I've been running a low level game on and off over the past few months in which my wife is running a CG halfling cleric of a similarly-aligned deity. During an interrogation of a captured tiefling who was part of a group of daemon worshipers that had claimed responsibility for several gruesome killings in her hometown, the halfling extracted information from the captive with the creative application of a sewing needle to an axe wound.
Now, that doesn't make the halfling evil; her good deeds as a respected cleric in her village far outweigh her decision to torture the tiefling. But it's still not a very nice thing to do, and during the next session of play, I fully intend to have her superior priest dress her down for the offense and maybe even dock her a few uses of channel energy that day as a penalty from her deity. I'm still struggling with the question of whether a halfing-identified deity who revels in the humiliation of evil beings would have too much of a problem with her actions, but I feel it's important not to let this behavior get out of control.
The discussion in this thread reminds me of...
I agree with you on the compulsions - since that's asserting your dominance over another's will - but charms are different. More subtle, more tricksy.Actually, it's more lawful. Especially the compulsions. It's enforcing your will over that of others. It's taking freedom. Those are lawful deeds.
It might be considered a little chaotic, however, in the sense that you are violating the inherent contract of society and violating that innermost personal space - our thoughts - with your cheap tricks.
Of course! After all, we know that those lawful types wouldn't know subtlety if you hit them over the head with it about a million times. :)
The whole point of charm is to get someone to do something they wouldn't normally do for you. You turn an enemy into a friend and I guarantee you they will be doing things they wouldn't normally do for you.True, after a fashion. It makes them your friend, but it doesn't make them:
- Ignore things you are doing that may be counter to their interests or counter to the interests of those they care about.
- Perform any acts other than befriending them that are not in their nature.
Oh I never said there wasn't limitations to it. My point (that Dabbler's assertion that charm won't get people to do something they wouldn't normally do, is FALSE) still stands, however.
I am pretty sure the definition of murder is the intentional taking of life, for any reason.
And it is said that ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.
That means it has to be a human (or at least sentient life form if we're talking about fantasy world with dragons and elves), it has to be intentional, and it has to be for malicious reasons.
Self defense is still by definition murder and used to be a convict-able crime until they changed the wording of the law.
Not, it is not. Self-defence is killing someone to prevent him harming/killing you. No malicious intent. And it's not even necessarily intentional - if you defend yourself against someone coming at you with a knife and shove him away, he tumbles down the stairs and breaks his neck, you probably didn't even mean to kill the guy.
Besides killing in self-defence, there are many other kinds of intentional killing that are not murder:
I can't find where in the book it says slavery is evil.
Doesn't make it any less evil.
Not to mention passing a homeless person in DND isn't an evil act
Do you infer that it is in real life?
but having slaves with better lives then the other PC's (yes they had more luxury then everyone else but me) is punishable by murder.
Doesn't matter. They were slaves. They had no choice. You robbed them of their freedom. If you were so nice, why not set them free and offer them jobs? Surely, if their life is so much better than a bum's, they'd have taken it at once, yes?
It is important to note that charm person does not exert any control over a person's actions, merely changes their attitude toward you. It is not tantamount to rape because they will not do anything they would not otherwise do. You cannot charm somebody and then order them to sleep with you, for example: if they were not inclined to do so before, they still won't want to, they will just be more polite in their declining your offer.
Not order them to, but ask them to, and I do think that a charm person can tip the balance in this case. A lot of people will only sleep with people they like, and if the spell makes them like you, it's quite possible that they agree to a roll in the hay.
Though I wouldn't call that rape but seduction.
Probably why some take offense to its use.
Exactly. It reeks of "Steak is murder" and other PETA nonsense.
It has come to the point where I'm agonizing over my spell choices with this character, knowing that charms and compulsions can be used in horribly disgusting ways, and not wanting to be identified with that.
Yeah, better stick to a nice, clean fireball! :P
Seriously, it's saying that you swear off using knives because of what some mad serial killer did in a film or something. Tools are tools. While you can, in theory, do very bad things with them, it's not really the tool that does these things. It's the hand that holds it.
There are people who will argue that Charles Mason is innocent of wrong-doing, so go figure.
Who?
The "License to smite" issue is somewhat resolved for my part in Pathfinder.
My paladin will seek to smite anything that registers as STRONG or OVERWHELMING evil on his "evildar". But never something that is faint or even moderate.
Why? Because no human can achieve the Strong+ rating without being evil incarnate (Cleric of an evil god, anti-paladin etc) no matter how high level you get (assuming lv20 cap), and is in all likelihood a demon or undead in human guise, and should be destroyed for the good of all. (And please, no nonsensical arguments about "misunderstood vampires", I will only think less of you)
Regarding the "inaction is evil": I agree if action is harmless to you. The example of ignoring someone who is bleeding to death when helping cost you nothing... yeah, that's pretty evil. Most times, inaction stems from a fear of danger. "Yes, I could help, but then they might come after me, or my children" etc.
Helping is a good action, no doubt. Helping despite danger is a heroic good action.
It has come to the point where I'm agonizing over my spell choices with this character, knowing that charms and compulsions can be used in horribly disgusting ways, and not wanting to be identified with that.
Yeah, better stick to a nice, clean fireball! :P
Seriously, it's saying that you swear off using knives because of what some mad serial killer did in a film or something. Tools are tools. While you can, in theory, do very bad things with them, it's not really the tool that does these things. It's the hand that holds it.
As a player, yeah, I know enchantments are pretty effective tools. Like I said, my GM runs 'em so they are really freaking effective. But my character is pretty broken right now. She's really good looking and her personality is strong, but her crap wisdom is affecting how she deals with learning the true nature of Calistria's church and Her faithful, in addition to a host of recent traumas.
Oh I never said there wasn't limitations to it. My point (that Dabbler's assertion that charm won't get people to do something they wouldn't normally do, is FALSE) still stands, however.
As I said: That's not rape, but seduction or other forms of persuasion.
It is important to note that charm person does not exert any control over a person's actions, merely changes their attitude toward you. It is not tantamount to rape because they will not do anything they would not otherwise do. You cannot charm somebody and then order them to sleep with you, for example: if they were not inclined to do so before, they still won't want to, they will just be more polite in their declining your offer.Not order them to, but ask them to, and I do think that a charm person can tip the balance in this case. A lot of people will only sleep with people they like, and if the spell makes them like you, it's quite possible that they agree to a roll in the hay.
Though I wouldn't call that rape but seduction.
That to me is about as rape-like as someone who tells you "NO" and then you buy them enough beers until they start saying "hic, sure, whatever."
Manipulating someone into sleepign with you after they've said "no" is still a form of rape.
Oh I never said there wasn't limitations to it. My point (that Dabbler's assertion that charm won't get people to do something they wouldn't normally do, is FALSE) still stands, however.The whole point of charm is to get someone to do something they wouldn't normally do for you. You turn an enemy into a friend and I guarantee you they will be doing things they wouldn't normally do for you.True, after a fashion. It makes them your friend, but it doesn't make them:
- Ignore things you are doing that may be counter to their interests or counter to the interests of those they care about.
- Perform any acts other than befriending them that are not in their nature.
Technically, yes. But it is only false in that it only makes you do ONE thing that you would not otherwise do - be the friend of the charmer. That exception aside, it is TRUE. Other than being friendly toward them, it makes you do nothing that you would not do based on your nature.
Not doing anything to help is neutral in my mind, almost irregardless of the extrenuating circumstances. Its pretty much the epitome of neutral...Your response in defense of apathy is ironicly passionate. Sadly, the absolutism of your arguement does not hold water.
Goading a loved one into committing suicide, watching them slit thier own wrists and mocking them as they bleed to death without lifting a finger technically absolves one from murder. Some would say that it is "torture", some can say that the person was exercising thier "protected freedom of speech" and their "right not to get involved", but at the end of the day, it'd still be an act worthy of being deemed "evil".
...and pretty much nothing you can say will change my mind on this. Thats one of the reasons alignment debates are so much fun.Yes, trolling is fun, isn't it?
How does that even remotely relate to what I am talking about?
You are goading them. Thus you are not doing nothing. You are causing harm, for no apparent purpose other than to cause harm: evil. The law in this case can hold you criminally liable too.
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.
You are goading them. Thus you are not doing nothing. You are causing harm, for no apparent purpose other than to cause harm: evil. The law in this case can hold you criminally liable too.
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.
I'm afraid I don't watch Seinfeld, so I have no idea what you are talking about. However, how hard is it to pick a phone and call the police if you saw a crime? Not very.
In the case of the suicide, aiding and abetting a suicide is a crime on this side of the pond.
You are goading them. Thus you are not doing nothing. You are causing harm, for no apparent purpose other than to cause harm: evil. The law in this case can hold you criminally liable too.
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.
I'm afraid I don't watch Seinfeld, so I have no idea what you are talking about. However, how hard is it to pick a phone and call the police if you saw a crime? Not very.
That does not mean it is evil not to, or that you should be held criminally liable for not calling.
...
Would it matter if YOU were the person goading them or if a third person was goading them and you merely watched, dispassionately, in the same room, without stopping the distraught person when all you have to do is speak up?
Yes. If you are doing it, you are taking an active position to cause harm on annother. If you are not doing it, you are merely allowing someone else to take an active position to cause harm on annother. The first is evil, the second is neutral. Neutral is not good, but neither is it evil.
Forget the legal ramifications for a moment because someone deathly afraid of the real-life implications of such a scene would cave in like a coward to save their own neck. Also, for arguement's sake, let's say that the observer is not intimidated in the least by the "torturer".
Fear and consequences taken out of the equation - Is watching dispassionately as someone suffers mental torture until the point where they take their life at own hands and sticking around to see the last breath without helping still not inherently evil for you?
No. It depends on why you are watching, just like every action ever.
No.
Would it be more acceptable to call it "evil" if you involuntarilly snickered just the tiniest bit at a funny quip by the abuser while it was going on?
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.Actually, in that Seinfeld episode they were mocking the person getting mugged as it was happening. They weren't just doing nothing, they were taking amusement in the fact that it was happening right in front of them and the guy was calling for help. In effect, they were enabling the mugger to victimize this person unhindered, egging him on. The irony of the situation was completely lost on the audience.
I know, and I still say what they were doing was neutral. Just because the makers of the show wanted to make a point about the characters being amoral does not mean I need to agree with their point. Appathy towards the suffering of others is not evil. Being amused by other people's unpleasent situations is not evil. Causing other people's unpleasent situations is. Just because you have it within your power to help someone does not mean you are evil for not excercising that power. You are not good, but you are not evil either.
OK - here is my highly subjective and opinionated take on some of the issues presented here. Note that my responses are addressed to the Pathfinder standard world, Golarion, first, and to PF/D&D worlds in general, second. I kind of believe the same logic applies to the real world, but don't really want to go there - too many minefields.
Torture = pretty much always evil. Doesn't mean a good character could never do it without alignment change. There could be exceptional cases presented that would logically fall in the category of "serving the greater good". However, anyone who engages in it on a regular or even repeated but sporadic basis is likely to end up evil. This is an extremely steep, slippery slope.
Murder =/= most killing in the adventure context. Certainly the general PF/D&D ethos of kill bad guys and take their stuff is morally questionable, to say the least. If campaigns are designed strictly around that, with no higher purpose/goal like defending the village, rescuing the princess, etc. then I could see some of the killing as murder, and potentially alignment-effecting.
Mind-affecting Spells = complicated. To me, messing with someone's mind is not something to be engaged in lightly. While I would not equate it with rape (except in its most extreme forms, like domination), it does share the characteristic that it robs the target of some portion of their free will. Intent, execution and target matters a lot when interpreting whether use of these spells would/should have an effect on someone's alignment. I think a good character using them against an evil/hostile target to protect himself/others is on pretty solid ground alignment-wise (e.g. charming the orc guard of a dungeon to enable you to rescue a kidnapped child). Using it on someone who is not an immediate threat for expedience's sake is starting to enter the grey area (e.g. charming a merchant to get a higher price on the loot you're selling). Using it on an innocent just to get them to do what you want and you're slipping into solidly evil territory (e.g. charming a bystander and convincing him to scout out a dangerous area for you so you can see what attacks him or what traps are there). Dominating an innocent's mind by force and getting them to do something self destructive or against their nature and you've arrived in the land of the comic book villain, Evil with a capital E (e.g. dominating a man and forcing him to kill hid own wife and children). The real problem with the use of these spells is that they make some things so easy that they are tremendously seductive. The temptation to use them produces a pretty slippery slope, where a character could easily start out using them sparingly and only for very noble purposes and end up relying on them excessively for expedience. They could lead to alignment change if that were to happen.
That does not mean it is evil not to, or that you should be held criminally liable for not calling.You are goading them. Thus you are not doing nothing. You are causing harm, for no apparent purpose other than to cause harm: evil. The law in this case can hold you criminally liable too.
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.
I'm afraid I don't watch Seinfeld, so I have no idea what you are talking about. However, how hard is it to pick a phone and call the police if you saw a crime? Not very.
Yes it is, and you should.
By doing nothing you are enabling and encouraging the activity in question. You are sending a message to the criminal that there is nothing wrong with what he is doing. After all, if what they were doing was universally considered wrong, why wouldn't you do something?
Manipulating someone into sleepign with you after they've said "no" is still a form of rape.
Does that include begging until your wife relents?
From what I hear, the world is full of rapists, then! ;P
Seriously, I really don't see that one. It's only rape if you force, threaten or incapacitate.
Manipulation is not rape. They still get to agree of their own free will. You might nag or guilt them into doing it, but you don't blackmail them, you don't hold them down and do it, and you don't use roofies.
Alcohol can go either way, depending on whether you just lower their inhibitions or make them pass out (or nearly so). It's a grey area.
Whether charm person is a magical roofie or not is a matter of debate. I'd say it's not, because the only thing it does is make the person think you're their best friend. If they don't sleep with their good friends (or only if the friend is good-looking), that charm person won't really help you.
So it's not a date-rape spell but merely a couple of drinks to lower their inhibition.
I know, and I still say what they were doing was neutral. Just because the makers of the show wanted to make a point about the characters being amoral does not mean I need to agree with their point. Appathy towards the suffering of others is not evil. Being amused by other people's unpleasent situations is not evil. Causing other people's unpleasent situations is. Just because you have it within your power to help someone does not mean you are evil for not excercising that power. You are not good, but you are not evil either.
Taking pleasure in the suffering of others is most definitely evil by every definition I can think of. Sure, we laugh at comedy shows, and Darwin awards, but they are not incidents we are actually involved in or can in any way effect. When you are involved, you are involved, and witnesses are involved whether they like it or not - in this respect they are as much victims as the person lying on the floor doing the bleeding
Failing to alert the authorities or otherwise render assistance is likewise evil, because it encourages the act. 'Doing nothing' isn't doing nothing, it is tacitly agreeing with the person who's activity you are failing to prevent. You may not want to see it that way, but it is.
I know, and I still say what they were doing was neutral. Just because the makers of the show wanted to make a point about the characters being amoral does not mean I need to agree with their point. Appathy towards the suffering of others is not evil. Being amused by other people's unpleasent situations is not evil. Causing other people's unpleasent situations is. Just because you have it within your power to help someone does not mean you are evil for not excercising that power. You are not good, but you are not evil either.Taking pleasure in the suffering of others is most definitely evil by every definition I can think of. Sure, we laugh at comedy shows, and Darwin awards, but they are not incidents we are actually involved in or can in any way effect. When you are involved, you are involved, and witnesses are involved whether they like it or not - in this respect they are as much victims as the person lying on the floor doing the bleeding
Failing to alert the authorities or otherwise render assistance is likewise evil, because it encourages the act. 'Doing nothing' isn't doing nothing, it is tacitly agreeing with the person who's activity you are failing to prevent. You may not want to see it that way, but it is.
And in this we will have to agree to disagree, because I will not convince you and you will not convince me. I think it is neutral IRL, and will run it that way in my games. You obviously do not.
And in this we will have to agree to disagree, because I will not convince you and you will not convince me. I think it is neutral IRL, and will run it that way in my games. You obviously do not.
Indeed, but let me offer you this thought: Evil people almost never see themselves as evil, they always justify themselves as either the wronged party (they are in their own minds 'good'), or that they are only doing what everyone else does or would/should do (they are 'neutral').
Evil is never so seductive to do as when it is convenient, and turning a blind eye is always convenient.
Good people, on the other hand, always doubt themselves and question if they have done the right thing.
And it is said that ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.
That means it has to be a human (or at least sentient life form if we're talking about fantasy world with dragons and elves), it has to be intentional, and it has to be for malicious reasons.
Not, it is not. Self-defence is killing someone to prevent him harming/killing you. No malicious intent. And it's not even necessarily intentional - if you defend yourself against someone coming at you with a knife and shove him away, he tumbles down the stairs and breaks his neck, you probably didn't even mean to kill the guy.
Besides killing in self-defence, there are many other kinds of intentional killing that are not murder:
Execution: People sentenced to death will be killed by an executioner, but that man acts on behalf of the government and won't be tried for murder for this deed.
Killing animals: Whether you're a butcher turning animals into food, a hunter killing a dangerous predator, a vet putting a sick or hurt animal down, or just someone swatting at a fly, you have killed intentionally, but none of these deeds are murder.
(Voluntary) Euthanasia: Some forms are actually legal in most parts of the world, some (especially active euthanasia) are illegal almost everywhere, but even then, they're not considered murder. Only if someone abuses the term to kill someone he doesn't want to live (ethnic cleansing and the like) can this be considered murder. Doesn't make it any less evil.
Pulling up the definition of murder doesn't help when I explicitly mentioned that they changed it. I am not being ignorant. Being charged for murder when killing in self defense was a problem at one point. That was the past (you know, when dnd takes place) not now.
And I would suspect the slaves wouldn't have taken the jobs. Showing up everyday for a peasants wage, while losing all use of my luxury's that were provided to them (not my property any more and I don't need to share with every random peasant, including employees). Why would they take it?
And because someone mentioned it, I want to mention that I talked to my DM about owning slaves before the game started. He started me inside the town (slaves in tow) and my character temporarily left the town and when I went to go back in I was told to release them by the guards. My first question was how did I get in in the first place but I let that go. I also never attacked them, (I let my slaves go and they ran off into the woods, probably to die but the guards didn't care) they took my equipment and I was eventually killed by the first thing to attack me.
This is going to sound weird, but I consider myself to be evil. No, not in a raving lunatic sort of way, or even in a torture is fun sort of way (I don't personally like or approve of torture), but in the way a person can still be evil because he doesn't actively promote good.
Here's the thing if you really want to be good you have to give up everything you have for others. Everyone else's needs come before yours. You can never harm anything (not just sentient life), not that I'm a member of PETA or would ever consider becoming one, and some of their tactics wouldn't be considered good anyway. You could never commit any act that could have any consequence that would harm another, even to save your own life. Most people would disagree with me, but its my personal feelings on the subject.
Now, I wont say that actually being good is impossible, it's just impracticable. Most people however don't want to think of themselves as evil, so I tend to use the term "just" instead. Your action are just or unjust, In other words are they actively destructive or beneficial. A just person could justify killing because it saved more lives, or even his own life if it was threatened. He could justify eating meat, the animals that where killed where done so to enable me and others to live longer, and because they cannot comprehend or society or it's laws, they cannot be held responsible for their own destructive action. Yes one animal killing another in self defense or for food is evil as well, even if it's part of nature.
Unjust could be thought as being closer to evil, but here is where it gets tricky sometimes a unjust act still has a beneficial outcome. Like torturing someone to get info that might save others. It gets really tricky.
For me I tend to think of good in pathfinder more along the lines of just instead of true good. It may not be accurate but its certainly more practicable. Evil is evil but includes unjust acts, and neutral balances somewhere between the two.
Man that was a long post.
That was the past (you know, when dnd takes place) not now.
Um, actually, my campaigns always take place NOW. Just on a fantasy world, NOT a historic world. Makes it easier for most of my players, and definitely easier on the female characters. Tried a historic non magic campaign once, didn't make it past the first night. BORING!
Greg
That was the past (you know, when dnd takes place) not now.
Um, actually, my campaigns always take place NOW. Just on a fantasy world, NOT a historic world. Makes it easier for most of my players, and definitely easier on the female characters. Tried a historic non magic campaign once, didn't make it past the first night. BORING!
Greg
Fantasy plus now makes no sense to me honestly. How do you treat it like now? sprawling cities? capitalist purchasing? Can the average peasant afford to travel? All areas of the map uncovered? The difference between then and now is moral and political sense and our tech and knowledge of the world. So maybe you just mean the moral and political sense of a U.S. or European country (probably a few others but I don't want to list)
Edit: not to mention when armed and out in the field in our world tactical torture is not considered evil. So my guess is your games don't shift alignment based on that
Manipulating someone into sleepign with you after they've said "no" is still a form of rape.Does that include begging until your wife relents?
From what I hear, the world is full of rapists, then! ;P
Seriously, I really don't see that one. It's only rape if you force, threaten or incapacitate.
Manipulation is not rape. They still get to agree of their own free will. You might nag or guilt them into doing it, but you don't blackmail them, you don't hold them down and do it, and you don't use roofies.
Alcohol can go either way, depending on whether you just lower their inhibitions or make them pass out (or nearly so). It's a grey area.
Whether charm person is a magical roofie or not is a matter of debate. I'd say it's not, because the only thing it does is make the person think you're their best friend. If they don't sleep with their good friends (or only if the friend is good-looking), that charm person won't really help you.
So it's not a date-rape spell but merely a couple of drinks to lower their inhibition.
I love this post. It negates all the magic of charm person, boiling it down to beer goggles without the headache in the morning. Charm Person - who is YOUR six, twelve, or 24 pack of PBR beauty?
Aaanyhoot, that said, there should be a point where said PBR beauty, if, as you say he/she is not interested in that particular form of progress in your budding relationship gets an opposed charisma check to throw off the effects of the spell if you intend to press this particular issue. If we assume that it is a bard casting the spell, because let's be honest, you'd have to be a pretty die hard RP type person to make a wizard that specializes in enchantments, the opposed charisma check should not be all that difficult to make. Then, that I would say has crossed the point of being simple manipulation into a magical roofie-colada.
But, this has been enlightening. As I'm arguing with my GM over where to place my bard on the grid, I'm learning so many new and exciting things about how to use enchantments, and have these visions in my head of how a good-aligned Inquisitor and a good-aligned Bard could, in theory, completely rock the stuffing out of evil doers without ever having to hurt a single person that doesn't really deserve a beating. Add a Diviner and a cleric of Iomedae or Cayden and you got yourself a recipe for a successful revolution.
Fantasy plus now makes no sense to me honestly. How do you treat it like now? sprawling cities? capitalist purchasing? Can the average peasant afford to travel? All areas of the map uncovered? The difference between then and now is moral and political sense and our tech and knowledge of the world. So maybe you just mean the moral and political sense of a U.S. or European country (probably a few others but I don't want to list)
Edit: not to mention when armed and out in the field in our world tactical torture is not considered evil. So my guess is your games don't shift alignment based on that
Okay, looks like post monster ate my first post. My first time for it too :(
Can a peasent afford to travel? Well, that is a loaded question. It presumes there are peasents. If you mean the average person, then once again it depends. Currently, I play in Kingmaker. Admitedly we have not gone far, but it seems travel throughout the area is only hampered by beasts and banditry. We have encountered ALOT of travelers. But I do know that there are areas of Golarion that travel is actually impeded by the local government.
Capitalist purchasing? I have to admit ingnorance to the phrase. If you mean do I use a world currency as opposed to barter, then yes is the answer. It saves trillions of headaches. Though, I have played in games that did use barter, and others that have had hard to exchange coins for different countries. (but that was never the norm).
All areas of the map uncovered? No, truthfully most games I have played were exploration in nature. Learning about a new land. Even in the giant city, we played strangers that ended up there. I have played in worlds where certain countries were thoroughly mapped out though.
The difference of then and now? Once again, it isn't about Then and Now. It's not a change in time. It's a change in location. As in, I have played in a game where people of our world were transported to a DnD world. No one thought, "Wow! We went back in time!" instead it was, "Damn! where are we? Magic is real?! OMG, is that an elf!?".
So maybe I mean moral and political... Once again, different world. It is inspired by our world's cultures. Some cultures may mirror USA culture of today... or the 1950's... or medieval europe. But many do not, oftimes they are ripped from the pages of fantasy authors that try and do something completely different. I had a culture based on Jack Vance's short story, The Moon Moth: Masks, music instruments and deeds determined one's social position.
Really, it wasn't some deep meaning. I was trying to say, every D&D game I have played in (save one that was based on historical greece) took place in another world. Not in the past.
@ original poster. I must modify my answer. In most of my games, torture is an evil act. Evil acts singularly do not change alignment. (leaving Pally abilities separate) Continuance of evil acts, leads to alignment shift. Eventually, if never stopped, slides into becoming Evil. That would be me DM'ing. You need to ask your DM if they consider it evil or not. In the game world, matters of alignment are adjuticated by the DM. Alignment doesn't exist in the REAL world. There is no DM to decide if torture is evil or not. Good and Evil are opinions. Some of which are more widely held, but not everyone believes everything. But, honestly, evil is fun to play too. :P
Greg
I love this post. It negates all the magic of charm person, boiling it down to beer goggles without the headache in the morning. Charm Person
You're welcome. I've found that all "magic" is just using shortcuts to do things that could conceivably happen anyway (not that they're very probable). A friend of mine, his name is Malkov, has given me some interesting insight.
Aaanyhoot, that said, there should be a point where said PBR beauty, if, as you say he/she is not interested in that particular form of progress in your budding relationship gets an opposed charisma check to throw off the effects of the spell if you intend to press this particular issue.
The spell already says that if you want to convince the target to do something they wouldn't ordinary do, you get a single shot at winning them over with an opposed charisma check (no retries allowed).
So that's already in. That means if you want the target to sleep with you but the target doesn't want more than just be friends, and doesn't do the friends with benefits deal, you'll have one attempt to convince him/her.
And, of course, if you or any of your apparent allies threatens the target in any way, the spell shatters.
If we assume that it is a bard casting the spell, because let's be honest, you'd have to be a pretty die hard RP type person to make a wizard that specializes in enchantments
Who says I'm not? Or that they don't exist?
Anyway, I've seen many, many wizards that didn't particularly specialise in enchantment but still use charm person.
And I don't agree that you have to be a "die hard RP type person" to make an enchanter. So in addition to bards, we have enchanters and other wizards. And sorcerers. And, of course, charming priests...
Not that the difficulty of the check has any bearing on how you treat this act.
Then, that I would say has crossed the point of being simple manipulation into a magical roofie-colada.
I think I agree: If you just use charm and then can use normal methods of persuasion to get the target in bed, it's manipulation.
If you have to push the target magically (which I consider to be the case here, since this opposed charisma mechanic in this special case is especially for this special purpose of pushing people to go beyond what they do. My, is that sentence special!), it's a magical roofie-colada.
By the way: roofie-colada? They have special recipes now?
Torture is an evil act. It's well known that torture does not work. It just breaks a person and gets them to tell you anything you want to hear in order for you to stop the torture. The information might be true or might not but it's compromised none the less. You don't need to torture someone to run off in wild goose chases which is what you will do reguardless.
So the only reason you torture anyone is because you like to inflict harm on others. For what ever reason torture makes you feel good. You aren't doing for the information, you are doing it to inflict harm on another person. You justify it by saying it for the greater good, that's because you conscience is bothering you due to doing something evil. You pile the information you gain and try to make it fit so you don't have to view yourself as evil as you really are.
Basically your are like Dexter on the TV show only you do not kill you just inflict pain and suffering on another person.
It's well known that torture does not work.
Just wanted to point out that this statement is pretty inaccurate. The far more accurate statement is "It's been proven that torture, as a system practice, is not effective in gathering information."
On individual, case-by-case basis, however, torture could work. IE, if the individual does know something, and can be broken by torture, then it will work. The problem is, as a systemic response, not every individual tortured - in fact, most - will know something, so they're more likely to give you useless and forced information.
I'm gonna post my bottom line because well I feel like it
Murder: It is evil because someone intentionally takes away someones right to live
Torture: It is evil because it causes physical harm to someone
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedom
So what is Mr. Good Guy to do? Most would say to subdue them but then what? Turn them in? Well then you have taken their freedom, and either sent them to the chopping block (intentionally taken their right to live) or put them in prison (horrible enough to constitute as physical harm)
So with a narrow view of good and evil that some suggest DND to have the only way to be a good aligned character is to turn evil to the good side. All other options are evil.
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedom
I actually don't think that slavery itself is evil. It's Lawful. Now, most things that we associate with slavery (the degrading conditions, the sub-optimal living arrangements, etc.,) are evil. But the mere act of slavery, IMO (and in my games) isn't evil. Just my 2 cents.
Edit: And with my view of things, it eliminates your problem of there being no "good" solution to evil except turning them from the path of evil. A lawful good character - in fact, a Paladin - would be perfectly in character with eradicating evil altogether through the point of a sword. No moral/ethical dilemma over respecting evil's "freedoms".
|
I'm gonna post my bottom line because well I feel like it
Murder: It is evil because someone intentionally takes away someones right to live
Torture: It is evil because it causes physical harm to someone
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedom
So what is Mr. Good Guy to do? Most would say to subdue them but then what? Turn them in? Well then you have taken their freedom, and either sent them to the chopping block (intentionally taken their right to live) or put them in prison (horrible enough to constitute as physical harm)
So with a narrow view of good and evil that some suggest DND to have the only way to be a good aligned character is to turn evil to the good side. All other options are evil.
No, you still don't seem to grasp that Paladins do not murder. They kill. There's a difference. Murder involves malice, illegality, the victim being sentient and generally humanoid (at least in a fantasy setting; it's not okay to kill a Dwarf because he's not a human, for example) and usually being the aggressor. Paladins kill monsters, horribly evil people who are breaking the law, or general threats to peace and order. That isn't murder. You can't just say that murder used to describe self defense systems and therefore in a fantasy setting it always will. If you insist on using past moral values for your D&D alignments, do you also treat female characters as property? Do people in your campaign consider it incest when a woman marries her dead husband's brother? Are mages burned at the stake for being witches? If not, you're just cherry-picking past values to say that all killing is murder.
In general, for the most logical consistency and ease of roleplaying, you should use modern values for the alignment system. Get rid of the idea that fantasy games take place in the past. They don't. They take place in alternate realities in which magic exists. Who's to say that just because technology is less advanced, moral values have to be less advanced? Generally, I assume that fantasy worlds are less advanced than our own because the best and brightest people who would become inventors in our world become wizards instead in worlds where magic exists. If you read the history section of most published campaign settings, you'll note that civilization in those worlds has been around for longer than civilization in ours. Reliance on magic would only cripple scientific and technological advancement, not moral advancement, especially considering that you can literally talk to gods and angels and get advice from them in most settings.
So no, a good-aligned character has more choices than just trying to redeem people. They can kill if they have to. A lich obviously won't ever stop being evil; it's okay to kill him if he's a threat to the peace. Hell, he spat in the face of everything holy and natural when he became undead. A Demon will always be horrifically evil; it's not murder to kill one. A cleric of an evil deity is obviously past redemption, and if he's harming innocents, it's not murder to kill him. Now, these types of killings are always expected to be clean and humane if they're going to be good-aligned actions. It's okay to stick your sword through a bandit lord's heart, but it's not okay to slowly flay him and feed him his own fingers until he dies. Thus, you are correct in that torture should be off-limits to good characters.
Slavery is definitely Lawful, but it can also be inherently Evil (albeit to a lesser degree than torture, rape, serial murdering, etc.) depending on the circumstances. If the person sold himself into slavery and is content in it, having him as a slave is simply Lawful. If the slave was kidnapped from his home by raiders and obviously would like to be free, keeping him as a slave is Evil. I would argue that slavery can never be a Good action, although it doesn't have to be evil if your slaves are fine with it. And by fine, I mean fine by their own free will. Using Charm Person or magical items to make them content in slavery is pretty Lawful Evil. Sending a criminal to jail isn't the same as slavery. A criminal did something horrible to deserve being sent to jail, and it is usually for a temporary period unless his act was truly heinous. Slavery is generally committed against the innocent. Now, if your Lawful Good slaver came from a culture where slavery was the replacement for prison (sort of like the Aztecs), then I guess his slavery might be fine.
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedomI actually don't think that slavery itself is evil. It's Lawful. Now, most things that we associate with slavery (the degrading conditions, the sub-optimal living arrangements, etc.,) are evil. But the mere act of slavery, IMO (and in my games) isn't evil. Just my 2 cents.
Edit: And with my view of things, it eliminates your problem of there being no "good" solution to evil except turning them from the path of evil. A lawful good character - in fact, a Paladin - would be perfectly in character with eradicating evil altogether through the point of a sword. No moral/ethical dilemma over respecting evil's "freedoms".
See that's my point of view, its really intention and effort that matter, not the actual act
@squidmasher I didnt say they murdered in that post, but the very reason murder is evil (depriving someone of their right to live) applies to all forms of killing. Broad statements suck, but that's what everyone is pushing.
You seem to think doing something bad robs someone of their right to be free or live. Blatantly saying torture is evil means all forms of torture is evil. Yes in your games you can create those exceptions for circumstance (like jailing being okay).
I am okay with following the same moral standards of today but that means not all murder, torture, and slavery are evil
I'm gonna post my bottom line because well I feel like it
Murder: It is evil because someone intentionally takes away someones right to live
Torture: It is evil because it causes physical harm to someone
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedom
So what is Mr. Good Guy to do? Most would say to subdue them but then what? Turn them in? Well then you have taken their freedom, and either sent them to the chopping block (intentionally taken their right to live) or put them in prison (horrible enough to constitute as physical harm)
So with a narrow view of good and evil that some suggest DND to have the only way to be a good aligned character is to turn evil to the good side. All other options are evil.
I see your logic, but you ignore the fact that intrinsically evil actions can have justification.
Murder is Evil - but killing in self-defence is justified, and that includes in defence of somebody else's life. Hence killing the dragon that will eat the villagers is justified as taking one life to save many.
Slavery is evil: but imprisoning someone who afflicted others is again justified.
Torture: In very rare occasions you may be able to justify using pain and fear to get information out of someone, if that information, for example, saves lives. By and large, though, torture is only of any use when you want a confession regardless of guilt.
I would like to take a small issue with the idea that torture is ineffective. If this was the case, there would be no official torture. I am not talking about sadism- torture for the sake of causing pain only- but torture as part of interrogation. It is used as part of a program of information gathering in lots of dark places, and if it did not work, why would elite soldiers be taught how to resist? In fact, skilled interrogation that includes physical and mental duress is generally thought to be almost guarnateed to get what the interrogator wants. Read about Escape and Evasion courses and POW memoirs...
I am not talking about a victim just saying anything to make it stop-I mean the victim gives it all up. That is what a talented interrogator does- dividing the truth from the attempts to feed the captors what they want to hear.
If I can make a small suggestion on the torture is effective/not effective discussion it would be: let's not go there. Fact is, you can find "experts" who argue both sides of this issue, and there really is no hard and verifiable scientific data.
This issue also can tend to get both very real world political and very emotional quickly, without being likely to be productive, so I'd just drop it.
Killing in any form is sinful. It's right there in the Ten Commandments, which doesn't give any leeway for such mortal notions as "self defense" or "patriotism." Sin by its very nature is evil. Killing in any form is a form of evil. Normal every day people who are forced to kill seek atonement for their actions, even when their actions are perfectly justified by society. A paladin, being a level above everyone else, should do nothing less.
As such, any paladin who kills FOR ANY REASON, should seek atonement (and may also be at risk of losing their powers depending on the circumstances).
Killing in any form is sinful. It's right there in the Ten Commandments, which doesn't give any leeway for such mortal notions as "self defense" or "patriotism." Sin by its very nature is evil. Killing in any form is a form of evil. Normal every day people who are forced to kill seek atonement for their actions, even when their actions are perfectly justified by society. A paladin, being a level above everyone else, should do nothing less.
As such, any paladin who kills FOR ANY REASON, should seek atonement (and may also be at risk of losing their powers depending on the circumstances).
Disagree. Maybe, if I ran games based in a Christian world. But even then, I would probably follow the examples givin in Chistofer Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme series. But I do not think a Pally should take "pleasure" in killing. But that is a mostly fluff thing.
Greg
Seeing as in-game morality is generally based off of real life morality (only more black and white) and Christianity makes up the world's largest single religion (~33% of all religions) I think my statement above has a little ground to stand on.
Even if you wholly discount all that, I doubt many will deny that paladin's are held to a higher standard than most. If Joe farmer is willing to go to the local temple and repent for killing in self defense, why not the paladin?
It's well known that torture does not work.Just wanted to point out that this statement is pretty inaccurate. The far more accurate statement is "It's been proven that torture, as a system practice, is not effective in gathering information."
On individual, case-by-case basis, however, torture could work. IE, if the individual does know something, and can be broken by torture, then it will work. The problem is, as a systemic response, not every individual tortured - in fact, most - will know something, so they're more likely to give you useless and forced information.
+1. You also have to factor the "fantasy reality" of a Pathfinder game into it. Torture + Zone of Truth is a whole different animal than exists in the real world, for example.
Seeing as in-game morality is generally based off of real life morality (only more black and white) and Christianity makes up the world's largest single religion (~33% of all religions) I think my statement above has a little ground to stand on.
Even if you wholly discount all that, I doubt many will deny that paladin's are held to a higher standard than most. If Joe farmer is willing to go to the local temple and repent for killing in self defense, why not the paladin?
Two things:
1) The paladin that needs to get an atonement every time he kills anything isn't remotely fun to play. A GM who insists on that has something seriously wrong with him as a person.
2) It's not a farmer's job to kill people. It is, potentially, among the paladin's jobs to kill bad people who are doing bad things. He gets his hands bloody and faces the horrors of battle so other people don't have to.
Killing in any form is sinful. It's right there in the Ten Commandments, which doesn't give any leeway for such mortal notions as "self defense" or "patriotism." Sin by its very nature is evil. Killing in any form is a form of evil. Normal every day people who are forced to kill seek atonement for their actions, even when their actions are perfectly justified by society. A paladin, being a level above everyone else, should do nothing less.
As such, any paladin who kills FOR ANY REASON, should seek atonement (and may also be at risk of losing their powers depending on the circumstances).
RD, that's a way oversimplified interpretation of Judeo-Christian thinking on the subject, about which literally entire libraries have been written that I don't think anyone wants to hear me summarize. To keep it short and sweet - the practical application of the "Thou Shalt not Kill" commandment has been debated passionately for years, since even a quick skimming of the rest of the Old Testament will show there is a whole lot of killing going on, much of it supported or even commanded by God. Some scholars credibly suggest that this would be better translated as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder".
In any event, this is Judeo-Christian morality, which may or may not have any impact on morality in any particular game.
|
|
The problem with leftist moral relativists is they fail to distinguish between good/evil actions and good/evil intended outcome. For example, a terrorist was waterboarded that led to stopping a bomb which would have killed innocent people. The action of torture was evil only if totally devoid of moral context since the outcome was good (1 evil person was tortured and many innocent lives were saved).
So I would say it would shift a character toward toward chaotic good if lawful or neutral good, but it not necessarily move it toward evil, especially if the outcome was good and/or perceived as good.
By analogy, some say that Switzerland's 'neutrality' during world war II was not neutral but Evil. Neutral when good changes are happening further the goals of good and can be considered good. Neutral when bad changes are happening further the goals of bad and can be considered bad.
Normal every day people who are forced to kill seek atonement for their actions, even when their actions are perfectly justified by society. A paladin, being a level above everyone else, should do nothing less.
As such, any paladin who kills FOR ANY REASON, should seek atonement (and may also be at risk of losing their powers depending on the circumstances).
Exept that Paladins exist to kill. That is part of their purpose. They are not there (for the most part) to aid the congregation spiritually, they are charged by their gods to go forth and activetly confront evil and stop/slay it.
In a role playing game world where combat can be an accepted form of conflict resolution and where the 'gods' have active servants who can perform magic, moral issues can and will arrise that have no real world counterparts. Such as the Paladin. While based on a real world concept of purity, morality and goodness, the end result in the game world is a hloy warrior who's entire point of existance is to stop evil and kill it should it be necessary.
That does not disobviate the Paladin from needing to follow righteous laws, and be held to an even higher standard of morality than his fellows though. With great power DOES come great responsibility and the Paladin is indeed often held to an even higher standard due to their code and the madatory Lawful and Good world view and ethos.
But saying that anytime a Paladin kills it should need to atone is an extremist fallacy that ignores the purpose for the class and the accepted makeup of the game world that would have them.
They are not pacifist saints, they are men and women of action, oftentimes by need violent action, guided by faith, restraint, goodness and order.
It is their JOB to kill certain evils (extraplanar evils being a great example). Would you say every time a mage practices their craft they needed to atone?
While an extremist case can be made for the sake of argument to make an example, I don't think it makes for a credible argument in the relation of Paladins and game worlds morals.
Like this?
The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
Why yes, as a matter of fact, exactly like that! :) Makes for great RP with the rest of the group too in campaign that can support the level of maturity and subject matter necessary.
Slavery: It is evil because someone takes away someones freedomI actually don't think that slavery itself is evil. It's Lawful.
How can taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves not be evil? Slaves, no matter how well treated, still cannot live their own lives or make their own choices if doing so is counter to the will or whims of their owners.
Try this experiment: Be a slave for a week to a friend. Absolve them of any guilt beforehand and tell them they can order you to do anything they want, no matter what, and that you have to do it. See how long that lasts before you start to rethink it.
No matter how guilded the cage, it is still a prison and those inside prisoners.
|
|
How can taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves not be evil?
By that logic, Africa is far more responsible for slavery than America. Since Africans have and still do gather slaves, enslave them and sell them. Whereas Americans historically simply purchased already-enslaved slaves, they didn't forcibly gather them.
You have to distinguish between the two. There is a local coffee chain in Atlanta where a radical Iranian mullah has a large share of the company. Am I evil for buying a cup of coffee there? It isn't so simple. Almost every purchase you make indirectly supports some evil activity yet you cannot squarely pin all moral accountability on the purchaser.
Let's slay a Paladin's lord tells the paladin to kill someone who is greatly evil and tells the story of why they are evil. The Paladin kills them THEN finds out his lord was lying and they killed someone innocent. That doesn't transmute the past action from Good to Evil. The intent remains good and the outcome remained evil.