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).
This makes it arguably justifiable if there was no other way of obtaining the information. So what about the people who are tortured who don't actually have any information to give? What about those that invent information that implicates other innocents just to make the torture stop? In one instance, good was done. In how many was more evil the result of the torture? You are absolutely right in that the context must be taken into account, and that means all of it.
What has also been found is that behaving ethically toward prisoners often leads to them volunteering information - and perhaps more importantly changing their world view. Everybody thinks that they are the good guy, so when you act like the bad guy (torture) you reinforce this world-view, when you act like the good guy (treat prisoners fairly) you undermine it.
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.
Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
If you are the perfect master, then you will make sure that your slave has everything he could possibly ever need or want, save for those things that would harm them. You would protect them from all forms of attacks. You allow them to procreate, live their lives, love, marry, whatever - so long as no harm comes to themselves - and of course, continue to be productive. Heck, you can even recompense them if you wish, with cash money, goods, services.
The only thing you don't allow them to do is to do things that will harm themselves - don't do drugs, don't drink, have protective sex, don't kill anyone, don't fight, don't listen to rock and roll, take your medicines...
In short - the mere act of taking away another's will does not fit the definition of 'evil'.
I'm not suggesting that it's fun - the same way that you ask me to be someone's slave for a week and see if I enjoy it (an argument that I find facetious), I invite you to spend the same week in Mechanus (or Utopia in Pathfinder) and see how far you enjoy it. Humans are ill equipped for perfectly ordered lives (as are we ill equipped for perfectly good lives, or even perfectly evil ones, or perfectly entropic ones.)
But the taking away of individual will is not evil. It is, I posit, the ultimate expression of governance - complete and utter regulation of individual lives. That's what Mechanus/Utopia are all about - and that's Law, baby. Not evil.
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.
Probably because you like the song "stuck in the middle with you" and just can't imagine listening to it any other way than while cutting up some guy...
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.
Do you really belief that humans and/or governments never endorse or undertake actions that are useless?
Regardless of whether torture turns out to be effective or not, "people are doing it" is no indication whatsoever about any action's effectiveness.
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."
The Ten Commandments do not exist on Golarion. And they're not an inherent part of global law or anything. They're religious doctrine. As such, only those who believe in the respective religion (s) are really bound by them.
And the book they come in itself has countless instances where people kill others - and they're not only not called sinners, but they're holy men, laudable in the eyes of their God. The same God who, according to that book, dictated those ten rules.
You can interpret that however you will, I'm not here to pass judgement on that book.
I'm here to say that you can keep your religion and its laws out of this discussion.
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.Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
Yes, it does. Maybe not physical harm, but there is more to being a sentient being than physical matters.
Yes, it does. Maybe not physical harm, but there is more to being a sentient being than physical matters.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.Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
I invite you to expound.
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."The Ten Commandments do not exist on Golarion. And they're not an inherent part of global law or anything. They're religious doctrine. As such, only those who believe in the respective religion (s) are really bound by them.
And the book they come in itself has countless instances where people kill others - and they're not only not called sinners, but they're holy men, laudable in the eyes of their God. The same God who, according to that book, dictated those ten rules.
You can interpret that however you will, I'm not here to pass judgement on that book.
I'm here to say that you can keep your religion and its laws out of this discussion.
Fair enough, but a paladin IS still held to a higher standard than others, regardless of the campaign or the religions therein. He should feel just as remorseful as any Christian who is forced to kill.
A GM might not require atonement (nor should he), but the paladin should WANT to seek it out on his own after every adventure or two. If not that, he should at least roleplay some remorse. Otherwise, he's no more a paladin then the party fighter.
I saw this a lot in Star Wars Saga. Few people ROLEPLAYED Jedi, following the code the way they saw it and generally being Jedi-like. No, more often than not they were just big goons with glowing beat sticks and force powers who jumped into combat WAY too often WAY too soon with WAY too little provocation.
A player who chooses to play a paladin should ACTUALLY play a paladin, not some super cool fighter dude with high saves and an awesome smite ability.
Gilfalas wrote:
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.
You have just proven my point, according to this imprisoning someone is evil to the first degree because it has the same effect. I hope the good characters in your games only convert people.
I invite you to expound.Yes, it does. Maybe not physical harm, but there is more to being a sentient being than physical matters.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.Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
Free will is an important part of the sentient mind (or, if you believe some scientists, and important quale of a completely deterministic world, but let's assume that free will is real). Taking that away is like taking away food. Free will is, in a way, food for the mind.
Fair enough, but a paladin IS still held to a higher standard than others, regardless of the campaign or the religions therein. He should feel just as remorseful as any Christian who is forced to kill.
Depends, really. Mostly on what the paladin is killing.
A paladin who joyously slays devils and demons and the like (i.e. critters that are literally made of evil) doesn't have to feel any remorse at all.
A paladin killing mindless beasts should probably feel some remorse, but it shouldn't be a matter people start drinking over. It's minimal.
If it comes to humanoids or other sentient beings, things get interesting. But even then, if the critter is either something that is considered to be "always evil" or a champion of evil (anti-paladins, blackguards, priests - more or less those who have an aura of evil), there should not be too much remorse. Sure, they might have been redeemable, and in a perfect world, you'd have won them over with earnest discussion and an appeal to their heart, but it's not a perfect world (evident in the fact that there are evil people in the first place), and it's often better to slay the evildoer and prevent the loss of many lives than to let him live and risk him being freed without feeling remorse and just go on killing again.
Only if we get to the "casual evil" crowd, or those who are deceived into fighting the paladin, or attack him for reasons that aren't evil should the real remorse come. And, frankly, it's here where the code will really come into play, because in these cases, the paladin should probably try his best to subdue rather than kill.
A GM might not require atonement (nor should he), but the paladin should WANT to seek it out on his own after every adventure or two. If not that, he should at least roleplay some remorse. Otherwise, he's no more a paladin then the party fighter.
As I said: Depends on the situation. A paladin returning from an extended trip where he slaughtered nothing but fiends should have that warm, fuzzy feeling of a job well done, having saved little Timmy and all his friends and so on.
And even if the enemies were less obviously Evil with a capital E, I don't require paladins to be the moping type. It's possible, but I think if the paladin gives things a thought before doing them, and making good decision at every turn, he should not be required to feel remorse. He does his god's work, he is in his god's grace, he can take heart that his good deeds far overshadow any bad that might eventually come of the deeds he had to do.
I saw this a lot in Star Wars Saga. Few people ROLEPLAYED Jedi
Frankly, that Jedi code is manure to start with, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
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.Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
If you are the perfect master, then you will make sure that your slave has everything he could possibly ever need or want, save for those things that would harm them.
Three problems here:
1) How can anyone know better than you yourself what is in your best interests?2) Perfection doesn't exist.
3) What if what the slave wants above anything else is their freedom to choose their own destiny?
|
I stick by my system that the morality of anything must be weighed by three factors, the target, the act and the motive.
Torture is the act of inflicting pain or severe discomfort, typically a bad thing especially if the target has done nothing wrong. The biggest factor is the motive, not only WHY it is being done(typically info) but if there are better alternatives. If it is being done out of lazyness it most likely is evil, if it is done because lives hang in the balance and there is no other way than i have no problem with a good man doing what he must to prevent greater loss.
Fair enough, but a paladin IS still held to a higher standard than others, regardless of the campaign or the religions therein. He should feel just as remorseful as any Christian who is forced to kill.Depends, really. Mostly on what the paladin is killing.
A paladin who joyously slays devils and demons and the like (i.e. critters that are literally made of evil) doesn't have to feel any remorse at all.
A paladin killing mindless beasts should probably feel some remorse, but it shouldn't be a matter people start drinking over. It's minimal.
If it comes to humanoids or other sentient beings, things get interesting. But even then, if the critter is either something that is considered to be "always evil" or a champion of evil (anti-paladins, blackguards, priests - more or less those who have an aura of evil), there should not be too much remorse. Sure, they might have been redeemable, and in a perfect world, you'd have won them over with earnest discussion and an appeal to their heart, but it's not a perfect world (evident in the fact that there are evil people in the first place), and it's often better to slay the evildoer and prevent the loss of many lives than to let him live and risk him being freed without feeling remorse and just go on killing again.
Only if we get to the "casual evil" crowd, or those who are deceived into fighting the paladin, or attack him for reasons that aren't evil should the real remorse come. And, frankly, it's here where the code will really come into play, because in these cases, the paladin should probably try his best to subdue rather than kill.
As I said: Depends on the situation. A paladin returning from an extended trip where he slaughtered nothing but...
A GM might not require atonement (nor should he), but the paladin should WANT to seek it out on his own after every adventure or two. If not that, he should at least roleplay some remorse. Otherwise, he's no more a paladin then the party fighter.
To be honest I hadn't considered animals (which have no souls) or fiends (literal evil). I fully agree with you on nearly all your points.
Frankly, that Jedi code is manure to start with, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
BLASPHEMY!!!
|
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
Killing anything according to most in here is pure evil, All killing takes away someones right to live and therefore any killing is evil. Not my point of view but that is what this thread says.
On a more serious answer yeah it is still probably evil, even neutral wont kill the innocent just because they don't want to deal with it. The neutral course of action would be to say "I am sorry but I cannot help you" and then move on with your adventuring.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
This would be an evil action, but I would not cause a shift just because he does this. If this is his policy, however, then I would certainly consider a shift.
Warning him that that's an evil action, regardless of his actual alignment, was the right thing to do, in my opinion.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
While i usually give Neutral character more leeway with stuff.
In this case you had Helpless Prisoners who is not evil, Player had ways to cure him, And you gave the players a warning first.
Ya Evil Action. Even being neutral has it limits.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
I'd agree - casual homicide is still an evil act. If he wants to wear the black hat, let him. That he argues he's not being evil by casually killing just confirms he's crossed the line ...
This has come up a few times in game when players did not feel their alignment should take a shift.
The question that helps us is:
"Did your PC like doing the torturing action?"
The answer is a simple Yes or No. No room for debate. If it's yes, you get a mark towards evil. If no, you remain the same if you are good or neutral.
We leave the alignment shift decision ultimately up to the DM. When I DM, I might focus a little more on intent. But my players are pretty consistent in their reactions and usually remain rather neutral.
This has come up a few times in game when players did not feel their alignment should take a shift.
The question that helps us is:
"Did your PC like doing the torturing action?"
The answer is a simple Yes or No. No room for debate. If it's yes, you get a mark towards evil. If no, you remain the same if you are good or neutral.
We leave the alignment shift decision ultimately up to the DM. When I DM, I might focus a little more on intent. But my players are pretty consistent in their reactions and usually remain rather neutral.
You don't have to like an action for it to still be an evil action, you just have to perform it with a clean conscience. Paradox? Not really - a good person always questions if they could have done better, an evil person always justifies what they did as necessary with no qualms.
You may not enjoy torturing a thousand people to death in order to get information from one of them that you deemed vital, that doesn't mean it's right and justified.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
I'd have done the same.
Killing a sentient being because it's more convenient is definitely evil. If not killing him would have been wrought with considerable danger (i.e. you can't imprison him and might not be fast enough to keep him from flipping out and killing more people), I'd have put it squarely in the neutral category (or rather in the "doesn't change your alignment at all, even if you're good you won't slide towards evil" category), but not like this.
His argument is also groundless. Sure, he's neutral not good. But he's not evil either, and neutral characters can't just go around doing evil stuff all day without sliding towards evil.
Especially since you didn't say that it would provoke a shift at once, but that it was moving him towards one.
This has come up a few times in game when players did not feel their alignment should take a shift.
The question that helps us is:
"Did your PC like doing the torturing action?"
The answer is a simple Yes or No. No room for debate. If it's yes, you get a mark towards evil. If no, you remain the same if you are good or neutral.
We leave the alignment shift decision ultimately up to the DM. When I DM, I might focus a little more on intent. But my players are pretty consistent in their reactions and usually remain rather neutral.
You don't have to like an action for it to still be an evil action, you just have to perform it with a clean conscience. Paradox? Not really - a good person always questions if they could have done better, an evil person always justifies what they did as necessary with no qualms.
You may not enjoy torturing a thousand people to death in order to get information from one of them that you deemed vital, that doesn't mean it's right and justified.
Yeah. Apparently, those inquisitors who tortured people until they confessed to everything (and then burned them to death) weren't really enjoying it as a rule. They thought they were doing the guy a favour by saving him from eternal hellfire.
Yeah. Apparently, those inquisitors who tortured people until they confessed to everything (and then burned them to death) weren't really enjoying it as a rule. They thought they were doing the guy a favour by saving him from eternal hellfire.
Indeed - the first thing you need to understand about evil, is most evil people think they are the good guys and are only doing what is necessary.
Torture, Confession, Bruning people to death.
Sound like a move = Day of Wrath = i just saw on hulu, with Christoper Lambert.
Slow movie, but good story.
I strongly feel that the best way to deal with this is to sidestep the problem by removing alignment entirely... morality intertwined too heavily with game systems is asking for trouble.
Characters expected to uphold "morality" should have a code of behavior appropriate to the setting with which they work out with their GM. With alignment you have to much more baggage- spells, resistances, ect. Not to mention with a code of behavior, all LG paladins aren't the same guy. The Paladin who is pledged to one god who is considered "good" acts differently than another.
Holding to the absolute letter of alignments in a game which induces you to kill, rob, maim and explode isn't particularly brilliant. It's either Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. By the letter of the rules; I couldn't tell you which.
-Idle
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
No. Killing him would be a Lawful action IMO, but not evil. Its not casual. He attacked you. The punishment for assault in most medieval settings is death, not a pat on the back and some medical attention. Hang him from a tree and be done with it. Its no more evil than letting a bandit swing from the gallows. Its not the PCs fault the guy was dumb and got bit, or that he was weak willed and couldn't control himself.
Can I jump in with an "is this evil" question? I have a player who ends up killing a fair amount of prisoners. Player is neutral and most of the prisoners are evil (kobolds, goblins, mites) or bad guys, so I can accept those as executions. But a couple have been non-evil. Example - they dropped a werewolf below 0 hp but didn't kill him outright. Stabilized him, took him prisoner. Found out he was non-evil in his human form, a shmuck who had gotten bit himself. There are several cures for lycanthropy, most of which were available to PCs with a little work. This player just wanted to cure him by killing him. I warned that killing helpless prisoners, especially when there are other options, and they are not inherently evil, is a step towards an alignment shift. Player got miffed and argued the the character is neutral not good. I'm GM and I'm sticking by my decision, but I'm curious if others would agree.
Well, to me, it depends on what you mean by "cure him by killing him". Certain conditions can actually be alleviated by killing someone and then immediately casting raise dead or resurrection on the body - I'm not sure if lycanthropy is one of those or not, however.
Barring the good intention that such an approach implied, though, summary judgment and execution of an innocent in lieu of a non-violent alternative to solving the problem is grounds for an alignment shift. Simply put, if your PC doesn't want to be evil, he needs to stop doing evil things. I regularly play a True Neutral character, and would not consider this to be a good - or even non-evil - solution to the problem at hand.
No. Killing him would be a Lawful action IMO, but not evil. Its not casual. He attacked you. The punishment for assault in most medieval settings is death, not a pat on the back and some medical attention. Hang him from a tree and be done with it. Its no more evil than letting a bandit swing from the gallows. Its not the PCs fault the guy was dumb and got bit, or that he was weak willed and couldn't control himself.
There are a few holes in that logic:
Firstly, if the party are aware that in wolf form the werewolf is unaware and unable to control his actions, they are not faced with a conventional assault, and indeed even medieval justice did make such distinctions between being in control of one's actions, and being beyond one's senses at the time of a crime being committed.
Secondly, such justice is to be dispensed by the proper authorities, unless the person is officially an outlaw (ie outside the law's protection) so summary execution is not legal and therefore would be considered murder. Unless the party have the authority to dispense justice, then they cannot do that (hence their actions could not be considered Lawful).
Thirdly, this all assumes that medieval justice WAS just and that a legal act by medieval law was not evil. This is by no means a given in a system which sometimes condoned the use of brutal torture to discover the 'truth' ...
While it's not the PC's fault the man was bitten by a werewolf, it isn't his fault either (hence the meaning of the word 'innocent'). To kill an innocent person for convenience is an evil act.
Had they killed him in self defence while he was in wolf form, this would be both legal and justified. To hand him over to relevant authorities for cure/judgement is Lawful, and to cure him is Good. To kill him when there is no means of cure and no authority to hand him to and no means of preventing him injuring/killing again is callous but justified. But to kill him when they know him to be innocent of his actions in wolf form with no thought of curing him or involving the judicial authorities? Evil.
If the party kill the man in human form, not only is the act evil in my opinion, if it is discovered they may themselves be accused of murder. After all, where is the proof the man was even a werewolf to begin with?
While it is true, there is no penalty on sense motive checks for torture victims.
Thus you can instantly know if what he tells is the truth.
Sense Motive is not a magical lie detector. It cannot tell you whether what the person is saying is the absolute truth or not. It can give you clues as to the person's motive or mindset, but is not a magic spell. When applied to a broken torture victim, there's really not much you'll learn from a Sense Motive check except that the person's will is broken. You still won't know whether what they're saying is actually true or whether their mental state is beyond telling the truth.
---
On topic: Torture -- defined as a deliberate and forced application of physical or mental hardship to coerce or punish -- is evil, period, end of story.
Good people would never torture someone for information in the real world, let alone in a world where detect lies, zone of truth, and confess exist. Good is the harder path, yes. That's the point. If being good were easy, evil wouldn't exist. Evil is the easier path, the path where you don't have to care about anything. It's much easier to be selfish and self-centered than it is to be altruistic. In fact, it's been argued that true altruism is impossible.
I strongly feel that the best way to deal with this is to sidestep the problem by removing alignment entirely... morality intertwined too heavily with game systems is asking for trouble.
But then you must remove a fair number of spells from the game. How would you approach that? Ban the use of the spells against alignments?
Totally disagree with everyone who is applying western liberal moralities onto medieval morality. Killing a werewolf in any regard is neutral at worst, never evil.
No, actually we're interpreting the Pathfinder alignment rules onto a fantasy world. Medieval morality is used as a yardstick for a pseudo-medieval world, but that's where the resemblance ends (and is no use at all for, say, Eberron which is more Renaissance in character and 1930's pulp in feel). Sure, I have made the point that medieval morality was NOT that cut and dried, but that's not applying modern liberal values to it, it's actually how it worked.
The fantasy world has spells that actually work for determining innocence or guilt, people sometimes really ARE possessed of evil spirits that make them do terrible things, etc. All of these factors have an impact, arguably a bigger one than modern technology and liberal values have on us today.
Remember the party are not killing a werewolf that is attacking them, they are killing a man afflicted with lycanthropy, currently in human form. They aren't doing it because they cannot cure him or take him to the authorities, they are doing it because they cannot be bothered to. It's kind of like finding the Black Death in a house, and rather than calling for a healer or notifying the watch of a plague house, just barring the doors and setting fire to the place. Effective at dealing with the plague? sure, but don't pretend it was either legal or even non-evil.
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.Because "taking away someones free will and right to choose for themselves" does not harm that individual.
I cannot think you actually believe this. If you do, then who is qualified to decide your life for you? And how much do you cost because frankly if you think this then you should have no qualms about becoming a slave yourself.
But the taking away of individual will is not evil. It is, I posit, the ultimate expression of governance - complete and utter regulation of individual lives. That's what Mechanus/Utopia are all about - and that's Law, baby. Not evil.
Exept that the creatures that reside on Mechanus are lawful outsiders, to whom the realization of free will and extensive individuality is as alien as breathig methane is to you and me. Using the incarnations of absolute law as examples is the worst thing you could do. They are beings made OF the concept of law and absolute order. They EXIST to be orderly and to service their structure.
All the player races (and humanity in real life) cannot abide by such absolutism for any lengthy extent and are not made such as that. Hence why we abhor slavery in real life and why the vast majoirty of civilizations and governments today have made it illegal.
While slavery can be a 'lawful' act, when it comes to the point of imposing your will on another wether they want it or not, it then becomes evil. Subjugation of another against their will (or even if they relent) when they have no choice is generally evil.
To the person who said that prisons and imprisonment is evil I ask: Do you understand the concept of an implicit social contract?
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."The Ten Commandments do not exist on Golarion. And they're not an inherent part of global law or anything. They're religious doctrine. As such, only those who believe in the respective religion (s) are really bound by them.
And the book they come in itself has countless instances where people kill others - and they're not only not called sinners, but they're holy men, laudable in the eyes of their God. The same God who, according to that book, dictated those ten rules.
You can interpret that however you will, I'm not here to pass judgement on that book.
I'm here to say that you can keep your religion and its laws out of this discussion.
Fair enough, but a paladin IS still held to a higher standard than others, regardless of the campaign or the religions therein. He should feel just as remorseful as any Christian who is forced to kill.
A GM might not require atonement (nor should he), but the paladin should WANT to seek it out on his own after every adventure or two. If not that, he should at least roleplay some remorse. Otherwise, he's no more a paladin then the party fighter.
I saw this a lot in Star Wars Saga. Few people ROLEPLAYED Jedi, following the code the way they saw it and generally being Jedi-like. No, more often than not they were just big goons with glowing beat sticks and force powers who jumped into combat WAY too often WAY too soon with WAY too little provocation.
A player who chooses to play a paladin should ACTUALLY play a paladin, not some super cool fighter dude with high saves and an awesome smite ability.
Many paladins, perhaps most, would be hard to get along with. There is a degree of rigidity inherent in the concept which most players don't role play. Think of the Pholtans in Greyhawk. Extremely inflexible, preachy, fanatically self-righteous. Largely offensive to anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
No, actually we're interpreting the Pathfinder alignment rules onto a fantasy world. Medieval morality is used as a yardstick for a pseudo-medieval world, but that's where the resemblance ends (and is no use at all for, say, Eberron which is more Renaissance in character and 1930's pulp in feel).
BIG +1
Plus one two things exist in Pathfinder/D&D that, in general do NOT exist in our own world: The absolute codification of morality such that it is guarenteed testable and the acceptance of 'EVIL' as a valid social structure.
For example: The Drow KNOW they are evil. And they don't give a rat's crap that your good. Your simply weaker. Evil works for them and it (to them) makes them superior. They are under no delusions that they are a 'good' race. They are evil and damn happy with it and know it.
As well, there are being's made if absolute actual psudo physical quantities of moral concepts. Anything with an Aligment descriptor is composed of actual quantities of that moral concept. Hence one of the reasons that alignment descriptor is there to begin with.
|
Killing a werewolf in any regard is neutral at worst, never evil.Remember the party are not killing a werewolf that is attacking them, they are killing a man afflicted with lycanthropy, currently in human form. They aren't doing it because they cannot cure him or take him to the authorities, they are doing it because they cannot be bothered to. It's kind of like finding the Black Death in a house, and rather than calling for a healer or notifying the watch of a plague house, just barring the doors and setting fire to the place. Effective at dealing with the plague? sure, but don't pretend it was either legal or even non-evil.
Agreed. Killing a werewolf, which is suffering from a curse that can be cured, seems far more evil than killing a person who chose to be evil. The same logic would lead to killing any paladin who got dominated and did something evil. "Sorry chap, you lost control and did something evil. You must die now, 'cause that's easier than finding someone to break the enchantment."
When you've chosen to kill someone because it's *easier* than a less violent solution, you've ranked your own convenience over someone else's life. That's not 'neutral,' and it's not even within scrying distance of good.
[tangent] +1 to KaeYoss' assertion that the Jedi code is manure. The whole idea that some emotions are always good and others are always bad, when our world is full of examples of hope and love and trust destroying lives, and hate and anger and fear proving to be very, very appropriate reactions to certain situations, is naive and two-dimensional. If we don't learn to manage our feelings, 'good' and 'bad,' we remain victims to them. [/tangent]
All the player races (and humanity in real life) cannot abide by such absolutism for any lengthy extent and are not made such as that. Hence why we abhor slavery in real life and why the vast majoirty of civilizations and governments today have made it illegal.
While slavery can be a 'lawful' act, when it comes to the point of imposing your will on another wether they want it or not, it then becomes evil. Subjugation of another against their will (or even if they relent) when they have no choice is generally evil.
To the person who said that prisons and imprisonment is evil I ask: Do you understand the concept of an implicit social contract?
it is still a forced implicit social contract, just because they give it a fancy name doesn't make it right. They still have no choice but to abide by it regardless.
Slavery is the same way, you force someone into a social contract, only you do it after birth and not before.
Same Sh*t different pile
But then you must remove a fair number of spells from the game. How would you approach that? Ban the use of the spells against alignments?I strongly feel that the best way to deal with this is to sidestep the problem by removing alignment entirely... morality intertwined too heavily with game systems is asking for trouble.
http://alzrius.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/removing-alignment-from-pathfinder- part-two-magic/
This worked pretty well for me.
-Idle
Totally disagree with everyone who is applying western liberal moralities onto medieval morality. Killing a werewolf in any regard is neutral at worst, never evil.Except for the fact that killing is an Evil act according to the alignment rules.
You see, this is where I disagree with you. Killing is not evil based off of the alignment rules. Evil is lacking respect for life according to the alignment rules. Killing is included, but only in the context of oppressing and intentionally bringing harm on annother, and is described as being done for "fun or profit". There are many motivations to kill that are not fun or profit, or self-serving at all. And there are ways of doing it respectfully.
That depends entirely on what legal system you are using, and in many areas what the social status of the accused is.Caineach wrote:
No. Killing him would be a Lawful action IMO, but not evil. Its not casual. He attacked you. The punishment for assault in most medieval settings is death, not a pat on the back and some medical attention. Hang him from a tree and be done with it. Its no more evil than letting a bandit swing from the gallows. Its not the PCs fault the guy was dumb and got bit, or that he was weak willed and couldn't control himself.There are a few holes in that logic:
Firstly, if the party are aware that in wolf form the werewolf is unaware and unable to control his actions, they are not faced with a conventional assault, and indeed even medieval justice did make such distinctions between being in control of one's actions, and being beyond one's senses at the time of a crime being committed.
In pretty much every game I have ever played, the PCs either are as close to the local authority there is or they are fighting dirrectly against it. The ones that were not the players would kill him without a thought.
Secondly, such justice is to be dispensed by the proper authorities, unless the person is officially an outlaw (ie outside the law's protection) so summary execution is not legal and therefore would be considered murder. Unless the party have the authority to dispense justice, then they cannot do that (hence their actions could not be considered Lawful).
It is the moral system the game is based on. I already said that I do not consider torture inately evil, and that its use may be. Note, we already established that we have completely different views of what is good and evil. I have no problems with killing a prisoner rather than taking the effort to save his life, and would consider it a neutral act. Taking the effort is good, but not taking the effort is not necessarily evil.Thirdly, this all assumes that medieval justice WAS just and that a legal act by medieval law was not evil. This is by no means a given in a system which sometimes condoned the use of brutal torture to discover the 'truth' ...
While it's not the PC's fault the man was bitten by a werewolf, it isn't his fault either (hence the meaning of the word 'innocent'). To kill an innocent person for convenience is an evil act.
Yes, it is his fault for getting bit, and it is also his fault for not getting treatment. He put himself into a dangerous situation where he could be bit. He can get treatment just as easily as the PCs can get it for him, but he has chosen not to. Now, he is a menace to society, and it is his own fault.
Like I said, in most cases you are as close to relevant authorities as you will get. Cities and major population centers will have stronger authorities, but in most areas there is no law. Killing someone who attacked you is not evil IMO.
Had they killed him in self defence while he was in wolf form, this would be both legal and justified. To hand him over to relevant authorities for cure/judgement is Lawful, and to cure him is Good. To kill him when there is no means of cure and no authority to hand him to and no means of preventing him injuring/killing again is callous but justified. But to kill him when they know him to be innocent of his actions in wolf form with no thought of curing him or involving the judicial authorities? Evil.
If the party kill the man in human form, not only is the act evil in my opinion, if it is discovered they may themselves be accused of murder. After all, where is the proof the man was even a werewolf to begin with?
Where is the proof that those bandits over their attacked them and not the other way arround, or that they died while fighting and not after? You can give the players legal problems for anyone they kill in the campaign, or you can bury people in unmarked graves and forget about them like players are expecting, and like is done in the material the game is based off of.
Personally, I think the big difference is that I put a whole lot into the neutral category, and I think you are trying to define too much as good or evil. My world is filled with grey, and no matter what people say, the existence of detection spells do not negate this, as most actions will turn up nothing and most people will turn up nothing.
That depends entirely on what legal system you are using, and in many areas what the social status of the accused is.
... and the social status of their judge. That is where the concept of 'a jury of your peers' comes from.
In pretty much every game I have ever played, the PCs either are as close to the local authority there is or they are fighting dirrectly against it. The ones that were not the players would kill him without a thought.
That may be your games, in mine and every game I've played, it's a different story. I have played games where the party are delegated officially as agents of the local authorities, and games where they constantly have to tread very carefully.
It is the moral system the game is based on. I already said that I do not consider torture inately evil, and that its use may be. Note, we already established that we have completely different views of what is good and evil. I have no problems with killing a prisoner rather than taking the effort to save his life, and would consider it a neutral act. Taking the effort is good, but not taking the effort is not necessarily evil.
No ... the moral/ethical system the game is based on is spelled out in the alignment section, it is nowhere stated to be medieval in nature, it is implied sometimes in setting information, but Golarian itself is much more of a Renaissance setting.
Yes, it is his fault for getting bit, and it is also his fault for not getting treatment. He put himself into a dangerous situation where he could be bit. He can get treatment just as easily as the PCs can get it for him, but he has chosen not to. Now, he is a menace to society, and it is his own fault.
Actually most cases of afflicted lycanthropy the victim has no knowledge they are afflicted and/or are often in denial. All he knows is he got bit by a wolf and has strange dreams some nights, and is maybe sleepwalking.
Where is the proof that those bandits over their attacked them and not the other way arround, or that they died while fighting and not after? You can give the players legal problems for anyone they kill in the campaign, or you can bury people in unmarked graves and forget about them like players are expecting, and like is done in the material the game is based off of.
This is where legal and moral diverge. You might get away with self defence legally if you kill your prisoners, but morally it's a different matter.
Personally, I think the big difference is that I put a whole lot into the neutral category, and I think you are trying to define too much as good or evil. My world is filled with grey, and no matter what people say, the existence of detection spells do not negate this, as most actions will turn up nothing and most people will turn up nothing.
Oh my world is also filled with grey, make no mistake, but I consider inaction as important as action in determining alignment - 'do nothing' is a valid action. I'm afraid I don't share your 'killing is neutral' approach. Killing is an evil act sometimes justified by circumstances such as serving the greater good or taking pre-emptive action to do so.
The easiest way for people to be seduced into evil is by offering the evil option as the convenient one, and this to me is a classic example of that. The neutral option here is not to kill the man, it is to do nothing. The good option is to try and cure him, the evil option is kill him and take his stuff.
I strongly feel that the best way to deal with this is to sidestep the problem by removing alignment entirely...
That's cheating!
Plus, it robs the GM (i.e. me) of an opportunity to torture my players! }>
Holding to the absolute letter of alignments in a game which induces you to kill, rob, maim and explode isn't particularly brilliant.
Oh, but to the contrary! I'd say that only a game where you have the chance to kill, rob, maim and explode will really appreciate alignments.
No need for concepts like good and evil in White Wolf's new RPG Teletubbies: The Frolicking (Note: This RPG doesn't actually exist).
And, to parrot the old arguments yet again:
Many paladins, perhaps most, would be hard to get along with. There is a degree of rigidity inherent in the concept which most players don't role play.
No. Actually, too many players play the class as far more rigid than it actually has to be.
Think of the Pholtans in Greyhawk. Extremely inflexible, preachy, fanatically self-righteous. Largely offensive to anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
Those are Pholtans alright. Or not, I don't know the guys.
But that's not the only (or even a good) way to play a paladin.
In fact, it's a really bad way to play a charismatic, lawful good character, and an excuse to be a jerk.
I had paladins like that in groups often enough. Actually, too often (0 times would be too often, but it was more than that).
One of them just died the other day. Very tragic. Tragic because I couldn't make it to the session so I didn't see the idiot die!
It's just that the game doesn't have any arbitrary limitations on your behaviour.
So, when my character takes an action that changes their alignment to something which makes me vulnerable to a spell/ability based on his game-system approved morality stance; this is not an arbitrary limitation on my behavior?
-Idle
For my part, I am willing to concede two things vis a vis the Slavery is Evil discussion:
1) There may be harms that I do not at this point see to the mere act of taking away someone's liberty; and
2) The definition of evil under the OGL includes oppressing others/oppression in general, and there are few examples of that greater than slavery. Thus, for purposes of the game, I can concede that slavery is an Evil action in terms of alignment.
Killing, by itself, is not evil*. Killing a good creature, however is an evil act.
*Again, recall, we are speaking of within the confines of the pulp fantasy milieu/alignment universe.
It's just that the game doesn't have any arbitrary limitations on your behaviour.So, when my character takes an action that changes their alignment to something which makes me vulnerable to a spell/ability based on his game-system approved morality stance; this is not an arbitrary limitation on my behavior?
-Idle
No. It is a consequence of your behavior, not a limitation thereof. A limitation prevents or restricts; a consequence results from.