Movie Conan was a nicer guy than book Conan, I hear.
I have never seen an interpretation of Batman which would not qualify as Good in my book. Most would qualify as exalted. Even at his darkest he still doesn't kill his enemies, which is more than can be said for most paladins or celestials.
Up was a very good movie.
Creative Director
|
Hey, I can get this back on topic.
Jack Bauer is Lawful Good
Torture is evil, so Jack Bauer is at least Lawful Neutral (embracing evil to achieve what he regards as the greater good).
So Jacobs is a hypocrite here: he claims that Mengakare is LN but gives Bauer LG when he does similar stuff!
Jacobs has proved Sutter right, Mengakare is LG!
Or has he proved that he is wrong about Bauer...?I'm so confused.
Someone sort it out for me, focusing on Mengakare.
The whole point of my derailing post WAS to confuse. :-)
As for Jack Bauer... it's important to remember that his character arc spanned a decade or so of story elements. Just as in any good campaign, there's going to be times when PCs (or in this case, the main character) are faced with hard decisions and/or make terrible errors that could result in alignment shift. In the show, Jack actually goes through a HELL of a lot of personal turmoil and grief and doubt and despair over the course of his actions; this despair and grief and doubt grows more and more pronounced as the show moves on. So while he's not lawful good in every episode, it's the alignment he WANTS to be.
A similar thing might be happening with Mengarke, honestly. As Sutter and other folks point out above, not only do we not specifically list his alignment, but neither do we go into full detail about his nation or his policies. We only have 2 pages to cover the topic, after all, and it's a complex one with a lot of implications.
For example, if we assume that the ethnic cleansing and kidnapping are happening without Mengarke's full knowledge, then he COULD be lawful good but ignorant, which makes him into a less awe-inspiring figure than I would like because while he might be a great gold wyrm, his underlings are the ones making the tough decisions and he's not even smart enough to figure that out or strong-willed enough to do something to change that. And if he DOES know about these policies, and he's done nothing overt to change them over the decades or centuries, then your argument that Jack Bauer can't be Lawful Good because of the torture works equally well on Mengarke.
If you were to ask me to FOR REAL nail down Jack Bauer's alignment, I'd hem and haw because alignment is a game construction, not a tool that you can use for real life OR for fictional characters, but if you kept pressing I'd probably say Jack starts out lawful good, spends most of the show lawful neutral, and might end up in the end something like neutral or even chaotic neutral. But again, the writers of "24" don't have to abide by rules for alignment. We, as game designers, do. Writing characters for games is NOT THE SAME as writing characters for fiction.
|
Even at his darkest he still doesn't kill his enemies,
How's this guy not die? Oh, wait, HE DOES DIE.
I imagine he's just using this machine gun to keep enemy heads down? It's firing nerf bullets, maybe?
(For those afraid of links - every link is a picture of Batman straight up killing a dude, or someone talking about Batman straight up killing a dude.)
Torture is evil, so Jack Bauer is at least Lawful Neutral (embracing evil to achieve what he regards as the greater good).
So Jacobs is a hypocrite here: he claims that Mengakare is LN but gives Bauer LG when he does similar stuff!
Jacobs has proved Sutter right, Mengakare is LG!
Or has he proved that he is wrong about Bauer...?I'm so confused.
Someone sort it out for me, focusing on Mengakare.
I think you have to factor in that 24 tends to provide Jack Bauer with "cheater" torture scenarios where the ethical dilemma is unfairly skewed.
E.g. Jack has a terrorist in custody who knows how to stop an attack that will for certain kill a million people in 20 minutes if Jack doesn't somehow get the answers out of him first. Convieniently he's sure this is a bad guy, sure this guy knows what he wants, and can easily verify the truth of the answers he gets.
After you stack the deck like that I think torture, ethically, looks pretty different than it does in any realistic circumstance. I think a lawful good character can (up to a point dictated by the circumstances) do bad things to bad people if he's pretty sure concrete good will result.
And no, before someone says it, that doesn't magically slippery slope into: good characters can torture anyone anytime, it's good as long as you think it's good, the Spanish Inquisition is good, or anything of the kind.
As far as I remember of Mengkare in the setting book (which I don't have with me at the moment), isn't it just that to live in Hermea you have to agree to him as the benevolent dictator, and if you change your mind you have to leave? That doesn't even seem like doing evil in pursuit of good to me -- at most it's doing neutral in pursuit of good.
Mills would proud.
Mills would proud.
I'm going to need a little elaboration or disambiguation to make sense of that, or at least, to actually get what you mean out of it instead of some other meaning.
John Stuart Mills is the father of the classic utilitarian philosophy. He states that all moral and ethical actions should be taken after a measured consideration of which course will provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
the writers of "24" don't have to abide by rules for alignment. We, as game designers, do. Writing characters for games is NOT THE SAME as writing characters for fiction.
I very strongly disagree with this. In fact, if this is how you personally feel, then I really wish that you had not included alignment in Pathfinder.
Alignments should not ever prevent anyone from designing or playing a complex character. At most, they should result in that character wearing a possibly-misleading or oversimplifying label.
the writers of "24" don't have to abide by rules for alignment. We, as game designers, do. Writing characters for games is NOT THE SAME as writing characters for fiction.I very strongly disagree with this. In fact, if this is how you personally feel, then I really wish that you had not included alignment in Pathfinder.
Alignments should not ever prevent anyone from designing or playing a complex character. At most, they should result in that character wearing a possibly-misleading or oversimplifying label.
+1
John Stuart Mills is the father of the classic utilitarian philosophy. He states that all moral and ethical actions should be taken after a measured consideration of which course will provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
Ah. That one. Somehow that wasn't either of the first two Millses that came to mind.
I don't think what I'm saying is exactly utilitarian, although it has a measure of that in it. We're not talking about one innocent (in the sense of bearing no responsibility for the problem circumstances) person suffering for the many like Spock in Wrath of Khan here; we're talking about one specific evil person responsible for a great harm that's about to befall many innocent people suffering to prevent that specific harm that the torturee has set in motion.
Which is why I think the 24 torture scenarios are mostly "cheater" ethical dilemmas to the point of not really being ethical dilemmas at all.
Even at his darkest he still doesn't kill his enemies,How's this guy not die? Oh, wait, HE DOES DIE.
I imagine he's just using this machine gun to keep enemy heads down? It's firing nerf bullets, maybe?
(For those afraid of links - every link is a picture of Batman straight up killing a dude, or someone talking about Batman straight up killing a dude.)
Okay, okay, good point. I still don't see any evil actions there though (unless that machine gun is being fired at puppies).
Alignments should not ever prevent anyone from designing or playing a complex character. At most, they should result in that character wearing a possibly-misleading or oversimplifying label.
I pretty well agree with this (and to be clear, I like alignments.)
In James words, lawful good is the alignment that Jack Bauer wants to be. I would add to that: it's also the alignment that he, mostly, lives up to. To me, that makes him lawful good even if some of his actions don't live up to it. Nobody is as bad as their worst day (even if that day lasts a full TV season!)
Dramatically, I like the idea that a character can fall or be redeemed and essentially change alignment in one big decision, but mostly I think alignment change, when it does occur, is a gradual thing, and that characters are the alignments they mostly are, even if their individual actions may not always fit that alignment.
John Stuart Mills is the father of the classic utilitarian philosophy. He states that all moral and ethical actions should be taken after a measured consideration of which course will provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.Ah. That one. Somehow that wasn't either of the first two Millses that came to mind.
I don't think what I'm saying is exactly utilitarian, although it has a measure of that in it. We're not talking about one innocent (in the sense of bearing no responsibility for the problem circumstances) person suffering for the many like Spock in Wrath of Khan here; we're talking about one specific evil person responsible for a great harm that's about to befall many innocent people suffering to prevent that specific harm that the torturee has set in motion.
Which is why I think the 24 torture scenarios are mostly "cheater" ethical dilemmas to the point of not really being ethical dilemmas at all.
Yes, but the idea of the ends justifying the means is a very utilitarian outlook. Your example indicates a lack of any kind of metaphysical consequences or meaning for committing an act such as torture, and the absence of such ideals are one of the more prominent characteristics of a utilitarian philosophy.
Your example indicates a lack of any kind of metaphysical consequences or meaning for committing an act such as torture, and the absence of such ideals are one of the more prominent characteristics of a utilitarian philosophy.
Conversely, what are the metaphysical consequences for letting a million people be murdered when you can do something about it?
I can't conceive a coherent morality that doesn't price that higher than torturing someone who brought it on themselves with their evil acts.
There are plenty who would argue that it is worse to bring harm to someone yourself than it is to allow another to be harmed through inaction, and that's not really even what we're talking about in this instance. Torturing information out of someone is only one option. Whatever they may know, there are other ways to learn it or other people who could tell you. Even if that's not the case, in most circumstances some fashion of detective work will yield results with more effort. Torture is almost always just the method that yields the most immediate results - and they are by no means guaranteed.
Your example indicates a lack of any kind of metaphysical consequences or meaning for committing an act such as torture, and the absence of such ideals are one of the more prominent characteristics of a utilitarian philosophy.Conversely, what are the metaphysical consequences for letting a million people be murdered when you can do something about it?
I can't conceive a coherent morality that doesn't price that higher than torturing someone who brought it on themselves with their evil acts.
On the other hand, there is also the concept that something is only truly virtuous if it's done the right and proper way.
Not saying this is a logic for all cases, but it is another dimension to think about. If, for example, one knows that the souls of all those who will die are innocent, and thus guaranteed an eternity in paradise, then one might also ask: Do the Gods wish for results? Or do they wish things to be done the way they want them done...
Food for philosophical thought.
Torturing information out of someone is only one option. Whatever they may know, there are other ways to learn it or other people who could tell you. Even if that's not the case, in most circumstances some fashion of detective work will yield results with more effort. Torture is almost always just the method that yields the most immediate results - and they are by no means guaranteed.
Normally, I would agree with you. See: my comments about 24 setting up unrealistic "cheater" ethical dilemmas where there is, guaranteed, no time for other methods or detective work. You've got 15 minutes to get a bomb location out of the terrorist that planted it, who you have in custody, or everyone in Los Angeles dies.
Those situations don't occur in real life and justifications for torture generally fall flat on me in real life for the reasons you list.
Conversely, what are the metaphysical consequences for letting a million people be murdered when you can do something about it?
This is the "taboo" argument. I.e, "Being Good means taking about the actions that bring about the most good for the most people. And also never doing X, Y, or Z".
As far as my own moral reasoning goes, I would never say "X is always evil", because it is easy to imagine a situation where the alternative to it is more wrong than it is, and I do not believe that assigning blame elsewhere really changes this (blame is hardly a finite resource).
On the other hand, it's also easy to imagine DMs who just don't like torture happening at their game table, and that's perfectly fine.
I like that alignments inspire this sort of conversation because I feel that morality is important.. but at the same time too, it IS just a device in a game. You should run it in a way that creates the kind of game you want. :)
|
If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, a quick Google of John Stuart Mills was an interesting read.
In the D&D cosmology, where it is explicit that good and evil gods, demons, devils and daemons, exist and are fueled by the souls of good and evil creatures, killing any evil creature without attempting to alter it's afterlife trajectory is just handing power to Team Evil, while getting a creature to repent and turn to Iomedae or Heironeous or Torm is a win for Team Good (even if you promptly kill them afterwards, so that they can't 'backslide' into heathenry).
The deck is stacked in such a way that the most effective agents of good will be evil men, doing monstrously evil things.
And the reverse is also true. The gods of evil must cry bitter tears if a Paladin falls hard enough to become an Antipaladin or Blackguard, as the Paladins are so darned effective at sending evil souls down their gullets (Lamashtu "Waiter! Kill more goblins!"), while evil champions are more likely to kill good people, which just increases the power of the celestial heirachy...
The soul economy is messed up. :)
Within the scope of the game, torture is always an evil act, so far as I'm concerned, but not something that instantly changes alignment - I don't think I've ever allowed such a shift to fall on a single action. Making this a regular habit, however, will rapidly affect their standard.
Paladins, however, should be held to a higher standard. If I'm running a game and a paladin tortures someone, he loses his abilities then and there. His alignment might still be LG (for now), but he's committed an evil act, and it stipulates in the class description that this strips him of his abilities. Now, if he made a good case for it being the lesser of two evils, I could probably be persuaded to let him atone - once. He slips up like that again and he'd better start deciding which fighter bonus feat he's selecting next time he levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, a quick Google of John Stuart Mills was an interesting read.
In the D&D cosmology, where it is explicit that good and evil gods, demons, devils and daemons, exist and are fueled by the souls of good and evil creatures, killing any evil creature without attempting to alter it's afterlife trajectory is just handing power to Team Evil, while getting a creature to repent and turn to Iomedae or Heironeous or Torm is a win for Team Good (even if you promptly kill them afterwards, so that they can't 'backslide' into heathenry).
The deck is stacked in such a way that the most effective agents of good will be evil men, doing monstrously evil things.
And the reverse is also true. The gods of evil must cry bitter tears if a Paladin falls hard enough to become an Antipaladin or Blackguard, as the Paladins are so darned effective at sending evil souls down their gullets (Lamashtu "Waiter! Kill more goblins!"), while evil champions are more likely to kill good people, which just increases the power of the celestial heirachy...
The soul economy is messed up. :)
Effective agents of Good create a more Good world, which will produce more good souls in the future. Opposite is true for evil- if the gnoll race thrives collectively, lamashtu gets more souls in the long run. Blackguards are a long-term investment.
The gods are in no hurry; everyone has to die eventually.
The soul economy is messed up. :)
Maybe you can clean it up a bit by assuming that quality counts for a lot more than quantity?
|
|
Conversely, what are the metaphysical consequences for letting a million people be murdered when you can do something about it?
I can't conceive a coherent morality that doesn't price that higher than torturing someone who brought it on themselves with their evil acts.
Early Christianity taught that the world was a 'vale of tears' and tha worldly material things were to be regarded as a kind of necessary evil. All riches to be treasured were spiritual riches in heaven, not worldly riches here on earth, and the only 'life' to look forward to was paradise in the afterlife. Mortal death was not to be feared, 'even in the valley of the shadow of death.' The material world was seen as tainted by original sin and the devil's playground, a gauntlet even, full of temptation and vice, that had to be endured to reach paradise, and death was called a release from suffering.
By these early beliefs, damning one's own soul would be a *far* greater crime than allowing a million people to go to heaven ahead of schedule. (And hey, who knows, it's all part of a divine plan, right? Maybe they were *supposed* to go to heaven at that time, and interfering would just mess up their introduction to paradise!)
In Golarion, where souls are eternal and flesh is (generally) not, the same sort of logic could apply.
The soul economy is messed up. :)Maybe you can clean it up a bit by assuming that quality counts for a lot more than quantity?
So, for instance, since goblins and gnolls die by the dozens, their souls must be worth less than a human soul (since Lamashtu isn't the all-powerful over-goddess of Golarion), and since elves don't die as often (and dragons die even less), elven and draconic souls must be worth commensurately more than human souls?
The idea that one person's soul is worth more than another person's soul makes me feel dirty, even more so than the idea that one person's skin color or gender might make them 'worth more' than another.
Okay, okay, good point. I still don't see any evil actions there though (unless that machine gun is being fired at puppies).
The MG is set to stun.
(And by the way, I think using comics from the War Propaganda Era is not always wise, since they compromised their characters to pain the enemy in a negative light - you know, so the kids understand that it's totally cool to kill all these foreigners).
|
Normally, I would agree with you. See: my comments about 24 setting up unrealistic "cheater" ethical dilemmas where there is, guaranteed, no time for other methods or detective work. You've got 15 minutes to get a bomb location out of the terrorist that planted it, who you have in custody, or everyone in Los Angeles dies.Those situations don't occur in real life and justifications for torture generally fall flat on me in real life for the reasons you list.
Speak for yourself.
(Of course, since I'm super good and nice, my torture is tickling them until they speak!)
+1 Sending plentiful clean souls to the Boneyard, or damning yourself to being a slave in the pits of Hell? No brainer.In Golarion, where souls are eternal and flesh is (generally) not, the same sort of logic could apply.
Oh yea, totally. If you live in a world where harm-through-inaction is excusable and torture isn't, then this is definitely a no brainer for the paladin.
The problem is, when you look at it THAT way, it's not very heroic.
All those clean souls would have probably been just as clean, if not moreso, had they died of old age. In the long run, the only thing Good gains is.. well, you. And what does it lose?
You're allowing evil a huge victory on the material plane here. The more you allow these atrocities to happen, the more Team Evil grows in power and influence. People learn that evil churches and organizations can bring genocide on those who defy them. Being Good becomes harder and more dangerous, and so less people do it. In the end, evil profits, because you allowed it to. For reasons of self-preservation.
There's no right or wrong answer to this issue; the right way is what works for your game. But it is an issue. You end up with a world where the best proponents of long-term good aren't always Good themselves- what I'd call a "St Cuthbert effect".
Conversely, what are the metaphysical consequences for letting a million people be murdered when you can do something about it?
I can't conceive a coherent morality that doesn't price that higher than torturing someone who brought it on themselves with their evil acts.
*Awesome Stuff*
In Golarion, where souls are eternal and flesh is (generally) not, the same sort of logic could apply.
This. This. This. A thousand times This.
*Focuses really really hard to avoid getting drawn into the Jack Bauer alignment discussion.*
*twitch*
*Focuses really really hard to avoid getting drawn into the Jack Bauer alignment discussion.*
*twitch*
If it helps, think of Mengkare as a taking a 55 year vacation and ending up in the world of twenty four...he just happens to be shapeshifted to look like a human...and curiously enough his name in this world is Jack....
Greg
The idea that one person's soul is worth more than another person's soul makes me feel dirty, even more so than the idea that one person's skin color or gender might make them 'worth more' than another.
Speaking of the value of Draconic Souls, did we ever resolve what alignment the Gold Dragon Mengkare is?
The idea that one person's soul is worth more than another person's soul makes me feel dirty, even more so than the idea that one person's skin color or gender might make them 'worth more' than another.Speaking of the value of Draconic Souls, did we ever resolve what alignment the Gold Dragon Mengkare is?
DM choice. For me LG.. for some LN.. for others.. hoonoes.
Greg
And while one soul is not objectively better then anyone elses, certain souls are worth "more" to certain powers then others.
Even the souls of 100 serial killers are not worth as much to a demon lord as the single soul of a fallen paladin, for example.
DM choice. For me LG.. for some LN.. for others.. hoonoes.The idea that one person's soul is worth more than another person's soul makes me feel dirty, even more so than the idea that one person's skin color or gender might make them 'worth more' than another.Speaking of the value of Draconic Souls, did we ever resolve what alignment the Gold Dragon Mengkare is?
I suppose it won't be settled for sure until we get the write-up for Mengkare. :)
|
Creative Director
|
the writers of "24" don't have to abide by rules for alignment. We, as game designers, do. Writing characters for games is NOT THE SAME as writing characters for fiction.I very strongly disagree with this. In fact, if this is how you personally feel, then I really wish that you had not included alignment in Pathfinder.
Alignments should not ever prevent anyone from designing or playing a complex character. At most, they should result in that character wearing a possibly-misleading or oversimplifying label.
You misunderstood me.
Alignment is not a straitjacket. It's not something that you have to adhere to. Alignment, used properly, is a reflection of how a character is played, not a definition.
For a PC, his alignment should be adjusted by the GM as necessary to match the player's actions. For the most part, in my experience, players are pretty good sticking to their alignments, so this isn't really a problem.
For NPCs though, alignment is even MORE helpful. The GM has to handle hundreds of NPCs over the course of a campaign, and having alignments to fall back on as guides for how to play an NPC is quite valuable. For most NPCs, who aren't "on screen" for more than a single fight or encounter, alignment usually doesn't matter. But for long-term recurring NPCs, alignment can change just as easily.
So... in the end, I'm all for complex characters. Their alignments should be correspondingly complex, is all (by which I mean they're constantly in flux). For most characters, this doesn't matter. For some—particularly outsiders, paladins, clerics, monks, and other classes who have alignment restrictions, it does. For a gold dragon... it doesn't matter—a lawful good gold dragon has pretty much the same statistics as a lawful neutral one, with the possible exception of having a few different spells prepared.
So, for instance, since goblins and gnolls die by the dozens, their souls must be worth less than a human soul (since Lamashtu isn't the all-powerful over-goddess of Golarion), and since elves don't die as often (and dragons die even less), elven and draconic souls must be worth commensurately more than human souls?
Nah. More like, the stuff you do in your life can make your soul worth more or less. So maybe an awesome paladin who was super good all his life and managed to die of old age is worth a billion soul points but the paladin who gets cut down by Orcus at level 2 is only worth a hundred.
|
Creative Director
|
I suppose it won't be settled for sure until we get the write-up for Mengkare. :)DM choice. For me LG.. for some LN.. for others.. hoonoes.The idea that one person's soul is worth more than another person's soul makes me feel dirty, even more so than the idea that one person's skin color or gender might make them 'worth more' than another.Speaking of the value of Draconic Souls, did we ever resolve what alignment the Gold Dragon Mengkare is?
This.
Until we actually do stats for him, we're not going to nail down his alignment. If I'm still in charge of the creative direction of Paizo's RPG line if and when Paizo DOES stat him up, he'll be lawful neutral. And even then, if you as the GM of your particular version of Golarion don't like that, you can change it.
But the folks who are asking/demanding to know his alignment don't strike me as the type who are interested in changing what we do with Golarion characters, in which case... I'd go with lawful neutral.
In Golarion, where souls are eternal and flesh is (generally) not, the same sort of logic could apply.
It could, but then you basically have no game. It's problematic not unlike the "Lamashtu wants more goblins killed" version of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm running a game and a paladin tortures someone, he loses his abilities then and there. His alignment might still be LG (for now), but he's committed an evil act, and it stipulates in the class description that this strips him of his abilities. Now, if he made a good case for it being the lesser of two evils, I could probably be persuaded to let him atone - once. He slips up like that again and he'd better start deciding which fighter bonus feat he's selecting next time he levels.
My take on this is: if the paladin is legitimately put in two different situations in which torturing someone is the only way he can prevent great evil -- that is to say, it genuinely is a defensible ethical choice and he's not just taking shortcuts or ignoring alternatives -- the problem isn't that he's a bad paladin, the problem is that his GM is a jackass who delights in putting him in situations in which he can't possibly win.
Those kind of contrived Sophie's Choice situations are okay in a TV show, but they're not okay in a PF game in which paladins are allowed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Mengkare
For Mengkare, removing/exiling/killing one or two (or 20 or 30) 'non-productive' members of his society may be seen as the greater good.
When does he cross the line? Well to Mr. Jacobs, he has, to Mr. Sutter, he hasn't... yet.
Re: TV characters an Alignments:
Dinobot (Beast Wars): Lawful Evil
Silverbolt (Beast Wars) Optimus Prime (all) Optimus Primal: Lawful good
Megatron (Original): Neutral Evil (with Chaotic tendancies)
Megatron (Beast Wars): Neutral Evil (with Lawful tendancies)
Starscream: Chaotic Evil
Teal'c (Stargate): Lawful Neutral growing to Lawful Good.
Daniel Jackson: Neutral Good.
Jack O'Neill: Chaotic Good (but smart enough to be Lawful Good when need be)
Benton Frasier (Due South): Lawful Good
Terry McGueniss (Batman Beyond): Chaotic Good (must have gotten that from his mother)
To me, the Bats was always shades of Lawful Neutral, perhaps even becoming True Lawful(friend's houserule on alignment that ended just as many fights as it started over the years) over time.
Incidentally, does it actually say anywhere that Mengkare is culling his bad apples violently? I thought I read that they're just exiled. Voted off the island, if you will, and only Mengkare gets a vote.
I know you have the AP line planned out forever, but - can we pleeeeease have an AP in Hermea? It would be dope.
I'd like to see an AP that's set further south. The politics between the nations on the Avistan coastline down there are just so juicy! Taldor, Cheliax, Andoran, Molthune, Isger... How about an AP that deals with the nested schemes of these dudes?
Incidentally, does it actually say anywhere that Mengkare is culling his bad apples violently? I thought I read that they're just exiled. Voted off the island, if you will, and only Mengkare gets a vote.
No, it doesn't "SAY" it. But there are charred corpses of those that were supposedly evicted that are rumored to have been found on some beaches.
Rumor. Propoganda. Or even Truth. But I prefer the way it is presented to absolutely knowing. That way, I can give my own spin on it. I really do not need EVERY secret of Golaraion spelled out for me, sometimes, I like my ideas just fine. The problem comes in when there is a novel.. or guide.. or adventure that says "SECRETS REVEALED". Don't know about your players, but mine LOVE that stuff. So, I get... Oh, this is the part of Greg's Golarion that he does different. ( well, not really golarion yet, but omg Forgotten Realms for certain, they couldn't just leave things for DM's to decide. )
Greg
Re: Mengkare
** spoiler omitted **
In alignment conversations, I always think it's fascinating when people bring up the fact that even "good" PCs spend most of their time going around killing the hell out of "monsters"... with "monster" being interpreted as "anything that might be dangerous to me."
Seriously--if you go into the dungeon where a monster (either intelligent or not) lives and try to take its stuff, and it attacks you, does it justify your killing it? Seems to me most American home-defense laws would say that the monster has the right to attack you, guilt-free.
I'm fine with the idea that certain outsiders (demons/devils) are moral abstractions and therefore totally, irredeemably evil. But for the vast majority of monsters, well... it seems that the concept of Manifest Destiny is built into the alignment system.
Which is why alignment is awesome. Because it's fun to go down the metaphysical rabbit hole, both in-character and out. :)
Incidentally, does it actually say anywhere that Mengkare is culling his bad apples violently? I thought I read that they're just exiled. Voted off the island, if you will, and only Mengkare gets a vote.
I thought that he only flambéed people trying to get onto Hermea without permission.