|
It is sad, but all too common that people, even in fantasy roleplaying games, vehemently deny that there are consequences for their personal actions while condemning others in the same breath.
Moral ambiguity might be amusing to play, but it is certainly not heroic in the classical sense.
*looking at his books on mythology, history and quite a bit of non=D&D lit fantasy*
Hmmm, the "classical" hero seems to be a true rat bastard much of the time. A lot of ambiguity in them there books...
So, I guess you meant in the "modern, enlightened sense". mmm?
True, but the morals of said angels can change every campaign, in a medieval fantasy setting one would think slaves would be a common thing (it really was) but in this instance it was the worst of evils.
Friendly piece of advice: Never play with girls or women.
Back in that medieval time, females were property without any rights.
Try to tell a female player's female character that she's your property and if you're lucky, your character will get a knee in the groin. If you're not so lucky, YOU will get a knee in the groin.
I see a several post referencing none damaging spells and such. But, I get Brand as 0-level spell that causes 1 point of damage and requires the recipient to disfigure themselves by scraping it off to remove it, which causes 1d6 damage. Charm and other such spells come later. I get Command as 1-level spell, but it would be a stretch to use it for information. What is the difference between whipping out the hot iron and using my divine spells to inscribe up to six runes or characters onto a captives forehead or arm (as is suggested by the spell description)?
Here's the scenario: We capture a couple of Chelish agents, as I am a Andoran Inquisitor, and with them sitting next to each other I begin asking for information. Being that they are particularly displeased that I am a Halfling they fail to give me anything but loads of contempt. So, I say have it your way and Brand one across his face so that his friend to watch and the scraping to remove it will leave a scar in a way that they will still be identifiable as Chelish agents. Now that the first chap has seen what he has coming and who he is dealing with he gives up the goods which I attempt to verify with Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive,ect. In the end I Brand him too, can't root people out and not mark 'em some how.
I used the spell as intended. Branding cannot be made nice or benevolent, just check out the effects of Greater Brand. Did I torture the captives. I would say yes, but I don't think it was evil. This would not be acceptable in modern society, but I think such treatment would have been common place for the fictional era our game is set in.
My own 2 cents:
1) Torture is an Evil act: That is, if actions have alignment (which I believe, in the universe of D&D/Pathfinder, that they do), then torture itself is an evil act. Evil creatures delight in it. Good creatures get squeamish around it - at best, actively detesting it at worst.
2) Good people can commit evil acts without changing alignment: People commit evil acts all the time - doesn't make them evil. Likewise, people commit good acts all the time - doesn't make them good. (The exception to this is paladins - paladins are supposed to not commit evil acts. It won't shift their alignment if they do, but they will likely fall and lose their class abilities until they atone.)
3) A person's alignment only "shifts" when the plurality of their actions are of a given alignment: Note that I said plurality - not majority. Plurality is something like "A good many".
So a good character can torture - it'll be a stain on their soul, and if they believe in some kind of sin/punishment scenario they should seek to atone, but it won't change their alignment. You can play this up by reminding the character of the nagging feeling of uncleanness they get after committing such an act (let's be honest, torture's a pretty heinous act.) Same way that getting dunked into a pit of mud doesn't mean the person likes to wallow in filth, a single (or even a couple of) stray into the dark doesn't an evil character make.
But once the person becomes a "torturer" - that is, someone who tortures on a regular basis, doesn't have to be professional - then their alignment shifts a step towards evil. They don't become evil, they just shift one step towards evil. If they then increase the level of torture, or the degradation of it, then perhaps they take another step towards evil.
(The exception to this would be the character whose concept is that they're a neutral torturer. In this case, I wouldn't slip them a step towards evil just for continuing to do what they've always done. If they take the next step and ramp up their torture, or are plainly sadistic about their torture, then I'll begin to consider slipping their alignment.)
*looking at his books on mythology, history and quite a bit of non=D&D lit fantasy*
Hmmm, the "classical" hero seems to be a true rat bastard much of the time. A lot of ambiguity in them there books...
So, I guess you meant in the "modern, enlightened sense". mmm?
Actually, I fear it is you who is inserting his modern sensibilities into his look at the classical hero.
If by classical, you mean the Greek heroes: Most Greek heroes are (alignment-wise) Neutral. For the first, and there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, Classical Greeks simply didn't value much of what we now consider to be "good" as virtues.
Second, most Greek heroes were also meant to be flawed characters, eventually meant to be brought down by their own flaws. Most of them had different flaws - hubris was a big one, and I believe it to be one of the Greek's cardinal sins from how far they expound on it - but they all had 'em. They were mighty proud of their tragedies, those Greeks.
It isn't until you get to the medieval Christian-inspired heroes (El Cid, Roland, Arthur and his Grail Knights) that you get to what Gygax, Tolkien, and the like, thought of as "heroes". This is the period you should be looking to in order to determine what the measure of alignment is like.
Of course, literature doesn't stop there, and neither do the games' influences. Fast forward a little more, to the beginnings of the Fantasy genre, and you've got heroes like Elric, and Conan. Rat bastards, yes - but these stories were written in the early to mid 20th century. Their views are modern, in the sense that they're specifically being written in order to act as counters to the classical views of heroism.
Conan, for example, is hardly what one would call a "Good" character. He's True Neutral, at best - likely Chaotic Neutral. But he's surrounded by a Lawful Evil society (and specifically meant to be a counterpoint to said societies) that he constantly butts up against and disagrees with, often violently.
There's no real ambiguity there. Conan isn't a good guy - he's just the best of what's left.
Real ambiguity - both in character's and writer's intent - starts to creep in after. (It should be noted, complexity is different than ambiguity. Ambiguity means you don't know how the character will react to any given situation, because any one of a number of actions is fitting. Complexity means that the character is more than just a simple single facet. Lancelot, for example, is a complex character, with conflicting loyalties. He is not, however, ambiguous - there's no question of the choices he will make.)
I also agree that frequency and amount make a huge difference in how one might view the actions of a particular character in regards to extraction methods. Using the rack,iron maiden, scourge, and so forth are not the realm of heroic characters and would become tiresome to roleplay. Who wants to have to act out those scenesmore than once or twice? Not pleasant or fun for most of us. But, dripping water on a forehead or reading books in the gnomish language to goblins, not so bad. I think we can kill this thread with the parting thought that torture is an ugly thing to be used sparingly at best and with minimal soul sapping cruelty. Thank you for all your input on this touchy subject.
I still have to say, that it is a little unfair that evil people can so easily stay evil and good people have to fight hard to stay good.
Because Evil IS the easy path. Frequently all you have to do is to simply stand aside and do nothing while evil ranges around you. Evil in it's purest form is essentially indifference to the needs and feelings of others when it comes to considering the consequences of one's own actions. I see a lot of indifference expressed in posts on this subject.
This is also why I'm one of the people who have problems with the existence of Anti-Paladins. Anti-Paladins by definition don't have to make the hard choices their Good counterparts do. (On the other hand I am very much in favor of simply changing the alignment requirement to Good.)
Actually, an anti-paladin cannot do an objectively good act, even to further evil ends. So he is kinda hard to play that way.
Truth be told, that's not really the same kind of burden by any stretch of the imagination that the LG Paladin is made to bear. The big difference between Good and Evil is that Evil will spread by itself. Good has to be actively promoted and maintained. And it's the Goods who by definition are the ones stuck with the hard moral choices. Evil just simply has to wait around for Good to either fail to act or to make it's first mistake.Actually, an anti-paladin cannot do an objectively good act, even to further evil ends. So he is kinda hard to play that way.I still have to say, that it is a little unfair that evil people can so easily stay evil and good people have to fight hard to stay good.
Because Evil IS the easy path. Frequently all you have to do is to simply stand aside and do nothing while evil ranges around you. Evil in it's purest form is essentially indifference to the needs and feelings of others when it comes to considering the consequences of one's own actions. I see a lot of indifference expressed in posts on this subject.
This is also why I'm one of the people who have problems with the existence of Anti-Paladins. Anti-Paladins by definition don't have to make the hard choices their Good counterparts do. (On the other hand I am very much in favor of simply changing the alignment requirement to Good.)
Not my take on it. Evil is an active stance in my book when it comes to pathfinder. Just sitting around doing nothing is a neutral act. The anti-paladin is forced to take the most deplorable choice in any given situation, causing pain and trouble wherever he goes. This leads to him being hunted and hated, and becomes a weak and obvious bad-guy. The only people he is allowed to treat with any manner of civility, let along HELP, is other evil people. If he EVER helps a good character, he "falls". After all, he is supposed to be an embodiment of extremes.
- Paladin: I donate all of my excess to the orphanage and cure their ailments while there.
- Good: I donate some of my excess to the orphanage.
- Neutral: I do not donate, it's my money.
- Evil: I find a way to secretly profit on this orphanage business, the orphans' needs be damned.
- Anti-paladin: I burn the orphanage with all the children inside, and rape the ashes!!
Otherwise, both the paladin and the anti-paladin become kinda "meh"
The only people he is allowed to treat with any manner of civility, let along HELP, is other evil people. If he EVER helps a good character, he "falls".
This approach, IMHO, turns alignment into more of a 'good guys are on one team and wear white hats, and evil guys are on the other team and wear black hats' thing than it really should be.
My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Taking pleasure out of causing annother pain is an evil act.
If you have a beter method than torture and yet you still use it, there must be a damned good reason to justify it, otherwise I would rule that you are doing it because you are taking pleasure from it and are thus performing an evil act.
How long this will take to change your alignment will vary greatly based off of the circumstances arround it. What your god feels about this is highly dependant on the god. Some gods will disown you before your alignment shifts, or even if you propose using it, others wont blink an eye.
My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Posts like this I find very disturbing. Evil by definition is Indifference to acts like these described above. Classic example that made major headlines in the '70's was a woman murdered on the doorstep of her building who cried her agonies for two hours while the residents, watched, heard, and did nothing. Inaction in the face of evil in my book is evil itself.
That the same incident today, would probably hardly blink an eye, speaks much of how our society has coarsened over the years.
My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Posts like this I find very disturbing. Evil by definition is Indifference to acts like these described above. Classic example that made major headlines in the '70's was a woman murdered on the doorstep of her building who cried her agonies for two hours while the residents, watched, heard, and did nothing. Inaction in the face of evil in my book is evil itself.
That the same incident today, would probably hardly blink an eye, speaks much of how our society has coarsened over the years.
And I consider inacction in that situation to be the definition of neutral. It is how most people will act.
And I consider inacction in that situation to be the definition of neutral. It is how most people will act.My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Posts like this I find very disturbing. Evil by definition is Indifference to acts like these described above. Classic example that made major headlines in the '70's was a woman murdered on the doorstep of her building who cried her agonies for two hours while the residents, watched, heard, and did nothing. Inaction in the face of evil in my book is evil itself.
That the same incident today, would probably hardly blink an eye, speaks much of how our society has coarsened over the years.
I am confused.
Most people doing it makes it not evil is how I read that post. Is that the point you were trying to make? And why can't most people be evil.What would calling the cops be? I think that would be good immediately. A neutral act would be seeing if she would shut up for 15 minutes then calling the cops.
And I consider inacction in that situation to be the definition of neutral. It is how most people will act.My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Posts like this I find very disturbing. Evil by definition is Indifference to acts like these described above. Classic example that made major headlines in the '70's was a woman murdered on the doorstep of her building who cried her agonies for two hours while the residents, watched, heard, and did nothing. Inaction in the face of evil in my book is evil itself.
That the same incident today, would probably hardly blink an eye, speaks much of how our society has coarsened over the years.
I am confused.
Most people doing it makes it not evil is how I read that post. Is that the point you were trying to make? And why can't most people be evil.What would calling the cops be? I think that would be good immediately. A neutral act would be seeing if she would shut up for 15 minutes then calling the cops.
I would consider doing nothing neutral, aiding her good, and shutting her up yourself evil. Most actions are neutral in my book. I disagree with the person I responded to, who seems to think doing nothing is evil.
Do your ignore the fact that 99% of all D&D Game Kill every one that not like me? "Ie the PC races"
I mean I ran game where goblin walk in to bar and wizard Magic misseled it till it was dead. When I ask him why why the answer was simple it a monter race so it neeeds to die. What is my EXP and what loot did it have.
Do your player attack to subual? If Yes then think about Torture as another element for your game. If NO then it a intimadate Check roll it and move on. It a game not moralty check for Player.
Throw in some compulsion and mind effecting spells such as Charm Person, Enthrall, and whatnot you can trick most enemies into thinking you're their friend and they will disclose information as such.
Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?
Spells that incapacitate a target—such as sleep—are treated as simple assault.
Spells that tamper with the thoughts of another being—charm person, suggestion, fear—are considered to be a form of fraud.
Though not an official rule in Pathfinder, or even applicable to Golarion, I think that the above is pretty close to how a lot of typical games' internal laws look like in regards to magic.
Do your ignore the fact that 99% of all D&D Game Kill every one that not like me? "Ie the PC races"
I mean I ran game where goblin walk in to bar and wizard Magic misseled it till it was dead. When I ask him why why the answer was simple it a monter race so it neeeds to die. What is my EXP and what loot did it have.
Do your player attack to subual? If Yes then think about Torture as another element for your game. If NO then it a intimadate Check roll it and move on. It a game not moralty check for Player.
In many people's games, that wizard would have an alignment shift towards evil, including mine. It was not only cold blooded murder, but with the expectation that they would get a reward by taking the goblin's stuff. Self gratification through killing = evil.
Throw in some compulsion and mind effecting spells such as Charm Person, Enthrall, and whatnot you can trick most enemies into thinking you're their friend and they will disclose information as such.Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?
** spoiler omitted **
You compare it to rape and then quote a source that calls it fraud? :-)
I'd say casting a charm spell on someone isn't inherently cruel or kind. A favour that you ask the charmed creature to perform might be cruel or kind, though.
Back in that medieval time, females were property without any rights.
Not strictly true, and even less true in practice. Our view of the medieval world is rather tainted by Victorian romance, the reality was a lot more practical. Women could and did fight (usually in defence of the home rather than marching to war, but it happened). Women could and did hold property (usually if they were widowed or the sole issue).
Because Evil IS the easy path. Frequently all you have to do is to simply stand aside and do nothing while evil ranges around you. Evil in it's purest form is essentially indifference to the needs and feelings of others when it comes to considering the consequences of one's own actions. I see a lot of indifference expressed in posts on this subject.I still have to say, that it is a little unfair that evil people can so easily stay evil and good people have to fight hard to stay good.
+1.
"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
Evil does not ask us to risk anything, to stand up and be counted or to be moral in any way. Evil just asks us to turn a blind eye, consider the ends may justify the means and think of ourselves first.
I've always defined the difference between good, neutral and evil as where you draw the line:
Neutral people draw the line around those people they know, those they care about and those whose lives effect them. A neutral villager will help out his neighbour if there is a bad harvest, but is less likely to help out the next village. He's likely to defend his home village with the other villagers, but you won't catch him volunteering to go fight someone else's war. The Neutral person is not indifferent to the suffering of others, he just looks after himself and his own first, dealing with the problems he can see rather than the ones he cannot. He might not send food to the starving village ten miles away, but he won't refuse a meal to a starving man on his doorstep. They see the people they know as people, but those they do not know are an abstract.
Evil people draw the line much closer to home, usually just around themselves. Few evil people actively enjoy hurting others (though the worst ones do), they really are indifferent to it. They have no problem harming others because they are indifferent to such harm. The evil person looks after himself first and foremost. To the evil person, everyone else is an abstract.
Good people know that the line has no boundaries. They know that the people in the next village are just like them and just as deserving of compassion and mercy. To the good person, there are no abstract people.
I just wanted to chime in on the slavery issue, since this has somewhat devolved into a discussion on alignment issues a bit more broadly. I don't think that slavery, in a society where it is legal, need necessarily be evil.
A Good individual that owns slaves would simply treat them more as valued servants, and generally allow them free conduct as long as they were fulfilling their basic jobs. One must consider that in such societies, there can be significant benefit to such individuals if their "master" is a compassionate person that does not actively dehumanize them; others may seek to, but cannot because they have a "master" that would be obligated to protect them, if their "master" is prestigious they would live in far better conditions than others of similar class, a Good "master" is likely to truly free them at some time, etc.
I certainly don't believe slavery is something appropriate to do to another human being personally, but I also don't believe that being Evil or even really a bad person are necessary conditions of owning slaves in a culture where it is recognized as acceptable, given the conditions mentioned above.
I do think that a character that uses torture more than once or twice during a career should generally not be able to maintain a Good alignment, but I do think there ought to be a bit more give on the Neutral spectrum if the character has strong reasons/justification and does not take pleasure in the act. I think in these cases, remorse is the most important factor that would convince me, as a DM, that a character could escape the Evil alignment, though still not if they became a regular torturer...
|
|
I still have to say, that it is a little unfair that evil people can so easily stay evil and good people have to fight hard to stay good.
Being good is hard. Good is not just offering mercy to those who would never show you mercy. Good is more than not stooping to the tactics of evil. Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak; Not to act is to act.
Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?
While completely tangential, I wanted to respond to Ravingdork's question. No, I do not think casting charm on a person is inherently evil, nor tantamount to rape.
In Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder, there is no inherent harm in the casting of charm and compulsion spells. The target is not damaged in any way. You are not doing anything that will cause any lasting, appreciable, or even temporary damage to the target of the spell.
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.
You quote the Sharn book for the proposition that a civilization would consider charm/compulsion effects to be tantamount to fraud - and I completely agree. Of course, that's the legality of the issue, and as a (criminal) lawyer I can tell you there's a vast difference between legality and morality, particularly at a societal level. The same as it would be illegal to defraud someone into giving you their money or secrets, it should be illegal to charm money/secrets out of them.
But tantamount to rape? No, sir, it is most definitely not. If the violation were the kind often depicted in television shows, with the subject actively fighting off a psychic invasion - then I might change my mind. But that's not what D&D/Pathfinder charm is. (Compulsion I'll set aside, since that's complete domination of a person's will.) In D&D/Pathfinder, charm is a trick - the subject never even knows its mind was invaded. To call it rape is to demean one of our most heinous crimes.
(I will grant you - it's in the neighborhood. Rape is about the most chaotic evil act out there, both for its complete subjugation, by force, of the victim, and the sheer level of violence required of it, as well as the level of damage it can do. So, in my worldview, Charm and Rape are just one aligned shift apart - first cousins, if you will.)
My view on torture is different than many people's here.
Torture is inherrently a neutral act. Killing and murder are inherrently neutral acts.
Taking pleasure out of causing annother pain is an evil act.
I just don't buy it. The poster children for torture for the greater good - the Inquisition - thought they were doing those people a favour, as no pain they could inflict could ever measure up to eternal damnation, and so their cleansing of these people was a good act, as it was making them go to heaven. Someone who really thinks like that probably takes no pleasure in his work (except for that warm, fuzzy feeling of helping someone else), but that doesn't make it any less evil.
If you have a beter method than torture and yet you still use it, there must be a damned good reason to justify it
Torture as a method if information gathering isn't terribly effective, so it's quite unlikely that you don't have a better method to get him to tell you. The problem is that if you have someone who doesn't know anything, or is innocent of the things you accuse him of, and you don't believe the guy, you'll torture him until he dies or tells you just about everything you want to know. He'll make things up, confess to every crime you can come up with, just to make the pain stop.
That only leaves torture as a punishment or deterrence, and I personally think that those are evil methods of punishment.
I disagree with the person I responded to, who seems to think doing nothing is evil.
Failure to render assistance is definitely evil. In some countries, it's even a crime. You can go to jail for a year if you fail to render assistance.
Of course, you're not expected to endanger yourself (beyond the danger of minor injuries or the like), but if you could help, but don't, you're doing evil.
]Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?
It is - or is not - mental rape the same way a body search is - or is not - rape.
There are ways to use magic to force the target to reveal just that information you need to know. That's the magical, mental equivalent of "come with me into this closed room and take off your clothes".
There are ways to enter the mind that will just reveal surface thoughts, which you can direct towards the things you want to know. That's the magical, mental equivalent of hiding a camera in someone's room. Psychic peeping, if you will.
Of course, you can totally dominate their mind, dive right in, find out their innermost secrets and all that. That's probably magical mind-rape. Just like the guy who takes way too much pleasure searching your body cavities, and having a... "weird" way of doing it. The original purpose that you claimed this procedure has is being perverted.
Back in that medieval time, females were property without any rights.Not strictly true, and even less true in practice.
So it's very similar to his "in the middle ages, slavery was all well and proper" and the truth to that?
Wow, whoever brought up the females=property notion was a master of sarcasm! ;-P
I just wanted to chime in on the slavery issue, since this has somewhat devolved into a discussion on alignment issues a bit more broadly. I don't think that slavery, in a society where it is legal, need necessarily be evil.
A Good individual that owns slaves would simply treat them more as valued servants, and generally allow them free conduct as long as they were fulfilling their basic jobs. One must consider that in such societies, there can be significant benefit to such individuals if their "master" is a compassionate person that does not actively dehumanize them; others may seek to, but cannot because they have a "master" that would be obligated to protect them, if their "master" is prestigious they would live in far better conditions than others of similar class, a Good "master" is likely to truly free them at some time, etc.
I certainly don't believe slavery is something appropriate to do to another human being personally, but I also don't believe that being Evil or even really a bad person are necessary conditions of owning slaves in a culture where it is recognized as acceptable, given the conditions mentioned above.
That's a rather specific example. Sure, a good-aligned Chelaxian might get some "slaves" just to protect them. I do think he might then get them out of the country and free them. Or even free them and then employ them as servants (unless they're in danger of being enslaved again if he frees them).
Generally, though, good-aligned people are against slavery. They definitely don't think of slaves as no different from cattle, and will not attack police or soldiers in a country where slavery is illegal, defending "his property" from "robbers". And double definitely if that person is supposedly lawful good.
What kind of world is it where a goblin can walk into a bar?
That's a very good question.
The "a goblin walked into a bar so the adventurer killed him" scenario is incomplete without background information about goblins and their status.
It's the same as saying: "So this Russian guy walked into a bar and I shot him." Is that evil? If that happened yesterday, definitely. If it happened during the time when we were at war with Russia, it could have just been you defending against a national enemy, who in all likelihood didn't get there to have a drink.
Actually, it's even more crass than that, since in our world, there are no absolutes. That Russian could have been an immigrant. There are Russian immigrants and things like that.
But are there goblin immigrants in a fantasy world? Have there been cases where a goblin peacefully entered a settlement to engage in non-hostile interaction?
In many places in many fantasy worlds, something like that just doesn't happen. Maybe Absalom and Katapesh City have some resident goblins who live as peacefully as the next guy, and places like Kaer Maga won't bat an eye. But one (goblin) does not walk into Sandpoint.
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.
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.
|
@Squidmasher: My DM said I could do it, and I don't have an example of a CG serial killer but your stereotypical paladin is a LG one so standard moral guidelines don't really make sense. It's even debated today whether or not the death sentence is an evil act, no standard there.And I agree on the cultural/technological time period difference. I can never remember when to switch between the two periods though. Best I have got is medieval when swords drawn and renaissance when sheathed.
A Lawful Good paladin is not a serial killer. Please read the definitions of murder that Blueluck and KaeYoss posted on the first post of the thread and tell me how any Paladin can murder and keep his status. A serial killer brutally murders people for the thrill of it and utterly disregards the value of sentient life. A paladin only kills monsters and incredibly evil humanoids (after all, Detect Evil won't register anyone as evil unless they have 5 or more HD, are an antipaladin or evil cleric of an evil god, or are an undead or evil outsider). Paladins kill in the defense of themselves and others; serial killers kill because they like killing. Paladins do not murder.
In most campaign worlds (your DM's may differ), slavery is evil. I know it is in mine. In general, you can't make a lawful good slaver for the same reason you can't make a neutral good rapist or a chaotic good serial killer.
"Not our goals define if we are good or evil, they way we choose to accomplish them, defines ourself."
None of the "Bastards" are good, not one of them.
Very much +1.
If you want to rely on torture at all resign yourself to an evil alignment. Part of being a 'good' person is the assumption that you have some sort of empathy and humanity for others. The vast majority of people cannot stomach watching other people in serious suffering or pain, let alone infict it long term on others. Evil on the other hand, with extremely limited or no ability to empathise or care for others, use whatever means are efficient, the suffereing of others is second.
Try lawful evil. That way you can rely on a strict self defined code to keep you more 'party/civilization friendly' but you are willing to do the things the other are 'too weak' to do, like cold blooded murder (of those who deserve it only of course), torture to get the information you want, etc.
Remember, just because your character is evil does not mean they are automatically oppose to the accepted goals of the culture/society they live in or will work counter to it.
They could completely support and love the lawful good country they live in or religion that rules their life, as an example, but simply be willing to do 'what is necessary' to see the country/religion survives and prospers. Sometimes that means lying, sometimes it means torture, sometimes that means killing babies in their cribs, etc. They might realise that they are opperating outside the accepted norms, they will beleive that the things they do are needed and even perhaps think that they are sacrificing themselves so that others do not have to be 'tainted' by they evil they know they do. One recent example in film is the assassin in 'Serenity'. He has 0 compuction that he is anything but evil (even calling himself a monster) but he compeltely beleives at the start that the government he supports is the best possible thing for humanity in every way and he is willing to do ANYTHING to see it prosper, for the greater good, all the while knowing he has no place in that society.
In the end though, anyone who has studdied morality, ethics or philosophy will realise that all of the good/evil arguments devolve eventually into what is socially acceptable in the society in question. In the real world, that is.
Most fantasy games tend to be more black and white in their division of good and evil to make the games more action and adventure oriented and less a study in morality.
Some games are run just the opposite however and those games should have their groups well define the accepted morality both of the group and of the setting they are playing in so these sorts of questions can be easier handled when they arise.
I used the spell as intended. Branding cannot be made nice or benevolent, just check out the effects of Greater Brand. Did I torture the captives. I would say yes, but I don't think it was evil. This would not be acceptable in modern society, but I think such treatment would have been common place for the fictional era our game is set in.
While you used the spell as intended, perhaps not all the inquisitor spells are intended for every alingment of inquisitor? The class covers a large range of alignment therefore they made tools for all those alignments. It does not mean every single spell is ethically suited for every iquisitor, though.
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.
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.
@Squidmasher: My DM said I could do it, and I don't have an example of a CG serial killer but your stereotypical paladin is a LG one so standard moral guidelines don't really make sense. It's even debated today whether or not the death sentence is an evil act, no standard there.And I agree on the cultural/technological time period difference. I can never remember when to switch between the two periods though. Best I have got is medieval when swords drawn and renaissance when sheathed.
A Lawful Good paladin is not a serial killer. Please read the definitions of murder that Blueluck and KaeYoss posted on the first post of the thread and tell me how any Paladin can murder and keep his status. A serial killer brutally murders people for the thrill of it and utterly disregards the value of sentient life. A paladin only kills monsters and incredibly evil humanoids (after all, Detect Evil won't register anyone as evil unless they have 5 or more HD, are an antipaladin or evil cleric of an evil god, or are an undead or evil outsider). Paladins kill in the defense of themselves and others; serial killers kill because they like killing. Paladins do not murder.
In most campaign worlds (your DM's may differ), slavery is evil. I know it is in mine. In general, you can't make a lawful good slaver for the same reason you can't make a neutral good rapist or a chaotic good serial killer.
Important part is the killing of monsters and incredibly evil humanoids, and I am pretty sure the definition of murder is the intentional taking of life, for any reason. Self defense is still by definition murder and used to be a convict-able crime until they changed the wording of the law.
As to the arguments of slaves being treated like cattle, why are you treating cattle that way? Go somewhere where cows are sacred and try to treat cattle like "cattle" you could be killed, do it to a human and you may or may not be punished depending on region and the punishment wont be as severe. I can't find where in the book it says slavery is evil.
Not to mention passing a homeless person in DND isn't an evil act (neither is laughing at them) 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.
Alignments by "standard" morals doesn't make sense, standards of what time period? Who's deciding what's standard back then?
Torture shouldn't be much different depending on how you go about it
Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?While completely tangential, I wanted to respond to Ravingdork's question. No, I do not think casting charm on a person is inherently evil, nor tantamount to rape.
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.
On the subject of slavery, the 'good' slaver will always treat his chattels as human beings and NOT as cattle. This does not mean that he would automatically free them; a lawful good slaver may well consider that he or she knows better than his slaves what is good for them, while a chaotic good person would not keep slaves, period.
Important part is the killing of monsters and incredibly evil humanoids, and I am pretty sure the definition of murder is the intentional taking of life, for any reason. Self defense is still by definition murder and used to be a convict-able crime until they changed the wording of the law.
As to the arguments of slaves being treated like cattle, why are you treating cattle that way? Go somewhere where cows are sacred and try to treat cattle like "cattle" you could be killed, do it to a human and you may or may not be punished depending on region and the punishment wont be as severe. I can't find where in the book it says slavery is evil.
Not to mention passing a homeless person in DND isn't an evil act (neither is laughing at them) 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.
Alignments by "standard" morals doesn't make sense, standards of what time period? Who's deciding what's standard back then?
Torture shouldn't be much different depending on how you go about it
Actually, murder is usually defined as criminally killing as opposed to just killing. Think of it as a subset of killing. Everone that performs murder is killing, but not everyone that kills performs murder. Some definitions are spoilered below for that. Probably why some take offense to its use. There are lots of legal reasons to kill. Defense of nation, protecting citizens in danger, protecting family in inement danger or self defense...just a few in the USA. However, murder is not legal. All of that is neither here nor there for alignment discussions.
There is no great "truth" that is right for everyone. Alignment cannot be defined to suit every player. So yes, it becomes the DM's job to rule on it for each game. But, that being said, there are some pretty prevalent opinions out there. So, if you are planning to play something that is questionable, it behooves ya to talk it over with your DM. It may be perfectly fine, or it may not. ( oh, and I suspect the LG slaver of yours was one you suspected to be contriversial, just by the way you presented it :P )
As for the slave thing, once again, I kinda agree with you... same with the torture thing. It depends on the campaign world in which you play. In mine, both are considered evil. Even a well cared for slave, still is a slave. But, that does not necesarily hold true with the group that games down the block from us.
I just disagree that it is the players choice to determine what a good or evil act is based on his rationalizations of the character.
Greg
mur·der [mur-der]
–noun
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.
—Idioms
8. get away with murder, Informal . to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9. murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10. yell / screambloody murder,
a. to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b. to protest loudly and angrily: If I don't get a good raise I'm going to yell bloody murder.
Merriam-Webster.com
mur·der noun
Definition of MURDER
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>
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.
See, I happen to be of the opinion that charms are neutral, and it's all about how the magician utilizes them, but... my enchanter is going up against some pretty hard core evil bards.
My Bard: Charm "Hey Mister Warrior 2 wearing chainmail and carrying a big sword, how about you power down and not cleave me in two, hun?" or Suggestion: "Hey glitterdusted fey creature spying on me, why don't you put down your bow and glittery arrows so that we can have a little chat?"
My GM's CE Recurring Villians: Bard to Commoner 1 female "Gee, your peasant yap is pretty boring, how about you put your mouth to its other use?" or Satyr bard to dominated hulk "See that totally defenseless girl who is less than half your size? Go get 'er Tiger! If you do good making her scream and bleed, I'll give you a cookie."
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.
As for the OP, Inquisitors come with bluff and disguise skills and a bonus to sense motive for a reason. Also, they have detect thoughts in their spell list. A good character played "correctly" should not have to resort to torture to get information.
I disagree with the person I responded to, who seems to think doing nothing is evil.Failure to render assistance is definitely evil. In some countries, it's even a crime. You can go to jail for a year if you fail to render assistance.
Of course, you're not expected to endanger yourself (beyond the danger of minor injuries or the like), but if you could help, but don't, you're doing evil.
You may think it is evil, but many people do not. I know many people who think that is one of the stupidest laws in the world. Not doing anything to help is neutral in my mind, almost irregardless of the extrenuating circumstances. Its pretty much the epitome of neutral, and pretty much nothing you can say will change my mind on this. Thats one of the reasons alignment debates are so much fun. People have vastly varrying deffinitions of what is good and evil, all within the guidelines set by the rulebook, so you will never get a consensus.
Is forcing your way into someone's mind for secrets not an evil act in and of itself? Is that not tantamount to rape?While completely tangential, I wanted to respond to Ravingdork's question. No, I do not think casting charm on a person is inherently evil, nor tantamount to rape.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.
On the subject of slavery, the 'good' slaver will always treat his chattels as human beings and NOT as cattle. This does not mean that he would automatically free them; a lawful good slaver may well consider that he or she knows better than his slaves what is good for them, while a chaotic good person would not keep slaves, period.
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.
A paladin only kills monsters and incredibly evil humanoids (after all, Detect Evil won't register anyone as evil unless [...]
Note that a paladin isn't allow to kill anyone just because the guy registers on his "evildar", either. It's not a crime to be evil. A paladin (who expects to retain his powers) will only kill those he has to.
Slavering monsters and evil priests (sporting unholy symbols and blood-stained clothes) charging him claw, fang and weapon at the ready are free game mostly, and if you know someone is plotting to do great evil, you're allowed to subdue him with violence (you can assume that the genocidal types won't let themselves be arrested without a fight), but just because someone or something is detected as evil doesn't mean the paladin can draw his weapon and charge.
After all, they don't just have to be LG, they have to be a shining example of goodness and law-abiding...ness!
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.
You may think it is evil, but many people do not. I know many people who think that is one of the stupidest laws in the world. Not doing anything to help is neutral in my mind, almost irregardless of the extrenuating circumstances. Its pretty much the epitome of neutral, and pretty much nothing you can say will change my mind on this. Thats one of the reasons alignment debates are so much fun. People have vastly varrying deffinitions of what is good and evil, all within the guidelines set by the rulebook, so you will never get a consensus.
It is true that you will never get a consensus, because everyone is different. However, the fact that someone will argue the toss does not mean that everything is up for debate. There are people who will argue that Charles Mason is innocent of wrong-doing, so go figure.
Evil is sometimes defined IRL by an absence of empathy and compassion. Hence, doing nothing is an evil act because it furthers evil acts. In the end, though, it's not in your own best interests to walk on by, because ultimately it might be you that is the victim. Such laws as the one you argue is stupid further everyone's best interests save those of the perpetrator of a crime.
Remember, just because your character is evil does not mean they are automatically oppose to the accepted goals of the culture/society they live in or will work counter to it.They could completely support and love the lawful good country they live in or religion that rules their life, as an example, but simply be willing to do 'what is necessary' to see the country/religion survives and prospers.
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.