While I love James Jacobs and the other folks who have a had in Pathfinder's creation giving their input on various topics,
I always thought that having higher-ups put their view on morality threads to be potentially harmful....
I feel like I needed to respond to this because it just screamed judgmental to me.
Now, in Golarion, that's fine, evil gods get sacrifices of things int 3 or higher and that's evil or what-have-you...
Now, when it comes to Golarion, there's a very distinct thing that happens when you die, so it's easier to make certain actions (like human sacrifice) be intrinsically evil.
Wierd, I assumed he was talking about Golarion for some reason... (maybe the `but as for Golarion` part of his comments.)
|
While I love James Jacobs and the other folks who have a had in Pathfinder's creation giving their input on various topics, I always thought that having higher-ups put their view on morality threads to be potentially harmful.
(snip)
I feel like I needed to respond to this because it just screamed judgmental to me.
Alignment is RAW content. It's not only pretty clearly defined in the Core Rulebook, but there are literally volumes of canon material that say basically the same thing. So if it feels judgmental, that's probably because it is. It's rules adjudication.
Now you can customize your game because you disagree with a rule. You can say that the alignment presented in the OGL isn't realistic, and replace it with something 'better'. But you're house ruling at that point. Just as you would be to make armor more realistic by giving shields a much larger boost to AC, or having PCs make Fort saves for drinking from a river, or introducing widespread firearm use - obsoleting armor, etc, etc, etc. All of these things reflect our very real Earth, and you could include them in their game. But the game as it is written doesn't.
If that were true, our actions would mean nothing. All that mattered would be power - because those with power will decide the souls' fate.
While I actually agree with you for the most part, I'd like to point out that this is, in fact, exactly what evil deities tell everyone (including themselves) either publicly or privately. That our actions mean nothing, so long as we have true power. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. All that jazz is evil's siren song... AND it's MO. Evil IS power, at its most fundamental level, for itself. It is selfish power for selfish gain, and it promotes the very thing you say it would promote.
Now, on to your example...
Your parents were poor but pious followers of Erastil? Doesn't matter, because a priest of Rovagug killed you on an altar and Old Deadeye didn't have anything to trade for your soul.
This is almost exactly what a priest of Rovagug would do and why that priest of Rovagug would do it. Further, it's obvious that Rovagug is stark raving mad, and wouldn't care even IF Erastil had something to trade. Rovagug would probably only agree to it, if Erastil unlocked the cell - which Erastil actually can't do - and even then Rovagug would betray his oath anyway. See, he's so awful that nothing - not even wicked and evil things - like him. He's a horrible, horrible aspect of existence... and likely the eventual end to all things (probably shortly after the volatile and prideful Asmodeus eventually gets ticked at being defeated 'forever' and unlocks the gate in a fit of pique and wounded pride).
But really, ultimately, the sacrifice probably isn't an immediate "go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go" thing, but instead would consign the soul to Pharasma's judgement seat, requiring that she adjucate where the soul goes. In this case, she would weigh the soul and compare the strength of the soul's convictions and alignment against the sacrifice and eventually send it one way or the other. If it was just an alignment thing, Pharasma would be unnecessary - a soul would simply drift toward the appropriate alignment like a magnet domain lining up in the proper direction. Pharasma, however, is the judge and arbiter of where souls go, measuring, weighing them, and consigning them. Suddenly, due to sacrifice, this competing evil deity has a competing claim. And Pharasma does have the power to change or halt a soul's destiny. I recall something somewhere about her having a bit of a tiff with Gorum, as the latter had someone he wanted not-dead, but the former was all like "nope, he's totally dead forever, sucks for you". I don't know anything else about it, but IIRC, Pharasma prevented the mortal soul from being raised, even though he was with Gorum, or some such.
Further, even if such a thing did immediately send the soul to the appropriate court, these are the things that deities struggle over.
The Soul Eater (from
and from the Bestiary 2) - all prove that actions can be overcome by sheer power. This is one reason that it's so terrible that such things happen... these are genuine acts of evil. Otherwise, it'd be evil, sure, but mostly it'd just be assigning a soul to their eternal happy reward of yay-ness. And those Cacodaemons mentioned before? Any fiend eats the soul gem they regurgitate after consuming a nearby soul (evil or not) condemns said soul to the appropriate aligned plane. One standard action (I think) later on a 'recently deceased' creature in the area, and a CR 2 (three hit dice) creature condemns any soul they want, possibly forever.
To make matters worse, evil creatures via such things as soul jars and trap the soul can easily prevent good people from reaching their reward anyway. There is such a thing as the soul trade.
I learned recently that I could have sold each soul I got from Varnhold - for 5,000 gold no less! - though the act is so reprehensible that I didn't bother considering it. Even though checks I made indicated I could... because there was a market.
Or consider also Arazni - the very herald of Aroden himself. She was stolen and turned into an evil lich who hates anything she used to be and actively seeks to destroy the sacred remnants of her old nature. This was all done against her will. Even consider something like a helm of opposite alignment: peoples' free will is fundamentally violated by such an object and they are easily forever damned (or redeemed) in spite of themselves, just by putting on a hat.
Thus, sacrifice doesn't seem so far fetched that it grants something to evil deities. The sum of peoples' actions are often rendered meaningless by magic and ritual, and this would just be one more element to that. That's why good people need such protection, after all, and why continually fighting the good fight to contain and reduce evil everywhere is an eternal struggle.
does a culture view it as evil? no, exhibit A: cheliax and the worship of asmadeus. They probaly view it as legal and lawful. Their priests/priestess probaly believe they are doing a good thing, they are following the state religion's orders and their god's orders.
However in a nation like Andoran they might disagree believing instead that it is a vile action. Not to mention a number of captured andoran freedom fighters likely wind up being sacrficed.
it all depends on the area, in one nation sacrfing a person is considered the lawful duty of the clergy and thus good to do. in another the exact opposite.
I've said this before, time to say it again. Alignment in a game is what people consider better / correct. I don't see a Cleric of Asmodaeus having a problem being described as Lawful Evil. He would look at you and say "that's right, I am". After all, he believes Evil is better than / superior to Good. We, being relatavists consider what we believe to be "good" and those other people's beliefs as "evil". In D&D / PF you have absolutes of good and evil and Evil as a choice, not just "bad / wrong".
So we tend to confuse "good" with right / correct / proper and "evil" with wrong / bad / improper. I find this avoids a lot of argument once you get past the vocabulary definitions.
I find these kinds of discussion fascinating myself. My approach to Pathfinder is that I am more interested in drama, character development, and exploring thought experiments relating to morality/ethics/theology in the context of a story as opposed to just action adventure and seeing who has the best build for a fight.
The way I see it, the ultimate judge of Good/Evil, Law/Chaos in any given game must necessarily be the game master, though of course the players can and will argue their own angles. Now I believe that a game master cannot help but bring in their own assumptions (consciously or unconsciously) of what is right and what is wrong, what is ethical or unethical in judging these very abstract notions. So I would expect that, say, a committed Christian is going to approach these things differently than, say, an agnostic moral relativist. I think it is important that the players realize that the game master is going to be bringing their own notions and commitments (or lack thereof) re ethics and morality into his or her game when it comes time to make determinations about alignment and specific acts.
For my part, I am an ordained Buddhist priest and I actually do believe that the law of cause and effect is not subject to cultural or personal whims. I really do believe that the Buddha spelled out what is really wholesome and what is really unwholesome and that while some of the details may be quibbled with I really do affirm what he taught as true to how life works and not just a subjective opinion. I am very much aware that I am informed by these beliefs and values when I run a game and in fact I try to make it part of the drama insofar as I set up situations where characters must make certain choices. Seeing how people choose and how they develop their characters is a large part of the fun for me. Of course it is important to not make judgments about the actual people based on how they run their characters - they may be playing a character who is morally or ethically like themselves or they may be trying out a different persona who will do things that they would not (for better or worse). I also acknowledge that a game master can try to set aside his or her personal notions and convictions in order to set up a campaign with very different assumptions, but I do not choose to and do not see why I should.
So in my game I have worked out a a point based system of keeping track of the alignments of characters and how far they drift from their stated alignments. Part of this system is a list of various acts (inspired by the Buddha's teaching of the ten courses of wholesome conduct - ten things that people should refrain from doing) and whether those acts will be deemed Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil and how many points such acts will generally accrue to a character who does them. Because my players have this alignment drift house rule system document they know the standards that I am using to rule on the nature of any given act. They have also become more mindful of the moral and ethical nature of their characters actions because they know I am paying attention and making it part of the story and not just a game mechanic afterthought for paladins and clerics and certain spells. Some players might not like this, but my players seemed to like it (or at least did not complain to me about it).
If anyone is interested here is a link to the document as it now stands:
http://gutwrenchingrpg.org/atss/docs/2011/08/03/alignment-infraction-system
does a culture view it as evil? no, exhibit A: cheliax and the worship of asmadeus. They probaly view it as legal and lawful. Their priests/priestess probaly believe they are doing a good thing, they are following the state religion's orders and their god's orders.
However in a nation like Andoran they might disagree believing instead that it is a vile action. Not to mention a number of captured andoran freedom fighters likely wind up being sacrficed.
it all depends on the area, in one nation sacrfing a person is considered the lawful duty of the clergy and thus good to do. in another the exact opposite.
I've said this before, time to say it again. Alignment in a game is what people consider better / correct. I don't see a Cleric of Asmodaeus having a problem being described as Lawful Evil. He would look at you and say "that's right, I am". After all, he believes Evil is better than / superior to Good. We, being relatavists consider what we believe to be "good" and those other people's beliefs as "evil". In D&D / PF you have absolutes of good and evil and Evil as a choice, not just "bad / wrong".
So we tend to confuse "good" with right / correct / proper and "evil" with wrong / bad / improper. I find this avoids a lot of argument once you get past the vocabulary definitions.
When I am running a game, I consider the alignment system to be a game mechanic that is not actually known in the game world. Or if it is (because of course even in the real world people talk about good and evil, right and wrong, law and order vs. anarchy, and such) then it is often misperceived, misunderstood, or described in-character in very biased and self-serving ways.
I could see a Cleric of Asmodeus describing himself as the kind of person who "does what needs to be done" or as someone who is not going to fall for any "bleeding heart sentimental nonsense" or perhaps as a "realist." But to have someone acknowledge and proudly own up to being "Evil" without any sense of self-contempt or irony or warped bravado is just too incredible. It destroys my suspension of disbelief.
Others may feel differently, but I prefer a game/story where the bad guys are self-deluded into thinking they are the good guys/heroes; where the good guys are often confused and filled with self-doubt and would shrink from claiming to be good or pure; and where the neutral guys are self-interested hypocrites who do claim to be law abiding good hearted citizens not because they are but because they want other people to think they are and because they want other people to be. That to me is a believable world that I can feel more invested in.
You might then ask, why would I even want to use the alignment system at all if I prefer such grayness, but that is what makes it interesting to me - that there actually is an objective standard of right and wrong but mere mortals are too deluded and selfish to clearly perceive it and even those who do don't have the will or guts to always live in accord with it. That is what makes the villains especially vile, because they are in fact violating an authentic standard, and it is what makes the hero's special, because they do perceive and live in accord with the authentic standard. Others might not see it like this, but I am sharing my own perspective as a GM for what it is worth.
When I am running a game, I consider the alignment system to be a game mechanic that is not actually known in the game world. Or if it is (because of course even in the real world people talk about good and evil, right and wrong, law and order vs. anarchy, and such) then it is often misperceived, misunderstood, or described in-character in very biased and self-serving ways.
Given the use of the terminology in spells, class abilities etc. (i.e. Detect Evil, Smite Evil, etc.) I tend to see the values as more concrete. If people are concretely "evil" they must be comfortable about it. Are they all raving lunatics? Well, probably not. Why are they OK with it? Because "Evil" is right. To them. You could assume that Detect Evil is "detect different opinion", but I don't think so.
I could see a Cleric of Asmodeus describing himself as the kind of person who "does what needs to be done" or as someone who is not going to fall for any "bleeding heart sentimental nonsense" or perhaps as a "realist." But to have someone acknowledge and proudly own up to being "Evil" without any sense of self-contempt or irony or warped bravado is just too incredible. It destroys my suspension of disbelief.
I'm sure the Cleric of Asmodeus describes hismself as all those things. He thinks "Good" is useless, sentimetal, nonsense that is wrong. In short, he thinks Evil is right.
Others may feel differently, but I prefer a game/story where the bad guys are self-deluded into thinking they are the good guys/heroes; where the good guys are often confused and filled with self-doubt and would shrink from claiming to be good or pure; and where the neutral guys are self-interested hypocrites who do claim to be law abiding good hearted citizens not because they are but because they want other people to think they are and because they want other people to be. That to me is a believable world that I can feel more invested in.
I'd say they are not on the "good side", that they believe they are on the correct side. Simple. From my point of view being "Evil" is being deluded and hypocritically self interested. But that's only because I'm Good :)
You might then ask, why would I even want to use the alignment system at all if I prefer such grayness, but that is what makes it interesting to me - that there actually is an objective standard of right and wrong but mere mortals are too deluded and selfish to clearly perceive it and even those who do don't have the will or guts to always live in accord with it. That is what makes the villains especially vile, because they are in fact violating an authentic standard, and it is what makes the hero's special, because they do perceive and live in accord with the authentic standard. Others might not see it like this, but I am sharing my own perspective as a GM for what it is worth.
The belief in the rectitude of Evil as a philosophy is what makes things interesting to me. Good and Evil are culturally loaded relative terms in RL. I have chosen to read it into the game world as literally as the rules do. For me, given the absolute nature of alignment (without rule 0) in the game it is the only way to make sense out of alignment without making it helplessly, and hopelessly, gray. Ymmv.
*edit* Besides, one of my PCs described a villain to his face as an "evil son of a b!tch" to which the villain replied "And?". Took the PC a while to figure it out :)
WARNING: while I avoid harsh language, this post does contain brief discussion of serious matters which, I've heard, can be triggers to those who have been through terrible things. This is not my intent, but I give warning just in case.
You might then ask, why would I even want to use the alignment system at all if I prefer such grayness, but that is what makes it interesting to me - that there actually is an objective standard of right and wrong but mere mortals are too deluded and selfish to clearly perceive it and even those who do don't have the will or guts to always live in accord with it.
Ah, so its just like in REAL life! No sarcasm... this really IS just like in real life! Now, if we could all just agree what that absolute standard is...
I basically agree with your post in most ways, although I think R_Chance has some valid points well worth considering too. While many, even most, sane people would never claim to be 'evil', there are many things that people claim for themselves or say that are not what they really wish to say or imply.
For example, although there are rapists, and some are probably found in various video game communities, I highly doubt that most people who claim to be about to "rape you" in said groups mean anything like that. In fact, they don't mean the vast majority of the words they say in such a context, because their words, used in the context they are, have a fundamentally different meaning and implication than the actual definition of the words they're using. Most of them would feel horrified or disgusted if they actually accidentally implied what they were literally saying to their friends. However, they use the words they do, and it becomes the new vocabulary - the meaning of those words change.
So much so, that when I taught middle-schoolers, none of them knew the full nature of the words they said. In fact, none of them knew the actual definition or implication of "rape" - to them, it was a word that meant "I win". What they said to each other meant "I will win this competition between us and brag about it verbally.", but the words they used were "I'm gonna rape you, and murder you SO BAD!" (They did, of course, know what "murder" was, but didn't think of it, and also used other language that I will avoid here). When I told them not to speak like that, they didn't understand why, and, in fact, argued that I was incorrect and that their language was fine: after all, if everyone was using it, it couldn't be bad. With parental permission, I showed them the dictionary, and got them to understand what they were saying, one boy teared up and wrote (of his own volition) apology letters to his fellow classmate - who was right there! They never - in my presence, at least - spoke that way again.
In (sort of) the same way, I imagine that Cheliax, or at least Nidal, might take on a different vocabulary. "Evil" might begin to mean something more and something less than it really does - objectivity is distorted by culture - and it becomes a badge of honor, instead of a curse or insult. Literally people lose the concept that 'evil' is bad, and instead see it as something to aspire to, even as they have a complete lack of understanding of what evil actually IS. They THINK they know, but are wrong. And by the time most actually come to understand (if they ever do), it's too late for them, as they've become corrupted... and evil. Their cultural context is, as R_Chance put it, that evil is not bad or worthless, but rather a good and useful tool, and "Good" as a high concept is sentimental nonsense. You're arguing that people wouldn't use the word "evil", as we understand it, to describe themselves. R_Chance is saying the same thing, I think.
Honestly, this sounds like a perfect tool for Asmodeus (a god of trickery, deceit, and corruption) to use: a slow change in vocabulary. While most might still shy away from it, I can easily imagine the younger, impressionable generation using this and other words in ways that their elders would find poor taste... but they wouldn't know it. Eventually he might even get people to sign their souls away without realizing they are doing so: the ultimate trick in a contract.
For all that, I still basically agree with you!
(SORT OF EDIT BEFORE POST: R_Chance updated while I wrote this, but instead of deleting it, I just kind of went with it).
R_Chance, you make a really good point about the names of the spells. That really set me back a bit - how do I deal with that in-character?
Tacticslion, I have to thank you for providing a pretty good explanation. I have a 13 (soon to be 14) year old daughter and I know exactly what you mean about kids using terms that they really don't understand. I am appalled, for instance, that middle school kids are singing Rhianna's SM song and they have no idea what she is referring to and I certainly don't want to have to explain that they really shouldn't be singing songs like that. <sigh> So yes, just like someone in real life might say, "I'm bad!" to mean that they are tough or cool or not someone to be messed with, I guess people and monsters and deities in Golarion (or whatever the campaign world) have the twisted view that it is "good" to be Evil and that being Good means to be a "wimp" and so is not good.
Another possible answer would be that the names for spells and other powers are also on the level of game mechanics and not in-game terms. In other words, "Detect Evil" in the game world might be called something like "the spell to Perceive the Emanations of the Lower Planes" or something fancy and more mystical sounding than "Detect Evil." So in-game things would not be so generic and revealing but much more baroque and obscure. This in fact makes sense to me, because clerics and wizards and sorcerers and other are all casting this same spell, but aren't they all doing it a different way and wouldn't each nation/language group within the campaign world have a different name for it or take on it. For that matter, many wizards through the ages might design spells that are basically just the same generic spell in the rule book but as far as in-character knowledge is their own design or creation. All of this would, in the game world, obscure the terminology and references of the Detection spells and other references to alignment that are so clear on the level of game rules. Also, this explanation would certainly be compatible with Tacticslion's point about the semantic drift of certain words related to morality, ethics, and even particular acts.
Okay, so, bottom line, it stretches my incredulity to the breaking point if an evil person proudly claims to be Evil and really understands what Evil objectively refers to. I could see an evil person saying that they are Evil because they have a wacky way of using words, or because they are insane, or so corrupted that they don't care any more, or because they so desire power and/or have lost all hope of Good triumphing that they have willingly aligned with the forces of Evil because they think they will be spared or somehow get a better deal (thus the worshippers of Cthulhu). Still, the average garden variety evildoer will try to find ways of not admitting to themselves that they are aligned with the forces of the lower planes - esp. those with 5 HD or less who do not even register on the Evil-meter.
The difference between accepting willing sacrifice and accepting willing martyrdom is what again precisely? I'm certain even the gods get confused on this point.
And then there's also the question of informed consent. Where's the cut-off? Is Iomedae okay with children's crusades? Is the measure of evil based on intent or results? If it's only intent, are the gods of good okay with Heaven being stuffed with well-intentioned idiots who led thousands of children to their doom? If it's results, what do they do about brimstone and treacle scenarios where fate conspires against thoroughgoing dastards so that all their wicked plans end up with benevolent outcomes?
|
“Evil? Please. I do not desire evil I desire order. The world is full of people using others for their own ends; it is the natural state of sentience. Even those who call themselves ‘paragons of good’ do their deeds for their benefit in the next world. I desire to bring peace. To do so requires power. I reward my allies and enemies accordingly. While the things I do may appear to be for my immediate benefit, they are simply steps to a long term goal. When I am ready, I will be able to rally my followers to build a utopia. Everything will be ordered. Those who break the laws will be punished. If you stand in my way, you will be removed. Stand with me and you will share in my bounty.
You call it evil, I call it self interest. How can I help my allies if I do not have the means? How can I punish those who would hurt others for their own enjoyment without power? I have founded orphanages, saved cities, and helped the poor and downtrodden. Do these acts not meet your definition of ‘good’? To me they are neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’, they are means to an end. My orphanages teach the children the way to make sure they can take care of themselves. Being a hero of the city allows me access to the doorways of power. And helping the poor and downtrodden? If they can use the means I give to better themselves, they still feel an obligation to me for helping them. If they choose to continue to live in squalor, then they still might serve unsavory uses.
In the end, you will be able to walk safely down my streets, play your little games, give your own wealth to those you feel are less fortunate than yourself, so you may feel better about yourself. But remember, it is ‘evil’ that swept those streets clean. It is ‘evil’ that punishes those who would take advantage of your charity. It is ‘evil’ that allows you those things you want, but would be unable to get. ‘Evil’ is simply getting things done. Evil is having the resolve to making Law work.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
(I always feel the need to shower or something after dipping into 'his' mind. Shad's me, with all the safeties off.)
Like I said, I understand sacrifice from Kae's POV.
There was an article in Dragon on using the seven deadly sins and the seven cardinal virtues. I think in a game a 'detect vice/virtue' would be good for the Good/Evil axis.
Kind of like the Black Lantern Rings scanning, ping the primary emotional output. So Shad would show Pride/Envy while a serial killer might show wrath/lust/greed.
One of my hobbies is studying the psychopathic mind. Here's some interesting, and hopefully relevant quotes, from a book I'm in the middle of reading right now:
Turiel's paradigm is referred to as the moral/conventional distinction task. In this task, the participant is presented with stores involving moral and conventional transgressions. Moral transgressions are actions defined by their consequences for the rights and welfare of other individuals (e.g. hitting another individual, damaging another individual's property) and conventional transgressions are defined by their consequences for the social order (e.g. talking in class, dressing in opposite-sex clothes).
The participant is then asked to make a series of judgments about these transgressions (e.g. "How bad is the transgression?" "Why is the transgression bad to do?" and, crucially, "If there was no rule about people [doing the transgression], would it be OK to [do the transgression]?").
Healthy individuals distinguish between moral and conventional transgressions. The distinction between moral and conventional transgressions is made from the age of 39 months and is found across cultures.
...
Children with psychopathic tendencies and adults with psychopathy have considerable difficulty with the moral/conventional distinction task.
...
In addition, when the rules prohibiting the transgressions are removed, [children with psychopathic tendencies and adults with psychopathy] are far less likely to make the distinction between moral and conventional transgressions that is seen in healthy individuals.