So playing D&D and Pathfinder -- thanks to the alignment system -- brings up a lot of philosophical debating.
I was once playing a Chaotic Good Wizard, and I killed a Goblin prisoner because I didn't want him to come back to haunt us later. My DM said that was an evil act and it was going to affect my alignment.
Considering that every Goblin we "Let go" screwed us later with this particular DM, I thought that I was completely justified - and that while it may be "Lawful" to never kill prisoners, the circumstances perfectly vindicated my actions.
But alas, you can't win against the DM.
Then, the other night, in a different campaign, I was playing a Chaotic Good Bard, and we came across some sleeping Orcs in two different rooms. The Paladin dealt with the Orcs in one room, and I dealt with the Orcs in the other. I killed the Orcs in their sleep, while the Paladin woke them up to try and interrogate them (And we didn't end up killing them, but instead locked them in the room to... starve to death? I guess? We might end up going back for them, I dunno.)
This particular DM didn't necessarily think this was an Evil act, but the Party still raised the question whether my actions weren't at least more of a Nuetral thing.
What do you guys think?
And what are some other questionable occasions that have come up in your games?
Also, when is it Lawful vs Chaotic, and when is it Good vs Evil? Sometimes the lines are blurred.
Ah, discussing alignment; down this road only disaster lies.
Assuming the goblins and the orcs were evil killing them is a good act, sure some paladins may have real problems with that and of course so can some characters but that's another thing entirely.
Also remember that, usually, one evil act doesn't make you evil.
In addition did the party needed to interogate the orcs or the paladin is too naive for his own good.
Just another thing, killing an evil prisoner, after you have taken information from him and deciding to do that on the moment seems like something a CG character would do.
In order to tell the difference between law and chaos i like to use synonym words, specifically order and entropy, it gets much clearer for me.
Questionably Evil? Come on, the nine alignments we have are quite enough. We don't need QE or AG, or RC, or whatever. Don't overcomplicate things!
;P
And sometimes, such as when you slit the throat of a person that can't stop you, the lines aren't blurred.
Sorry to be glib. I just think that murder = evil. And I'm entirely aware that soldiers have to do this at times. That doesn't justify it in the moral sense - it just means that one of the reasons I respect members of my nation's military is that they sometimes must do things that they don't want to do, and will never forgive themselves for.
Anyhow, one Evil deed doesn't condemn your character instantly and permanently, but as a CG character you're violating your own character's beliefs each time you do it and he/she should definitely be seeking absolution - not in terms of spells but in terms of doing ever more heroic Good deeds in order to compensate for those terrible moments when you feel them jerk as the knife goes in...
(Sorry to be graphic. Just a reminder that although, to the player, these monsters are just obstacles between you and your XP, your character should be viewing them as real creatures, meat and bone like himself, who he is killing out of mere convenience. I'm told this is why a death-wish is so often a component of shell shock.)
Could we really call it Murder though?
Lets pull out the dictionary! (Using Websters)
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2
a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>
I don't think the second aspect really applies.
But I don't think that I did any of those acts with malice aforethought.
Now Unlawfully? Probably - especially in the Killing Prisoners sense.
But isn't being Unlawful part of being Chaotic?
And if Unlawfully Killing a person is the definition of Murder, then can the act of Murder be considered inherently Evil?
Also, Goblins are established as being Evil Creatures. Not necessarily Outsider Evil, and it may be prejudiced to consider this idea, but for the sake of my own Character's life it's better that the Evil Goblin dies than for the Evil Goblin to kill me later because he's prejudiced against me.
And as a Wizard, my Job is to make combat unfair for the enemy. What's more unfair than a Coup De Grace situation?
I was once playing a Chaotic Good Wizard, and I killed a Goblin prisoner because I didn't want him to come back to haunt us later. My DM said that was an evil act and it was going to affect my alignment.
Considering that every Goblin we "Let go" screwed us later with this particular DM, I thought that I was completely justified - and that while it may be "Lawful" to never kill prisoners, the circumstances perfectly vindicated my actions.
Sounds to me like you just passed an Intelligence check: All enemy goblins we leave alive attack us later - therefore this one will too. Eureka, I found a solution! ~slit~
Sounds like you have a prick DM. I can smell his machinations thus:
"Ooh! It survived. Now I can screw them over again with - aww darn now he's dead. Dang smart player, I'll show him..." "Hey! That'll affect your alignment!" "That'll teach him... taking away my fun... If he keep this up he'll be evil and I can get the Paladin to kill him for me."
Fact is, when you're in hostile territory, and you can't transport prisoners, killing them is certainly not evil. Especially if those prisoners have proven to be dangerous and malicious. Heck, keeping them is probably worse, because you're putting your own comrades at risk, burning resources like food and water and time to keep them alive for no Good purpose.
Now, killing prisoners on your own turf, when holding them doesn't pose a significant risk, or cost, to the "good guys", is bad. You have an easy and safe alternative, and you choose to kill... tsk tsk. OTOH, if it's a matter of racial warfare (as is often the case - they're orcs/goblins/demons), there's no real "justice" system to rehab anyone, so killing them with a swift execution is BETTER (morally) than letting them suffer a public stoning or humiliating torture+execution+exposureToMimes next week.
Evil is when you enjoy the throat slitting, or seek the harm of other beings disproportionate to your gain, or just because you like it (for the ego trip, or whatever).
Good is when you try to explore alternatives to the throat slitting, help strangers, and watch reruns of My Little Pony. If the throat slitting is necessary (due to tactical demands, or economics), you do so whilst shedding a tear, saying a prayer for their redemption in the next life, and provide as painlessly and respectfully a throat-slitting as you can administer.
Chaotic stuff is all about freedom, urinating on the rules, breaking your oaths, and so on. Hippies are chaotic. Anarchists are chaotic. Con artists are chaotic.
Lawful stuff is all about obedience, making & following rules, being true to your word and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh for the love of Pete. Alignment isn't a freakin' straightjacket! Characters tagged "lawful" can perform chaotic actions, and characters tagged "good" can commit evil deeds.
Next printing of the rulebook, perhaps Paizo can add that particular item into the text. In 22 point bold font.
Oh for the love of Pete. Alignment isn't a freakin' straightjacket! Characters tagged "lawful" can perform chaotic actions, and characters tagged "good" can commit evil deeds.
Next printing of the rulebook, perhaps Paizo can add that particular item into the text. In 22 point bold font.
Regardless though...
What constitutes such deeds?
My argument isn't whether you should be immediately affected by committing a chaotic or evil deed, but rather whether the deeds should be considered chaotic or evil.
|
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats freespirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benef it from the potential that its individuals have within them. Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Its all there. GM is the final arbiter. No more to say, its time to game.
In one of the home games I'm playing in, most of our party is evil (or at least not-very-nice-borderline-evil neutral.) We just came across a small tribal village in a jungle that our 6 level 5 characters could have nuked off the map if we had wanted to, but did we? No, in fact, we were quite nice to them. They were having some trouble with the local wildlife, which we dealt with for them. Arguably, we committed a rather good act. Granted, we did it because they were offering us food, shelter, supplies, and equipment in exchange, otherwise we probably would have just ignored them and continued on.
My point is, just because we're evil, doesn't mean we're stupid. We could have killed them all and some of our characters are pretty blood-thirsty and probably would have enjoyed it. But their village was a good place to re-supply and even if it wasn't, there was no reason to spend time and resources killing them just because we're evil. On the flip side, I would say that the OP's character who killed the goblin is not obligated to take prisoners just because he's good. This character has had problems with goblins backstabbing him in the past, so the logical course of action is to somehow disable any goblins he finds, and if the easiest, safest, and most thorough way of disabling them is killing them, then so be it. Even if that particular goblin hadn't come back to bother him personally, who's to say it wouldn't have gone and attacked or killed some innocent commoner?
In the real world we use 'good' and 'evil' to refer to either actions or motivations for actions, depending on one's philosophical views. The extent to which someone is a good person or a bad person is directly related to how they try to behave (or what the reasons are for their actions).
In Pathfinder, good and evil are actual, real things (like gravity or electricity). That means it is not a simulation of reality in this respect and trying to determine whether some act fits within the purview of these real, tangible forces of the campaign world is not completely answerable by reference to philosophical considerations of what constitutes an evil or good act in the real world. Evil and Good are words being used in two different, though related, ways when referring to reality or to a Pathfinder game.
The point I'm probably laboring being that it's pretty much up to the DM - the rules are not explicit about what acts constitute evil and what acts constitute good (or what motivations constitute good/evil).
It's not really clear what the rules cited above mean by 'innocent life', but that would be the point I'd try and address with your GM. Killing innocents is an evil act - are the evil goblins innocent? It sounds to me that he is determining the killing of a helpless creature to be evil - in my mind that's the sort of thing which happens when real life philosophy (based on a world where good and evil are not tangible, actual 'entities') is applied to a fantasy game (where they are). Would he have the same objection to killing a demon? If not, why not - are goblins 'less evil' than demons? The answers to these sorts of questions are not really part of the rules, in my view - they are part of the game world you are playing in (ie part of the DM's world).
Assuming the goblins and the orcs were evil killing them is a good act
Being good is not doing bad things to evil people. If an evil goblin begs mercy, it would be evil to murder him. Not saying that single act will change an alignment, but if you go around torturing goblins you can't honestly expect to stay good aligned.
I know that's not what you were getting at but I thought I'd bring it up as I had a fellow player that honestly thought his CG Cleric torturing evil beings was what he did. I dunno if that reflects his real life morals, but when he explained his reasoning it sent a shiver up my spine.
As to killing the sleeping Orcs I agree that it is not an evil act. They will try to kill you if you wake them, so you are protecting your life and the lives of your party.
|
Assuming the goblins and the orcs were evil killing them is a good actBeing good is not doing bad things to evil people. If an evil goblin begs mercy, it would be evil to murder him. Not saying that single act will change an alignment, but if you go around torturing goblins you can't honestly expect to stay good aligned.
I know that's not what you were getting at but I thought I'd bring it up as I had a fellow player that honestly thought his CG Cleric torturing evil beings was what he did. I dunno if that reflects his real life morals, but when he explained his reasoning it sent a shiver up my spine.
As to killing the sleeping Orcs I agree that it is not an evil act. They will try to kill you if you wake them, so you are protecting your life and the lives of your party.
It would be nuetral to finish off the foe. LG if you follow the dwarf god.
If the system is all about non-subjective elemental good and evil it NEEDS to spell out what is G/E or it IS simply subjective to each person
Or it can leave it to the DM - this is the state of affairs with Pathfinder, in my view. The rules of the game leave it pretty open, but the DM is the final judge, as ever, to what the terms mean in the gameworld under discussion. This:
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
appears to be describing something objective, but in reality it's just hiding the subjectivity in the term 'innocent'.
Ah, Alignment, we meet again. You are the greatest tool for GMs to condemn a player and/or his/her character's actions.
Honestly, the alignment system was put there make things simpler. If killing evil is evil, what's the point in trying to stick the alignment there? Other than to call out your players as evil. 'Cause, you know, alignment is not subjective.
The issues in this thread and another one that has been active today are why when I run anything longer than a few sessions we disregard alignment altogether. All alignment descriptors on spells and abilities are changed to "Aggression/Opposition" to make them still have the same function they would have anyway, but this eliminates people's pointless obsession with debating minutiae of morality conflicts while playing pretend.
How many PCs actually play their alignment most of the time? Most of these arguments stem from paladins and/or evil characters + x. If you really sit and think about it, almost all PC groups would be considered Evil in any real world analogy. They kill, steal and wipe out entire communities physically, spiritually and economically. They are generally out for themselves with profit as their main concern, the plebes be damned.
Most arguments about alignment boil down to intra-party conflict, and the issues rarely stem from actual in game issues, they have to do with unhappy players airing their dirty laundry. Let me give two examples from my experience:
The most disruptive character I ever GMed over was a "Neutral Good" cleric. The guy badmouthed everyone, including members of his own church. Tortured and murdered people. Shoved sand in the mouth of another PC who was being crucified in the desert. Flew into fits of rage and ruined a good time for everyone else in and out of game. He constantly justified his actions as following the guidelines of his god, who BTW was "a total a%*!%*@" for constantly giving him visions that were too vague and restricting his spells. He ended up being killed by the other party members. This was the most flagrant example of a player not giving a damn about alignment even though he expected to reap the benefits of the words on his character sheet.
The most disruptive character I have ever played was a Lawful Neutral fighter. He was a total beast, but almost exclusively used nonlethal methods to take down enemies because he wanted them to be judged by a law tribunal to face justice and possibly implicate others. The other PCs, all "Good" mind you, HATED him with a passion because he wouldn't just kill the bad guys. I received so much grief for playing that character (IMO to the letter of his alignment) that I eventually just retired him and replaced him with the typical Kill/Steal/Destroy PC that is the default of most D&D worlds.
I understand why alignment is part of the game, but after a couple decades of pointless bickering at the table and in real life completely outside of the game with very little to show for it, I decided I had had enough and scrapped it in a campaign I ran a couple years ago. It was a huge success, and I haven't missed it since.
You're a Wizard. Why do you care what the DM says your alignment is anyway?
In any case, killing prisoners is not a "Good act", but Good people can do it when they have to. It's no different than when your local magistrate gives the order-- and it's only a Chaotic act when your character doesn't have the lawful authority to do it himself. You didn't kill anyone that didn't pose a threat to you, you didn't kill them any more painfully than you had to, and you didn't interfere with their souls getting their just rewards in the afterlife.
Good acts to preserve life, but that doesn't mean they don't kill. It only means that they don't kill without good reason. Good characters fight and kill in war, and even start wars, but only to help the innocent. Every side in every war has its heroes, and Good people know when they go to war that they're going to be killing other Good people-- so they only do it when they think they're going to be saving more Good people than they're going to be killing, and they do it as mercifully as possible.
If you're breaking into an Orcish stronghold, you can pretty much guarantee that you're at war with the Orcs. And even though Orcs are people and there are Good Orcs-- and the throat you're slitting might be an Orc Paladin's-- they're still your enemies and the fact that the Orc Paladin would feel really bad about killing you and lay awake at night wondering whether or not you were a Good person doesn't mean that he's not still going to kill you if he wakes up.