It's not a matter of numbers, each situation is something you look into it's own context. In this case the context is trying to justify murder as opposed to normal reasons for adventure combat.
Adventurers do what they do, where they do it, because the alternative is being killed themselves. Committing wanton slaying in the confines of civilization is another thing entirely.
Murder and adventuring within a city are entirely matters of law/chaos. Killing the Assassin King when his base is a fortified monastery in the middle of the impenetrable forest and killing him when his base is a tastefully appointed townhouse next to the warehouse district are morally (good/evil) the same thing. Legally they can be quite different (especially considering how easy it is to bribe local officials on an assassin kings salary)
Adventurers can hardly claim self defense on adventures. Normally they're proceeding into someone else s territory be it a dragons lair, an orc villiage, or a kobold warren. You can't show up armed, armored, and magicked to the hilt in someone's house and say "Hey.. they attacked me first, it was self defense!" If adventurers don't want to be attacked they can stay home.
The fact is that their entire justification rests on the things they're attacking needing to be stopped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Gailbraithe and Big Norse Wolf should just get it over and make out.
Also, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...
Stopped how?
With adventurers? Greatsword to the head, a dagger to the kidneys, or a fireball where the sun doesn't shine.
Killing in short.
What changes would you make in Adventure Paths, PFS modules.... let's get down to brass tacks and really say something here.
WHoaaaa nelly. I'm not advocating changes. I'm not saying adventurers aren't justified. I'm just saying that self defense isn't the justification. The justification is stopping the necromancer, ending the goblin menace, stopping the pillaging army, or stopping the evil pretender from ascending the throne because they need to be stopped.
I think Gailbraithe and Big Norse Wolf should just get it over and make out.
We stab hardest at our own dark reflections.
Also, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...
Yeah, going through that link, i'm not seeing a whole lot of coherence or reasoning but a whole lot of declarations of "it is so that...."
Chaotic Neutral act.
Good: rid the city of thieves -> good!
Evil: . . . only to be plagued by another group of thieves. . . bad.(Good/Evil Axis: Neutral)
Law: Pretty much nothing lawful going on here. . .
Chaos: Destruction of status quo -> chaotic(Law/Chaos Axis: Chaotic)
So end result: Chaotic Neutral. . .
This isn't Fallout. Being neutral does not mean the bipolar behaviour of shooting someone in the face, then giving the thirsty guy some water.
He's out for money and power, and he's willing to kill to get it. He's evil. He can make himself feel better by giving to the poor and making someone's life better, but he's still evil.
You're saying it's not a video game, but you look at the behavior through an extremely simplified perspective. He's not shooting just anyone in the face -- he's shooting clearly evil guys. His motivations are not good. But it's not like he's running around killing goblin babies either. Killing something/someone isn't always evil.
Wanting money and power isn't a good or evil behavior -- it's neutral. It's the *love* of money/power that is the root of all evil.
Math is a language.
Math is no more knowable through observation than English is. I can have a basket of apples and I can call it "basket", "apples", "fruit", "food", "mine", and anything else I so chooose. I'm still not "proving English" or even "observing English". I'm using the names I've chosen, and the distinctions are still mental rather than physical.
Also, chaotic people value personal freedom and eschew organizations. Wanting to take over and run a large organization isn't chaotic behavior; it's at best neutral and probably lawful behavior.
And mostly it doesn't matter. It's really not so much about the actions that are performed, but the context in which a characters decides a course of action.
Also, chaotic people value personal freedom and eschew organizations. Wanting to take over and run a large organization isn't chaotic behavior; it's at best neutral and probably lawful behavior.
It's no different than a dictator who overthrows a government so he can be the sole power. Just because he's ruling the country/organization doesn't mean he's lawful.
Also, chaotic people value personal freedom and eschew organizations. Wanting to take over and run a large organization isn't chaotic behavior; it's at best neutral and probably lawful behavior.It's no different than a dictator who overthrows a government so he can be the sole power. Just because he's ruling the country/organization doesn't mean he's lawful.
Such a tyrant is actually given as the standard example of lawful evil. So, yes -- I would say ruling the country/organization DOES mean you're lawful, or at least neutral. It's counter to chaotic behavior, at least.
The apple tangent has drifted completely away from the topic (the morality remains at least tangentially attached) If you really care about it, try starting it up as its on topic in off topic.
You can demonstrate -1 x -1 empirically using vectors. Heck, even imaginary values are attributed to real-world objects, thanks to the imaginary components of EM waves (which ARE empirically verifiable).
I agree with you that math isn't real, but I don't agree that -1x-1 is any more or less demonstrable than 1+1.
'Adventurerers' are nothing more than glorified bandits.
What does a bandit do?
a bandit will perform any of the following acts
Raid settlements
kill the inhabitatants of said settlement
loot any valuable items or resources from the deceased inhabitants
rummage the buildings and plunder any valuable items or resources
defile the corpses they slew
take any defenseless survivors as slaves
What does an Adventurer do?
the exact same thing
'Adventurerers' are nothing more than glorified bandits.
What does a bandit do?
a bandit will perform any of the following acts
Raid settlements
kill the inhabitatants of said settlement
loot any valuable items or resources from the deceased inhabitants
rummage the buildings and plunder any valuable items or resources
defile the corpses they slew
take any defenseless survivors as slavesWhat does an Adventurer do?
the exact same thing
Your adventurers are not typical. :P
I play a chaotic neutral Human thief who is obsessed with money. He has one goal, to fill a tub with gold coins and bathe in it. He wants a mansion, respect, and most importanly, gold! There is a local thieve's guild in a semi-wealthy city that he wants to take over. My thief plans to take over this guild by acting as a mystical urban legend named "The Severed Hand" who kills the bullies and baddasses of the slums as well as pulling a Robin Hood and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (and himself). He plans to do this so he can overhtrow the guild and be a theif guild leader.
Ironically i have character who is VERY similiar... He's also a CN rogue who is obsessed with treasure. He has the general philosophy of 'all these other PCs are vital to keeping him alive.' Therefore, he will fight and help them as needed.
He will survive a lot longer with a group then if he was solo. However... if it ever comes down to 'dying to save them... or if only one can survive... It'll be HIM'... They don't want to trust him TOO much ;)
At least in the beginning... the groups a lot closer now :P
My question of ethics is that would killing all the bad guys in the slums a good act? He is doing it to get power and money but he is also ridding the world of injustice, and helping the poor. Is that a good act, a neutral one, or possibly evil because he lies to the commoners. Once he gets the power he will try to keep the people happy so he can overthrow the government in the city, then other cities, then the country; so he can get a pool filled with gold in a rich mansion, and be the wealthiest man ever. Thanks for your input. :)
Honestly, I see him as very much CN. He simply has no strong feelings one way or another. He cares enough about good, to only kill the bad guys and protect the innocent.
He's 'evil' enough to be willing to kill to get what he wants... but he doesn't really WANT to.
All he cares about his bathtub full of gold. If a random noble walked up to him and offered him the tub of gold, he'd abandon his 'guild-stealing' plan. Killing thieves and crooks was only a means to an end. if he can get it without killing ANYONE, he'd do that.
Neutral is all about not having strong feelings one way or the other. Is it good? is it evil? Doesn't really matter. it's really a very good alignment for truly 'selfish' characters.
Which is why I see his plan as neutral acts. All the good that he's doing in the slums... is an accident. He's not taking over the guild to do GOOD... If good comes of it.. FINE... If not... How does that affect my tub??
Also, chaotic people value personal freedom and eschew organizations. Wanting to take over and run a large organization isn't chaotic behavior; it's at best neutral and probably lawful behavior.
Nobody ever said he would be GOOD at running a large organization. Just because he wants power and money doesn't change that he's a bit chaotic. He may have the whim to see what it's like if he was in charge... then really SUCK at the job :)
I removed some posts. If you've reached the "is too!" stage of arguemnt, it's probably best to find something more productive to do with your time.
Your adventurers are not typical. :P'Adventurerers' are nothing more than glorified bandits.
What does a bandit do?
a bandit will perform any of the following acts
Raid settlements
kill the inhabitatants of said settlement
loot any valuable items or resources from the deceased inhabitants
rummage the buildings and plunder any valuable items or resources
defile the corpses they slew
take any defenseless survivors as slavesWhat does an Adventurer do?
the exact same thing
i said 'any of the following acts' not 'all of the following acts'
some groups may not take slaves or defile corpses, but i have heard of some that do.
but every adventure raids settlements, kills the inhabitatants, and searches both the establishment and the corpses for any valuable items or resources. and valuable need not always mean easily liquidatable. edible food, drinkable water, workable tools and useable materials can also be seen as valuable.
it's just that the inhabitants typically aren't human and the settlement isn't typically urban.
but every adventure raids settlements, kills the inhabitatants, and searches both the establishment and the corpses for any valuable items or resources. and valuable need not always mean easily liquidatable. edible food, drinkable water, workable tools and useable materials can also be seen as valuable.
it's just that the inhabitants typically aren't human and the settlement isn't typically urban.
Presumably the DM provides some rational WHY these people deserve the tender attentions of an adventuring party.
Presumably the DM provides some rational WHY these people deserve the tender attentions of an adventuring party.
Money and Glory?
Money and Glory?Presumably the DM provides some rational WHY these people deserve the tender attentions of an adventuring party.
you got it. a lust for Wealth, Glory, and Power.
As a GM I'd just tage the person CE and thank them for a new NPC for my folder.
"Please draw up your next character".
you got it. a lust for Wealth, Glory, and Power.
That's not wrong is it?
That's not wrong is it?
you got it. a lust for Wealth, Glory, and Power.
it's perfectly right.
Removed further posts. Sometimes you can't convince the other person of your position, and it's best to drop the argument at that point and agree to disagree.
Edit: And I'm just gonna lock this thread.