Good healing evil?


Rules Questions


In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

*Yes, am rather new to DMing the pathfinder system, and our group is rather new to playing it, but we are loving it more and more each game.


Healing itself is neither good nor evil. If the oracle sees the the sorcerer as an ally, he'd have no compunctions about healing him.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ayrphish wrote:

In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

*Yes, am rather new to DMing the pathfinder system, and our group is rather new to playing it, but we are loving it more and more each game.

No, it doesn't. Healing isn't explicitly good, despite the linming of channel type to alignment. You can heal evil as easily as good. And, unless you like intraparty conflict, I'd advise that the good oracle and the Evil sorcerer realise that they're on the same side and not be dicks about it. If they won't, the game will degenerate quickly.


Ayrphish wrote:

In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

*Yes, am rather new to DMing the pathfinder system, and our group is rather new to playing it, but we are loving it more and more each game.

Nope, nothing in the core rules or core setting prevents anyone from healing anyone else; however, there are SOME complications.

For instance, a good aligned cleric or paladin (notably, Oracles are completely exempt) knowingly aiding an evil character accomplish his evil ends in any way, even nonmagically, would probably count as grossly violating the nature of ones religion/code, and would result in them becoming an ex-cleric/ex-paladin until they sought attonement.

That said, if it was for a good cause, or due to extreme circumstances or even ignorance, this would not be true.

As well, for reference, there ARE settings where healing people of opposite alignments either doesn't work or has bad effects, such as the Iron Kingdoms.

The Exchange

I don't believe there is anything in the rules that says a good aligned character could not heal an evil aligned one. Though as a DM you can play it however you want - maybe have the heals work but an odd "resistance" felt by the Oracle whenever the evil character gets some healing.

There are a few alignment specific or deity specific spells, but nothing I'm aware of that would affect basic cure spells.


Not for nothing but healers easing suffering regardless of the morals of the sufferer is an age old concept.

It can be based off of the idelistic concept that the obligation to do good is universal. For example, see the R.L. Stevenson Classic book Treasure Island, where the Doctor, morally obligated to ease suffering, goes to tend to the pirates injured in the battle they had just fought with them. That book is GREAT for illustrating Chaotic Evil (the pirates) compared to Lawful Good (Jim Hawkins, Dr. Livesey et al.).

It can also be a pragmatic effort to redeem by example. The idea is you can't convert someone to moral behavior by shunning them, instead you try to show them how to be good and charitable by being good and charitable to them. That concept is all over modern children's fiction. Who doesn't remember Kris Kringle melting the heart of the Winter Warlock with his kindness? Or Little Cindy Loo Hoo's Christmas present's effect on the Grinch?

However, if your campaign isn't into such hippy dippy stuff, and it's played more heavy on "good's obligation is to destroy evil", then the trope of the "evil party member hiding his evil from the paladin" is an RP bomb set to blow your campaign apart the minute the truth is revealed - because not only is the evil character evil, he's also actively betraying the trust of the Good character, manipulating and using the good character to enable him to do evil on the sly. When that all comes out on the table, a 'slay evil' kind of good PC will have to respond with righteous vengeance at such a personal offence and moral outrage, so either the good character needs to compromise her own alignment, or there's gotta be a fight.


This is where I think alignment fails. Too many people play alignments as black and white. and so they argue well he helped an evil guy and now he looses ability. I think thats not within spirit of game. Evil deities and good deities work together all the time to promote common goals. I think if the evil guy is helping and the goals are similar and he is not raping and murdering in front of the cleric/paladin then there is no issue with this.

Sovereign Court

The ability (or lack thereof) of good and evil PCs to work together effectively already has multiple threads on the forum, so I'll refrain from going there despite the temptation.

With regards to the OP, in pathfinder 'healing' is categorized as either positive energy or negative energy. Cure Light Wounds 'heals' anything that is alive whether good or evil, or friend or enemy (so clerics, remember that when you channel energy for aoe heal..) Cause Light Wounds 'heals' undead, but damages living (good or evil, etc etc)

So to sum up.. in this game system, healing compatability ignores alignment and instead is a question of are you Alive, Undead, or Neither (constructs..)


That's the Belkar argument, yea.

Thing is the rules are left intentionally vague - just like how RL morality is full of gray. It's the ultimate 'it's up to the GM' of the game.

Problem is so many things are mechanically dependant on alignment (detect spells, magic items that are alignment dependant, etc.] the game can't have gray.

In this case the real issue is does the act have the effect of altering the clerics alignment. If it does, and if that pushes the cleric more than one step from the deity, then there's RAW consequences.

The GM needs to define what the boundaries good v evil, law v. chaos, are. Hopfully with input from the players, and then hopefully everyone can get on the same page.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tharg The Pirate King wrote:
This is where I think alignment fails. Too many people play alignments as black and white. and so they argue well he helped an evil guy and now he looses ability. I think thats not within spirit of game. Evil deities and good deities work together all the time to promote common goals. I think if the evil guy is helping and the goals are similar and he is not raping and murdering in front of the cleric/paladin then there is no issue with this.

Also, people tend to focus on good/evil and ignore law/chaos.

In theory, a lawful good and lawful evil character are just as likely to team up against a chaotic foe compared to lawful good and chaotic good teaming up vs. evil foes. However you rarely see the former dynamic, even though they should be equivalent.

For the record, I'm not a fan of alignments in general.


FarmerBob wrote:
Tharg The Pirate King wrote:
This is where I think alignment fails. Too many people play alignments as black and white. and so they argue well he helped an evil guy and now he looses ability. I think thats not within spirit of game. Evil deities and good deities work together all the time to promote common goals. I think if the evil guy is helping and the goals are similar and he is not raping and murdering in front of the cleric/paladin then there is no issue with this.

Also, people tend to focus on good/evil and ignore law/chaos.

In theory, a lawful good and lawful evil character are just as likely to team up against a chaotic foe compared to lawful good and chaotic good teaming up vs. evil foes. However you rarely see the former dynamic, even though they should be equivalent.

For the record, I'm not a fan of alignments in general.

+1 Totally agree.


That's Cheliax in a nutshell btw. It's how you get paladin hellknights.


As an aside, it might be interesting to run a law vs. chaos game where the "bad" guys are demons, fey, metallic dragons, fighting those who wish to impose law and order in their lands (or vice verse).


Appreciate all the input :)

I don't think the group will have a problem when his evil comes to the surface, we're all friends, and adults, and I think we'll be able to more or less laugh it off.

I asked the question to see if I could stir things up and introduce a mystery, the 'good' cleric has trouble healing the sorc, but the neutral bard can do it just fine. I dont think they would immediately suspect alignment.


FarmerBob wrote:
As an aside, it might be interesting to run a law vs. chaos game where the "bad" guys are demons, fey, metallic dragons, fighting those who wish to impose law and order in their lands (or vice verse).

I've had the idea for a campaign setting where the main conflict was between an expanding lawful empire and the small independent states and tribes around it. Leading to things like orcs and elves banding together to hold off the empire, while making it quite clear that there was good and evil on both sides.

Shadow Lodge

RAW, the healing works. However, were this a cleric and you wanted the evil to be an issue, you might have the caster receive a 'bad feeling' about it, a vision, etc. Assuming, of course, the deity wouldn't have healed the evil target. And I can really only envision a LG deity making that choice. As a GM you'd know more about where the character stands in the eyes of that deity.

Since it's an oracle, I see no hooks here for an alignment issue at all.

I'm a huge fan of alignment, believe that the black-and-white largely functions, and I still agree that mixing them is a bad, bad, bad idea.

:)


Ayrphish wrote:
I asked the question to see if I could stir things up and introduce a mystery, the 'good' cleric has trouble healing the sorc, but the neutral bard can do it just fine. I dont think they would immediately suspect alignment.

OH MAN for THAT I would totally refer to sources like Gods and Magic, the Inner Sea World Guide, and gods articles in various APs. They all take the trouble to list ways the gods show their disfavor, unique to the god, and that never gets enough play. This would be the perfect circumstance to add that flavor.


Good tends to not fight good. Part of good is avoiding needless violence. Lawful tends to not fight lawful, though not as strongly. Part of law is is avoiding needless change and war tends to beget change.

Evil fights evil all the time. In spite of being far closer in alignment to Hitler than to Churchill and Roosevelt Stalin sided with the Allies because evil is defined by selfishness, not the pursuit of some cosmic greater evil. Chaotic similarly fights chaotic all the time. Chaotic neutral is the alignment of tribalism.

Shadow Lodge

Asphesteros wrote:
Ayrphish wrote:
I asked the question to see if I could stir things up and introduce a mystery, the 'good' cleric has trouble healing the sorc, but the neutral bard can do it just fine. I dont think they would immediately suspect alignment.
OH MAN for THAT I would totally refer to sources like Gods and Magic, the Inner Sea World Guide, and gods articles in various APs. They all take the trouble to list ways the gods show their disfavor, unique to the god, and that never gets enough play. This would be the perfect circumstance to add that flavor.

Wait, cleric or oracle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mcbobbo wrote:
Wait, cleric or oracle?
oracle wrote:
oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals.

But, I'd bring the whole gang into play. Pick a couple deities that want to warn the oracle off the behavior, and a couple that favor the evil character and want to encourage it. Then let the conflicting signs, omens, and portents fly!


mcbobbo wrote:
Asphesteros wrote:
Ayrphish wrote:
I asked the question to see if I could stir things up and introduce a mystery, the 'good' cleric has trouble healing the sorc, but the neutral bard can do it just fine. I dont think they would immediately suspect alignment.
OH MAN for THAT I would totally refer to sources like Gods and Magic, the Inner Sea World Guide, and gods articles in various APs. They all take the trouble to list ways the gods show their disfavor, unique to the god, and that never gets enough play. This would be the perfect circumstance to add that flavor.
Wait, cleric or oracle?

Sorry, Oracle


Quote:
In theory, a lawful good and lawful evil character are just as likely to team up against a chaotic foe compared to lawful good and chaotic good teaming up vs. evil foes. However you rarely see the former dynamic, even though they should be equivalent.

Here's why the theory falls apart in practice: To the vast majority of people, the moral axis is more important.This is true even, or rather especially, of paladins, who can fall for ONE evil act, but need to completely shed their lawful alignment to fall.

A lawful evil ruler gleefully launching orphan children out of his peasant catapult and skeet shooting them with a wand of fireball (whaaat.. he has a permit) earns the ire of a paladin MUCH faster than the highway bandit robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Even if good chaotic good takes the law into their own hands and starts killing people they're usually people who deserve it.

The paladin objects to WHAT the tyrant does. He only objects to HOW the bandit tries to feed the poor.

Oh, and more on topic if the gods cared they would send an oracle a message. That IS what they're there for...

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are ample reasons a good person would heal an evil person, and vice versa, while still staying true to their alignments. Everything from moral responsibility, because they felt like it, because they were fond of the other person, sheer practicality, PR, etc.

Cleric Clark refusing to heal Evil Evelyn is going to help his attempts to redeem her.

Generalissimo Babykicker is going to be all about healing Paladin Dan so he won't die during the latest round of torture.

Hellpriest Harry is not going to refuse healing to Bob the Beggar if it results in public opinion turning against him.

Ranger Robin is going to heal Slaver Stan to make sure he goes to trial and answer for his crimes the right and proper way.

Assassin Annie gives Orphan Ollie a healing potion, because she has a sentimental attatchment to the kid and it makes her feel better about her murderin'-for-hire self.

The above characters are not violating their alignment in any way by action or intent.

The only time alignment comes into play with healing is the odd duck like Heavenly Fire for celestial sorcerers, in which case you probably want to know the person's alignment beforehand.

Not a good ability to use when tons of people near death start rolling into the emergency room.


So, sounds like the gods sending some omens to the Oracle is the way to go... Suggestions on a particular god?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Faced with a wounded / dying evil individual, a good healer has two choices in a D&D-based fantasy setting;

1) heal the dude, and prolong his life here on the mortal plane, potentially giving him the opportunity to turn away from his evil ways and perhaps even embrace good (particularly if the good healer sticks around or leaves him with other redemptive sorts, in a hospice or good temple or whatever).

2) let him die, and allow his currently-evil soul to descend to whatever lower plane awaits it, empowering the gods of evil, demons, devils or daemons that eagerly await his arrival, serving the interests of evil.

So, like many choices, it's a pretty clear cut case of doing something that might not be easy or convenient or comfortable to do good, or taking the easy path and allowing evil to win.

If the player of a good character doesn't like 'naive,' 'unrealistic' or 'namby-pamby' concepts like mercy, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, tolerance, sacrifice, charity or redemption, he probably should have picked an easier alignment.

Grand Lodge

Ayrphish wrote:
So, sounds like the gods sending some omens to the Oracle is the way to go... Suggestions on a particular god?

What's the oracle's mystery? His ethnic origin might also come into it, since different nations have different prominent deities. Has he mentioned devotion to any particular god?

Sarenrae is LG and gives the Healing domain, but she favours redemption of erring mortals if there is any chance to bring them around. Irori (LN, Healing domain) might be irritated by an oracle misusing his divine powers out of ignorance. Does the sorcerer do the sorts of things that might offend Pharasma?


If an evil guy uses a wand with a "good" descriptor does he become more good. Not if his goals are to use that spell to keep himself from harm while trying to attain some great evil purpose. But he doesnt get penalty. So why should the Good person using a wand with spell that is labled evil for greater good. I understand if the good guy is using a torture spell or some necromancy for their own selfish needs to be deemed gaining evil taint, but for using a spell to take out some other evil person I dont believe that penalizing them is correct. This is problem with Black/White alingments, they were meant to be guidlines not absolutes. But players and GM's forget that or choose to ignore it. A Paladin following Black/White alignment must slaughter Orc Babies because most people follow that alignment in monster manuals states the race as always evil (pathfinder does give a little understanding that the alignment listed in book is the norm but can be different-- most just ignore this). So in that situation of a player playing black/white alignment, I would severly penalize the paladin and stip him of his powers until he atoned. That is one reason most people dont play Lawful in my campaign. I have explained to them that if you cant play it correctly then dont play it. and since so many are so use to black/white alignment system they cant play it correctly from My stand point and so they play something else.

All spells could be used for evil. A chaotic good guy casting heal on a captured Dhamphyr because he feels like the guy is evil even though the cleric in party has stated the guy is not evil alignment is commiting and act of evil intent and using a good spell to do it.


Tharg The Pirate King wrote:
This is where I think alignment fails. Too many people play alignments as black and white. and so they argue well he helped an evil guy and now he looses ability. I think thats not within spirit of game. Evil deities and good deities work together all the time to promote common goals. I think if the evil guy is helping and the goals are similar and he is not raping and murdering in front of the cleric/paladin then there is no issue with this.

Many players in general set unrealistic standards of morality for their characters. People forget that even though the character would want to do one thing, situations and emotions can lead them down an entirely different path. This is as much a fault of the lack of literary training on behalf of people as well as the implied rigidness of an alignment system.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Here's why the theory falls apart in practice: To the vast majority of people, the moral axis is more important.This is true even, or rather especially, of paladins, who can fall for ONE evil act, but need to completely shed their lawful alignment to fall.

A lawful evil ruler gleefully launching orphan children out of his peasant catapult and skeet shooting them with a wand of fireball (whaaat.. he has a permit) earns the ire of a paladin MUCH faster than the highway bandit robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Even if good chaotic good takes the law into their own hands and starts killing people they're usually people who deserve it.

The paladin objects to WHAT the tyrant does. He only objects to HOW the bandit tries to feed the poor.

This is going to careen off-topic in a hurry but ...

For the record, arbitrary killing sounds much more chaotic than lawful.

Paladins as a class are designed to fight evil, and they just happen to be lawful about it. They tolerate chaos much better than evil as a class feature. Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Aura of Good, etc.

One thing that irks me about alignments is how they quickly become caricatures. The lawful evil villain that spends enormous resources for arbitrary destruction is laughable, IMHO. I see a lawful evil villain as being willing to use all means necessary to increase power and wealth, at the expense of others. All actions he performs are for a purpose. Even "random" killing is designed to terrorize and keep the larger population in check, even if he happens to enjoy it.

In a kingdom run by a lawful evil tyrant, a lawful good creature may (should?) approve of the secure borders, safe streets and stable government, etc, even though it is due to draconian enforcement. Especially if removal of the strong evil leader would create a civil war.

If everything devolves into good vs. evil (which tends to be the case), why bother with the law vs. chaos axis? I guess to prevent people from multi-classing as a monk/barbarian. :-).


Ayrphish wrote:

In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

*Yes, am rather new to DMing the pathfinder system, and our group is rather new to playing it, but we are loving it more and more each game.

Cutting through the fat that's built up on this thread, I'll just answer your original question to the best of my ability.

I don;t see anything in the oracle's class that changes the way healing works, so it must go by standard rules. Under those rules, as long as the sorcerer is [living] and not [undead] the spell will heal him fine. If he's undead he would be damaged by it, but I'm assuming he's not. Alignment has no impact on healing.

As a side subject, even if everyone knows the sorcerer has an evil alignment that shouldn't change things much as long as he doesn't openly do evil things and try to antagonise people. The alignments people want to play shouldn't be an excuse for the group to pvp with itself (unless that's the kind of game you want to play).

I actually cringe whenever I see a dm ban evil alignments because there are many character concepts that require an evil alignment and are perfectly viable for PCs. I got into this with someone the other week in a campaign I play who said I was playing chaotic good incorrectly, and told me he plays the alignment as a headhunter who kills all who are lawless. [that's lawful evil fyi]. While this concept is perfectly viable for a PC, dms excluding evil characters wouldn't allow it with the proper alignment so you get situations where someone's sheet says "chaotic good" but they're really playing "lawful evil" and because the sheet says chaotic good, it's somehow fine.

Dark Archive

wombatkidd wrote:

Cutting through the fat that's built up on this thread, I'll just answer your original question to the best of my ability.

I don;t see anything in the oracle's class that changes the way healing works, so it must go by standard rules. Under those rules, as long as the sorcerer is [living] and not [undead] the spell will heal him fine. If he's undead he would be damaged by it, but I'm assuming he's not. Alignment has no impact on healing.

What he said. Rules-wise, there's nothing to restrict a use of healing from affecting a living creature of any alignment, unless there's some special situation involved (such as the target refusing to lower his Spell Resistance, or having been cursed with some sort of divine interdiction that prevents him from being magically healed or something).

Quote:
I actually cringe whenever I see a dm ban evil alignments because there are many character concepts that require an evil alignment and are perfectly viable for PCs.

There are players I've gamed with that I would not trust with an evil alignment, because they'd use it to justify being a game-disrupting jerk.

Not at all coincidentally, these are the exact same players who promptly decide to play Paladins, when denied the chance to play Assassins, and use their code of conduct and alignment to justify being game-disrupting jerks.

A jerk will be a jerk, no matter what they play, and whether it's LG or CE, the 'excuse' that they were 'just playing my alignment!' will almost always come up as rationalization for their dickish behavior.

Heck, one of my worst experiences with alignment disruption came from a player who subscribed to the Mordenkainen definition of true Neutral, where a character might attack evil people until they seem to be overwhelmed, and then switch sides and attack the good people to 'maintain the balance.' But that, IMO, wasn't 'Neutral.' That was 'Chaotic Nuts.' :)


FarmerBob wrote:
If everything devolves into good vs. evil (which tends to be the case), why bother with the law vs. chaos axis?

When I reread this, I realized that's exactly what another company did in its update of "the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game" (*cough* 4E *cough*).

PCs are either self-serving, good, or really good, and bad guys are evil or crazy evil. That's probably closer to how people use the alignments anyway, so that's not a bad change.


Dm's who ban evil are doing so because most players will play alignments too black vs white and so will kill each other no matter how alingment shoudl really be played. And I agree about choosing paladin to screw with rules when they cant play evil. This is a prime example of Lawful Stoopid. Playing a characters alignment to an extreme without any real regard to the rest of the players. We just had one in our group and I killed him off. I warn people before that if you play alignment do not play it to an extreme because your character will not live long (typically because they make horrible judgement calls and mistakes).

If the players begin fighting each other because of alignment then you have an issue with the players that needs to be resolved. Have them read up on several weabsites on how to play alignments and then if that doesnt work, remove them completly from the game. You dont need party strife because of something so arbitrary as alignment.


Quote:
This is going to careen off-topic in a hurry but ...

Hello, and welcome to the boards :)

Quote:
For the record, arbitrary killing sounds much more chaotic than lawful.

Fine. He's burning down an orphanage because it was costing the town money and the Orphanage's matron was 15 minutes late in filing her renewal permits. Since the building is burning down, everyone fleeing the fire is guilty of vagrancy, which is punishable by death.

Quote:
In a kingdom run by a lawful evil tyrant, a lawful good creature may (should?) approve of the secure borders, safe streets and stable government, etc, even though it is due to draconian enforcement. Especially if removal of the strong evil leader would create a civil war.

To a person that is primarily good, secure borders safe streets and stability are not the end goal, they're a means of achieving a goal.

Quote:
If everything devolves into good vs. evil (which tends to be the case), why bother with the law vs. chaos axis? I guess to prevent people from multi-classing as a monk/barbarian. :-).

Its a quick way of defining a characters attitudes and gives you a clue about how they see themselves and how they see the world. It can also be the point of a story or dilema (to be lawful or good?) , or a source of conflict between characters. For example, I had a lawful good monk/fighter and one of the other players had a chaotic halfling rogue. A mysterious stranger came into the bar, and went up to her room. The halfling got a strange vibe off of her, and thought she should be investigated. The dwarf thought that if creepy feelings weren't enough to go to the constables with, it certainly didn't give the rogue the right to go peeking through a young ladies window.

The Exchange

Ayrphish wrote:

In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

To the direct question - there is nothing in the rules that says the oracle can't heal the sorcerer.

To the implied question (should the oracle heal the sorcerer if they knew of his evil) - dead men can't repent.

For the purpose of your game - If the player has been successful in hiding their alignment, they are obviously having fun doing so. Are you sure that it would be more fun for everyone to start dropping clues to the other players?


brock wrote:
Ayrphish wrote:

In a game I am currently running, we have a good aligned oracle, and a lawful evil aligned sorcerer. The sorcerer has been very meticulous in hiding his alignment, so the oracle wouldn't "know" that the sorcerer is "evil."

Does this make it so that the sorcerer can not receive divine healing from the oracle? If so, can someone point me to where it would say that in the rules, or via an interpretation of the rules?

To the direct question - there is nothing in the rules that says the oracle can't heal the sorcerer.

To the implied question (should the oracle heal the sorcerer if they knew of his evil) - dead men can't repent.

For the purpose of your game - If the player has been successful in hiding their alignment, they are obviously having fun doing so. Are you sure that it would be more fun for everyone to start dropping clues to the other players?

Hmmm, that gives me something to think about. I am sure our group could handle it, in that, they aren't going to fall apart and start killing each other or anything. But he may have more fun trying to hide. But he may also enjoy misleading the oracle when the oracle is trying to 'uncode' an omen....


Must fight urge to necro thread ... argh .. epic fail.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fine. He's burning down an orphanage because it was costing the town money and the Orphanage's matron was 15 minutes late in filing her renewal permits. Since the building is burning down, everyone fleeing the fire is guilty of vagrancy, which is punishable by death.

That's still a caricature of evil to me. Here's a better example, IMHO.

Some street urchins (who happen to be CN) have been breaking into shops and shrines to take a few items they don't think will be missed. This time, the shopkeeper is there and tries to stop them. In the scuffle, the shopkeeper is killed.

This happens as a patrol is rounding the corner, catching them in the act. The urchins flee to the orphanage (where they live). The patrol gives chase and surrounds the building, awaiting instructions.

The LE ruler orders the building sealed and burned to the ground, killing the guilty and innocent alike. This sends a strong message about tolerating crime and harboring fugitives. The others in the orphanage may not have been involved, but maybe they were.

The LG ruler orders all of the occupants to be arrested and taken for questioning. There the full extent of the conspiracy is determined, and the appropriate people are put on trial. The punishment is death for the urchins that killed the shopkeeper. It might also be death for the leaders of the orphanage if they were responsible for sending the kids out to steal. A compassionate ruler might temper the punishment based on the circumstances (they were stealing to fund the orphanage, and had been non-violent to that point, for example).

The LG bystander to the LE ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods killed "innocent" people (in their eyes).

The LE bystander to the LG ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods spared "guilty" people (in their eyes).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
To a person that is primarily good, secure borders safe streets and stability are not the end goal, they're a means of achieving a goal.

A person that is primarily good is comparatively more neutral on law vs. chaos (lawful GOOD). A person that is primarily lawful is comparatively more neutral on good vs. evil (LAWFUL good).

A person that is equally lawful and good (LAWFUL GOOD) should feel the same indignation witnessing chaotic acts as they do evil acts. They are the complete antithesis of their philosophical beliefs in either case.

Your point is that good vs. evil is such a strong element that law vs. chaos is never on the same level when one of those is in play.

I find that neutral is usually played as being slightly less good. But, a LN cleric can choose equally between Iomedae and Asmodeus. They support the same desire for a orderly society, and either set of approaches is acceptable to the cleric. They strongly oppose CG as much as CE. I have yet to see a game where a neutral cleric picks an evil deity and hangs out with good adventurers. [ Note to self, try this ]. Tying this marginally to the OP, would a LN cleric of Asmodeus be able to heal a paladin of Iomedae?

I do think most games play out as battles of good vs. evil, and completely marginalize (or ignore) the lawful or chaotic elements. I hate the alignment system, and even more so when it is used to put white or black hats on people so you know who to kill. I think everything is a shade of gray, and defined alignments constrain that. Alignments are fundamental to the game, so this won't change. But, I can still rant about it. :-).


Set wrote:


There are players I've gamed with that I would not trust with an evil alignment, because they'd use it to justify being a game-disrupting jerk.

Not at all coincidentally, these are the exact same players who promptly decide to play Paladins, when denied the chance to play Assassins, and use their code of conduct and alignment to justify being game-disrupting jerks.

Tharg The Pirate King, wrote:


Dm's who ban evil are doing so because most players will play alignments too black vs white and so will kill each other no matter how alingment shoudl really be played.

Oh, I know perfectly well why DMs ban evil alignments. But as you said, if the player wants to be a jerk he will be no matter what alignment he is. If someone wants nothing more than to be a jerk it's them who should be banned, not the alignment they want to play.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Good healing evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.