Deathless from Book of Exalted Deeds/Eberron Campaign Setting. Baelnorns from Monsters of Faerun. Good Liches from Libris Mortis. Et cetera.
But, to be fair, all those monsters are fairly ridiculous and have no place in a serious game. :P
I guess what it comes down to for me is: in a game in which my good elf ranger who spots a drow before it spots him can't ever pre-emptively attack it because it might be good, I'm probably just going to play a neutral or evil character that doesn't care.
It's hard enough to play a character who tries to do the right thing even with a fair bit of GM help and encouragement; with circumstances conspiring to make my good alignment a lead weight tied to another lead weight tied around my neck, I'd just rather not play the good alignment. It doesn't seem fun to me.
|
You complain that there are no creatures that you can kill without reservation, but my games totally have that. You know what those creatures are?
Evil creatures.
Unless you're complaining that you can't tell which creatures are Evil just by their skin?
You can't kill someone just because their evil, unless its an act of self-defense with no possible alternative, or they are irredeemably evil (which is a fantastic claim requiring a fantastic explanation). That has to really mean no possible alternative, not just "no possible alternative that is as convenient as just killing them."
The existence of good sentient undead implies that all sentient undead creatures can potentially be good, which means that you can't justify killing an evil undead creature that isn't actively attacking you by a means which can cause you immediate grievous harm.
Which means that you have to parlay with sentient undead, attempt to convince them to change their way, capture them by the least harmful method available if they refuse to change their ways and insist on doing harm, imprison them under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give them genuine opportunities to reform themselves.
And that gets tedious. You break into some ancient tomb, looking for forgotten treasures, a wight jumps out of the shadows and attacks you, and suddenly you've got no moral recourse to even defend yourself. Either you run, you murder the wight, or you let the wight justifiably kill you for invading its home.
How sure are you that your players aren't murderous hobos? Have they ever entered the lair of a lair-bound evil monster (like the typical wight) and killed it before taking its treasure? Just once? Because if they have, they're murderers. And if they have no permanent address, they're murdering hobos.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deathless from Book of Exalted Deeds/Eberron Campaign Setting. Baelnorns from Monsters of Faerun. Good Liches from Libris Mortis. Et cetera.
But, to be fair, all those monsters are fairly ridiculous and have no place in a serious game. :P
I guess what it comes down to for me is: in a game in which my good elf ranger who spots a drow before it spots him can't ever pre-emptively attack it because it might be good, I'm probably just going to play a neutral or evil character that doesn't care.
It's hard enough to play a character who tries to do the right thing even with a fair bit of GM help and encouragement; with circumstances conspiring to make my good alignment a lead weight tied to another lead weight tied around my neck, I'd just rather not play the good alignment. It doesn't seem fun to me.
I agree, but this is one of the caveats of playing a 'realistic' game. Being good is really hard! It's the same problem I had while playing Infamous on PS3 - if you're the good guy, you've constantly got to be aware of civilians, lest you blow them up with your crazy powers, while the evil guy can simply blow up everyone in town and not give it a second thought. This, I feel, is what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game - the capacity to take on a role where doing otherwise might not be beneficial.
However, it is indeed a pain, even in realistic games, if your GM makes playing a good guy an exercise in patience like "a lead weight tied to another lead weight tied around [your] neck". I enjoy playing the good guy, even when it leads to ethical dilemmas, but not if the game makes it profoundly unfun to do so. If your GM makes all the enemies evil then throws one random good guy in the bunch just to spring 'HA! You killed a good guy! Alignment shift!" on you, it becomes unrewarding to not be an evil character (eg. 'You killed an evil guy in this bunch of good guys! You are now... uh, more evil."). I don't mind, for instance, having to do some research on a potential villain before setting out to slay him, or even having to consider taking a villain's life if he can be somehow redeemed, but these moments should be few and far between if only for the sake of having fun.
|
I should note that I treat all creatures as Neutral in game anyway, for the record.
But yes, my player characters have a permanent address, which handles the hobo problem.
As for murder, the kuo-toans probably counted.
I should also mention that the reason they need him is to prevent his father from dying due to a curse placed on him for abandoning the son to the Underdark. (Which the players don't know is a lie the campaign villains told them to trick the party into retrieving the son for them.)
|
|
Blackguard tells you that he's going to kill you and then your family? You can kill him.
No, actually, you can't. He has to actually attack you, and you have to be unable to prevent his attack by nonlethal means.
Which means that you have to parlay with the blackguard, attempt to convince him to change his mind, capture him by the least harmful method available if he refuses to change his ways and insist on doing harm, imprison him under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give him genuine opportunities to reform himself.
Cultists spreading a horrible disease in the streets? You can kill him.
No, actually, you can't - not unless killing them is the only possible way to stop the spread of the disease. Which means that you have to parlay with the cultists, attempt to convince them to change their ways, capture them by the least harmful method available if they refuse to change their ways and insist on doing harm, imprison them under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give them genuine opportunities to reform themselves.
Vampire turning people into his spawn in the hopes of taking over the city? You can kill him.
You can pretty much guess what I'm going to say at this point. Short form: No, you can't. You have to do all the same things modern police forces are expected to do, because that's the ethical way to treat other sentients -- even if they are evil and up to no good.
This isn't to say 'no ethical concerns, fight some monsters and take their stuff' isn't a valid (or fun!) way to game, but it doesn't strike me as boring to have to think before stabbing.
That's because, and I mean no offense, you're not really thinking very hard before stabbing.
If being good in the D&D alignment system is the same thing as being good in actual modern moral theory, then being a good person in D&D works pretty much the same as being a lawful citizen in a generic western nation. Adventuring is basically volunteer crime-fighting, with monsters in the role of criminal, and if one is going to apply modern ethics to adventurers, then they are really going to have to adventure in a very, very different way than the game suggests if they want to be good.
|
|
it all depends on how you view evil races. If you view the orc as merely misunderstood and has the potential for good, then you get into a grey area of what is really evil. I think as you move away from humanoids to the other classification of monsters (demons, aberrations, undead) it is much easier to say that the world would be better with out them.
In my game that I GM, orc = monster, and for the most part they want to kill you. So, no I do not consider wiping out orcs as evil.
|
|
That's because, and I mean no offense, you're not really thinking very hard before stabbing.
If being good in the D&D alignment system is the same thing as being good in actual modern moral theory, then being a good person in D&D works pretty much the same as being a lawful...
There is a notable distinction between a "role playing game" and a "simulation". In an RPG, I take on the role of a character, but ultimately it is a game (ie. liberties can be taken for the purposes of enjoyment). A simulation is a fully-accurate reconstruction of a given situation (ie. liberties cannot be taken, even if removing them would be 'fun').
Bear in mind that 'good' in the D&D alignment system is NOT the same as being good in modern moral theory - whereas in the real world 'good' and 'evil' are relativistic concepts (that is, defined by their opposition to one another), 'good' and 'evil' in the D&D cosmology are objective (that is, there are gods that embody 'good' qualities and those who embody 'evil' qualities. A servant of an evil god hoping to spread that god's doctrine (ie. perpetrate said 'evil' qualities) is a viable target. The conflict of 'should I try and redeem this evil guy' is the difference between being good (by killing him to stop him from doing evil) and being good (perhaps better; redeeming evil is 'worth more' than simply destroying it).
No, actually, you can't. He has to actually attack you, and you have to be unable to prevent his attack by nonlethal means.
Which means that you have to parlay with the blackguard, attempt to convince him to change his mind, capture him by the least harmful method available if he refuses to change his ways and insist on doing harm, imprison him under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give him genuine opportunities to reform himself.
The blackguard has identified himself as a threat to you, and is thus a legitimate target. By definition, a blackguard is a servant of an objective evil. While a Paladin can't simply become an 'evil radar' - ie. "you're evil so you're dead" with no other reasoning - the blackguard has already identified themselves as a threat to you. If you deem him unredeemable, there is no sense parlaying.
No, actually, you can't - not unless killing them is the only possible way to stop the spread of the disease. Which means that you have to parlay with the cultists, attempt to convince them to change their ways, capture them by the least harmful method available if they refuse to change their ways and insist on doing harm, imprison them under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give them genuine opportunities to reform themselves.
False. If parlaying with them and trying to redeem them takes a longer time than slaying them (not because it is more efficient, but rather because delay will lead to even more people dying in the streets), there is no sense becoming Lawful Stupid and letting innocents die. If you ask "what are you doing?" and they reply "spreading a disease for our dark master" they have identified themselves as a threat to the people, which as a Good character is by extension a threat to you.
You can pretty much guess what I'm going to say at this point. Short form: No, you can't. You have to do all the same things modern police forces are expected to do, because that's the ethical way to treat other sentients -- even if they are evil and up to no good.
See above. D&D 'good' characters are not modern police forces, nor are 'good' and 'evil' inherently the same thing, as it appears your satire is designed to force me to admit - but I've not denied this since the beginning of the discussion. What I am saying is not "LOL YOU NEED TO REDEEM EVERYONE WHO CAN POSSIBLY BE REDEEMED EVEN IF IT HURTS EVERYONE AND MAKES THE GAME MISERABLE" - but rather that there are deeper ethical concerns than simply storming into an orc lair and killing everyone. The possibility of there being, for instance, a Chaotic Good drow does not invalidate the evil of most drow. Suppose I make it my mission to fight the drow - now, sinking the entire city into the ground because 'dem drow's evil' is NOT a good act. Fighting a warband of drow that raided elven villages a week ago? This can be a good act. Loosing a magical blast that kills everyone in a drow city? Not a good act. Hunting down the matriarch of an evil drow family to stop her minions from attacking people? Can be a good act. I say 'can be a good act' because motivations are not necessarily clear - if I'm just doing it because it pays well, that's not inherently 'good'.
EDIT: I do appreciate the effort it takes to create such a satire, though. Bravo!
Blackguard tells you that he's going to kill you and then your family? You can kill him.No, actually, you can't. He has to actually attack you, and you have to be unable to prevent his attack by nonlethal means.
Which means that you have to parlay with the blackguard, attempt to convince him to change his mind, capture him by the least harmful method available if he refuses to change his ways and insist on doing harm, imprison him under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give him genuine opportunities to reform himself.
Wait, Gailbraithe, you require everyone to be Exalted Good from Book of Exalted Deeds to be considered good?
Because that is how the book defines exalted good.
For those in the audience, most Paladins aren't exalted good. It is super good.
Most good would be a 7 out of 10 (in alignment scale of goodness). Paladins are a 8/10. Exalted are 10/10.
Same way evil is usually 4/10, Blackguards 2/10, but Vile evil is 1/10.
The book requires you attempt to redeem everyone unless as a last resort you have to kill first. Not kill because it is easier, but last resort.
Well, I think what it comes down to is that in a fantasy game there is EVIL, and it's ok for good to kill evil, IF it's evil... Take the TV show Charmed for example. The Charmed ones are good witches. They kill demons. They kill warlocks (which is not just a male witch in the Charmed world, they are evil witches that kill good witches and steal their powers. Most if not all are male, though it's suggested that in a past life Phoebe was a warlock) They do not kill mortals, even a serial killer, they do not kill mortals (unless they come back as a vengeful ghost, ala "The Ghost of Alcatraz" episode). On the other hand, Cole is half-demon, but once his love for Phoebe makes him suppress his demon side, they don't vanquish him, even going so far as to protect him when others try to. He's the "good demon" that it would be an evil act to kill him, at least unless he becomes evil again (which he does later). At one point they do skirt the line as Piper starts going proactive, LOOKING for demons and killing them whether they are doing something or not. Granted, Cole is an anomaly, but the bad guys end up using Piper's bloodlust for demons against her.
|
|
There is a notable distinction between a "role playing game" and a "simulation". In an RPG, I take on the role of a character, but ultimately it is a game (ie. liberties can be taken for the purposes of enjoyment). A simulation is a fully-accurate reconstruction of a given situation (ie. liberties cannot be taken, even if removing them would be 'fun').That's because, and I mean no offense, you're not really thinking very hard before stabbing.
If being good in the D&D alignment system is the same thing as being good in actual modern moral theory, then being a good person in D&D works pretty much the same as being a lawful...
...? I don't understand why you're saying this to me like its not something I don't know.
Bear in mind that 'good' in the D&D alignment system is NOT the same as being good in modern moral theory - whereas in the real world 'good' and 'evil' are relativistic concepts (that is, defined by their opposition to one another), 'good' and 'evil' in the D&D cosmology are objective (that is, there are gods that embody 'good' qualities and those who embody 'evil' qualities.
Yeah...that was the point I made earlier. I'm talking about the consequences of playing D&D and applying modern moral theory, instead of the pre-modern morality that the game's metaphysics imply.
I can't really figure out what your position is, since you seem to have done a complete 180 since your previous post. You're completely contradicting yourself in your last comment.
The blackguard has identified himself as a threat to you, and is thus a legitimate target. By definition, a blackguard is a servant of an objective evil. While a Paladin can't simply become an 'evil radar' - ie. "you're evil so you're dead" with no other reasoning - the blackguard has already identified themselves as a threat to you. If you deem him unredeemable, there is no sense parlaying.
This doesn't make any sense. You're not applying any coherent moral theory here.
If the blackguard is objectively evil because he has given himself over to the Dark Side, then you (as an agent of Good) are justified in killing him simply for existing. It's irrelevant what he does, because he's evil by his nature, not his deeds.
You would only need justification if you were applying modern moral theory that recognized the blackguard's right to existence as a fellow sentient. It only matters that the blackguard is threatening to attack if the blackguard has a right to exist, which implies a non-objective definition of good.
And how exactly do you deem the blackguard irredeemable without first attempting to redeem him? You ever heard the phrase "He who fights monsters must beware, lest he become a monster himself?" The first step on that road is declaring that you get to decide how many chances someone else gets to redeem themselves.
|
One of the major forces for good in the world are a band of undead privy to the secret history of the world and tasked with protecting the current inhabitants from fiendish infiltration and other supernatural threats.Even your undead can be potential good guys?
Some are. It depends on the type of undead and the nature of their undeath.
Some undead, such as devourers, are always evil without exception due to their very nature.
Some undead became undead through the weight of their own evil.
And some undead exist as such because they were cursed or are bound by regret, remorse, or sometimes even duty. Some of these are non-evil without much effort on their part, such as mummy paladins guarding the sanctity of a LG Pharaoh's tomb. And there are those that manage to remain non-evil through sheer force of heart and will, who constantly have to struggle against unnatural hungers.
Even with these there the majority of undead are evil, and there are some types that pretty much have to be put down to free their souls from an unnatural lock to the Material Plane.
I really can't imagine how I could ever enjoy a game set in a world like that.
Not every setting is going to be to everyone's tastes. For example, I wouldn't enjoy playing in a setting where the conflict was basically Same vs. Other or cowboys vs. "savage Indians".
It'd be impossible to just go out and have adventurers, unless I played an evil character. In fact, in a world like the one you seem to be describing, I would pretty much have to play an evil character to have any fun at all.
And yet we have had fun playing good and neutral characters. And have gone out and had adventures.
They just aren't dependant on genocide being an acceptable option.
You guys must go session after session after session without combats. Great if works for you, but just sounds tedious as hell to me.
Actually, any sessions without combats are the players' own doing. They enjoy interacting with the world when they're not bashing Evil's face in.
|
|
Deathless from Book of Exalted Deeds/Eberron Campaign Setting. Baelnorns from Monsters of Faerun. Good Liches from Libris Mortis. Et cetera.
But, to be fair, all those monsters are fairly ridiculous and have no place in a serious game. :P
Different strokes. Some of those guys could easily fit into a serious game.
May only issue with the Deathless type was that it was made necessary to begin with by 3.x pushing "undead = evil" so hard. At that point, those bound to go by the books needed Deathless to make certain creature and character types possible, like a noble, heroic dead soul bound by honor to guard the seal of a great evil until someone capable of relieving him of his duty(like say the PCs) came along.
|
|
Wait, Gailbraithe, you require everyone to be Exalted Good from Book of Exalted Deeds to be considered good?Blackguard tells you that he's going to kill you and then your family? You can kill him.No, actually, you can't. He has to actually attack you, and you have to be unable to prevent his attack by nonlethal means.
Which means that you have to parlay with the blackguard, attempt to convince him to change his mind, capture him by the least harmful method available if he refuses to change his ways and insist on doing harm, imprison him under the least intolerable conditions necessary to prevent harm to others, and give him genuine opportunities to reform himself.
No, as I stated earlier, in my campaigns I use a two-tiered alignment system. The first tier is cosmic, and all species have a cosmic alignment (ex. humans are lawful good, orcs are chaotic evil, lizardmen are neutral). The second tier is personal alignment, and applies to the character in the context of his species. The first tier dictates ethics when interacting with members of species with a different cosmic alignment, the second tier dictates ethics when interacting with members of species of the same cosmic alignment.
Members of Good species can slaughter members of Evil species with impunity. Orcs are evil by their nature, there can never be peace with orks, and humans do not have to consider the morality of their actions when exterminating them. A Paladin can wade hip-deep in orc blood and never sweat risking his alignment.
When it comes to interacting with humans however, a Paladin is far more restricted. A paladin can't ruthlessly slaughter human bandits, for example. Bandits have to be given a chance to surrender, and should only be killed as a last resort. Otherwise they should be captured and turned over to the authorities.
In my Blade Bay campaign, there is a villain named Pheigas Galt. He's a capitalist who cheats, swindles, and practically enslaves people in his quest for wealth and political power. He's lawful evil on tier two and lawful good on tier one, and would be appalled if you told him that he detects as evil (assuming he didn't think it was a trick). Appalled enough that the mere knowledge of it might cause him to change his ways. He is entirely redeemable, he just needs to really be shown how he hurts others in a way that he can't deny (he's be vulnerable to Christmas Carol style visitation by spirits, for example). Killing him outright would be an evil act, despite the fact that he's "evil."
The only exception to this rule is humans (and other members of Good species) who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by dark, magical forces and undergone some form of soul corruption that marks them as playing for Team Evil. While they can be forcibly redeemed, a Good character is under no obligation to make the effort to redeem a human. Such characters are actually noticeably different than other humans - for example, a high level human cleric of an evil power would show many signs of "taint" or "corruption," such as bulging red rimmed eyes, a truly deathly pallor, a tendency to bleed around the gums so his spittle is always flecked with blood, that sort of thing.
So in my campaign, because the morality is metaphysical and completely unlike real world morality (except on the microscale), players have a choice of embroiling themselves in thorny moral dilemmas by taking on villains like Pheigas Galt (who is "evil," but not Evil), or they can skip the moral quadries and just go out and Fight Evil.
And wiping out ogres as a species, as the OP asks about, wouldn't be genocide in my world. It would just be doing an amazingly effective job of Fighting Evil.
|
|
...Even with these there the majority of undead are evil, and there are some types that pretty much have to be put down to free their souls from an unnatural lock to the Material Plane.
And the players just have to muddle through figuring out which ones are which?
I really can't imagine how I could ever enjoy a game set in a world like that.Not every setting is going to be to everyone's tastes. For example, I wouldn't enjoy playing in a setting where the conflict was basically Same vs. Other or cowboys vs. "savage Indians".
Maybe not if it was the only option, but what you're doing takes the option to choose away from the players and forces them to always play Grey vs Grey, even if they want to play Black vs White.
If you eliminate all of the Others, or muddle them up by making the distinctions arcane and subject to debate, then players never have the option of choosing which play style they prefer. You're just dictating it to them.
It'd be impossible to just go out and have adventurers, unless I played an evil character. In fact, in a world like the one you seem to be describing, I would pretty much have to play an evil character to have any fun at all.And yet we have had fun playing good and neutral characters. And have gone out and had adventures.
I suspect that if I were to see an example of your actual play, I would strongly disagree with at least half of your claim. I'm betting that either your characters are good in name only, or they aren't really having adventures. More likely they are good in name only, and the morality at play is just a bunch of confused nonsense.
Yes, genocide is evil.
No one cares about Kinder1
|
|
...Even with these there the majority of undead are evil, and there are some types that pretty much have to be put down to free their souls from an unnatural lock to the Material Plane.And the players just have to muddle through figuring out which ones are which?
Well if one considers telling the difference between "ghoul warren littered with freshly gnawed humanoid bones" and "tranquil necropolis possessed of a somber peacefulness" muddling...
To say nothing of the burning skeletal warrior with a crackling halo and wings made of heavenly fire saying "fear not"...
I really can't imagine how I could ever enjoy a game set in a world like that.Not every setting is going to be to everyone's tastes. For example, I wouldn't enjoy playing in a setting where the conflict was basically Same vs. Other or cowboys vs. "savage Indians".Maybe not if it was the only option, but what you're doing takes the option to choose away from the players and forces them to always play Grey vs Grey, even if they want to play Black vs White.
If you eliminate all of the Others, or muddle them up by making the distinctions arcane and subject to debate, then players never have the option of choosing which play style they prefer. You're just dictating it to them.
wat
If you can take a break from making assumptions about how other peoples' games must go, note that as stated earlier, there are ample oppotunities for Good vs. Evil on a black and white level. They just don't require genocide.
Also, our group is composed of people that have experienced the "kill 'em all" gamestyle and don't care for it. There is no dictating, especially considering that EVERYONE GM's sooner or later.
And not one of us has cared to do "kill the Indians!"
I suspect that if I were to see an example of your actual play, I would strongly disagree with at least half of your claim. I'm betting that either your characters are good in name only, or they aren't really having adventures. More likely they are good in name only, and the morality at play is just a bunch of confused nonsense.It'd be impossible to just go out and have adventurers, unless I played an evil character. In fact, in a world like the one you seem to be describing, I would pretty much have to play an evil character to have any fun at all.And yet we have had fun playing good and neutral characters. And have gone out and had adventures.
Feel free to assume away. When you're done with that, also feel free to search my post history for our Kingmaker campaign journal and the various Crimson Throne write-ups.
An earlier poster had it right. This has devolved into satire.
|
|
If you can take a break from making assumptions about how other peoples' games must go, note that as stated earlier, there are ample oppotunities for Good vs. Evil on a black and white level. They just don't require genocide.
The question is not do they require genocide, but rather is genocide evil?
Where are these ample opportunities for Good vs Evil on a black and white level? You've got the possibility of good orcs, good undead, good demons, from the sound of your comments any species can have good members. Which, if I recall correctly, is why you took the genocide of evil species is evil position.
Is that not your position? Have I been misreading you this whole time? Because I don't think I have, I'm pretty sure you've been heavily implying that any species in your campaign has the potential to be good, and thus committing genocide against any species would be evil.
Which means that there is no possibility of black and white morality. Black and white morality requires that there be evil that cannot ever be good. If genocide of evil species is evil, then you do not have black and white morality.
That's not an assumption. That's a logical deduction.
Feel free to assume away. When you're done with that, also feel free to search my post history for our Kingmaker campaign journal and the various Crimson Throne write-ups.
Okay, I'll do that.
It's always seemed to me that the Good-Evil Law-Chaos discussions begin on the wrong foot by assuming that the words in D&D mean the same as the words in real life. In D&D Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real, tangible concepts that can be and are exemplified by 'living' creatures (the various outsiders, etcetera). In the real world it isn't like that - Good, Evil, Law and Chaos refer not to things but to actions.
Inevitably, it seems to me, the disputes regarding alignment stem from people arguing from opposite sides (implicitly assuming the concepts are real things in the real world or analysing the alignment of some creature based on its in-game actions). Alternatively, people tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile the concepts - concluding that devils are evil and will therefore always perform the evil and lawful act in any situation where there is a choice.
My answer would be it isnt evil in D&D (in fact it's probably good), it would be evil in the real world. Same word, different concepts, imo.
Is this another thread about those poor gnolls?
|
|
Where are these ample opportunities for Good vs Evil on a black and white level?
In the form of incursions of the spawn of a cosmic abomination, the schism between new-yuan-ti and their former masters, the expansionist magocracy ruled over by a cabal that callously uses eugenics and infernal magic to either remake the populace in their image and weaponize those that don't fit into their vision of the future, numerous fiend cults,
You've got the possibility of good orcs, good undead, good demons,
Good orcs are as common as good humans.
Good undead are very rare. And as I've already stated, many types undead are always evil.
Good demons are beyond exceedingly rare. And due to the way the setting's cosmology works, there's no worry about accidentally permanently destroying those rare fiends that were made of souls unjustly taken by the Lower Planes or who were still redeemable. We don't have to worry about that when fighting off a demonic invasion because we don't have dick DMs. If such a rare being is going to figure in the game, it's going to have build-up. And like undead, there are many types of fiends that dont' have members capable of redemption. The most vile demons and devils, for example, along with the entire yugoloth and daemon line of outsiders(they're distinct in the homebrew).
from the sound of your comments any species can have good members. Which, if I recall correctly, is why you took the genocide of evil species is evil position.
Yes, anything that actually qualifies as a mortal species qualifies as not having inherent alignmnet. The exceptions are some undead, some outsiders, and some aberrations. Yes, there are some good aberrations in our homebrew, just like in D&D and Pathfinder.
Is that not your position? Have I been misreading you this whole time? Because I don't think I have, I'm pretty sure you've been heavily implying that any species in your campaign has the potential to be good, and thus committing genocide against any species would be evil.
Damn straight.
Which means that there is no possibility of black and white morality. Black and white morality requires that there be evil that cannot ever be good. If genocide of evil species is evil, then you do not have black and white morality.
See examples of otherwise above.
That's not an assumption. That's a logical deduction.
No. It's an assumption. One made by someone about other peoples' games and how they must go. Someone who has gotten peeved at TOZ for voicing his opinions while at the same time making value judgments before and after about the way other people play the game, and how they can't really be having fun and how they can't really be playing heroes.
Feel free to assume away. When you're done with that, also feel free to search my post history for our Kingmaker campaign journal and the various Crimson Throne write-ups.I couldn't find these threads in your post history. Since you know the thread titles, why don't you give me a link?
A sampling.
Developing the party's adopted goblin follower. (Crimson Throne)
The party's developing relationship and effect on a popular LE cleric NPC. (Crimson Throne Spoilers)
Kingmaker journal. (spoilers)
And a very pleasant experience from way way back that fits the tone of our current group's play.
|
|
Near as I can tell, we just have narrower lists of creatures that are okay to kill on sight than Gail does. And genocide is still Evil, no matter what race is targeted. Genocide is something Evil creatures perform. Unless you are conflating 'kill on sight' with 'actively pursuing the destruction of the entire species'. Then I could see where the misunderstanding is.
|
|
Near as I can tell, we just have narrower lists of creatures that are okay to kill on sight than Gail does. And genocide is still Evil, no matter what race is targeted. Genocide is something Evil creatures perform. Unless you are conflating 'kill on sight' with 'actively pursuing the destruction of the entire species'. Then I could see where the misunderstanding is.
Reading material for the night!
And yeah, this is where my thinking is headed too.
Eh, not going to get bitter about it. No sense wasting time getting mad over the interbutts.
|
|
At some point I'm going to finish writing up the rest of the sessions between what's posted and when we started recording the sessions on my iPhone. You're welcome to post any comments you have in that thread.
Also, thanks for the detailed reply to Gail's post, I couldn't quite put it into words. The leap from 'must be irredeemable evil for black and white morality' to 'if genocide of evil species is evil you can't have black and white morality' seemed pretty illogical to me.
|
|
In the form of incursions of the spawn of a cosmic abomination, the schism between new-yuan-ti and their former masters, the expansionist magocracy ruled over by a cabal that callously uses eugenics and infernal magic to either remake the populace in their image and weaponize those that don't fit into their vision of the future, numerous fiend cults, ** spoiler omitted ** and many, many more.
So nothing a first level character could handle.
You've got the possibility of good orcs, good undead, good demons,Good orcs are as common as good humans.
That's either very, very cynical or you've pretty much ruined orcs (IMO).
Good undead are very rare. And as I've already stated, many types undead are always evil.
Good demons are beyond exceedingly rare. And due to the way the setting's cosmology works, there's no worry about accidentally permanently destroying those rare fiends that were made of souls unjustly taken by the Lower Planes or who were still redeemable. We don't have to worry about that when fighting off a demonic invasion because we don't have dick DMs. If such a rare being is going to figure in the game, it's going to have build-up. And like undead, there are many types of fiends that dont' have members capable of redemption. The most vile demons and devils, for example, along with the entire yugoloth and daemon line of outsiders(they're distinct in the homebrew).
Okay, so good undead and good demons aren't good because they have free will and choose to be good, but because of magic and the like. I would tend to not count such creatures as "demons" or "undead," personally.
Which means that there is no possibility of black and white morality. Black and white morality requires that there be evil that cannot ever be good. If genocide of evil species is evil, then you do not have black and white morality.
See examples of otherwise above.
Your examples don't support your claims. It looks more and more like my initial suspicion was correct, and that you're not playing black vs white or grey vs grey, but rather playing "confused mess of poorly understood moral concepts."
No. It's an assumption. One made by someone about other peoples' games and how they must go.
It's not an assumption. It's a logical deduction. If I'm wrong, then its because you are confused about how your game actually works and are misrepresenting in some way.
Having read your entire comment, I feel confident saying that the confusion is a result of you not understanding the implication of your own comments and not having a firm grasp on ethical reasoning.
Someone who has gotten peeved at TOZ for voicing his opinions while at the same time making value judgments before and after about the way other people play the game, and how they can't really be having fun and how they can't really be playing heroes.
I never said you weren't having fun. I said I couldn't have fun playing in a game with the kind of morality you present through your descriptions of your game and your (apparently inaccurate) statements about the moral theory underlying your game world.
And I got peeved at TOZ because he stated his opinions as facts, and like many people in this thread tends to present the division between the styles of play as being a difference of appealing to a simplistic, mindless, kick-in-the-door-and-never-think style and the more thoughtful and sophisticated style prefered by people like you and TOZ.
My contention would be that the style I prefer is based on the fact that I have a better understanding of ethical theory than you all do, and thus rather than finding your style more sophisticated, find it aggravatingly half-assed and uninformed.
For example, you claim there are species in your campaign setting that are always evil, and cannot be redeemed. Thus these creatures can be killed outright for existing. Yet you also claim that these species cannot be genocided. There is no rational moral philosophy that could resolve that contradiction.
But TOZ is the one who really just comes right out and says it:
Near as I can tell, we just have narrower lists of creatures that are okay to kill on sight than Gail does. And genocide is still Evil, no matter what race is targeted. Genocide is something Evil creatures perform. Unless you are conflating 'kill on sight' with 'actively pursuing the destruction of the entire species'. Then I could see where the misunderstanding is.
You can't claim that it is morally acceptable (i.e. not evil) to kill every member of a species that you see, but that it is morally unacceptable to kill every member of species period.
If it is acceptable to kill one instance of creature because the creature is inherently evil, and every example of the creature is inherently evil, then it must logically follow that it is acceptable to kill every instance of the creature.
Otherwise you'd be making the claim that if every instance of that creature in existence suddenly appeared before you, and there were x creatures, you would be justified in killing (x-1).
What the rule that makes it immoral (evil) to kill the last one, but not the (x-1) that came before it? There isn't one.
|
|
You can't claim that it is morally acceptable (i.e. not evil) to kill every member of a species that you see, but that it is morally unacceptable to kill every member of species period.
If it is acceptable to kill one instance of creature because the creature is inherently evil, and every example of the creature is inherently evil, then it must logically follow that it is acceptable to kill every instance of the creature.
Otherwise you'd be making the claim that if every instance of that creature in existence suddenly appeared before you, and there were x creatures, you would be justified in killing (x-1).
What the rule that makes it immoral (evil) to kill the last one, but not the (x-1) that came before it? There isn't one.
That would work if there wasn't a third option.
Neutral.
It's Evil to actively go out and kill every demon.
It's Neutral to kill that one demon that has shown up. It's also Neutral to not kill it.
It's Good to try and redeem that demon, and right back to Neutral if he attacks you and you kill him.
|
|
That would work if there wasn't a third option.
Neutral.
It's Evil to actively go out and kill every demon.
It's Neutral to kill that one demon that has shown up. It's also Neutral to not kill it.
It's Good to try and redeem that demon, and right back to Neutral if he attacks you and you kill him.
I can't even begin to wrap my head around that logic.
And Mizake, so far I've only read the first nine days of your Kingmaker journal. I was a bit surprised it took you nine days in the game to get to the first day of the adventure (which in the book starts with arriving at Olegs). If you're group actually played out those first eight days where absolutely nothing happened, I'd have torn my hair out. It just seems so dreadfully dull.
But then a battle finally happened. And much like I suspected, your party completely murdered a bunch of bandits. And since I've read the adventure, I know that they didn't even have to kill one of them. But you guys didn't even give them a chance. You ambushed them and murdered them before they even knew what was happening.
The best part is right after bushwacking the bandits and killing half of them in cold blood, you guys have this whole pretentious argument and all of this wangst over whether you'll sink to the level of the very bandits you're fighting. You know, those evil bandits who bushwhack people. Jumping out of ambushes and killing them. Exactly like you did.
Sink to their level? Oh, hon. You started at their level!
So, yay for murdering hobos and people who think they aren't playing exactly that way when they are. It's like a little testament of the power of people to convince themselves they're good guys when they're actually a bunch of bushwhacking murderers. Woo hoo.
|
|
At some point I'm going to finish writing up the rest of the sessions between what's posted and when we started recording the sessions on my iPhone. You're welcome to post any comments you have in that thread.
Also, thanks for the detailed reply to Gail's post, I couldn't quite put it into words. The leap from 'must be irredeemable evil for black and white morality' to 'if genocide of evil species is evil you can't have black and white morality' seemed pretty illogical to me.
DAMMIT. Next time I am recording rather than taking notes by pen. Never a moment's rest jotting things down as they happen.
And will do. Saw the party makeup. Know this is going to be interesting.
And no prob. I'm not gonna bother any more with that direction since it's sailed clean off into insane troll logic territory along with still making assumptions like crazy. Anyone arguing from a point of authority should have set off some alarms early on.
I'd rather spend that time on developing that good/neutral orc material honestly. ;)
|
|
That would work if there wasn't a third option.
Neutral.
It's Evil to actively go out and kill every demon.
It's Neutral to kill that one demon that has shown up. It's also Neutral to not kill it.
It's Good to try and redeem that demon, and right back to Neutral if he attacks you and you kill him.
That there is some insane troll logic. I can't even begin to wrap my head around that.
You can't redeem the demon, so why is it good to try to redeem the demon? Does good equal stupid? Because attempting to redeem an irredeemable creature is futile, and demanding futile actions to be good is demanding that good be stupid.
Why is it evil to kill the demon? Why is it neutral to kill a demon if he attacks you, but evil if he doesn't attack you?
Do you have any idea how justified homicide theory works? Because in justified homicide theory, killing someone in self-defense isn't evil because (through a fairly complex argument) it is demonstrated that the person killed in fact was the the proximate cause of their own death. The murder involved in a justified homicide is still evil, its just an evil perpetrated against the apparent victim (the person who was killed) by the victim himself.
This idea that killing someone in self-defense is always justified (i.e. not evil, it really doesn't matter if you call it good or neutral) is very Hollywood action movie morality, but a self-defense justification requires a lot more to be true than "He attacked me."
And no prob. I'm not gonna bother any more with that direction since it's sailed clean off into insane troll logic territory along with still making assumptions like crazy. Anyone arguing from a point of authority should have set off some alarms early on.
Ah, and so now you just throw out some bullshit accusations and insults and then walk away, having already lost the argument. Why can no one ever lose an argument gracefully? Why do people always have to try to slink away with this crap spraying out as they run off?
There is no "insane troll logic," just logic. Your personal attacks don't constitute an argument, it just demonstrates that you're a sore loser who can't handle being wrong. Boo hoo.
And Mizake, so far I've only read the first nine days of your Kingmaker journal. And much like I suspected, your party completely murdered a bunch of bandits. And since I've read the adventure, I know that they didn't even have to kill one of them. But you guys didn't even give them a chance. You ambushed them and murdered them before they even knew what was happening.
The best part is right after bushwacking the bandits and killing half of them in cold blood, you guys have this whole pretentious argument and all of this wangst over whether you'll sink to the level of the very bandits you're fighting. You know, those evil bandits who bushwhack people. Jumping out of ambushes and killing them. Exactly like you did.
That's why I find that style of play boring and tedious. It's like listening to children discuss politics. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
Ah, and so now you just throw out some b~~*$$#% accusations and insults and then walk away, having already lost the argument. Why can no one ever lose an argument gracefully? Why do people always have to try to slink away with this...
Heh, what argument?
Dude, all I've done is realize that I've been wasting my time being patient with you while you continue to jump to conclusions and make faulty assumptions left and right about the finer details of other peoples' games.
I'm not here to alleviate your huttburt over our apparent badwrongfun, nor am I here to flatter your precious ego over how you have such a greater understanding of ethics and morality than the rest of us.
I'm just not going to jump through hoops for you. Deal with it.
Also, in case you didn't pick up on it(you didn't), our Kingmaker game is meant to be pretty damn Gray. If you were expecting black and white, that's your derp, not ours.
|
|
That there is some insane troll logic. I can't even begin to wrap my head around that.You can't redeem the demon, so why is it good to try to redeem the demon? Does good equal stupid? Because attempting to redeem an irredeemable creature is futile, and demanding futile actions to be good is demanding that good be stupid.
Why is it evil to kill the demon? Why is it neutral to kill a demon if he attacks you, but evil if he doesn't attack you?
Did I say the Good has to redeem the demon? Did I say Good can only perform Good acts?
It's not Evil to kill the demon, it's Neutral. Regardless of if he attacks first or you attack first. It's Evil to set out to kill every demon in existance.
|
|
...? I don't understand why you're saying this to me like its not something I don't know.
I am simply making a point, not casting aspersions on your intelligence. Games of all sorts, of course, are games, and the goal of a game is enjoyment.
Yeah...that was the point I made earlier. I'm talking about the consequences of playing D&D and applying modern moral theory, instead of the pre-modern morality that the game's metaphysics imply.
I can't really figure out what your position is, since you seem to have done a complete 180 since your previous post. You're completely contradicting yourself in your last comment.
This is an erroneous assumption. My position, despite what your satire makes it out to be, is not 'every good character must act like some crazy Exalted Good character from the Book of Exalted Deeds and behave exactly in line with contemporary philosophical tenets'. What I have been saying is that morality in a 'serious' D&D/PF game is not 'the Bestiary says this guy's race is Always Chaotic Evil so it's okay to commit genocide against them'. You seem to be positing, however, that there are two options; contemporary ethical relativism and objective, black-and-white 'this guy is always evil' ideals, ie. players have to consider the morality of everything vs. players do not have to consider the morality of anything (the evidence I use to support this idea is that you seem to be decrying any consideration of ethicality as something the "...players just have to muddle through figuring out which ones are which"). What I am saying is that this is an intrinsically-false dichotomy. In fact, your idea of a 'cosmic' and 'personal' morality (which is an idea that I really quite like!) is what I'm saying - the two schools of thought may indeed coexist.
This doesn't make any sense. You're not applying any coherent moral theory here.
If the blackguard is objectively evil because he has given himself over to the Dark Side, then you (as an agent of Good) are justified in killing him simply for existing. It's irrelevant what he does, because he's evil by his nature, not his deeds.
You would only need justification if you were applying modern moral theory that recognized the blackguard's right to existence as a fellow sentient. It only matters that the blackguard is threatening to attack if the blackguard has a right to exist, which implies a non-objective definition of good.
And how exactly do you deem the blackguard irredeemable without first attempting to redeem him? You ever heard the phrase "He who fights monsters must beware, lest he become a monster himself?" The first step on that road is declaring that you get to decide how many chances someone else gets to redeem themselves.
False. Suppose you as a Paladin walk into a city and use Detect Evil on a random civilian. He registers as Evil, but all accounts say that while he is a selfish individual and uses his cunning to get deals better for himself (without outright cheating), he values stability and fairness, and treats his subordinates and customers well (on the rationale that this is good for business). He has not killed anyone, or committed any 'evil' deeds besides looking out for himself first. Can you just go 'oh well, radar says he's evil, guess I've gotta stab him to death lol'? Obviously not. Now suppose this man is a blackguard of Asmodeus. He has trained in martial ability and has even received Asmodeus' dark gifts, but is not some psychopathic killer - quite the contrary, he is a valued member of the community. Does this change anything? LN clerics of Asmodeus exist. LG PALADINS of Asmodeus exist. Claiming worship of a power that is actually evil (ie. an objective evil) does not necessarily mean that all its servants are objectively evil.
This is what I'm saying in a nutshell; objective evil does exist, but it does not imply that all evil is by necessity objective. Suppose you live in a completely mundane, backwater village who has never even heard of the gods (or otherwise dismisses them as outright folklore) - is the local cut-throat thug evil because he is a servant of a dark god? No, clearly not. Objective and relativistic evil co-exist in these settings.
Near as I can tell, we just have narrower lists of creatures that are okay to kill on sight than Gail does. And genocide is still Evil, no matter what race is targeted. Genocide is something Evil creatures perform. Unless you are conflating 'kill on sight' with 'actively pursuing the destruction of the entire species'. Then I could see where the misunderstanding is.
Hmm..You make a good point here TOZ- KOS is far, FAR different from actual genocide. I think this is indeed where the misunderstanding is.
Also, TOZ-KOS would be a cool alias. Just putting it out there.
inb4xenogears reference
Also, TOZ-KOS would be a cool alias. Just putting it out there.
HA!!!
inb4xenogears reference
Also, TOZ-KOS would be a cool alias. Just putting it out there.
inb4xenosaga reference (there was no KOS-MOS in gears)
|
|
CRB, page 166 : "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
Keyword is "innocent". If your enemies (let's say the Ogre species) are not innocent, you can do with them as you please and still stay quite neutral (even good in fact).
It all depends on what you consider innocent of course.
|
|
CRB, page 166 : "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
Keyword is "innocent". If your enemies (let's say the Ogre species) are not innocent, you can do with them as you please and still stay quite neutral (even good in fact).
It all depends on what you consider innocent of course.
Whoa, if I can "do with them as [I] please" can I torture them for no reason and then kill them slowly because they're jerks?
Or am I misreading?
inb4xenosaga reference (there was no KOS-MOS in gears)inb4xenogears reference
Also, TOZ-KOS would be a cool alias. Just putting it out there.Oh I'm soooo sorry I don't play your Pokemons and Nintendos and learn all the proper names.
** spoiler omitted **