|
Leaving the Warcraft orc topic be. Tobias and Hippy said everything that could be said there, and if anyone wants a truly neutral and unbiased look at them, they can easily read the lore on WoWWiki and elsewhere.
You're never going to get every culture for an entire race. You're going to get broad strokes, and the broad strokes are generally that humans find elves graceful and sexy whereas orcs are uncouth and gross. Ergo, all the half-elves come from seduction, dalliances, flings, and tragic May-December romances whereas all the half-orcs are the offspring of rape, obscene lust, and or at best barbaric war brides. The truth? Probably not as clear cut.It should also be stressed that since humans are the majority population on Golarion, all the other races are by definition minority populations and there isn't room for the diversity you might see with a co-race or even an alternate majority race. There's not room for cannibal headhunter elves or enlightened purple-robed orcish senators, at least not as a well known majority population. You could expect to find some of both in hidden valleys in the Mwangi expanse, but you need to have a good story behind it, like the Sleestaks in the Land of the Lost being the Morlock-like degenerate descendents of a formerly proud and enlightened race.
I wasn't really looking for a severe exact opposite of the expected norm(robed orc senators), just some variation away from what felt like the bog-standard. Like a "primitive" culture that was still tribal with heavy warrior traditions, just something other than evil.
I get that space is an issue, but even just a short paragraph saying something to the effect of "not all orc tribes fall under these cultural or alignment norms, here's some possible locations" would have been nice. That would have helped players and GMs wanting to have orc PCs far more than anything that got printed in Orcs of Golarion.
God, sorry to get hung up on that book. It's just that it was the book I had been looking forward to most at that point, because I really did think there would be some support for exceptions from the norm in it, and it wound up running almost entirely in the opposite direction. I agree with you that broad strokes leave room for exceptions, but that book, with the exception of two lines I may have misread, did plenty to lock those exceptions out.
Everyone instinctively feels that the people they love are more important than everyone else. That protectiveness is hardwired in. That's why going to the extreme with it is selfish and evil. Being good requires you to do the difficult thing, which is to equate all innocents no matter who or what they are with one another, and see the suffering of one as being just as bad as the suffering of another.
Needless to say, it's far, far easier to simply judge the entire race as a whole, clumping them together as "beasts." But if good believes in protecting innocents, it cannot create levels of innocence where one has to be protected at all costs. Good is holding to the hard road, to have that single moral standard that you hold yourself to. Sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's impossible. But being hard or impossible does not somehow make the alternative the better moral choice.
That's always been a cornerstone in how I've figured good and neutral to differ. Good doesn't default to convenience and it doesn't play favorites. Neutral can get away with not looking past their own monkeysphere, but they will only manage to be neutral(at best) going that route. Good doesn't do moral myopia.
Well, Eberron got taken out of KB's hands even before 4e. However, some of the novels have a lot to do with the assorted "used to be evil" races. Orcs, hobgoblins, halforcs, and even medusae all feature prominently in a bunch of the novels with a lot of backstory and interactions with the heroes...where they don;t become the heroes themselves.
Dammit WotC... Thanks for the information, I'm a bit more interested in checking out the novels now. :)
I've always felt that it can't be that hard to have evil guys who you don't have to give a damn about without needing to have them be identifiable by race/species or even culture. Games where you fight Nazis do it all the time.
This. A thousand times this.
Inherently evil races, I've never been comfortable with. Evil ideologies? That makes me want to go Captain America/Hellboy on some badguys' faces. :)
You could always call them Orczis... ^_-
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The great hiccup in relativistic evil is that there is a very non-relativistic spell out there: Detect Evil. There is a hazard in overlaying modern moral relativism over the game world, because Evil exists in a very Manichean sort of way in Golarion. Good and Evil exist to such a degree that they can be identified by magic and even filtered out by magic.
For a long time, there has been a tendency, both by players and game designers, to impose modern morality viewpoints on a world that has not done the cultural development that would lead to those sorts of conclusions. We do this because playing in a world where women and minorities are treated as chattel or worse usually isn't a group's cup of tea (unless we're there to fight that sort of thing). Our up-to-date sensibilities collide suddenly and violently with the morality system as it is presented.
Good and Evil must be, at some level, objective in a world where they can be the trigger for magic. They are forces that exist independent of actions, though they can be reinforced or diminished by certain actions. Smite evil doesn't work on people the Paladin believes are evil, they must be legitimately evil (a fact rogues have thanked the universe for these many decades). I'm sorry to those folks for whom this feels like game rules imposing themselves on the universe, but it's sort of like physics: falling damage implies gravity. Detect Evil implies that Good and Evil are objective forces and not simply a framework we've constructed to cope with the world (How that collides with Pazio's introduction of the highly amoral Great Old Ones is a completely different topic).
As to the OP's question, we can drift back towards relativism a bit in that, although evil is an independent force, it is not a shackle to free-willed creatures. Evil exists. That doesn't mean I have to choose it. Why some creatures end up in the evil camp reaches back to the myriad explanations listed above. For me, moreover, this presents a greater challenge to the Paladin player: You can smite evil, destroying it utterly (just ask the folks in the impossibly long Smite Evil thread); however, in acknowledging that being evil is a choice, you have to consider your decision to smite in terms of whether killing people who made bad choices is a good act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies, as I haven't been available recently. Also, more apologies for the overly-wordy post; feel free to check the spoilers out or ignore them as you will. Now...
Excellent stuff
Again, to liken it to an addiction, people sometimes do things they feel ashamed of just to feed their addiction. It might not "feel good" in the way that the addiction feels pleasant, or that it's the "good" thing to do, but it's an addiction and they don't feel right (and thus can't function "normally") unless they engage in it or take steps that allow them to ultimately engage in it somewhat down the line. That's what I'm comparing it to with that. That said, just because an addict is an addict doesn't mean that there is no concept of delayed gratification. MOST OFTEN delayed gratification gets pushed aside, because the drive becomes so strong to feed said addiction, but there are many cases when addiction can be controlled (but still indulged) or gratification can be delayed.
To further cement the agreement with you, however - it's why almost all chaotic evil creatures immediately spawn hordes of (selfish-and-lazy) dretches: evil is the easy path, the one that allows you to get away with what you want when you want it. (IIRC, no devils insta-spawn... they are tranformed into lemures by a torturous process of breaking the soul (a petitioner) of its individuality and consciousness, and I don't remember how daemons are produced)
Nonetheless, to each there own, word-wise!
There's a problem here. You've defined "eating a baby" as an "evil act" regardless of prophecies and other extenuating circumstances, but then you say that evil is "debatable".
Which is it?
If you've got evil as "debatable," then everything should be up for debate, including whether "baby" is on or off the menu. If some things are not debatable--for example, baby eating--then it looks like you've got a hard-and-fast working definition of "evil."
Which brings me back to my original contention that "always evil" requires both lack of free will as well as divine omniscience to always know what evil actually is and thus make the evil choice.
The vast majority of my post was me attempting to give my breakdown of how I see it applied in-game (which, I understand that you as a contributor, might have more authority than I do on the matter, I am looking only at what I can see presented).
What is presented in-game is very different from the "pure-maliciousness for the sake of maliciousness" that you seemed to be espousing (the anti-paladin notwithstanding). Evil isn't about just harming whoever (otherwise smiting would be wrong, as ruminated upon by Bookkeeper above). It's about serving yourself, and not considering others. The "debatable" was not meant to indicate "all that is evil is debatable", but rather that "what you espouse to be the nature of evil, I do not espouse to be the nature of evil".
Said prophecy doesn't matter in the slightest to an evil creature... unless it does, in which case, it's because of the creatures own selfish motives that it matters, not because the creature is forced to do the most malicious thing possible at every turn (some form of magical compulsion notwithstanding).
If the evil creature wants to eat a baby, it'll eat the baby (unless there is a purpose in it avoiding doing so that follows its own sense of propriety or is otherwise prohibited through events). It is infinitely selfish to the point of debasing others in the evil creature's mind for itself. The evil creature who is devoted to evil for evil's sake is devoted to evil for evil's sake for the creature's sake, not for the sake of any greater "truth" (unless they desire said supposed truth).
An inherently evil creature is one that has its base morality chosen for it at "birth"*... it comes with a powerful predisposition toward certain behaviors, but it can violate that predisposition. It will always be treated (by its nature) as if it were doing things "wrong" so long as its not being evil, because it is, in fact, inherently evil, and doing "good" acts is as alien to its nature as, say, painting with our feet is - it's doable, but extremely difficult and distinctly sub-optimal for us, and the same is true for a creature who is inherently evil. Its a powerful tendency that does not, in any way, prevent it from either behaving evilly or in a goodly fashion, if it serves the creature's own interest, whatever that may be, and disregarding the rights, responsibilities, or anything else of others. In that way, the evil will is far more "free" than good, because it doesn't care about anyone other than itself**.
Finally, Bookkeeper:
Yes. It is.
The idea that killing is inherently evil is incorrect, although needless killing is evil. The smiting of a creature who has dedicated himself or herself to evil is not wrong... it can be seen much like removing a cancer. My mother struggled with it, so I'm fairly aware of how it works, and it fits in this analogy. Cancer is a living, breathing part of you. It is alive, and its part of your body, but it slowly corrupts and kills you because it's flawed and broken. Its removal and destruction is the correct response to ensure the safety and health of the whole, because that part has become broken. Now, does that removal and destruction come fraught with peril? Of course. Such acts are dangerous and can harm the very thing you're trying to save. Evil is much the same. It can grow and take root, flourish in a society, and disrupt it, but smiting it isn't actually a bad thing.
Now, whether or not a particular evil creature needs to be smote or not is up to the paladin and circumstances. Over-zealousness can harm the greater good (similar to not overreaction against a body's small ills). But in general, it's a good act to eliminate evil - whether by (the extreme case) of smiting, or by guidance.
Otherwise, you've an excellent post.
* Being "born" evil, is a difficult concept as well, as daemons, demons, and devils are not so much born but created out of souls that have consistently made evil decisions, thus their free will has already anchored them to the choices of evil. The problem occurs, as I mention above (though after the asterisk this is explaining), in creatures like tieflings who are only partly made of evil souls, and partly of mortal flesh. But these are given enough leeway that, tendencies aside, they can just as readily be good as evil.
** This is not to argue that good should not care about itself. But that care for the self (which is a good thing) should be placed tempered with benevolence others (just as generosity should be tempered with self-care). But that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Tacticslion--
I think the nub of what we're talking about is what you said here: ""what you espouse to be the nature of evil, I do not espouse to be the nature of evil"
Basically, everyone has a different definition of evil, and while we can generally agree that evil exists, we never fully agree on other people's definitions of evil.
The trouble is that the game world has spells like Detect Evil which not only can detect it but quantify it so we know exactly how evil something or someone is.
The spell is also problematic because it leads to scenarios where you decide, for example, that being selfish is the root of all evilness and therefore the crabby old wizard who lives by himself and doesn't like people is neutral evil, not because he's harmed anyone or he's actively malicious, but because he doesn't give to charity and won't help even just and moral causes without demanding something called payment.
Meanwhile, down the street, Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett have set up shop. Sweeney's a psychotic madman while Mrs. Lovett is a manipulative sociopath, and between the two of them they've murdered a hundred people, ground them up, and served them as pies. Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are also commoners and can't be more than 4th level whereas the crabby old wizard is 5+ so when the paladin comes around he looks at the wizard and screams "Evil!" and either smites him or just refuses to do business with him, then goes and eats a pie at Mrs. Lovett's shop.
Obviously there's something wrong with this picture. I think most people will say that Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are a hell of a lot more evil than the crabby old misanthropic wizard.
Yes, you can do GM fiat and make the psychopathic commoners detect as more evil than the reclusive wizard, but to do that you've just created a house rule that adds to the regular system and even that house rule can be abused. So murderers count as extra evil based on their body count? Will a soldier returning from a war thus detect as evil as Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett then? No, because war doesn't count as murder? What if the war was unlawful, the declarations weren't made, or peace was agreed to but the soldier didn't get the memo? What if it was just an unjust war? If it's any killing that gets you hit with the Mark of Cain, does that include children whose mothers die in childbirth? Why not?
Make any rule and you'll find a way to break it or a corner case, like that guy in Greek myth whose father killed his mother and he was then driven mad by the furies for not avenging her death, nevermind that it was a Catch-22 where if he did, he'd then be chased by the furies for killing his father.
Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Again, I see your point, but selfishness isn't evil - excessive selfishness is.
If that same wizard had it fully within his power to help an innocent child who was right in front of him, but he absolutely refused to save the child from death because none of them had money... that'd be evil. Not neutral. Evil. That's pretty straight forward. If he really needed money, or demanded it, tell them they owe him later, and if they refused to pay up, then deal with it. Non-evil, non-good way around the situation right there: get it done now, and get recompense later. Also adds to the nice "delayed gratification" thing.
Also, your presumption on levels is... well, different from mine. I get what you're saying, but your basic argument in the most recent post seems to be that the alignment system itself is flawed. And, to be fair, I can't argue that the spell-based alignment system is flawed. But I can easily flavor it so that it makes sense. Detect Evil just isn't infallable. There has to be enough spiritual power there to detect, and, in Pathfinder, spiritual power is directly tied to class level/hit dice. Thus, only if a spirit is strong enough does it resonate with divination spells.
This is even borne out by later spells, where legend lore doesn't really get people below 11th level, because they're not significant enough... the magic net just has some holes that if something is too small, it passes through. It's not the inherent nature of the evil, it's that plus the power of the entity. Outsiders (which are spiritual energy) and certain other creatures are so infused with spiritual energy that they radiate significantly more of it than would be called for their relative power level.
But, I'm kind of out of time right now. I might come back to this later. But yeah, we're looking at it from two different perspectives. Mostly, however, I think we're using the same words to mean two different things (such as selfishness and "extreme"), but that's kind of the subjective nature of language. Anyhoo, I'm out! :)
Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Again, I see your point, but selfishness isn't evil - excessive selfishness is.
If that same wizard had it fully within his power to help an innocent child who was right in front of him, but he absolutely refused to save the child from death because none of them had money... that'd be evil. Not neutral. Evil. That's pretty straight forward. If he really needed money, or demanded it, tell them they owe him later, and if they refused to pay up, then deal with it. Non-evil, non-good way around the situation right there: get it done now, and get recompense later. Also adds to the nice "delayed gratification" thing.
We don't even need wizardry to look at this question. Just look at Ebeneezer Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas future giving him the prophecy that if the shadows remain unchanged, Tiny Tim is going to kick the bucket before next Christmas.
Now, the point of the story is that Scrooge has a change of heart and becomes Good and a great philanthropic benefactor and also Tiny Tim's godparent. That's nice. But more to the point is, what is Scrooge's alignment at the beginning of the story? NE or just straight N?
If Scrooge had instead gone to Bob Cratchit and viewed the ghost of Christmas future's information as an investment opportunity, he could have given his employee knowledge that his son was seriously ill and needed better medicine and care, then also proposed a loan from the firm with reasonable interest rates and quarterly payments that could be deducted from Bob's salary. He might have also proposed places of employment that might take in the other Cratchit children so they could work to make money to pay for Tim's other medical needs.
Yes, this would completely screw with the story, but my question is, what would the alignment of this version Scrooge be? NE? N? LE? LN? He's not letting Tim die, but providing the prophecy to his care provider, Bob Cratchit, who should reasonably be the one paying Tim's medical expenses.
(Pardon earlier, I had a thunder storm telling me to shut the computer down)
We don't even need wizardry to look at this question. Just look at Ebeneezer Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas future giving him the prophecy that if the shadows remain unchanged, Tiny Tim is going to kick the bucket before next Christmas.
Now, the point of the story is that Scrooge has a change of heart and becomes Good and a great philanthropic benefactor and also Tiny Tim's godparent. That's nice. But more to the point is, what is Scrooge's alignment at the beginning of the story? NE or just straight N?
If Scrooge had instead gone to Bob Cratchit and viewed the ghost of Christmas future's information as an investment opportunity, he could have given his employee knowledge that his son was seriously ill and needed better medicine and care, then also proposed a loan from the firm with reasonable interest rates and quarterly payments that could be deducted from Bob's salary. He might have also proposed places of employment that might take in the other Cratchit children so they could work to make money to pay for Tim's other medical needs.
Yes, this would completely screw with the story, but my question is, what would the alignment of this version Scrooge be? NE? N? LE? LN? He's not letting Tim die, but providing the prophecy to his care provider, Bob Cratchit, who should reasonably be the one paying Tim's medical expenses.
Mr. Murphy, I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying our discourse here! :)
Which is kind of the point. Would it have been a jerk move had Scrooge just warned Crachet? Yeah, it would have. Evil? Probably. Why? Because Bob couldn't afford it. If he'd merely told the man (whose salary he happened to control) that Tim would die, and let them take care of it, or even expected Bob to take it over, it would have been pointless since Bob, quite literally, couldn't have afforded it.
Now, if you're asking me if Scrooge went ahead and took care of it himself, but warned Bob that he'd be paying for it later... well, it still wouldn't have been good because Scrooge was already an evil miser who didn't pay his employees enough and, had he garnished Bob's wages much more, he'd have starved the family. Under the circumstances your reasonable presumption that Bob pay the bills isn't reasonable because Bob had no way to pay said bills and that was Scrooge's fault.
If, on the other hand, Ebeneezer had seen the plight, decided that, just this once, he'd do the right thing, and fully pay for all hospital care and never mention it again and had not changed anything else about his life, that would be a good act in an otherwise mostly evil life. So, he'd have done one whole good deed (good for him) but still retained his evil status. (It would also be stupid, because he knew with Divine Foreknowledge that if he didn't change his act, he'd end up a ghost in chains for eternity, so, you know, his choice was kind of clear.)
If, on the other hand , had he gone, "You know what? Yeah, I'm a jerk!" and kind of changed, paying his laborers their fair wage, helping out the family to get Timmy the care he needed, but not truly becoming a philanthropist (but with an occasional nod to good works, balancing out a life of evil), via the implications of the rules, he'd probably shift to neutral. But that is based on a change of character which changes his actions. He still cares about himself: he's still out to make as much money as he can, and he's still the ultimate one he cares about. However the difference is that he also cares for other people. He does, occasionally, help out the poor (as he did for his own employees) and does care about other people, to an extent... something that isn't true of pre-mystical-experience Scrooge. One good act after a lifetime of evil (and preceding no change in behavior) does not a redemption make*.
His god - for he did believe in a kind of "Almighty" - was, to use the Biblical term, Mammon - or, in our parlance, the Almighty Dollar (NOTE: yes, they used pounds, not dollars, thus the term "parlance"! :P :D). He worshiped money because he was, in reality, worshiping himself. The money was just what made him feel right, what, to his mind, validated his life, and what set him apart and made him feel special. Oh, he didn't make little shrines to which he prayed to himself, nothing so mystical, but he cared for himself to the exclusion of all else. If you say "but he went from one extreme to the other!"... well, yes, he did. It can happen in-game too, especially after a mystical experience the likes of which Scrooge underwent (via an Atonement spell).
To say that Ebeneezer Scrooge was not evil at the beginning of the story (which you're not) would be disingenuous; to say he'd not changed would too; however between the overnight alteration he had a mystical experience, something that D&D provides.
Now, to bring it in line with your grumpy wizard above who never does things without charging money, I was under the operating presumption that he was, in fact, neutral (though I admit you'd pondered about an evil wizard, and I accept that I was wrong). From a starting point of neutrality, to refuse to help an innocent soul in peril is evil. To help said soul without guarantee of compensation, but to expect and work towards compensation isn't evil at all, but neutral.
Starting with an evil wizard, however, if he's already evil, and he continues to behave in an evil way, the ultimate result is: hey, an evil wizard. So, um... "Surprise!", I guess?
Starting with an evil wizard in which he does one good act, but otherwise behaves in an evil way: hey, he's evil! He just did that one good thing that one time. Good for him. Otherwise he didn't. So, you know, still evil. To semi-Godwin this sucker (just narrowly avoiding it, actually) if, in his life, Joseph Stalin had, just once, taken his own time, money, and status and spent it making sure one innocent child was fully healed and had an excellent life, that'd be one good thing he did. It would not mitigate the huge number of completely foul things he did, because it was so very outnumbered.
So, to make a long argument short (too late!): a single act (extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding) is not enough to shift your alignment, though a shift in character and a consistent series of actions is. One does not have to immediately become a saint, but that is the way it is most often shown in stories for lack of time and for better dramatic reasons.
The next logical question that arises, then, is "how many/how much?" as in, "what does it take for an evil person, in terms of acts and morality, to change into a good person, or vice-verse?", to which I can only say, "Ask your GM." Because at that point, we're getting into the actual gray area. Corner cases, one-off good acts in an otherwise evil lifetime and exceptions-to-the-rule prove little other than, in fact, free will happens. It's kind of silly when it does, and it's completely out of character, but it's not going to prove anything.
To clarify what I meant in my posts above: maliciousness is evil, however maliciousness is, at its heart, selfish. It is the focus on the self, and what the self wants, to the detriment of others (including desiring the detriment of others) specifically for your own sake. Why murder? Because you have it in you to do so with a disregard for other people. Cruelty, injustice, blind hatred, and all the rest these are cases of excessive selfishness. Can there be shreds of other emotions? Most certainly, and, in fact, there usually are other emotions or bases. But when mixed with a heavy enough dose of purely selfish motives, this is when they become the sins they are.
Also, I'd posit that's why we hear more often of the "fallen", because it's far easier to fall than to get rise. Gravity goes one direction**: down**.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Scrooge had instead gone to Bob Cratchit and viewed the ghost of Christmas future's information as an investment opportunity, he could have given his employee knowledge that his son was seriously ill and needed better medicine and care, then also proposed a loan from the firm with reasonable interest rates and quarterly payments that could be deducted from Bob's salary.
I don't think that Cratchit's economic situation was fixable with a loan, seeing as how every penny he earned (both of them) working for scrooge was already going to feed and house the family. In other words someone's who's income is exactly equal to their expenses can never pay a loan back.
He might have also proposed places of employment that might take in the other Cratchit children so they could work to make money to pay for Tim's other medical needs.
Coal mines and textile mills are always hiring.. because their workers are always dying
Of course. And they pay good wages too!
But that said, part of my point is that if you decide to label Scrooge NE, or perhaps LE, there comes a question of what alignments Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett are, and who exactly you'd feel safe hanging around with for an hour.
There's also a question of who you can sell a tale of redemption with. It's all well and good for Scrooge to foreswear his miserly ways, buy a turkey and some medical supplies, and live out the rest of his life happy and beloved and with no one stealing his bed curtains or night shirt after he dies.
If Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett had decided that murder was wrong and tofu could be substituted for long pork with no one the wiser--and it's healthier, and that's a good thing too--and mended their ways, and ever after became the best barber and vegetarian pie baker in London, I don't think people would would be as forgiving or think that this tale of redemption was heartwarming or even in fact sincere. Or for that matter, possible.
Of course. And they pay good wages too!
But that said, part of my point is that if you decide to label Scrooge NE, or perhaps LE, there comes a question of what alignments Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett are, and who exactly you'd feel safe hanging around with for an hour.
There's also a question of who you can sell a tale of redemption with. It's all well and good for Scrooge to foreswear his miserly ways, buy a turkey and some medical supplies, and live out the rest of his life happy and beloved and with no one stealing his bed curtains or night shirt after he dies.
If Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett had decided that murder was wrong and tofu could be substituted for long pork with no one the wiser--and it's healthier, and that's a good thing too--and mended their ways, and ever after became the best barber and vegetarian pie baker in London, I don't think people would would be as forgiving or think that this tale of redemption was heartwarming or even in fact sincere. Or for that matter, possible.
I'm sorry sir, but your point is... what? That some can become so irredeemable that they cannot be redeemed?
Earlier you said that you don't like the idea of an inherently evil being as it strips them of their free will. But now you bring up this couple and it's kind of hard to follow what you're saying, but here we go nonetheless!
Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett are, in fact, psychologically broken individuals. Are they evil? Right as rain (again, I'd point to the underlying motivations for their evil: revenge (Todd's) and lust and money-grubbing (Lovett), both of which do not care about others, but only themselves: selfishness). Do they have "justification" (in their own, diseased minds)? Yeppers. But comparing evil to ZOMIGOSH EVIL is not really what we've been arguing. Both of them are evil. Is it because of their evil that they've broken or because they're broken that they're evil? I don't know.
If the question you're alluding to is "why don't they show up on the evil-dar?" (presuming, of course, they're fourth level or below, which, given Sweeney's skill at barbering, murder, and machinery I'm not sold on), it's as I've explained - they don't have enough soul-stuff, enough experience, enough raw essence to get caught in the magical net, so to speak. They kind of slip through the cracks (which was a theme of that story anyway).
Now, if you're asking if they can be saved or redeemed? It highly depends: on the circumstances, the GM, and the world itself. Certainly giving oneself over to evil has some terrible, lasting repercussions.
Them suddenly making the choice to do as you've suggested is certainly out of character. Further, it's not even that redemptive. Tofu is great, but that doesn't a good person make. Instead, they'd need to first realize that what they're doing isn't just "bad" (as in not good) but fundamentally and completely evil (as in that thing that's abhorrent and should be avoided at all costs - something it seems Todd was coming to at the end, but never got to capitalize on, as he died). They'd then have to actually make up for all the wickedness, murder, and destruction they've caused, so much as is possible. They'd need to actually perform good acts, to make penance, to undo the wickedness they've done, at least as much as they can.
In any event, it's irrelevant. They died and Todd became a babau while Mrs. Lovett became a succubus and/or a glabrezu.
EDIT: in comparing them with an inherently evil creature, there's one thing to keep in mind: they never became redeemed, and it's highly unlikely that they would be, but that's about how likely it is for an inherently good thing to fall or an inherently evil thing to "rise". It's just not likely. You hear more about the good falling, however, because evil has some great PR.
Also, Mikaze, where is your thread(s?) about redeeming evil creatures by raising them properly? I was looking around, but couldn't find it. I figured it could be relevant (if not RAW) for this thread.
I should probably clarify is that the reason I don't like "inherently evil" (and similarly "inherently good") is because it requires a lack of free will, and that lack of free will, aside from being bad and undesirable, is boring and moreover requires a continual hookup to some greater omniscience to tell them what is good or evil. Kind of like a paladin but worse.
Moreover, to have angels who can occasionally fall--and fiends that can on rare occasions rise--they need to have free will to make redemption and damnation anything more metaphysically significant than pressing buttons on a washing machine. Having the angel fall simply because it was tossed in the same wash load as the chunk of pure evil from the end of Time Bandits is unsatisfying. Likewise having the fiend bleached by holy radiance until it changes political parties.
As for the literary characters, my point is that while I think both Scrooge and Mrs. Lovett had some psychological issues, and also some pretty serious greed going on, Scrooge was never an accessory to a serial killer nor was his business model based on baking people into meat pies. He was also a good deal richer than Mrs. Lovett, and this was not because he was more evil but because he was a better businessman with a better long term growth model.
Personally, I think the evil-dar should pick up the actual sin and not the spiritual power of the soul behind it. If your fifth level character is on the border between neutral and evil and waffles back and forth, I think they should be counted as less evil than the character who's busy plumbing the depths of wickedness and depravity like he's mining for coal.
Redemption, if and when it happens, should be easier and more common for those on the border than those living in the sub-basement.
Leaving the Warcraft orc topic be. Tobias and Hippy said everything that could be said there, and if anyone wants a truly neutral and unbiased look at them, they can easily read the lore on WoWWiki and elsewhere.
Not to reopen that subject… But last I heard WoWwiki is no longer being maintained. The Blizzard Expanded Universe section and Wowpedia (by the people who started WoWwiki) are probably better options.
|
|
Finally, Bookkeeper:
Yes. It is.The idea that killing is inherently evil is incorrect, although needless killing is evil. The smiting of a creature who has dedicated himself or herself to evil is not wrong... it can be seen much like removing a cancer. My mother struggled with it, so I'm fairly aware of how it works, and it fits in this analogy. Cancer is a living, breathing part of you. It is alive, and its part of your body, but it slowly corrupts and kills you because it's flawed and broken. Its removal and destruction is the correct response to ensure the safety and health of the whole, because that part has become broken. Now, does that removal and destruction come fraught with peril? Of course. Such acts are dangerous and can harm the very thing you're trying to save. Evil is much the same. It can grow and take root, flourish in a society, and disrupt it, but smiting it isn't actually a bad thing.
So I guess the question is: who decides the killing is needful? Do we need to kill Sweeney Todd? How about Scrooge? The point of my analysis of Smite Evil is that, since people can change, paladins ought to think twice before smiting everyone who appears in their detect evil range. From a metaphysical point of view, Smiting Evil protects the world but gives another soul to the Abyss or Hell, thus making it less optimal than conversion. Leaving such things solely up to the paladin puts a heck of a lot of moral authority in their hands. That could readily go pear-shaped if we don't emphasize the virtues of reason and mercy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy Mercy, why have none of you told me to just shut up already? Wow, I talk/write/type/whatever waaaaayyyyyy too much, so stuff is spoilered for your convenience (feel free to ignore what you want and respond to the segments, or not, as you like, so long as you do so honestly).
So I guess the question is: who decides the killing is needful? Do we need to kill Sweeney Todd? How about Scrooge? The point of my analysis of Smite Evil is that, since people can change, paladins ought to think twice before smiting everyone who appears in their detect evil range. From a metaphysical point of view, Smiting Evil protects the world but gives another soul to the Abyss or Hell, thus making it less optimal than conversion. Leaving such things solely up to the paladin puts a heck of a lot of moral authority in their hands. That could readily go pear-shaped if we don't emphasize the virtues of reason and mercy.
I should probably clarify is that the reason I don't like "inherently evil" (and similarly "inherently good") is because it requires a lack of free will, and that lack of free will, aside from being bad and undesirable, is boring and moreover requires a continual hookup to some greater omniscience to tell them what is good or evil. Kind of like a paladin but worse.
Moreover, to have angels who can occasionally fall--and fiends that can on rare occasions rise--they need to have free will to make redemption and damnation anything more metaphysically significant than pressing buttons on a washing machine. Having the angel fall simply because it was tossed in the same wash load as the chunk of pure evil from the end of Time Bandits is unsatisfying. Likewise having the fiend bleached by holy radiance until it changes political parties.
Fiends (and likewise celestials, and others) can be deceived, meaning they are finite. This means that they lack omniscience. This does not negate their inherent alignment.
Fiends (and likewise celestials, and others) have free will, choosing how to behave on a local level, rather than cosmic level (though they might make cosmic-ranging decisions, as in your prophesied-baby example).
In other words, a normal, typical, <insert generic kind here> fiend is presented with option a) baby-eating or b) not-baby eating the fiend will have no compunctions about the baby-eating (if, in fact, that particular fiend is into that sort of thing, which it might not be). That's the fiend's inherent leanings toward evil: that there will be no inherent problem eating babies, from its point of view, because it doesn't care about anyone other than itself. If said baby is prophesied to cause mass mayhem or even destroy the world, so what? If the fiend doesn't know, it will happily eat the baby (if it's into that sort of thing, which it might not be) if it feels like it and won't blink an eye at the thought of doing so. There is no need for any kind of omniscience here.
If, on the other hand said fiend is somehow aware of said prophecy (by no means a guarantee, especially in Golarion right now), it's response depends entirely on what it cares about. It will eat said baby if its evil leans toward eating babies and it doesn't really care about mass destruction. It will not eat the baby if its evil leans towards mass destruction and it doesn't care about eating babies. If it cares about both, it will be forced to decide: vanilla or chocolate? Tough call. But completely within its realm of free will.
Free will must be made with context and if you freely choose to eat the vanilla, and didn't know that it would give you food poisoning, and it gave you food poisoning, you didn't make the (cosmically) best act, but you made a (locally) perfectly fine act. You didn't know, and had no way of knowing, that said ice cream was problematic. You made the best decision you could with finite knowledge.
To, again, talk about an inherent alignment, let's look (again) at the analogy I made before: people painting with no hands. That's really hard to do. For most of us, we presume that having free hands is a necessity to do most anything. When I'm holding my baby and my hands are tied up, I basically can't do anything. I'm done. This isn't true for someone who's learned how to use their feet instead.
Free will in an inherently aligned creature is exactly like that. I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with Set: an angel would have a terrible time stabbing a baby in the face, an a fire elemental would loath having to dive for pearls*, because they lack the "necessary" tools for understanding such behavior. This does not prevent such behavior under extraordinary circumstances, however. Is this a constraint on free will? Oh, most certainly, most of the time. You could even call it a handicap. Because it is. They lack something we think of as "fundamental".
In the same way, people with (the particular version I'm talking of) congenital anomalies lack the most "necessary" part (to us) of being not helpless, in that, they completely lack hands. In a fiend's case, it lacks a moral compass - it has no conscience at all. It may feel free to engage in any behavior that it deems appropriate with no emotional-moral repercussions. It may have ethical constraints for some reason (Hell, for example) but it has no moral ones. To us (and, in fact, to most of them, explaining its rarity) this would be a "necessary" tool to be able to perform genuinely good deeds.
That does not mean that they cannot, however. In much the same way as a person without hands can learn to do amazing things with their feet, a fiend (or other aligned creature) can learn to do things without a conscience (or whatever other decision-making tool they may lack), even though they lack what seems to be the fundamental part of making that decision. This enables them to have the "fully" free will to rise or fall as well as have an inherent alignment, but does make it quite difficult.
As for the literary characters, my point is that while I think both Scrooge and Mrs. Lovett had some psychological issues, and also some pretty serious greed going on, Scrooge was never an accessory to a serial killer nor was his business model based on baking people into meat pies. He was also a good deal richer than Mrs. Lovett, and this was not because he was more evil but because he was a better businessman with a better long term growth model.
Personally, I think the evil-dar should pick up the actual sin and not the spiritual power of the soul behind it. If your fifth level character is on the border between neutral and evil and waffles back and forth, I think they should be counted as less evil than the character who's busy plumbing the depths of wickedness and depravity like he's mining for coal.
Redemption, if and when it happens, should be easier and more common for those on the border than those living in the sub-basement.
Second, redemption works exactly the way you're talking about. The detect evil ability doesn't mean the paladin should necessarily smite it. As mentioned with Bookkeeper up above, smiting evil isn't an evil act, but smiting evil in an inappropriate context is the wrong response. Here, I'll quote myself (tacky as that may seem, my apologies):
Finally, Bookkeeper:
Yes. It is.The idea that killing is inherently evil is incorrect, although needless killing is evil. The smiting of a creature who has dedicated himself or herself to evil is not wrong... it can be seen much like removing a cancer. My mother struggled with it, so I'm fairly aware of how it works, and it fits in this analogy. Cancer is a living, breathing part of you. It is alive, and its part of your body, but it slowly corrupts and kills you because it's flawed and broken. Its removal and destruction is the correct response to ensure the safety and health of the whole, because that part has become broken. Now, does that removal and destruction come fraught with peril? Of course. Such acts are dangerous and can harm the very thing you're trying to save. Evil is much the same. It can grow and take root, flourish in a society, and disrupt it, but smiting it isn't actually a bad thing.
Now, whether or not a particular evil creature needs to be smote or not is up to the paladin and circumstances. Over-zealousness can harm the greater good (similar to not overreaction against a body's small ills). But in general, it's a good act to eliminate evil - whether by (the extreme case) of smiting, or by guidance.
Bolding mine. Well, I mean, also mine... well, I mean this time, since, you know, it wasn't bolded up-thread. Whatever! :)
The point is that a paladin needs to use judgement. I was relating evil to Cancer and it was useful for my purposes: the most malignant kinds of cancer is treated by extreme procedures which are very dangerous to the patient. Using those treatments on minor problems is, at best, foolish, regardless of how big the problem is.
However: I could easily see an weird fire elemental, having come into contact with a mysterious item called a "pearl" (something beyond his plane and concept of reality) slowly becoming obsessed with these strange things, until they begin making forays into alien worlds completely hostile to themselves. Possibly even learning about said hostile environments, learning to protect and shield itself (a protective suit of armor, perhaps?) so it can finally explore the strange, alien place where its new obsession comes from. He'd be like some kind of astronaut for his people. This could even be the way his kind first learned about other planes. Kind of an interesting RP thought.
I think the disconnect we're having here is in the definition of "always evil." Personally, I say "always evil" requires omniscience so that the evil intentions will be matched with evil results and similarly "always good" requires omniscience so that the good intentions are matched with good results.
After all, as the proverb goes, if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it should logically follow that the road to heaven is paved with evil intentions that didn't turn out as planned.
|
Non humans should be misunderstood, complicated and alien. Otherwise dwarves are just big midgets.(dwarves really need better fluff...)
Evil is not enough justification to be killed, they may still live a good life. Actions are not predetermined by alignment.
Morality is based off weird things in dnd worlds. Deities, planes, magic. Honestly it is so complicated it is fine just to ignore it. Did the character know and believe he was acting right? Then they are good, their good might look evil to you which makes conflicts and reasons to play the game. And possible non violent ways to end the conflict.
Paladins probably hate chaos as much as evil...
I think the disconnect we're having here is in the definition of "always evil." Personally, I say "always evil" requires omniscience so that the evil intentions will be matched with evil results and similarly "always good" requires omniscience so that the good intentions are matched with good results.
After all, as the proverb goes, if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it should logically follow that the road to heaven is paved with evil intentions that didn't turn out as planned.
Eh, I'd not say that that's a corollary (amusing though that image might be), but I'll grant that on that we need to just agree to disagree agreeably, 'cause I can totally dig that action*. :)
However, on the first saying, "The road to hell..." and results of intentions:
While consequences of actions certainly need to be understood and included in the final judgement, intention does matter. Intent isn't the only standard for good and evil, but it's an important factor. Simply saying "his intent mattered" is not, in the end, good enough, I submit, but neither can it be thrown out.
Instead, there must be a reasonable limit on the ultimate consequences of your actions. Otherwise, I, personally, due to typing here at my computer, am responsible for the next great tornado from the next great hurricane (caused in no small part by a butterfly) that may rock Florida's coast, simply because I'm messing with air currents that will eventually collide together in such a way that ultimately a tornado forms right here. Without a reasonable statute of limitations, we are all responsible for all terrible things that occur simply by virtue of existing. Our bad.
Without a reasonable statute of limitations, we are all guilty of the terrible sin of living, moving, breathing, and interacting with the world around us. Would, then, the best thing be to eliminate our presence from the world entirely? No. And that brings me to my next point.
Within the context of the saying, according to my understanding, the "good intentions" does not actually mean "performing good acts". I can have the best intentions, in that I intend for the world to be a better place, but, to my (incorrect) way of thinking, I must destroy all of a sentient non-inherently-evil race, such as boggards, just so they won't (to borrow a phrase from Shrek) "poison my perfect world" with their presence (or actions or whatever).
Clearly, my intent is good: I fully intend to make the world a better place for all, free from murder, violence, and cruelty. My actions however (that of genocide and murder) are certainly something that would pave the road to hell, despite my good intentions. My good intentions come with a flawed understanding of my goal: that Boggards are too evil to be redeemed and thus must be eliminated entirely, every egg, every warrior, every worker, even the ones who pretend to worship good deities and who appear to be good citizens... especially those, because they deceive good folk into failing to recognize the threat! The "road to hell" indeed.
And that's the essence of the phrase, as I take it: good intent =/= good action.
All that to say, in determining the morality of an action:
* determine the intent of the action: why is it being performed?
* determine the nature of the action: what is actually happening?
* determine the reasonable, immediate outcomes of the action: what is the results of those actions, that you can foreknow?
So, yes, you may feel free to hold the view of necessary omniscience, but for any creature that isn't infinite, the three questions above must be asked. And in Pathfinder the presumption is that there are no infinite creatures, making it not-canon.
*Okay, why do I talk like this online? I seriously never use phrases like that in real life. Heh, it's kind of funny, though. Maybe that's why.
Addendum:
RE: Alignment detection (and divination magic in general)
In my posts, I defended the CORE game presumptions, because the game runs on the CORE presumptions and the OP seemed to be asking for the CORE presumptions (although, to be honest, it's kind of off-topic), but in my home games, I generally prefer what you're saying, Mr. Murphy - we often play it out that a creature below 5 HD registers anyway, but as "dim" (kind of like lingering magic auras).
This allows for several things: an objective standard as understood by the game and players, and also lets people know to be wary around said person, and also gives player-characters the comfort and security of knowing that "higher powers" are watching out for even the lowly.
This isn't the CORE RAW, however, which, unless I'm mistaken, BigNorseWolf was looking for. So I'm not really trying to debate that it's wrong to play that way, but rather, from the CORE RAW world of Golarion, as far as I'm aware, that's how it runs.
(This can also kind of serve as a response to GeneticDrift's post)
ALSO Addendum to the "Good Intentions" note:
While I noted...
Clearly, my intent is good: I fully intend to make the world a better place for all, free from murder, violence, and cruelty. My actions however (that of genocide and murder) are certainly something that would pave the road to hell, despite my good intentions.
... what I left unsaid was that the (very hypothetical and not actual) "I" in that situation justified murder by redefining it (in "my/his" head) as "not-murder, because they're X race, and thus undeserving of life", ergo genocide is totally okay (this is in keeping with Tobias' post above). This is part of the point of the saying of "Good intentions" in that, your intent may be good, but the methods and presumptions that go along with it are not, ergo going to hell (hand-baskets being purely optional).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to reopen that subject… But last I heard WoWwiki is no longer being maintained. The Blizzard Expanded Universe section and Wowpedia (by the people who started WoWwiki) are probably better options.
Thanks for catching my fumble. :) Wowpedia is pretty damn nice...
Also, Mikaze, where is your thread(s?) about redeeming evil creatures by raising them properly? I was looking around, but couldn't find it. I figured it could be relevant (if not RAW) for this thread.
Still going to update it later, just tied up with this orc fan project at the moment. That thread (as a whole) isn't really how I see those races as a standard outside a strict Golarion canon context. It was more about trying to find solutions for groups that don't like Always Chaotic Evil who are laboring under the setting assumptions in Golarion.(that and a way to work out some frustration over some rather nasty monster-alignment threads that had been going on at the time) I'd much rather have healthy culture options for those races rather than needing them to adopt into human/elf/whatever culture in order to be looked at as people.
|
|
Does it enjoy causing pain = evil: be it a teacher, friend, cop, fireman, or cat.
care about what happens next = lawful
Genocide can easily be CG, LN, CN, TN, or flavors of evil. Of course people can be misguided too.
An evil person might run an arena with out slaves and live a good life. Or donate to charities.
I don't want monsters to be humans, they should not have alignments.
Genocide can easily be CG, LN, CN, TN...
No... no, it can't. Unless you're talking about taking outsiders with the evil subtype, there will be innocents. Deciding that innocents of one race/creed don't matter because they're members of that creed isn't good, it's decidedly evil when done to justify murdering them all.
At best:
Good - Drive off invading race, decimating their warriors and building up your defences to protect against further invasions.
Neutral - Decimate the invading army, kill all the warriors and imprison all of the innocents for life so that they cannot rise up against you. (punishing innocents for their race and not their actions)
Evil - Kill them all and let the gods sort it out. Innocents get stabbed just as much as the warriors.
I went into much greater depth with my thoughts on this in my previous post. But it basically boils down to deciding that "our innocents are more important than their innocents" is decidedly not good and dives deep into evil territory when you use that to justify murdering them.
|
|
Does it enjoy causing pain = evil: be it a teacher, friend, cop, fireman, or cat.
Good/neutral aligned dominatrices exist.[/pedant]
Genocide can easily be CG, LN, CN, TN, or flavors of evil. Of course people can be misguided too.
Can't see how murdering an entire race of sapient free-willed beings down to the last child for the crime of being born into a certain species could ever qualify as good. CG is as much about doing the right thing as NG and LG, it's not about taking the easy way out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to have gotten the impression that for Golarion, the attitude is
"Don't worry about the morality, just have fun hacking the goblins apart again, like D&D 2e"
Am i correct? Is the default Golarion setting the evil humanoids as so irredeemably evil that kill on sight is a legitimate response?
I think that is oversimplified.
Something is as evil as the intention of it's plans.
Goblins like killing babies and eating them, so pretty evil.
Demons want to destroy everything. Very evil.
Bill the thief wants to rob old ladies. Fairly evil.
Evil is as evil does. YMMV.
|
|
What I was pointing out was un intended consqunces. In the Dresden series there is a good example involving vampires. The series also gives us one example of a good vampire and of evil people who help society.
Are you calling pilots and airmen who did bombing runs evil? Are Soldiers who are ordered to fight for reasons they dont know also evil? The people who built the A bomb the got to be evil right? How about the machine gun?
What I was pointing out was un intended consqunces. In the Dresden series there is a good example involving vampires. The series also gives us one example of a good vampire and of evil people who help society.
The Red Courts are an example of creatures that would have the Evil subtype. The definition of becoming one of them is that you become a corrupt and evil monster. That's world's away from a natural race that is born and grow and has free will.
Are you calling pilots and airmen who did bombing runs evil?
Are they knowingly and willingly bombing civilians or civilian centers?
Are Soldiers who are ordered to fight for reasons they dont know also evil?
If they commit a war crime, yes. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse for crimes against humanity. It does not give you a free pass for participating in genocide. In fact, that was the very situation in which that excuse was tested!
The people who built the A bomb the got to be evil right? How about the machine gun?
I wouldn't say evil, but they definitely weren't good.
The difference comes down to what the weapons can be used for. A machine gun and an atomic weapon can be used to protect/deter. If it could only be used to kill civilians, that would make the creators evil.
If they commit a war crime, yes. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse for crimes against humanity. It does not give you a free pass for participating in genocide. In fact, that was the very situation in which that excuse was tested!You can only be found guilty of genocide if you're on the losing side of the war.
Which doesn't change the morality of the action.
|
|
I guess we are getting away from fantasy, sorry.
People are not all knowing their actions don't always live up to their own morals. Alignment does not make anyone do anything.
Of course I'm not sure we have evidence for monstrous races not being monsters. What makes Orcs different from wild animals? Fantasy settings like to make everyone human like, but none of that is core.
Of course I'm not sure we have evidence for monstrous races not being monsters. What makes Orcs different from wild animals? Fantasy settings like to make everyone human like, but none of that is core.
The PFSRD states,
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
Orcs have an intelligence higher than 2, which gives them sentience and free will. They have choice, so while the racial norm is chaotic evil there can and will be other alignments represented. Just like there are evil dwarves, halfling and elves.
I play Evil humanoids as irredeemably evil. In other words if you were a kind woodsman and found an orc or gnoll baby, and brought that baby back to raise, no matter how kind you were to it, taht child would grow up evil. It is in its nature.
I leave the nature vs. Nurture arguments to my sci fi games. In fantasy I like my orcs brutality incarnate. In other words, if a Paladin comes across a cave of bugbear children, the only aversion would be his view of children. The Bugbear children would grow up evil no matter what.
I do play the COre races including Drow differently. In the Realms at least I allowed good Dark Elves. I am trying to figure out if there CAN be good Drow on Golarion. Aren't Drow on Golarion the ultimate punishment for evil elves?
I also allow fallen angels and risen fiends. However a risen fiend is at about a ratio of 1/10000 compared to fallen angels.
I play the core races as having free will so to speak, nurture can determine their alignment. I play the humanoids up to Giants as Alignment as written. they have free will for their actions, but no free will to determine their alignment.
If I want to throw my paladin in a moral conundrum, I would use Cheliax or something for that. If he kills a pregnant gnoll, that can only be a good act as far as eliminating evil.
Reason - WoW Discussion.
The developers obviously took pains to show that neither side is evil, just "human" and that right and wrong are a matter of perspective.
Not how I see it. What I see is that the developers have taken great pains to show that the Alliance side generally is good-aligned, while the Horde side is generally stupidly violent-aligned. There are, of course, counter-examples on both sides, but mostly that paradigm holds true.
While Alliance strategy seems to go in the direction of "defend what is ours", Horde strategy is "crush our enemies, see the driven before us and hear the lamentations of their civilians!". The Horde generally is imperialistic and in the case of the Forsaken, downright gleefully evil.
Funnily, though, the Trolls seem to be getting more civilized through their association with the Horde, as Vol'Jin seems to be an all-around cool guy. But I am vastly disappointed with Thralls lack of leadership abilities and his continuous and stupid errors in judgement.
Without addressing the the ongoing philosophical quandaries, I would say that the answer to this question is up to the GM. For my own part, I'm not going to penalize my players for making reasonable assumptions - that is to say if they come across a wandering band of armed goblins or orcs and handily slay them, the party's paladin should be in the clear. On the other hand, I would question a decision to make a pincushion out of a sole goblin kobold openly approaching a town gate. Think of how you would treat your foes in a military situation. Given the extremely violent nature of these races' societies, I would consider humankind to be in a perpetual state of war against them. That's not to say that slaying a goblin on sight is taking the moral high ground, only that I'm not going to consider it an evil act.
As far as what's redeemable, that too I think would be up to the GM. I've long operated under the rule that anything with the evil subtype is evil in essence and it is impossible to redeem, with a select few other races falling into the same category. The 3.5 Lords of Madness mentioned that a mind flayer's brain is incapable of certain benign emotions, and as such, I had ruled that they were not capable of good alignments (though neutral might be possible). In Pathfinder, I like to think that goblins and bugbears are plagued by some form of natural chemical imbalance that makes them universally psychotic, and 99% of ogre children have an inborn cruelty.
Without addressing the the ongoing philosophical quandaries, I would say that the answer to this question is up to the GM. For my own part, I'm not going to penalize my players for making reasonable assumptions - that is to say if they come across a wandering band of armed goblins or orcs and handily slay them, the party's paladin should be in the clear. On the other hand, I would question a decision to make a pincushion out of a sole goblin kobold openly approaching a town gate. Think of how you would treat your foes in a military situation. Given the extremely violent nature of these races' societies, I would consider humankind to be in a perpetual state of war against them. That's not to say that slaying a goblin on sight is taking the moral high ground, only that I'm not going to consider it an evil act.
This is basically correct: each game can and must differ according to each person's sensibilities. You have to be able to set your own tone and rules.
As far as what's redeemable, that too I think would be up to the GM. I've long operated under the rule that anything with the evil subtype is evil in essence and it is impossible to redeem, with a select few other races falling into the same category. The 3.5 Lords of Madness mentioned that a mind flayer's brain is incapable of certain benign emotions, and as such, I had ruled that they were not capable of good alignments (though neutral might be possible). In Pathfinder, I like to think that goblins and bugbears are plagued by some form of natural chemical imbalance that makes them universally psychotic, and 99% of ogre children have an inborn cruelty.
A completely valid choice. Out of curiosity, how do you handle things like a helm of opposite alignment (which forces an instant and mostly permanent alignment switch regardless of kind), or reincarnation (which can transform a creature into an "evil" race)?
Does it enjoy causing pain = evil: be it a teacher, friend, cop, fireman, or cat.
Good/neutral aligned dominatrices exist.[/pedant]
I think the difference, Mikaze, is when dominatrices enjoy causing pain for their own sake, or causing it for the pleasure (which, given a masochist is also pain, however odd that may sound to me) of those they are "dominating". Sadism is delighting in causing pain regardless of the feelings of the other person. That's basically evil right there. Masochism is more debatable, but it's fundamentally selfish and tends to lead toward negative, unhealthy behaviors. Again, that's not to say that all are of one alignment flavor, just that it tends to end up skewing the whole in that direction.
In that, I liken it to slavery. Is slavery evil? Not inherently. Are all slave owners evil? By no means. Does slavery favor evil, and have leanings in that direction due to abuses? Oh yes, and very much so. Its similar with dominating*. Not evil. Just kind of close to the edge.
Genocide can easily be CG, LN, CN, TN, or flavors of evil. Of course people can be misguided too.
Can't see how murdering an entire race of sapient free-willed beings down to the last child for the crime of being born into a certain species could ever qualify as good. CG is as much about doing the right thing as NG and LG, it's not about taking the easy way out.
Here's the problem with this conversation. Given GeneticDrift's presupposition that non-humans are VERY ALIEN (tm) compared to humanity (something that I'm not willing to give him by RAW or my personal games, but which is fine with his), this can easily lead to situations in which the best response is to simply "kill 'em all". Think about it from this perspective: does a virus feel? Does it have rights? Does its life need to be protected? No. It's a microscopic organism (that many have argued to be a machine) who's continued existence is detrimental to our health and well-being. Bacteria are similar, as are any of those creepy-crawlies that infest our houses (be they insects, arachnids, or whatsoever).
Now, the retort, "But they're not sentient!", has some bearing, and is kind of valid in this case, but then you must take that a step further: does the sentience (and/or biology) of these VERY ALIEN (tm) non-humans allow for a decent, successful cohabitation with humanity-sentience? If the answer is "no" then genocide is a-comin' whether either side likes it or not, because they are too alien to each other to live together and neither really thinks it needs to move just so the other can have nice, ocean-front property. In this case you get into the very understandable questions like "What is 'sentience'?" and "Does morality, as a concept, hold for creatures who's mental thought-process are so dissimilar to our own?" - two very classic sci-fi questions.
Again, in Golarion-as-written (similar to our real world), this question is kind of irrelevant, as everything works with a sentience (at least superficially) like our own (enough so that one cosmically comprehensible moral/ethical barometer can apply to all). In this case you'd be absolutely correct. In GeneticDrift's world... eh, he's probably correct that, given two, extremely alien non-cohabitation-able groups, that genocide is the only option for survival. That said, it sounds suspiciously like Warhammer 40K**.
* Niftily enough, this works for both the social function (as is often related to sexuality) and the magic! Man! I'm making two points at once, doing so accurately, and with the same metaphor. I am so awesome. Humble to, obviously. :P
** Except Warhammer 40K allow for that moral out. It's clear that the sentient races could all get along, if they wanted. They just don't because they hate everything and everyone that's not them. Which means its a bunch of evil groups attempting to eradicate each other forever. Which mean's I'm suddenly completely uninterested, as I kind of hope they all succeed. ALSO, it looks like an evil god*** is going to win everything forever. Again, completely uninterested, though I hope he starves after having killed out all of his own worshipers.
*** There are no non-evil gods with the possible exception of the emperor of humanity and a few who've since been captured and either killed or underwent events that I'm not really allowed to talk about on the forums. Ugh.
ADDENDUM: If anyone wants to continue either the WoW discussion or the Warhammer40K discussion, please feel free to start a new thread in either the Video Games or Other RPGs sub-forums, 'cause that really doesn't go here. Sorry for getting so off-topic myself, but I figured they worked as examples. I won't be persueing this here, although I'd be glad to drop my opinion into another, more appropriate thread.
EDIT: ('cause... whoops!)
I play Evil humanoids as irredeemably evil. In other words if you were a kind woodsman and found an orc or gnoll baby, and brought that baby back to raise, no matter how kind you were to it, taht child would grow up evil. It is in its nature.
I leave the nature vs. Nurture arguments to my sci fi games. In fantasy I like my orcs brutality incarnate. In other words, if a Paladin comes across a cave of bugbear children, the only aversion would be his view of children. The Bugbear children would grow up evil no matter what.
Again, much like I said to martinaj, that's a fair way to have it in home brew, but how do you handle helms of opp-al, or reincarnation magic?
I do play the COre races including Drow differently. In the Realms at least I allowed good Dark Elves. I am trying to figure out if there CAN be good Drow on Golarion. Aren't Drow on Golarion the ultimate punishment for evil elves?
There's a lot here I wanted to respond to.
First, what do you mean by "core races"? In Eberron, for example, there's a lot of Iconic Monsters that they clarify that in that setting aren't always evil, and, in fact, tend not to be. Do you mean "core races" of a setting? Does this include things like Aboleths (who are fundamental to the setting of Golarion)? I tend to think you're meaning "core player races", but drow aren't really a core player race in FR (well, at least they weren't before 4E), so I'm not too sure of your intent here.
Second, drow are (to the best of my reading comprehension) not the ultimate punishment for evil elves in Golarion (which is exactly what they are in some other settings, and is admittedly what one group thinks, see below). What, exactly, drow are is a bit of a mystery, but it really seems that they've been punished just for being them and surviving (and moving into the "wrong neighborhood"). Effectively, during Earthfall, elves that would become drow descended into the depths of the world they loved rather than fleeing like their fellow-elf brethren did. While under there they were a) exposed to magical underground radiation that caused them to change b) placed in a dark environment under the earth, thus causing them (like all elves) to adapt and change c) headed downstairs and was manipulated by powerful aberrant creatures (similar to humans with the Aboleths) and thus became the drow (unlikely, as this isn't really substantiated). Basically, they're altered elves, but it seems pretty clear that they've been altered by their environment, rather than being evil and becoming black.
Now, if you ask the Lantern Bearers - the good elven organization dedicated to the eradication of drow, i.e. genocide, thus I'm undermining my own position by providing this - you'll find that they believe the drow were transformed because they were evil. In fact (again, if I'm reading this correctly) what's happened is they've driven the evil elves below ground, and thus they become drow too. The problem with evil=drow is that the Forlorn retain their elf status, regardless of their alignment, and elves aren't chaotic good in this setting... they're chaotic neutral (at best: they worship and emulate a chaotic neutral goddess who sends fiendish hornets in response to prayers and teaches revenge before forgiveness, as well as indulgence in one of the seven deadly sins). Also elves are known to look different depending on their environment. The Mwangi elves are actually brown, if I recall correctly. Why? I dunno, Tuvok was a brown Vulcan! Stop looking at me! ... ahem, sorry. What I actually think is explained in-canon is that they tend to change to match their environment, or some such. I'm not totally sure about that.
I also allow fallen angels and risen fiends. However a risen fiend is at about a ratio of 1/10000 compared to fallen angels.
Okay, I'm really, really curious about how that works with...
I play the core races as having free will so to speak, nurture can determine their alignment. I play the humanoids up to Giants as Alignment as written. they have free will for their actions, but no free will to determine their alignment.
If I want to throw my paladin in a moral conundrum, I would use Cheliax or something for that. If he kills a pregnant gnoll, that can only be a good act as far as eliminating evil.
... this? I'm just curious what you're definition of inherent alignment is, given that the outsiders have it, but the humanoids don't. Anyway, not to nitpick, I was just genuinely curious about how you guys handle those things.
FINALLY:
Mikaze, it is my assertion that Helms of Opposite Alignment are, in fact, not evil items because they are used by the good guys to redeem dyed-in-the-wool evil villains, AND convert outsiders who were transformed into evil outsider against their will. What say you?
One other thing to throw fuel on this fire: outsiders die forever when they are on their home-plane, becoming one with the plane (kind of like how our bodies decay in the material world here). What happens when a good-aligned inherently-evil outsider dies on its home plane?
Good point on the helm. Once again, speaking only for myself, it would depend on the nature of the creature. If used on a Devil, it modifies the basic essence of the being, and over time it would begin to transform into an Azata (in my games, at least). The change in the behavior would be instant, but the the physical changes would take centuries to complete, and thus would likely have a minimal impact within an actual game. The only immediate statistical change for such a creature would be the acquisition of appropriate subtypes.
As for those other creature, well, it's magic! The helm 'fixes' whatever it is about them that makes them irredeemable, whether that be a chemical imbalance in the brain or the lack of a capacity for positive emotions. The more lasting effect in this case is that the helm has added the possibility for such a shift, so even the creature reverts to its old alignment for whatever reason, it has been changed by the experience, and can be re-redeemed through non-magical means.
Technically, this alters the power level of the Helm of Opposite Alignment in my games, though beyond the potential to change the subtypes of outsiders, these additional effects aren't likely to be felt from a mechanical perspective, and the helm generally functions as written.
Good point on the helm. Once again, speaking only for myself, it would depend on the nature of the creature. If used on a Devil, it modifies the basic essence of the being, and over time it would begin to transform into an Azata (in my games, at least). The change in the behavior would be instant, but the the physical changes would take centuries to complete, and thus would likely have a minimal impact within an actual game. The only immediate statistical change for such a creature would be the acquisition of appropriate subtypes.
As for those other creature, well, it's magic! The helm 'fixes' whatever it is about them that makes them irredeemable, whether that be a chemical imbalance in the brain or the lack of a capacity for positive emotions. The more lasting effect in this case is that the helm has added the possibility for such a shift, so even the creature reverts to its old alignment for whatever reason, it has been changed by the experience, and can be re-redeemed through non-magical means.
Technically, this alters the power level of the Helm of Opposite Alignment in my games, though beyond the potential to change the subtypes of outsiders, these additional effects aren't likely to be felt from a mechanical perspective, and the helm generally functions as written.
That actually makes a lot of sense. You might want to consider adding the Strong (transmutation) or even Overwhelming (transmutation) to those helms, then, but I do like what you've done there!
INSTA-EDIT-'CAUSE-YEAH
Also, I fully recognize that in most setting reincarnation and helms of opposite alignment are, both individually and taken as a collective rare things - really rare, in fact. However, the hedge cases such as these do exist and are fairly integral to the rules (at least as much as any other spell or magic item) and thus should probably be looked at for hammering out a more-accurate summation of a world's/game's alignment rules, including inherent alignments.
I do play the COre races including Drow differently. In the Realms at least I allowed good Dark Elves. I am trying to figure out if there CAN be good Drow on Golarion. Aren't Drow on Golarion the ultimate punishment for evil elves?
I'm wondering why you make this exception for Drow. Is it because they're 'pretty'?
|
|
GMs are allowed to make any changes they want, this does not mean monsters are sentient or capable of morality.
Alien behavior, motivations, and world view does not need to make war guaranteed. I was thinking of the Aiel from the wheel of time who have a very serious view of honor others don't understand.
Making monsters be people is just a trap to make the pcs make a bad choice or to make a paladin fall. It falls into random stuff about the world the characters should know, like laws in town which pcs generally don't know about.
I gmed a game where evil races were not all evil. The pcs let them burn as the world rwas reformed only saving the " good " people. They defeated the evil villain then was like, so we can let his plan be completed and become gods....let's do that instead of stoping the destruction of billions of mostly evil creatures. The idea was inspired by the biblical flood that destroys the wicked and let's the good live to start again fresh.
I do play the COre races including Drow differently. In the Realms at least I allowed good Dark Elves. I am trying to figure out if there CAN be good Drow on Golarion. Aren't Drow on Golarion the ultimate punishment for evil elves?I'm wondering why you make this exception for Drow. Is it because they're 'pretty'?
No, but that is a common misconception. I allow all the demi human races to have freedom to pick alignment. This can apply to Duergar or svirfneblin as well. There is a cosmic battle between Law and Chaos, and Good and Evil. the Demi Human races like dwarves were created for Good. Their Evil brethren branched off of them, so they still have the capacity for good in the right environment.
Orcs and goblinoids were created by evil to do evil. Not necessarily like a demon, but just BE evil. Enjoy the misery of others.
Reason is simply I don't want the shades of grey in my fantasy. There is plenty of that in the real world. It is kind of nice to pick an enemy on Golarion and know you are right. its not like the real world where the enemy has legitimate reasons for conducting warfare that you would do as well in 'their shoes'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are allowed to make any changes they want, this does not mean monsters are sentient or capable of morality.
Alien behavior, motivations, and world view does not need to make war guaranteed. I was thinking of the Aiel from the wheel of time who have a very serious view of honor others don't understand.
Making monsters be people is just a trap to make the pcs make a bad choice or to make a paladin fall. It falls into random stuff about the world the characters should know, like laws in town which pcs generally don't know about.
I gmed a game where evil races were not all evil. The pcs let them burn as the world rwas reformed only saving the " good " people. They defeated the evil villain then was like, so we can let his plan be completed and become gods....let's do that instead of stoping the destruction of billions of mostly evil creatures. The idea was inspired by the biblical flood that destroys the wicked and let's the good live to start again fresh.
Um, but canon is that they can choose, for good or ill. Also, your PCs weren't very good at being good. First - they weren't Divine, and thus had no authority to pass judgement on the world. Unless the Divine gave them the okay, and then it would be okay. But that's a fundamentally different view than Pathfinder CORE/RAW takes.
That said, there's nothing wrong with that, given your own settings' presumptions. It's just that Pathfinder presumes a basically human mind-set with predilections towards and cultural push towards certain alignments. Choice still occurs, although most don't see that they have one.
I gmed a game where evil races were not all evil. The pcs let them burn as the world rwas reformed only saving the " good " people. They defeated the evil villain then was like, so we can let his plan be completed and become gods....let's do that instead of stoping the destruction of billions of mostly evil creatures. The idea was inspired by the biblical flood that destroys the wicked and let's the good live to start again fresh.
So your PC's ended the game by becoming that which they sought to stop. I have never had PCs become the villain before. That's a dark ending.