lawful.


I would think being analytical and logical has more to do with one's INT score, than morality or ethics.

In other words, I think any alignment can be analytical and logical.


calvinNhobbes wrote:

I would think being analytical and logical has more to do with one's INT score, than morality or ethics.

In other words, I think any alignment can be analytical and logical.

"analytical" and "logical" isn't the same as "intelligent". There are other ways of understanding the world which aren't logical or analytical and, yet, help a person reach their desired goals.

Dark Archive

There is no way to go back and delete old posts/erase any involvement in threads, is there?

Liberty's Edge

Auxmaulous wrote:
There is no way to go back and delete old posts/erase any involvement in threads, is there?

Not after an hour, nope.


calvinNhobbes wrote:

I would think being analytical and logical has more to do with one's INT score, than morality or ethics.

In other words, I think any alignment can be analytical and logical.

Being annalytical and logical is 1 way to approach a problem, and a very lawful, organized way. I probably should have said methodical and not logical. There are many other ways to approach a problem that are represented by high intelligences. Some people solve puzzles by organizing clues. Others group everything together seemingly randomly and see what sticks in their mind. There are many different ways to approach problems, and the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum of D&D is partially used for this.


Neutral evil, and he knows it.

He classifies himself as not being a "Republic Serial villain" not because of his actions, but because he did them before he could be stopped - in other words, he openly recognizes that what he did was evil, but what separates him from the serial villains isn't his good nature, but his forethought to do his deed before he can be confronted. His plan was to murder millions. And lastly, his motivation wasn't for the greater good, it was for pride. When he finishes his plan, he doesn't mourn. He jumps to his feet and shouts "I DID IT!" That's what it was all about - he has to be the one that does it. Again, it's something he openly admits to - he felt that only he could be the one intelligent enough to "figure it out," even though Manhattan tells him point blank "this isn't going to work in the long run."

Incidentally, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved in good intentions.


LilithsThrall wrote:
There are other ways of understanding the world which aren't logical or analytical and, yet, help a person reach their desired goals.

Yes, that would fall under common sense, street smarts, or whatever, which I find to best modeled by WIS in the d20 gaming system.

d20srd wrote:


INT: learning and reason
WIS: common sense and intuition
LilithsThrall wrote:
"analytical" and "logical" isn't the same as "intelligent".
MW Dictionary wrote:


To reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

So yout INT score models your ability to think in a orderly rational way. Sounds like INT does model logical and analytical thinking. So... ya...


Caineach wrote:
Being annalytical and logical is 1 way to approach a problem, and a very lawful, organized way.

I suppose I simpy don't equate being personally organized to being Lawful in alignment. If that was the case it would make playing a thief with OCD impossible...


calvinNhobbes wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
There are other ways of understanding the world which aren't logical or analytical and, yet, help a person reach their desired goals.

Yes, that would fall under common sense, street smarts, or whatever, which I find to best modeled by WIS in the d20 gaming system.

d20srd wrote:


INT: learning and reason
WIS: common sense and intuition
MW Dictionary wrote:


To reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways
So yout INT score models your ability to think in a orderly rational way. Sounds like INT does model logical and analytical thinking. So... ya...

You can learn and reason without doing it methodically or annalytically. There are personality tests devoted to how people learn. 2 people can be equally intelligent, if there were some theoretical way of universally measuring it, and approach problems in completely different ways. I am not talking about the difference between street smarts, common sense, or anything modeled by wisdom. I am refering to how people approach a problem, which everyone does differently.


Caineach wrote:
You can learn and reason without doing it methodically or annalytically.

Yes, that is by real world experience, which is modeled by WIS in game terms

Quote:
There are personality tests devoted to how people learn. 2 people can be equally intelligent, if there were some theoretical way of universally measuring it, and approach problems in completely different ways.

Of course, because such tests do not do a very good job of delineating between INT and WIS as they are defined in game. But that does not change the fact that INT, as far as the game is concerned, models orderly rational thought, ie logical.

Quote:
I am not talking about the difference between street smarts, common sense, or anything modeled by wisdom. I am refering to how people approach a problem, which everyone does differently.

But you are talking about that. Intuition is a powerful form of intelligence in the real world, which is modeled by WIS in game terms.


Hey where are those other usual suspects in the alignment thread?

I am disappointed that at least half the "cast & crew" are silent/absent from this topic.

Maybe starting an alignment thread is a chatoc act and through the chaos good and evil battle...

Awaiting the lawful word of a moderator to step in and banish the chaos in all its forms......

Oh and carry on....
with my blessing....

Dark Archive

Caineach wrote:


You can learn and reason without doing it methodically or annalytically. There are personality tests devoted to how people learn. 2 people can be equally intelligent, if there were some theoretical way of universally measuring it, and approach problems in completely different ways. I am not talking about the difference between street smarts, common sense, or anything modeled by wisdom. I am refering to how people approach a problem, which everyone does differently.

You keep using RL stuff. We're not talking about RL. We're talking about D&D/PRPG.

Int = reasoning and learning
Wis = common sense and intuition

Period.
IRL, i understand it's more complex than that. But, again, we're not talking about RL.

back to the topic at hand:

If you played a character that was "devoted to acting randomly", I would say he's chaotic. Being "devoted" doesn't automatically make you lawful. There are many people in D&D/PRPG that are devoted to certain principles, that hail from all the alignments. Saying otherwise would make the concept of a druid who was "dedicated" to neutrality automatically LN, even though it implicitly states otherwise in the alignments description. I'd even extrapolate that a person can be "dedicated" to any alignment, and in most cases, that's SOP.

Dark Archive

Jason Beardsley wrote:


If you played a character that was "devoted to acting randomly", I would say he's chaotic. Being "devoted" doesn't automatically make you lawful. There are many people in D&D/PRPG that are devoted to certain principles, that hail from all the alignments. Saying otherwise would make the concept of a druid who was "dedicated" to neutrality automatically LN, even though it implicitly states otherwise in the alignments description. I'd even extrapolate that a person can be "dedicated" to any alignment, and in most cases, that's SOP.

Yeah I made a mistake in my 1st post about dedication being LE, i.e. rules override and dictate course of action vs. what may be more beneficial to the character (two-face).

But adherence and devotion would be part of any alignment - it isn't actually an aspect of how the particular alignment lays out in the paradigm. Shouldn't be listed as a seperate component - just like using INT or WIS to follow different courses of actions, ex: using logic doesn't go against a CE character, doesn't make him LE either.


calvinNhobbes wrote:
Caineach wrote:
You can learn and reason without doing it methodically or annalytically.

Yes, that is by real world experience, which is modeled by WIS in game terms

Quote:
There are personality tests devoted to how people learn. 2 people can be equally intelligent, if there were some theoretical way of universally measuring it, and approach problems in completely different ways.

Of course, because such tests do not do a very good job of delineating between INT and WIS as they are defined in game. But that does not change the fact that INT, as far as the game is concerned, models orderly rational thought, ie logical.

Quote:
I am not talking about the difference between street smarts, common sense, or anything modeled by wisdom. I am refering to how people approach a problem, which everyone does differently.
But you are talking about that. Intuition is a powerful form of intelligence in the real world, which is modeled by WIS in game terms.

So you can learn history through wisdom? Glad the skill system supports that. Int represents your capacity for knowledge and your ability to solve a problem. You don't have to use methodical thought processes to solve problems.

One person can use A+B=C and C+D=E.

Annother thinks If E is true, and I have A, does Z work? No, guess D might, oh looks like d is just a part of it and I need C. Can I get C from a, perhaps B will do it.

Both people are inteligent in game terms, they just approach the problem differently. 1 is very lawful, the other is chaotic.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
As for the other evil acts he justified, he knew what had to be done. If they survived, they would threaten the peace that he created. He needed to do them, else the rest of his actions would be worthless, and kill thousands for nothing.

The problem being, that he DID kill thousands of people for nothing. Jon told him that nothing lasts. And Jon knows the future, so the killing of those people did NOT stop the future of war and death.

The rationalizations he put him through to justify his actions are pointless. If alignment was based on how the person viewed his actions, everyone would be Good, because 'I'm doing this for the benefit of Good'. Good equaling themselves and those they care about.


Quote:
So you can learn history through wisdom?

In game, no. In real life, yes.

Quote:
Glad the skill system supports that.

It doesn't, which I never stated it did. So why make such a comment?

Quote:

Int represents your capacity for knowledge and your ability to solve a problem. You don't have to use methodical thought processes to solve problems.

One person can use A+B=C and C+D=E.

Annother thinks If E is true, and I have A, does Z work? No, guess D might, oh looks like d is just a part of it and I need C. Can I get C from a, perhaps B will do it.

Those might be two different thought processes, but they are BOTH logical, methodical, analytical, or whatever other synonym you care to use. Both examples use reason, ie. rational ordered thought, ie. logic, ie. analysis, ie. INT as defined by the game.

Quote:
Both people are inteligent in game terms, they just approach the problem differently. 1 is very lawful, the other is chaotic.

Which was EXACTLY my point to begin with. INT, ie reasoning, ie. logic, ie. analytical thought, is independent of alignment.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
As for the other evil acts he justified, he knew what had to be done. If they survived, they would threaten the peace that he created. He needed to do them, else the rest of his actions would be worthless, and kill thousands for nothing.

The problem being, that he DID kill thousands of people for nothing. Jon told him that nothing lasts. And Jon knows the future, so the killing of those people did NOT stop the future of war and death.

The rationalizations he put him through to justify his actions are pointless. If alignment was based on how the person viewed his actions, everyone would be Good, because 'I'm doing this for the benefit of Good'. Good equaling themselves and those they care about.

Just because he later realised he was wrong does not mean he did not believe his actions to be good when he did them. Later knowledge that his actions were in vain and he was arrogant and wrong does not change the motivation for those actions.

And no, not everyone would be good. I know for a fact that I would not be, and would be neutral. I know many people who would consider themselves evil by my definition and be right. I game with a couple of them. Because there is a set definition of good. If they are saying they are doing it for "good" but if they do not believe it is for others then they are not actually doing it for good, and they are not good. Most people do not beileve their actions are truely good and help others in my experience. Most people are content to do things that benefit themselves and those immediately surrounding them.


@Caineach. No your SKILL RANKS more than anything represent the amount of knowledge you have in a subject. Int is reason, Wis is intuition.

As far as the side conversation about Ozymandias I think that if nothing else this argument exposes the problems with the D&D alignment system. He isn't clearly one thing or another. Personally I'd peg him as LN, but he's like Batman he can be everything at once it seems.

This thread as a whole exposes the difference in alignment interpretations. There's alignment of actions and alignment of intentions which affects the alignments strongly. If my character internally hates authority, is a free thinker, and loves to live in the wild...and yet day in and day out works for a fascist government in a large city, what is he?


calvinNhobbes wrote:


Quote:
Both people are inteligent in game terms, they just approach the problem differently. 1 is very lawful, the other is chaotic.

Which was EXACTLY my point to begin with. INT, ie reasoning, ie. logic, ie. analytical thought, is independent of alignment.

Yes, but the method of problem solving is very different. 1 is actually logical and methodical, the other is very scatterbrained. Both get to the same end result. 1 is lawful, the other is chaotic. Preplanning and organization are lawful traits, they see to put order into your life. My point is that Sherloch Homes's defining characteristic is his ability to put everything into its place, and this makes him lawful. The fact that he fits every other definition of chaotic the book has does not matter as much as this 1 thing, as I have yet to meet anyone who says Sherloch is chaotic.


meatrace wrote:
what is he?

About to go postal would be my guess. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Just because he later realised he was wrong does not mean he did not believe his actions to be good when he did them. Later knowledge that his actions were in vain and he was arrogant and wrong does not change the motivation for those actions.

Yes, but believing his actions to be good does not make him Good. This is the same reason Miko the Paladin in OotS fell when she performed an Evil act she thought to be Good.


meatrace wrote:

@Caineach. No your SKILL RANKS more than anything represent the amount of knowledge you have in a subject. Int is reason, Wis is intuition.

As far as the side conversation about Ozymandias I think that if nothing else this argument exposes the problems with the D&D alignment system. He isn't clearly one thing or another. Personally I'd peg him as LN, but he's like Batman he can be everything at once it seems.

This thread as a whole exposes the difference in alignment interpretations. There's alignment of actions and alignment of intentions which affects the alignments strongly. If my character internally hates authority, is a free thinker, and loves to live in the wild...and yet day in and day out works for a fascist government in a large city, what is he?

There is no question in my mind that he is chaotic.

Dark Archive

Is it past the point to introduce smurfs in this thread?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Just because he later realised he was wrong does not mean he did not believe his actions to be good when he did them. Later knowledge that his actions were in vain and he was arrogant and wrong does not change the motivation for those actions.
Yes, but believing his actions to be good does not make him Good. This is the same reason Miko the Paladin in OotS fell when she performed an Evil act she thought to be Good.

No, but he believes his actions to be good byt the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe (edit: it holds them responsible for the effect). If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
I am being reminded of annother alignment thread where someone made a similar argument that deception is chaotic and I used Sherloch Homes as my counter. He Follows his own consciences, resents being told what to do, favors new ideas to tradition, lies and is disceitful all the time, but I don't know a single person who would put him as a chaotic character.

Now you do. Given that argument, I can't help but put him as Chaotic.


Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the method of problem solving is very different. 1 is actually logical and methodical, the other is very scatterbrained.

Except that both examples you gave are very logical. One is merely in the form of an equation, the other is simply a similar logic as a word problem. Furthermore, just because you don't understand someone's logic does not make it illogical.

Quote:
Both get to the same end result. 1 is lawful, the other is chaotic.

I don't agree. Either one could be either one.

Quote:
Preplanning and organization are lawful traits, they see to put order into your life.

Not necessarily. A group of bandits organized together to preplan how to rob the merchant caravan are not Lawful in my understanding.

Quote:
My point is that Sherloch Homes's defining characteristic is his ability to put everything into its place, and this makes him lawful.

Except it doesn't. That makes him INT.

Quote:
The fact that he fits every other definition of chaotic the book has does not matter as much as this 1 thing.

Then perhaps we should instead provide a more logical conclusion, that personal organization does not mean Lawful, and instead Holmes is in fact Chaotic in alignment with a high INT.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
No, but he believes his actions to be good byt the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.

The killing of innocents falls under the definition of Good? He is destroying innocent life to protect innocent life. That is a direct conflict of the definition of Good and Evil. At best he would be Neutral.


Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Just because he later realised he was wrong does not mean he did not believe his actions to be good when he did them. Later knowledge that his actions were in vain and he was arrogant and wrong does not change the motivation for those actions.
Yes, but believing his actions to be good does not make him Good. This is the same reason Miko the Paladin in OotS fell when she performed an Evil act she thought to be Good.
No, but he believes his actions to be good by the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.

What game are you playing? Where in the book does it define killing millions of people a good act? I don't care what the reason was behind it, killing millions of people is most definitely evil.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
No, but he believes his actions to be good byt the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.
The killing of innocents falls under the definition of Good? He is destroying innocent life to protect innocent life. That is a direct conflict of the definition of Good and Evil. At best he would be Neutral.

PCs do it all the time and no one questions it. I see people clearing out entire villiages of goblinoids to the man and many worlds think this is a good act.


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Just because he later realised he was wrong does not mean he did not believe his actions to be good when he did them. Later knowledge that his actions were in vain and he was arrogant and wrong does not change the motivation for those actions.
Yes, but believing his actions to be good does not make him Good. This is the same reason Miko the Paladin in OotS fell when she performed an Evil act she thought to be Good.
No, but he believes his actions to be good by the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.
What game are you playing? Where in the book does it define killing millions of people a good act? I don't care what the reason was behind it, killing millions of people is most definitely evil.

Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
No, but he believes his actions to be good byt the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.
The killing of innocents falls under the definition of Good? He is destroying innocent life to protect innocent life. That is a direct conflict of the definition of Good and Evil. At best he would be Neutral.
PCs do it all the time and no one questions it. I see people clearing out entire villiages of goblinoids to the man and many worlds think this is a good act.

I don't think I've ever seen goblin women and children killed in a game I've run. PCs tend to kill people who are up to something nefarious, unless their alignment is neutral or evil. I would question the alignment of a paladin (any character for that matter claiming to be good) killing unarmed combatants.


Caineach wrote:
Killing millions of people is not a good act.

Which is why he's evil -- or part of it, at least..

Quote:
Saving billions of people, however, is.

Sorry, but it really depends on how. Saving billions of people by evil means is still evil.

He deluded himself into having a grand goal that he felt was broad enough to negate all of the many, many acts of undiluted evil that he did to get there.
He was wrong; it doesn't balance that way; he's very, very evil.


Caineach wrote:
PCs do it all the time and no one questions it. I see people clearing out entire villiages of goblinoids to the man and many worlds think this is a good act.

I question it all the time as a DM. Such an act of genocide would get any Good PC on the express train to Neutral town in my games, and that's assuming this is during war time. If they were murdering and pillaging just for personal profit, hello Evilville.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Caineach wrote:
No, but he believes his actions to be good byt the deffinition of good. This makes him good, but not necessarily his action. Paladins and Clerics can fall without changing their alignment. Their code and faith is not just about what they believe. If Ozmandius was a Paladin, he would have fallen long before his final plan. This does not mean he would not have still been good.
The killing of innocents falls under the definition of Good? He is destroying innocent life to protect innocent life. That is a direct conflict of the definition of Good and Evil. At best he would be Neutral.
PCs do it all the time and no one questions it. I see people clearing out entire villiages of goblinoids to the man and many worlds think this is a good act.

What characters think is good does not make it Good. The unprovoked slaughter of goblinoids is Evil. The killing of them in self-defense is at best Neutral, possibly Evil.

Killing millions of people to save billions of people is an Evil act. Especially evil when you find out it was pointless. Saving billions of people without having to kill even one person is a Good act.


Caineach wrote:


Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.

Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. He'd be proud of you.

Smurf. I'm done.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.
Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. He'd be proud of you.

Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.

Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. He'd be proud of you.

Smurf. I'm done.

At no point did I say his actions were right or correct. I am saying that he believed them to be Good based off of the best of his knowledge and that his end goal was good, and therefore he is good, even if he is also an arrogant fool, sociopath, massmurdering bastard. If Ozmandeus was in a game and someone cast Detect Good on him, he would ping.

Hitler was not good. He was promoting his people, and that is what he believed. This is neutral at best, and since he did it at the cost of others, it is evil.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Caineach wrote:


Killing millions of people is not a good act. Saving billions of people, however, is.
Hitler couldn't have said it better himself. He'd be proud of you.
Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.

I was simply commenting that he thought he was doing the same thing, and by Cain's definition that 'he thought he was doing good', Hitler would've been Good.

I'm just going to stay out of alignment threads from now on. The book states what's good and evil. There are other books on the subject as well (BOED & BOVD). I'll stick with those, game definitions of good and evil, and leave my personal interpretations out of it. Seems to be doing very well with my group for the last 10 years..

Later

101 to 150 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment paradox All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.