If his intention behind everything he is doing is to intentionally do an evil act, that sounds evil to me, regardless of the individual actions that lead to it.
Good people generally don't have plans to kill high up good people.His goal is evil, his justification is evil :)
(sounds like fun)
I don't think (from what I have read) that it is too clearly spelled out rules wise in pathfinder (I have never played D&D)... From what I figure what he wants to do is 'pretend' to be good essentially in order to do something evil. So while his 'good' acts in the eyes of others are honorable, the intention is still evil... for Pathfinder however shifting alignments isn't all that significant rules-wise anyway except for certain classes.. (ex-cleric, monk, paladin) and I know at least for the Antipaladin (Chaotic Evil by necessity) you can do whatever you want to achieve your goals, even travel with Good party members, with no need to atone, as long as you are striving distinctively towards an evil goal, because for the dark gods 'the ends justify the means'<-- from the APG
just my 2c
A mix of the two, subject to the cultural values of the individual and the rulings of the GM.
That's how I roll with it, anyway.
Ok If I have an evil character that wants to infiltrate a good church hypothetically. If the spend the next few years doing good deeds just to infiltrate this church to lets say assassinate a higher up. Would his alignment be good because of his good deeds, or would it not change as it was a means to an end.
Performing "good deeds" would be part of the masquerade, and to a greater extent, part of survival. The assassin is effectively in hostile territory and needs to blend in; if that means casting Hallow on a weekly basis, in front of acolytes, then so be it. Unless the character's behavior changes and the assassination is abandoned or forgotten, the alignment won't/shouldn't change.
Intent matters so long as the character sticks to it. If the GM decides that every good deed is worth two "good-points", then the character should counter it with discreet desecration (spitting into the holy water font, damaging clothes given away to beggars, and so on); match every bit of fake goodness with some honest ill will and the GM shouldn't change the character's alignment.
He'd either remain stone cold evil because he wants to kill someone, or the good deeds go under his skin and he becomes non-evil not just on the paper (which doesn't exist), but in reality, too, and he will have real trouble murdering someone he has come to admire for the good deeds he does.
Alignment is not a colour, you can't spray-paint a different one on. The detection abilities like a paladin's detect evil don't pick up whether ever nursed a single kitten back to health. It detects what you really are.
If you want to fool the magic, use magic. There's ways to mask your alignment. But you can't b+~~$@$* your way past the evil detector.
I would make a distinction between doing "good deeds" in an attempt to infilitrate a good church to do heinous things and casting spells with the "Good" descriptor. The first is actually truly dastardly Evil with a capital E in my book, and would not be likely to change alignment unless the character wishes it so for roleplaying reasons and abandons the plan to do heinous things because, gee, doing good stuff makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and he likes the way it has improved his personal relationships and self-image.
On the other hand, for an evil cleric to cast "Good" descriptor spells (or vice versa) is something I don't even allow in my campaigns. It is sacrilege and requires handling of divine energy that is anathema to their being and beliefs. I could see allowing it for an evil god of deception and lies, but only within limits, and would require saving throws to prevent the acts from altering alignment involuntarily. Just my take on it. Certainly not RAW, but works for me.
Great thread title!
Great Thread title.
To be honest, just another area were alignment fails as a game mechanic. So i could see a DM going either way.
So much for evil clerics being able to heal their allies...I would make a distinction between doing "good deeds" in an attempt to infilitrate a good church to do heinous things and casting spells with the "Good" descriptor. The first is actually truly dastardly Evil with a capital E in my book, and would not be likely to change alignment unless the character wishes it so for roleplaying reasons and abandons the plan to do heinous things because, gee, doing good stuff makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and he likes the way it has improved his personal relationships and self-image.
On the other hand, for an evil cleric to cast "Good" descriptor spells (or vice versa) is something I don't even allow in my campaigns. It is sacrilege and requires handling of divine energy that is anathema to their being and beliefs. I could see allowing it for an evil god of deception and lies, but only within limits, and would require saving throws to prevent the acts from altering alignment involuntarily. Just my take on it. Certainly not RAW, but works for me.
I ignore the descriptor for that one, although my evil clerics still tend to be pretty stingy on their healing spells, and not memorize many.
Realistically, such an individual might find his attitudes slowly changing. The cognitive dissonance between his plans and actions would influence him and he might find himself absorbing some of the attitudes of those around him. Acting a part, he slowly becomes the person he pretended to be. This is the same phenomenon that can cause undercover cops to become "dirty" or military troops to grow more homogenous in their attitudes. Taken to extremes, such influences can be like the techniques used when "brainwashing" people.
Just my 2¢ but I would think that an evil cleric could certainly attempt such a dastardly deception. Casting good descriptor spells may cause their alignment to shake a bit, but if they regularly get a fair amount of evil acts, then it shouldn't be a problem.
I see the dichotomy of good and evil to be one of selfishness vs empathy. Perhaps casting good aligned spells makes one feel more connected to other creatures, in the case of healing spells perhaps feeling a bit of their pain as one's own. However an evil aligned cleric may decide that feelings such as these are a weakness to be purged, and may commit acts of cruelty on the weak or small animals in an attempt to cultivate their feelings of power and self satisfaction.
In a lot of ways its like undercover work, where cops are forced to commit crimes to keep their cover, and take with it an emotion toll.
edit - dang! ninja'd by Sir_Wulf
The problem with D&D is that.
If you are an evil priest... your going to be detected by "Detect evil" spells.
You will be effected by spells to block, cause pain, or damage to those that do not worship the temples god ((There are spells, that are not based on alignment, but on ones god)).
Any temple (in big citys), will be on the look out for this happening.
.................
If the evil priest changes his alignment to good.... then he will lose Spells, granted powers, channeling, and the ability to advance as cleric... until he gets an atonement spells.
The atonement spell would not work, if one became good out of one free choice.
................
Alignment is a game mechanic. Either it exists, and you have to live with it, both the good and bad side of it. You can do stuff like smite evil or good, but on the other hand, you can not impersonate evil or good.
I still think Alignment fails because of this.
Right. It's just that using positive energy = good act (unless this has been changed in PF.)The curing and healing spells do not have alignment descriptors. So heal away.So much for evil clerics being able to heal their allies...
That only applies to Channeling Energy power.
You can still memorized the spell and cast it without restriction.
It depends somewhat on his motives for the assassination.
To use evil means for a good end is a neutral mentality.
So much for evil clerics being able to heal their allies...I would make a distinction between doing "good deeds" in an attempt to infilitrate a good church to do heinous things and casting spells with the "Good" descriptor. The first is actually truly dastardly Evil with a capital E in my book, and would not be likely to change alignment unless the character wishes it so for roleplaying reasons and abandons the plan to do heinous things because, gee, doing good stuff makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and he likes the way it has improved his personal relationships and self-image.
On the other hand, for an evil cleric to cast "Good" descriptor spells (or vice versa) is something I don't even allow in my campaigns. It is sacrilege and requires handling of divine energy that is anathema to their being and beliefs. I could see allowing it for an evil god of deception and lies, but only within limits, and would require saving throws to prevent the acts from altering alignment involuntarily. Just my take on it. Certainly not RAW, but works for me.
Two things:
1. Clerics being unable to cast spells with an alignment descriptor opposite of their alignment (good cleric casting [Evil] spell) is forbidden by the standard rules.
2. Healing spells don't have the [Good] descriptor at all. Evil clerics can cast them as often as they want to.
I never heard about using positive energy being a good act or nagative an evil one. The fact that evil clerics get the channel negative energy ability and good clerics the positive one doesn't mean that these things are evil or good.
Clerics gaining access to a class ability based on their alignment doesn't mean that these things become inherently fused to these alignments.
If using these things was ideologically charged, the spell descriptors would reflect that. But they don't.
It depends somewhat on his motives for the assassination.
To use evil means for a good end is a neutral mentality.
Not necessarily. It depends on how evil the means are, and how good the ends. Derailing a train (killing everyone in sight) to save the child that fell onto the tracks is an instance of a good end used to justify evil means that is definitely totally evil.
I particularly liked the ideas about religion presented in Paradigm's Arcanis setting. In their world, the gods' alignment was not specified. Clerics could be different alignments and still worship the same gods. Different factions within a faith might hold radically-different interpretations of their faith's creed.
I've always seen Alignment as describing the character's intent, rather than his deeds. The need for atonement whan one has violated his religion's alignment suggests a sort of ritual "taint" caused by one's deeds, rather than a true change of alignment. A paladin who violates his creed doesn't necessarily change alignment, but requires that his soul be ceremonailly cleansed of the taint.
I've always seen Alignment as describing the character's intent, rather than his deeds.
It's a mix, really.
Just like an evil character can't just do good deeds with the intention of becoming good so he can sneak past some paladin bodyguards to rape their ward to death or something like that, you can't depend on "the ends justify the means".
The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is a tricky question. I'll give you my reply, but I'm not claiming it has any authenticity as a difinitive answer.
Alignment in D&D / Pathfinder needs to be kept distinct from the ethical questions of right behavior. Alignment -- from its first appearance in D&D, a palimpsest on Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories -- is about the gods and powers. Elric is "chaotic" because he serves the gods of Chaos. He can act as prudently, as kindly, as he likes, but he is still batting for Team Chaos.
So, my interpretation of alignment: every time someone in Golarion sees the sunrise and feels a swell of warmth in his heart, he is serving the Dawnflower, and adding a drop of devotion to her power. Every time you poison a rat in your home, you are advancing the "portfolio" of Norgerber, and strengthing the god of poisons just a little. So, good-intentioned people can serve evil gods, and vice versa.
Clerics are a different kettle of fish. Like Elric, Clerics -- and Inquisitors, I would imagine -- make explicit pacts and deals with the heavens. Erikol the Chaotic can ride into town and pay for his ale with coins; reinforcing lawful Abadar's portfolio in the process. But he can't devote his life and will to Abadar without espousing the god's dogma. The god grants spells and powers to the clerics, to be used at the clerics' discretion, and that requires a certain faith and trust on the gods' part. Other than the occaissional sign or spiritual dictate, the gods have to trust that the clerics are going to further their divine will.
(Animating mindless undead is evil in Golarion not because of any intrinsic quality, but because undead fall entirely under the purview of Urgathoa, and Urgathoa is evil.)
So, we come to Zombur's evil-aligned dude weaselling his way into a good-aligned organization. Every time he does something kind and holy, he will be strengthening the good powers. Over time, this will make his alignment "good", even though he may be foul-speaking, sarcastic, and unpleasant.
From a real-world philosophical perspective, he'd be a villain through-and-through. He's committing these acts to win something for himself -- the good will of his patsy Good Guy organization -- rather than any intent of charity. But from the supernatural mechanics of Pathfinder, he's "good-aligned".
Now, the gods are perceptive, when they stop to notice something, and I would bet that Iomedae's Sense Motive score is pretty high. Once this guy is called to her attention, perhaps in the prayers of a grateful cobbler who owes his life to this character's latest "nice" deed, she would see right through his ploy.
And, as I say, her clerics and inquisitors are there to serve her needs, interpret her signs, and follow her dictates.
Right. It's just that using positive energy = good act (unless this has been changed in PF.)The curing and healing spells do not have alignment descriptors. So heal away.So much for evil clerics being able to heal their allies...
I am speaking stricktly from 3.5 riules as my group chooses not to change to PF yet.
The chanelling of positive energy is not inherently good unless your going by the examples used in The Book of Exhalted Deeds.Evil clerics can and do cast positive energy to heal allies, heal enemies after a very long torture session, heal themselves and at no time would this endanger their evil alignment.
Look for example at the wizard spell Undeath to Death that unleashes a sudden burst of positive energy that in no way affects the mages alignment, however a simple Monster Summoning and calling up some celestial creatures does. I find that a bit too restrictive and a touch rules lawyer-y.
I can tell you in great length and detail of a cleric I ran of Velsharoon-FR Deity of Undeath & Necromancy- that carried a +1 Sacred Morningstar with the ghostbane weapon crystal. This was a perfect weapon for fighting the undead because the charecter was of the mind set that "if I can't control it, it needs to be put down"
He was as vile and as evil as anyone could imagine yet carried a positive energy weapon, His alignment was never in any danger of going good.
The assasin doing "good" deeds in order to gain the trust and an audience with his target is part of his cover and as long as he still plans on going through with his mission he will still have an evil alignment. On a side note paladins should have a reason to detect evil on someone they can't keep that abilty up all the flipping time.
The age old debate of does it matter where you are or where you are going?
*sigh* alignment threads.
The problem with all alignment threads is that people freak out when introduced to the idea that people commit oppositely-aligned acts all the time.
Let me state that clearly:
Good people commit evil acts on a regular basis.
Lawful people commit chaotic acts on a regular basis.
Evil people commit good acts on a regular basis... you get the picture.
It's a question of scale, and of (what we in the law call) the Totality of the Circumstances. This includes intent, yes - but should definitely not be limited to it. It's pretty easy for someone who only commits evil acts to say they have the best of intentions at heart.
Alignment's aren't binary - they're a spectrum. Good people aren't prohibited from committing evil acts (and it should be noted, I am talking about mortals here, not outsiders, with the arguable exception of paladins, who should live their lives emulating Archons.) And just because a good person commits an evil act won't turn the person evil.
But a person who claims to be "Good" who does more Evil than Good isn't Good. Likewise an "Evil" person who does more Good than Evil isn't Evil.
Mind you, he could well be evil and still get away with it.
It would be an EVIL act for a pasing Paladin just to execute the cleric for being 'evil' as the Cleric had committed no crime.
Indeed more so a repentant man trying to change his ways through good deeds...
On a side note paladins should have a reason to detect evil on someone they can't keep that abilty up all the flipping time.
Actually, they kinda can. A paladin's detect evil is at will (and in the perception and/or house rules of many 3e players, as well as in Pathfinder RAW, it works quicker than the stuff a cleric can do - A Pathfinder paladin can detect whether a single creature is evil as a move action) so they could do it all day long.
Even if you say that this would become too taxing, they don't have to do it all day. They only have to activate briefly to check someone when they meet him. If they're not quite that paranoid, they could limit it to the first time they meet the person each day (or each week). Something like that.
And seeing the way quite a lot of people play paladins, I wouldn't dismiss this. Not at all! They apparently need no special reason for this.
Besides, Semper Vigilans does have a nice ring to it. Paladins eat that stuff up with soup ladles.
The age old debate of does it matter where you are or where you are going?
*sigh* alignment threads.
What do you want?
Mind you, he could well be evil and still get away with it.
It would be an EVIL act for a pasing Paladin just to execute the cleric for being 'evil' as the Cleric had committed no crime.
Indeed more so a repentant man trying to change his ways through good deeds...
Sure, but there is quite a way of distance between "kill you on sight" and "trust you fully, giving you access to even the most holy places and implements."
Sure you can't kill someone for being evil (well, a paladin in Pathfinder can't, really.), but that doesn't mean you can't throw someone out of your church (the building and/or the organisation) for violating the tenets of the faith; or, in the case of those who claim that they want to better their ways, not fully trusting them yet.
At least not until you have subjected them to a magical truthtelling to gauge their sincerity about bettering their ways. Oh, and probably even then only after the change of heart has progressed far enough that they no longer detect as evil.
Yeah D&D/PF sure know how to kill some of histories greatest storylines with a couple opf trivial spells and basic abilities.
Detecting lies and alignments simply kills mystery.
Being good is hard. Your intentions AND methods BOTH have to be in the right place.
If he's setting up for a big score and still keeps that intent, then he's evil. If through acting out a part for so long he's no longer acting then he might start to change.
|
Interesting line in Detect Evil:
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
Bolding mine for emphasis.
Intention matters so much that a good or neutral aligned creature (of 5 HD or more) will detect as evil if they are planning on say:
Burning down an orphanage
Eating an intelligent creature
Genocide
Torturing Somebody
Murdering an innocent.
Actually that could make for some good role-play experience. Where the Paladin detects Evil in a merchant that he's known for a long time. Knowing evil intent isn't the same as knowing exactly what manner of evil is planned.
Maybe the merchant's wife was diagnosed with cancer, and the local good cleric's magic was unable heal her, no matter how much money the merchant spent. When she died the Merchant lost all faith in Abadar, and in his rage and pain decides that he's going to murder the cleric for failing to save his wife. He's been driven mad with grief, but he's actually a good man.
Now the Paladin in question might detect some evil and go all smite-happy, but really he might just ask the merchant if he's feeling okay. Maybe a little sense motive and diplomacy to change a life.
What were we talking about?
Yeah D&D/PF sure know how to kill some of histories greatest storylines with a couple opf trivial spells and basic abilities.
Detecting lies and alignments simply kills mystery.
Can't be so great, now, if it's defeated by simple magic. :P
And these spells don't really kill mystery at all. You just have to do better.
Oh, and remember that just because a spell exists, everyone can cast it at will or something.
As I said: You can still infiltrate a village church or something like that with ease. For the Most Holy Cathedral of His Own Very Seat, you'll need to do better.
What do you want?The age old debate of does it matter where you are or where you are going?
*sigh* alignment threads.
ouch kaeyoss.
let me elaborate.
I think alignment is really subjective based on point of view. That is why whenever I see arguements over alignment I only sigh, because to be honest no matter which way you slice the cake alignment is a point of view.
Evil is only Evil if a great deal of people consider it evil. If no one considered an act evil, it wouldnt be evil.
Same goes for good. Because the overall general view of morality is based on the point of view of others instead of your point of view then I find it to be inaccurate to the actual persons possible intentions.
For instance, stealing is wrong. You steal food for your family to live. You steal food for the poor, but then other people starve to death because you stole food. You never find out about those dying people, so as far as you know you saved people and nothing bad happened.
Little stories like that happen all the time.
My personal point of view on everything is there is NO good and evil, no right and wrong, no chaos and law, no future or past, only the gray indecisions of the here and now.
The reason I believe all this is because you cant say the future exists because you can never live in the future. You can also never live in the past you can only talk about it. As far as the past existing, it only exists in your mind and other peoples minds or on paper but its "existence" is unprovable.
Same goes for good and evil. Every act of "good" is a subjective point of view because good is one thing for one person and another for another. Evil is the same.
Until the world has a uniformed mind of what good and evil is alignment to me is a mechanic that doesnt always fit. Therefor it differs from gaming group to gaming group based on the assumptions of the group of what each alignment is. So it is impossible to argue about it on the internet with any validaty.
just my personal thoughts, sorry to obviously upset you kaeyoss.
The damn boards ate my post. Again. *Sigh*
I'll be short, then.
What do you want?The age old debate of does it matter where you are or where you are going?
*sigh* alignment threads.
ouch kaeyoss.
let me elaborate.
Ouch tokey, let me elaborate:
Surely you must know Babylon 5. You can't call yourself a geek if you haven't seen that. or a Sci-Fi fan.
Anyway, "What do you want?" Is the Shadows' catchphrase. "Who are you" is the Vorlons. They're ancient super races devoted to absolute Order and Chaos, respectively. The whole Shadows vs Vorlons part of the Babylon 5 story is a great interpretation of the whole dilemma: Order, Chaos, and humans smack in the middle.
Intentions don't count worth snot. Stalin had good intentions when he was "re-educating" people in the gulags. And, as they say, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.
The sum totality of one's acts is where the bread is buttered.
Oh, and remember that just because a spell exists, everyone can cast it at will or something.
Players seem to demand to, 24/7 and with monotonous regularity - always griping and moaning about fiat when they can't stand in front Royalty and gesticulate and cast divining spells at them without being knifed by guards or thrown in a prison.
Kirth, if you had to assign an alignment to Cadogan or Fiachra, what would they be? I'm curious if you and I see them the same way.
Cadogan? CN, because he just doesn't give a s!$!. Yeah, he goes along with the others, but that's largely a nod of the head towards self-preservation. Still, he's not all that bad a guy, just a bit immature.
Fiachra seems nastier; if I understand it, he actively wants to murder his relatives, and cares about societal rules less than Cadogan, while paying lip service to them solely as cover. His family history has left him as severly damaged goods. He'd be CE by Aviona standards, defined roughly as "the obsessive desire to amass power solely as a means to subjugate and/or impose misery and/or destruction on others."
Players seem to demand to, 24/7 and with monotonous regularity - always griping and moaning about fiat when they can't stand in front Royalty and gesticulate and cast divining spells at them without being knifed by guards or thrown in a prison.
Oh, and remember that just because a spell exists, everyone can cast it at will or something.
And I usually demand a bag of gold with my fish & chips when I get something at Nordsee.
I don't get that bag of gold.
Intentions don't count worth snot.
So you say a guy can nurse some sick kittens back to health and become good and totally fool everyone and not go back to evil until he's up to his neck in the guts of the high priest, every alter boy, and some passing parishioners?
So you say a guy can nurse some sick kittens back to health and become good and totally fool everyone and not go back to evil until he's up to his neck in the guts of the high priest, every alter boy, and some passing parishioners?
Did I not then clearly specify "sum totality of deeds," not "one single deed?" Quote out of context, and you can make anyone seem to be saying anything.