I won't lie. I hadn't really thought all of the details through.
/thread
This is absolutely correct. GMs make mistakes too, and I see where you were going with this. It just doesn't make any believable sense that things would be done this way. The correct way to handle the paladin player after the session is to admit this.
"Shades of gray" doesn't have to mean illogical.
I gotta vote Lawful Neutral.
I see alignment as a bell curve, rather than an even distribution. Say, 70% of the world is Neutral,
I don't think it's an even bell curve. Chaotic alignments are very self-oriented frequently with a lack of empathy towards other sentients. So I'd peg the majority of chaotics as evil, some good and a narrow band that defines the chaotic neutral alignment.
And another thing, Jack Bauer aside, it's far from clear that torture will yield accurate or truthful information.
The modern analogy wasn't a declaration of "the ends justify the means." It was simply stated to put a modern-day spin on the moral debate the OP posted.
I could also say:
Person X intends great harm, but his actions lead to beneficial results.
Person Y intends great good, but his actions end up being hurtful.
Which is more evil?
My position is that they are BOTH morally gray. Neither is completely Good or completely Evil, and BOTH would fall into the "neutral" category. To me, "good" actions are pure, un-tainted acts. Likewise, "evil" acts have no redeeming value.
Let me porpose a scenario that has occured in numerous games I've played. You are in the woods and a group of goblins (or bugbears, orcs, or whatever) attack. You kill some of them, and win the fight, but several are still alive and at negative HP, and one goblin surrendered and is at positive HP.
What do you do? Do you heal the negative HP goblins, because they are no longer a threat and without aid, they will likely die? Armies throughout history gave medical aid to the enemy soldiers, but how many PC parties (with or without paladins) would do the same? What do you do with the still conscious goblin? If you kill him, you would be attacking an unarmed person. If you let him go, he can warn the rest of the tribe about you. If you tie him up, he could die of starvation/exposure/wandering monster. Wouldn't a quick death be better? If you take him with you, he could cause all kinds of mischief.
Once again, it's all a gray area. That's why I agree with the OP, that the "assasins" are not necessarily evil. Indeed, their actions may not even have been evil. To be truely evil, their motivation AND actions need to be malicious.
As far as the chaotics go, I disagree, but then there is no right answer to that debate. Different worlds (Different DM's) will have different alignment distributions. I also have a non-human campaign in my head, set in Arcadia. That world is very polarized, and I plan on having almost no one neutral on either axis, and maybe one in a million people will be true neutral.
"Shades of gray" doesn't have to mean illogical.
This is true. But that does not mean it cannot be counter-intuitive, ie the opposite of what you would expect.
Wow great story...
Surely CE in Glantri...
Then CN or CG? I think that's about why were you doing things: basically to bring good per se or to bring good as a reaction to some other stimuli (satisfying yourself, even if nihilistic ones)? ;)
Well, this reasonment could probably be true IRL. But I believe that, due to the objective nature of Good and Evil in RAW D&D/Pathfinder Rules, this would not be a issue.
After all, if doing continuously Evil acts slowly - but inevitably - drags you Evil into your soul, even if your intentions were initially good, the reverse is true as well; even if uncaring or (initially) for selfish reasons, doing continuously Good acts slowly - but again, inevitably - allows the Goodness of your acts to cling to your soul.Otherwise, the Evil acts of the Special Forces of the OP (because, let's be frank, those were - again, due to to the objective nature of Good and Evil by RAW - Evil acts done by LN soldiers, IMHO...) would never cause them to fall into Evil - again, this specific single act would have been only a single stain on their soul, unwilling or not, but doing such acts day after day after day... ; nor it would be possible to RP true redemption, for example a Paladin who decides to take a former criminal with him in order to show him how to change his life - such a criminal would obviously 'fake goodness' at the beginning in order not to have a hell of a life with his guardian, but after years doing good acts with him... who knows what could trigger deep inside him ?
It is not true that RAW define *acts* as objectively good or evil. The objectivity of the alignment system is due to the fact that creatures with 3+ INT intending to take certain actions are doing evil, regardless of whether they think of themselves as good or evil. When considering alignment calls in the game, whether a particualar act is evil is completely irrelevant. So IMHO, deciding whether the strike force is evil is impossible based upon the information provided. We can only guess based upon the likelihood that a person could be so dull as to do what was done with pure intent. However, stupidity should have nothing to do with alignment. (If it did, paladins darn well better have a high INT.) The fact that the GM has admitted to error makes it even harder.
So it is possible that a member of the strike force believed the caravan were a bunch of demons, and another thought they were a bunch of angels, and for the exact same event they registered differently on the alignment-o-meter. Since even the GM doesn't know exactly what the strike force was told, how could we know?
I absolutely hate alignment rules that allow good charaters to do evil as long as they don't do "too much." So I reject the ends-justify-the-means is always evil argument. If your intention is to protect the innocent, you are good; I don't care how you do it. This is also the only way you are going to have viable heaven vs. abyss battles in the after-life. What use to the demons is a "CE" character who will do absolutely anything in his power, no matter what it takes, to make sure heaven wins and the greatest number of innocent people are protected as possible? The alignment system really needs to put that character in heaven, even if you think they are morally repugnant. You have to think about the outer planes as much as your own subjective morality.
In my game *players* fear paladins, even if their LG *characters* do not because they never know whether they are pawns in a scheme that will sacrifce them for the greater good. That makes paladins both more fun to DM and to play. If you want to play the paladin "straight" it works just fine. If you want to take a more questionable path, sure, you might need to be more careful from a story perspective, but you only fall when you stop trying to protect the innocent. More fun = better alignment system.
I have no problem with an occasional non-evil BB"E"G. I don't think it screws the paladin because there will be plenty of evil around to smite.
I absolutely hate alignment rules that allow good charaters to do evil as long as they don't do "too much." So I reject the ends-justify-the-means is always evil argument. If your intention is to protect the innocent, you are good; I don't care how you do it. This is also the only way you are going to have viable heaven vs. abyss battles in the after-life. What use to the demons is a "CE" character who will do absolutely anything in his power, no matter what it takes, to make sure heaven wins and the greatest number of innocent people are protected as possible? The alignment system really needs to put that character in heaven, even if you think they are morally repugnant. You have to think about the outer planes as much as your own subjective morality.
In a general discussion, I would completely agree with your position; even to me, a good character is someone who actively helps other, no matter the consequences and the means.
However, in a game where Good and Evil objectively change the physical and metaphysical status of an entity (Dretch are CE souls molded in a twisted way in the afterlife, for example) there must be a 'meter' to determine if you effectively end one way or another.
For those of you knowing Warcraft III,
Prince Arthas was a genuine LG Paladin - until he was forced to burn an entire village of people plagued by a disease who started to turn them into Undead. The desire of revenge against the Demon who spread the disease started to become a true obsession, which lead him first to burn the village (an Act who could still be considered Neutral, at this point of the story - forcing him to an Atonement, but almost unavoidable; he COULD have waited that the people were not human anymore, but then stopping them would have been more difficult and could have lead to more innocent deaths), then to reach the northern polar regions in pursuit and BURN HIS OWN BOATS to avoid mutiny from his men - slaughtering the Orcish mercenaries he hired as a decoy for his own men 'They did it ! Attack them, my men !' - and finally killing his very best friend as a sacrifice to awaken the powers of Frostmourne the Cursed sword... eventually becoming himself a pawn to the Lich King.
As much as I'm opening a can of worms (again...), the simple act of killing, all by itself, is not Good or Evil - as Andrew R pointed out in the first page of this topic here:
alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
After we have determined the act, the object, and the context, only then we can clearly define if an act is Good, Evil or Neutral by itself. For example, killing an animal for food is decidedly a Neutral act - the base for survival. Killing a serial killer in self-defense is a Neutral act at worst, even Good (decidedly Good if you ask my POW, but let's not derail too much). Slaughtering nobles while at a ballroom - each and every one of them - because they oppress people who live in their nation (like in my character's personal story, one page earlier on this very thread)... well, as much as I like Fergus and all his story, I cannot deny that that was a decidedly CE act.
Of course, if in your campaign you would have allowed me to keep my Alignment CG, that would only have influenced his afterlife and the effect of some spells and abilities against him (and glorified my - and his - ego... 'See I was right doing all this slaughter, after all.'). But he knew it was wrong, and that made him even more interesting ('I'm willing to stain my soul as much as this would not happen anymore... and in the end, if I happen to become exactly like them, I would not hesitate to put an end to my life.')People often associate Evil with 'Evil Stupid', and for that try to avoid as hell that a player would put an 'E' on their character's sheet, and try to find as many justifications as they can. But it's not 'E' which is dangerous, it's 'X Stupid' Alignment which is (with CN often associated with 'I do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whoever I want' as the most abused 'S' Alignment). An Evil character could be extremely interesting - of course, it must forge a sinergy with the rest of the group and the type of campaign the players are doing. In an adventure where the group has to bring back the righful king of a nation where a revolution has occurred, for example, it would be extremely more disruptive a group of 'merry-go CN(S)' mercenaries (who could not give a damn about who rules who) than a N group with the LE son of the King among them...
|
I will never forget my favorite evil PC. He was half delkyre (eberon abominations) that utilised symbiotes to slaughter any aberation he found. To the average human he might have passed as a good guy but was absolutely nazi like about abberations. His goal was to kill them all, good or evil, to clense the world of their taint. with his own suicide being the finale.
In a general discussion, I would completely agree with your position; even to me, a good character is someone who actively helps other, no matter the consequences and the means.However, in a game where Good and Evil objectively change the physical and metaphysical status of an entity (Dretch are CE souls molded in a twisted way in the afterlife, for example) there must be a 'meter' to determine if you effectively end one way or another.
Well, we don't disagree *much*. It is perfectly viable to have the intent of the individual determine alignment and still have Good and Evil objectively change the physical and metaphysical status of an entity. The creature crafted into a Dretch would, IMG, have taken pleasure in causing the deaths of other creatures it believed to be innocent (ignoring the Chaotic aspect because it gets confusing). The creature crafted into a good equivalent would have been willing to make personal sacrifices to protect the innocent. It still works using that meter.
Slaughtering nobles at a ballroom is an act. Whether it is evil depends upon the intent of the actor. I am comfortable with characters feeling guilty about actions that they take within their own alignments, and creatures of the same alignment disagreeing violently about a particular act. For example, I could envision a creature of almost any alignment coming to the defense of the nobles in the ballroom. Whether your character was CE or CG is entirely up to you, as the player, when you choose the intent of your character (alignment is actually up to the DM, but it is predictable based upon the intent).
When I make alignment rulings, I generally have to ask the player what the intent of the character was, unless it was stated during the act. I have had to explain why an alignment should change, but the player agreed when I laid it out. (They were not happy that their Lawful Evil character was actually Lawful Neutral, but got over it.) I believe that my interpretation of the RAW makes each alignment more interesting, and enables me to put one past a detect alignment master without being in the least bit tricky or unfair. That's the way it should be. There are plenty of stories (perhaps mostly made for TV) where the perp turns out to be a good guy who made a mistake or something like that. A paladin shouldn't be able to mosey in and finger the perp. I also like to explore the morally ambiguous aspect of insanity. If you think you are doing good, but are doing what appears to be evil, what happens? So far, I have found that PCs put such dangerous criminals down even if the insane creature has a Good alignment, which is what I think happens in real life, too.
I think a game is a lot more fun when the words "you can't do that; you are Good" is never uttered. Good characters can do whatever they want as long as their intentions are good. The actions they take will differ based upon intelligence, bias, religion, mood, and other environmental issues. There can be conflict, guilt, complexity, etc. with any alignment (even CE). The way to get there is by letting players choose the intent of their characters, have their intent define their alignments, and go from there. All you have to do as DM is clearly articulate what it means to have any particular alignment.
One other thing about intent: I like it to be the case that discord within a LG church is between members of the church, even to the point of violence. If you just need to do a Know Alignment to figure out where the dissent lies, then it is pretty boring. However, what if one LG cleric is being tricked by Asmodeus into believing that despite the good alignment of the high priest, the high priest will lead the world to destruction. A little poison in the high priest's drink can save the world...
What an awful position in which to put a LG priest. Oh, the shame! The guilt! I love it! And it is just further proof that the ends DO NOT justify the means. After the high priest is murdered, the paladins are all the more sure that their code is justified in rejecting the ends justify the means and kill off anyone whose means appear to be evil... to the delight of Asmodeus whose plan was to ensure that the hard choices that would save the world are never made. <Evil Laugh>
And in come the hapless PCs who must decide whether to anger the paladins doing what needs to be done, which of course makes Asmodeus their enemy. Now being good really is hard. :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
If all that matters is the intent behind an action, how do Devils ever corrupt anyone? Half their shtick is tricking good people into doing bad things to taint their soul. See: Moloch being perfectly happy to save your village from the flood, so long as you sacrifice a baby or two in his name.
If all that matters is the intent behind an action, how do Devils ever corrupt anyone? Half their shtick is tricking good people into doing bad things to taint their soul. See: Moloch being perfectly happy to save your village from the flood, so long as you sacrifice a baby or two in his name.
"Boy, that was pretty easy sacrificing a baby or two to save the village. Maybe I should see if Old Moloch is willing to make me rich for a baby (a homeless one nobody will really miss)...."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
"Boy, that was pretty easy sacrificing a baby or two to save the village. Maybe I should see if Old Moloch is willing to make me rich for a baby (a homeless one nobody will really miss)...."
So as long as you don't get greedy and you only sacrifice babies to save villages, it's totally ok and you still count as good?
|
If all that matters is the intent behind an action, how do Devils ever corrupt anyone? Half their shtick is tricking good people into doing bad things to taint their soul. See: Moloch being perfectly happy to save your village from the flood, so long as you sacrifice a baby or two in his name."Boy, that was pretty easy sacrificing a baby or two to save the village. Maybe I should see if Old Moloch is willing to make me rich for a baby (a homeless one nobody will really miss)...."
Ah, so the hard choice is save the village minus two babies, which only starts you along the path. It is an evil act, however it isn't quite evil enough for your soul to be damned to hell.
However, as the years go by, it becomes easier to make the same decision for lesser reasons. Sacrifice two babies to end a draught, sacrifice two babies to stop the plague (that Moloch may have caused-or not), sacrifice two babies to ensure good crops, etc until you become damned.
Is that what your saying? I agree, BTW.
Killing babies? Always an evil act.
Whether an alignment shift is necessary depends on the circumstance, proliferance, and GM's feelings about the situation (you were far too cavalier about it, you are becoming a hard person and are now Evil, etc).
If a Demon disguised as a holy figure told a person to go hunt and kill these two demon creatures, and when the person does the Demon pops into view, dropping the polymorph/illusion and revealing that they were actually babies? No way.
I agree that alignments are objective in D&D. However that simply means the laws of the local land do not change what is universally good and evil. A law saying you need to kill the first male baby of a family, and everyone does it, does not make it non-Evil.
If a person has wrong information, if his actions are committing an evil act, but his information tells him that he isn't, then it's an evil act with no alignment change. No stain on the soul.
You have to be willing to kill the babies to get the drought to end. If you don't know they are babies and think they are in fact demons, then there's no alignment change.
For RAW backing my opinion on this, see the Ex-Paladin entry. Right in the first line "willingly commit an evil act".
|
|
Killing babies? Always an evil act.
Whether an alignment shift is necessary depends on the circumstance, proliferance, and GM's feelings about the situation (you were far too cavalier about it, you are becoming a hard person and are now Evil, etc).If a Demon disguised as a holy figure told a person to go hunt and kill these two demon creatures, and when the person does the Demon pops into view, dropping the polymorph/illusion and revealing that they were actually babies? No way.
I agree that alignments are objective in D&D. However that simply means the laws of the local land do not change what is universally good and evil. A law saying you need to kill the first male baby of a family, and everyone does it, does not make it non-Evil.
If a person has wrong information, if his actions are committing an evil act, but his information tells him that he isn't, then it's an evil act with no alignment change. No stain on the soul.
You have to be willing to kill the babies to get the drought to end. If you don't know they are babies and think they are in fact demons, then there's no alignment change.
For RAW backing my opinion on this, see the Ex-Paladin entry. Right in the first line "willingly commit an evil act".
Demons are genre-savvy...they KNOW that tricking you into killing babies isn't going to send you to hell. YOU, however, don't know that, unless you have knowledge religion. Basically, they try to guilt trip you into believing your soul is eternally damned. After that, your character might think to himself, "Well, I'm already damned, might as well make the best of it." And then you damn yourself.
Demons are genre-savvy...they KNOW that tricking you into killing babies isn't going to send you to hell. YOU, however, don't know that, unless you have knowledge religion. Basically, they try to guilt trip you into believing your soul is eternally damned. After that, your character might think to himself, "Well, I'm already damned, might as well make the best of it." And then you damn yourself.
Exactly! They exploit the guilty conscience and inner fears to manipulate us into doing what we shouldn't. A devil or demon would taunt and goad for months just to get you to do something intrinsically bad. It might start with small things.
"Are you sure you want to ask your priest for an atonement ... oh I just have to see this! Wait until he hears about the poor children in that village! oho, I'll be there to collect YOUR soul when they stack the bonfire for you - perhaps you'd be safer if you just didn't tell them ..."
|
|
Demons are genre-savvy...they KNOW that tricking you into killing babies isn't going to send you to hell. YOU, however, don't know that, unless you have knowledge religion. Basically, they try to guilt trip you into believing your soul is eternally damned. After that, your character might think to himself, "Well, I'm already damned, might as well make the best of it." And then you damn yourself.Exactly! They exploit the guilty conscience and inner fears to manipulate us into doing what we shouldn't. A devil or demon would taunt and goad for months just to get you to do something intrinsically bad. It might start with small things.
"Are you sure you want to ask your priest for an atonement ... oh I just have to see this! Wait until he hears about the poor children in that village! oho, I'll be there to collect YOUR soul when they stack the bonfire for you - perhaps you'd be safer if you just didn't tell them ..."
Yeah, I don't think most people who DM them play them well. Since they usually only have a limited time to prove themselves worthy of promotion on the material plane, wouldn't it make sense that whenever a demon/devil is in town, they already have an epic plan in mind?
And while dying in the material plane doesn't kill them, it certainly won't win them any prizes in hell. Demons and Devils who actually get caught orchestrating a plot probably face an immense amount of ridicule when they get back to hell.
So when people play them as just another blood thirsty, insane monster, it makes me sad :(
A Good person would never knowingly sacrifice babies (or anyone else) to a devil to save the town. Especially not a Paladin, it is better that everyone die. Of course he would do his best to save as many people as possible without the devil's help.
A Paladin would pray to his own god for aid and then do the best he could. If he died then at least he died honorably. If you are only willing to kill for Good, but not die for it, then you are not truly Good.
To give a Batman example. Joker has two boats rigged to explode, one full of criminals, one full of innocents. Choose one to sacrifice and the other will survive. Which do you choose?
You choose the third option. Kill the Joker before either can explode. If you fail at least you tried and protected everyone's souls. Which is far more important anyway.
My own character was given the choice of sacrificing an enemy to a demon to stop a great evil or letting the evil do tremendous harm. My own character, a Neutral Good cleric, refused to perform an Evil act. Instead she sacrificed herself. Sacrificing someone else to an Evil demon is an Evil act. Sacrificing yourself to a demon to save others is a Good act. She saved everyone AND thwarted the demon's plans to turn her to Evil. Win-Win!
alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
Actually you only need the action and subject.
Is killing wrong? It depends on the subject.
Is killing an Evil woman wrong? No.
What she is doing is irrelevant. Now, if you killed her to prevent her from saving a town from a flood, then yes, that is Evil. But it is evil to prevent the saving of the town, not killing the Evil woman. If you killed her and then saved the town yourself you have just performed TWO Good deeds!
Oh, and in case I wasn't clear. Killing babies to save a town? Welcome to Evil town! Population: You!
The action is Evil and you KNEW it was Evil when you did it.
Killing two babies that a devil polymorphed into two demons. It is an Evil action, but you are not Evil. A Paladin would have to atone. The first step of course would be killing the devil that tricked you.
To give a Batman example. Joker has two boats rigged to explode, one full of criminals, one full of innocents. Choose one to sacrifice and the other will survive. Which do you choose?
You choose the third option. Kill the Joker before either can explode. If you fail at least you tried and protected everyone's souls. Which is far more important anyway.
The Joker is on holiday in the Bahamas and not available to kill. Now what do you do? Send Robin to save the one boat while you try and save the other. If you succeed and he fails ... you have a guilty conscience even though you did all that you humanly could.
Sometimes characters are faced with nothing but bad choices, and that's the way life is; the Paladin is not the guy that always gets it right, he's the guy that keeps trying, spurred on by his conscience. Devils and demons play on this, they erode confidence in your decisions, make you question yourself and your motives, and eventually get you to make truly bad decisions out of selfish motives - usually the fear of getting it wrong (irony is not lost on demons and devils either).
|
|
A Good person would never knowingly sacrifice babies (or anyone else) to a devil to save the town. Especially not a Paladin, it is better that everyone die. Of course he would do his best to save as many people as possible without the devil's help.
A Paladin would pray to his own god for aid and then do the best he could. If he died then at least he died honorably. If you are only willing to kill for Good, but not die for it, then you are not truly Good.
To give a Batman example. Joker has two boats rigged to explode, one full of criminals, one full of innocents. Choose one to sacrifice and the other will survive. Which do you choose?
You choose the third option. Kill the Joker before either can explode. If you fail at least you tried and protected everyone's souls. Which is far more important anyway.
My own character was given the choice of sacrificing an enemy to a demon to stop a great evil or letting the evil do tremendous harm. My own character, a Neutral Good cleric, refused to perform an Evil act. Instead she sacrificed herself. Sacrificing someone else to an Evil demon is an Evil act. Sacrificing yourself to a demon to save others is a Good act. She saved everyone AND thwarted the demon's plans to turn her to Evil. Win-Win!
Lol, I'd love to see the look of the doomed Neutral townsfolk when the Paladin tells them that they have to die for his alignment.
"Sorry all, but I can't allow you to save yourselves by killing those babies, I'll lose my powers and if you don't atone you'll go to hell."
Or the reactions of your fellow party members...which probably involves a)killing the Paladin or b)knocking him unconscious.
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
>Milk shoots out of Mr. Fishy's gills<
|
|
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
>Milk shoots out of Mr. Fishy's gills<
Yah, I know, right? Welcome to evil town, indeed. Sorry, but if the Pally wants to crusade to his death, that's cool, but my summoner or rogue aren't going to let his sense of righteousness get them killed.
Roll up a new character Pally. What? You're angry your party members killed you? Weren't you going to nobley sacrifice yourself anywa-oh, you didn't die the way you wanted to. How sad.
The other line of thinking is that if the town and the babies are going to be killed ANYWAYS, why NOT kill the babies?
People throw around the words Good and Evil when they talk about making decisions and they forgot that all decisions are either correct or incorrect. The Good decision may not be the correct one, sometimes the Evil decision is right.
alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
Actually you only need the action and subject.
Is killing wrong? It depends on the subject.
Is killing an Evil woman wrong? No.
What she is doing is irrelevant. Now, if you killed her to prevent her from saving a town from a flood, then yes, that is Evil. But it is evil to prevent the saving of the town, not killing the Evil woman. If you killed her and then saved the town yourself you have just performed TWO Good deeds!
Oh, and in case I wasn't clear. Killing babies to save a town? Welcome to Evil town! Population: You!
The action is Evil and you KNEW it was Evil when you did it.
Killing two babies that a devil polymorphed into two demons. It is an Evil action, but you are not Evil. A Paladin would have to atone. The first step of course would be killing the devil that tricked you.
Well, since a full 1/6 of the population is evil, you have a lot of slaughtering to do in any campaign I have ever played in to perform all those "good deeds." Sure the town will be happy after you kill off all the politicians and merchants in town.
|
|
Well, since a full 1/6 of the population is evil, you have a lot of slaughtering to do in any campaign I have ever played in to perform all those "good deeds." Sure the town will be happy after you kill off all the politicians and merchants in town.alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
Actually you only need the action and subject.
Is killing wrong? It depends on the subject.
Is killing an Evil woman wrong? No.
What she is doing is irrelevant. Now, if you killed her to prevent her from saving a town from a flood, then yes, that is Evil. But it is evil to prevent the saving of the town, not killing the Evil woman. If you killed her and then saved the town yourself you have just performed TWO Good deeds!
Oh, and in case I wasn't clear. Killing babies to save a town? Welcome to Evil town! Population: You!
The action is Evil and you KNEW it was Evil when you did it.
Killing two babies that a devil polymorphed into two demons. It is an Evil action, but you are not Evil. A Paladin would have to atone. The first step of course would be killing the devil that tricked you.
You Detected as Evil! Die! Kills greedy merchant, starting a war with the nation the merchant was from.
And thus, the Paladin went to jail for murder, and shortly thereafter, found guilty and executed. None wept for long.
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
>Milk shoots out of Mr. Fishy's gills<
Yah, I know, right? Welcome to evil town, indeed. Sorry, but if the Pally wants to crusade to his death, that's cool, but my summoner or rogue aren't going to let his sense of righteousness get them killed.
Roll up a new character Pally. What? You're angry your party members killed you? Weren't you going to nobley sacrifice yourself anywa-oh, you didn't die the way you wanted to. How sad.
The other line of thinking is that if the town and the babies are going to be killed ANYWAYS, why NOT kill the babies?
People throw around the words Good and Evil when they talk about making decisions and they forgot that all decisions are either correct or incorrect. The Good decision may not be the correct one, sometimes the Evil decision is right.
I find it sad that some people actually believe the whole "you chose your code/alignment over doing the 'right' thing." To me it just says they don't quite understand the character's mentality, they are too stuck in the player's mindset.
Yes a player might choose to not take a certain action because it might weaken their character. But that is not how the character is thinking. Why do paladins follow their code? Because it gives them powers, right? Wrong, they get powers because they have faith that doing the appropriate things and not bending to the "easy way" that the best outcome will happen (in the long run). The code is merely the means of staying on the right path, not the path itself.
Yes, it may appear in some situations that it actually is hampering their efforts, but that is because the characters (or the players as the case may be) aren't able to see the larger picture.
Now DMs can choose to reinforce that idea and make it so that things actually work out for the best in the long run by the character making those choices, or the DM can just keep finding ways to screw over the character (and the player) by having everything blow up in the character's face.
Lol, I'd love to see the look of the doomed Neutral townsfolk when the Paladin tells them that they have to die for his alignment.
"Sorry all, but I can't allow you to save yourselves by killing those babies, I'll lose my powers and if you don't atone you'll go to hell."
Or the reactions of your fellow party members...which probably involves a)killing the Paladin or b)knocking him unconscious.
I personally am not a very religious person (okay, I'm not religious at all), but in the Pathfinder world religion is very real, the gods are real and the afterlife is a certainty. So there is another way to look at this.
Paladin says, "We kill no one!" and everyone dies. No one performed an Evil deed and they all did their best to protect an innocent. They all go to the Celestial realms. Yea!
Then there is Jared Ouimette's way. "Forget it! Kill the babies, otherwise we all die!" Knock out the Paladin, kill the babies and the Devil starts laughing. The town floods and everybody dies any way. Now everybody goes to hell (including the babies since they were sacrificed to an Evil being). Except, of course, the Paladin.
Hmmm... Boy! That Paladin sure was stupid!
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
>Milk shoots out of Mr. Fishy's gills<
Lose his powers? He lost his life! But at least he saved some souls, including his own.
Yah, I know, right? Welcome to evil town, indeed. Sorry, but if the Pally wants to crusade to his death, that's cool, but my summoner or rogue aren't going to let his sense of righteousness get them killed.
Roll up a new character Pally. What? You're angry your party members killed you? Weren't you going to nobley sacrifice yourself anywa-oh, you didn't die the way you wanted to. How sad.
The other line of thinking is that if the town and the babies are going to be killed ANYWAYS, why NOT kill the babies?
People throw around the words Good and Evil when they talk about making decisions and they forgot that all decisions are either correct or incorrect. The Good decision may not be the correct one, sometimes the Evil decision is right.
"Why NOT kill the babies?" You even have to ask? Nice way to look out for #1. What's that? All I need to do is kill some babies to survive? I'm there! Yeah, real heroes there. /sarcasm
"sometimes the Evil decision is the right (one)"? Really? If all you care about is your own miserable life, then yeah, I guess you could see it that way. But if you are interested in saving your soul, which in D&D/Pathfinder you know for a fact to exist, then doing Good is far more important that staying alive.
Enjoy that trip to the Abyss!
Well, since a full 1/6 of the population is evil, you have a lot of slaughtering to do in any campaign I have ever played in to perform all those "good deeds." Sure the town will be happy after you kill off all the politicians and merchants in town.
Just because someone is Evil doesn't mean the Paladin HAS to kill him, but if he does kill him, it is not an Evil act. It would be better if the Paladin tries to redeem the Evil person first. But if that is not possible, or it will endanger innocents or any of a number of other reasons, then yes, the Paladin can kill him.
A Paladin's loyalty is to his god first, the law of the land comes in a distant second. If the government is generally Good, then Paladins are probably welcome and they will strive to work within the law. If the government is Evil then the Paladins are most likely NOT welcome and will be Lawful Good outlaws in those lands.
You Detected as Evil! Die! Kills greedy merchant, starting a war with the nation the merchant was from.
And thus, the Paladin went to jail for murder, and shortly thereafter, found guilty and executed. None wept for long.
Just to point out that in PF, the detect-smite paladin is actually more rational than in 3.5. In PF, typical evil beings of 4* HD or less do not detect as evil. So if you do detect as evil, you are (1) an evil undead, (2) an evil outsider, (3) cleric of an evil deity, or (4) a powerful evil being (5* or more HD). Almost all of those are a very real danger to the innocents around them. Still the detect-smite is probably a bad idea as you point out, though I would say for stupidity reasons and often dishonorable ones, but not for evil reasons.
*The table on the PRD seems to be confusing.
Creature/Object.............None.........Faint
Aligned creature1 (HD)...5 or lower...5–10
Both the none and the faint have (5), I think one of those should be a 6 (I would guess the faint, but I don't know for sure).
|
To put this under a Golarion-specific lens:
Most people are going to be reincarnated.
Babies getting sacrificed to fiends may very well be robbed of that right, eternally.
Some innocent souls are being condemned to eternal damnation by others so that their own temporary, current lives will be spared.
Oh yeah, that's "right" alright.
Smite time. Then on to doing all one can to save the village through some other means.
|
|
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
In some traditions, a person willing to make a sacrifice of themself, so that others may be saved, is considered noble. (see Christ, Jesus)
A paladin choosing to sacrifice *himself* instead of innocents (even if some of them aren't exactly 'innocents,' and he can tell the difference with his evildar) to save the town would be on a better moral footing than the one who chose to sit back and watch the town die, secure in his moral righteousness. Perhaps, like in the movie Constantine, the gods might even smile on such a choice, and deny the devil his due...
He'd be all bodhissatva-like, choosing to turn away from his own salvation, for a chance to save others.
If I were GMing, I'd reward such an act, rather than one that succumbs to the sin of pride and decides that his class abilities and code of conduct are worth more than the lives of others.
There's an old saying that you're not really a samurai until you've been a ronin three times... (Paraphrased, you can't understand the value of righteousness until you've lost it.)
I'm trying to figure out how we went from "burning the village to stop the plague" to "burning the village in sacrifice to a devil/demon" as the alternative course of action here for the paladin.
|
|
To put this under a Golarion-specific lens:
Most people are going to be reincarnated.
Babies getting sacrificed to fiends may very well be robbed of that right, eternally.
Some innocent souls are being condemned to eternal damnation by others so that their own temporary, current lives will be spared.
Oh yeah, that's "right" alright.
Smite time. Then on to doing all one can to save the village through some other means.
Sure, so if that's the case, why do they have healers in Golarion? Why do they care if an asteroid hits the earth and destroys them all? Why would my character care that some guy was murdering other people, if everyone just went on to heaven happily? Maybe my character should start murdering children while they still have their innocence to ensure everyone goes to heaven.
As far as the babies being sacrificed, the babies wouldn't necessarily be sacrificed, they'd just be killed to save the village, not to any dark devil/demon lord.
And as far as the devil/demon simply letting the flood kill everyone-that's not how they operate at all. You ignore the fact that in Golarion, a contract is binding to both individuals. If the devil doesn't save them, the devil doesn't get the soul. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't damn the whole town, only the person who signed the infernal contract.
Sure, so if that's the case, why do they have healers in Golarion? Why do they care if an asteroid hits the earth and destroys them all? Why would my character care that some guy was murdering other people, if everyone just went on to heaven happily? Maybe my character should start murdering children while they still have their innocence to ensure everyone goes to heaven.
I would imagine that it is the same reason that Christians don't go around killing themselves and each other. You have to do the best you can do with the life you are given. If you try to shortcut strait to the afterlife (or a new life) by killing yourself you will not get to heaven (or you will end up in an even worse life).
As far as the babies being sacrificed, the babies wouldn't necessarily be sacrificed, they'd just be killed to save the village, not to any dark devil/demon lord.
So now the babies aren't being sacrificed, they are just being killed. Then what is the devil getting out of this transaction?
Also, what of the parents of these babies that you are so willing to kill? Are you going to kill them too if they try to protect their children? I know I would protect mine no matter what!
And no orphans! No more changing the situation to make it "easier". Not that the Paladin would let you kill orphans either.
And as far as the devil/demon simply letting the flood kill everyone-that's not how they operate at all. You ignore the fact that in Golarion, a contract is binding to both individuals. If the devil doesn't save them, the devil doesn't get the soul. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't damn the whole town, only the person who signed the infernal contract.
What soul? You just said the babies are not being sacrificed. So which is it?
I would say that anyone that killed the babies, or anyone that prevented the Paladin or parents or anyone else with at least a teaspoon of morals from stopping the killings, or even people that could have stopped the killing but choose not to, have now taken a turn down Evil street.
The Paladin isn't doing any of this for pride or to protect his own powers. If he did he would lose them anyway! He is doing it to protect people from Evil. It is better they all die than they be turned to Evil, and I think most people would agree with him.
|
|
It is better they all die than they be turned to Evil, and I think most people would agree with him.
Oh, there are definitely people who would kill someone for not acting the way they would prefer them to act (women stoned to death for talking to unmarried men, and therefore being 'sluts,' for instance), I just don't think of those people as 'good.'
I tend to think of the Paladin's code of conduct as applying to *the Paladin,* and not as something that he gets to impose under penalty of death to every single other person on the planet.
It is better they all die than they be turned to Evil, and I think most people would agree with him.Oh, there are definitely people who would kill someone for not acting the way they would prefer them to act (women stoned to death for talking to unmarried men, and therefore being 'sluts,' for instance), I just don't think of those people as 'good.'
I tend to think of the Paladin's code of conduct as applying to *the Paladin,* and not as something that he gets to impose under penalty of death to every single other person on the planet.
This is how paladins fall, not by burning out plagues to save greater numbers of people but by violently imposing their code on others. That's the point where lawful good has long since become lawful evil, and the worst thing is the paladin doesn't even notice.
|
|
.however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.Explain this part again please.Essentially, the player believed that the actions taken by the government and those hired as assassins made the alignment of the characters involved 100% evil. I disagreed and explained (out of character) that they believed they were doing what they needed to do in order to preserve thousands of lives, even if that meant killing a few people along the way.
I argued that their actions put them more toward neutral and maybe even good, but in no way did it make them of the "evil alignment".
The Taking of a life for any reason is evil. Even one life to save many.
The ideal Paladin would conform to an attitude that no decision may be made that does not have every one's approval - purely to ensure that the rights of an individual could not be sacrificed by those around them. Every individual life outweighs the sum total of all other life. But then such a Paladin would wield Non-Lethal Weapons.
Off topic for purposes of example: The Entire German Military is responsible for the Crimes hoisted on Adolf Hitler - simply because they did not oppose him. The Idea that a leader is unaccountable to all is inherently dangerous to a good State where Consensus is the only means by which the individual is protected from the many - and accountable to all.
Also, a Good State would prefer to expel the villain from Civilization - rather than take a life no matter how evil the villain. A Paladin would consider all civilization the same civilization without boundary - and thus seek to expel undesirables into some common wilderness that all civilization can be saved from the villainy of those amongst them without taking a single life.
Apparently I am not explaining this very well. The Paladin is not trying to impose his ideal on others. He does not expect anyone else to sacrifice themselves to save others, but he will not allow anyone to murder someone else in order to save themselves either.
In the case of the doomed village the Paladin would attempt to save as many people as possible without performing outright Evil acts. To his mind (and I agree) it is better to die than to allow Evil to win. In this case allowing the murder of complete innocents (the babies) would be allowing Evil to win.
Does our own (US) government deal with terrorist or hostage takers? No. Are our soldiers willing to fight and die to protect our freedom? Yes. So, would our government, police or military make a deal with a devil to protect a town? No, they would not. Apparently you disagree.
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
In some traditions, a person willing to make a sacrifice of themself, so that others may be saved, is considered noble. (see Christ, Jesus)
Sacrifice of themself? Yes, that is a good and noble act. Sacrifice a whole town???? No that is not the good.
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
That's a lot easier. I think a Paladin could cut the man free to save everyone else. Even if it was an innocent child he could do it. It was an act of nature and he is trying to save as many people as he can.
To go back to the previous example. Let's say the devil offered to save the village and asked nothing in return. The Paladin would then except the devil's help.
|
|
To put this under a Golarion-specific lens:
Most people are going to be reincarnated.
Babies getting sacrificed to fiends may very well be robbed of that right, eternally.
Some innocent souls are being condemned to eternal damnation by others so that their own temporary, current lives will be spared.
Oh yeah, that's "right" alright.
Smite time. Then on to doing all one can to save the village through some other means.
Sure, so if that's the case, why do they have healers in Golarion? Why do they care if an asteroid hits the earth and destroys them all? Why would my character care that some guy was murdering other people, if everyone just went on to heaven happily? Maybe my character should start murdering children while they still have their innocence to ensure everyone goes to heaven.
As far as the babies being sacrificed, the babies wouldn't necessarily be sacrificed, they'd just be killed to save the village, not to any dark devil/demon lord.
And as far as the devil/demon simply letting the flood kill everyone-that's not how they operate at all. You ignore the fact that in Golarion, a contract is binding to both individuals. If the devil doesn't save them, the devil doesn't get the soul. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't damn the whole town, only the person who signed the infernal contract.
People have healers, strive to survive and preserve their world, and try to stop harm from coming to others because they value life.
The matter of reincarnation is a truth not known for certain by Joe Farmer. It may be a cosmic truth in the background of the setting, but the vast majority of Golarion's populace that doesn't have a direct hotline to Beings In The Know have any number of beliefs about their cosmological situation, whether it's the Vudrani guy who believes in just reincarnation with no final destination on another plane or some guy in the Linnorm Lands who thinks his only options after this life are Elysium or the Abyss.
Beyond that, there's also the matter of people not wanting to be separated, possibly forever, from their loved ones, their current life in general, their stuff, the land that is the only land they've ever known, etc.
Now as for changing the field on the matter of sacrifice/not-sacrifice and having only one person mediating the infernal deal, there's still nothing that prohibits the players from doing the heroic thing and saying "@#$% you, we're taking a third option." *
*CG characters don't have a monopoly on Gurren Lagann levels of hotbloodedness
|
|
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
In some traditions, a person willing to make a sacrifice of themself, so that others may be saved, is considered noble. (see Christ, Jesus)
A paladin choosing to sacrifice *himself* instead of innocents (even if some of them aren't exactly 'innocents,' and he can tell the difference with his evildar) to save the town would be on a better moral footing than the one who chose to sit back and watch the town die, secure in his moral righteousness. Perhaps, like in the movie Constantine, the gods might even smile on such a choice, and deny the devil his due...
He'd be all bodhissatva-like, choosing to turn away from his own salvation, for a chance to save others.
If I were GMing, I'd reward such an act, rather than one that succumbs to the sin of pride and decides that his class abilities and code of conduct are worth more than the lives of others.
There's an old saying that you're not really a samurai until you've been a ronin three times... (Paraphrased, you can't understand the value of righteousness until you've lost it.)
+10
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
You! Secure the other end of this line! The rest of you get ready to cut those ropes and sing a prayer as you do! I'm either coming back with him or not at all!
Man I love when people try to narrow things down to only two choices, and it just doesn't work. You'd almost think there is never a time when there are only two choices.
My example wasn't meant to be narrowed down to two choices, just removing the demon from the equation.