as i said before, killing isn't always an evil act depending on who you talk to and the circumstances.
however, i'd argue that killing another living thing is never a good act. it might not be evil, but that just makes it nutral, not good. my $.02
as i said before, killing isn't always an evil act depending on who you talk to and the circumstances.
however, i'd argue that killing another living thing is never a good act. it might not be evil, but that just makes it nutral, not good. my $.02
I would argue that, within D&D terms, killing a Demon, Devil, Daemon, or other outsider with the [Evil] subtype is a Good act*.
*With the caveat that the world you are in does not have 'fallen' devils who are good/neutral.
Once again no its contingent on the Pcs motivation other wise evil guys would kill off minions to be neutral and un smitable.
Not to mention Killing evil creatures is way cheaper than an atonement spell for fixing you alignment if you need it set back to good.
No where did I claim that you could change your alignment by killing people. In fact, the point of my argument is that killing Evil people won't change your alignment.
There's no alignment bar like faction in Warcraft or something. You don't "get some Good points" when you kill an Evil person.
The question was whether or not it was Evil to kill people in their sleep. The answer is, "only if they are both not Evil and not a known threat."
The alignment system was practically invented for this--they wanted you to be able to kill Evil guys without feeling guilty.
Hmm... given the fact that 'being of an evil alignment' and 'doing evil things that warrant being killed' are not exactly synonymous in my book, I find that a tad hard to follow.
It's hard to follow because it's objective, and people don't think of morality as objective because there's no certainty in the real world. Being Evil and doing Evil things are synonymous. If someone is Evil, and they have not committed an Evil act, they will. They are on Team Evil in the cosmic sense.
Now, if you are talking about "is it just" to kill someone who hasn't committed any Evil deeds, well, no, of course not. But we're just talking about Good/Evil, not Law/Chaos. It is Lawful to only kill those that have done something wrong. It is Good to kill Evil regardless.
Oh, really? Did you even bother reading the rules of that ability?
I admitted and ammended my statement. See Alignment is also a level 1 spell and does not have any restrictions.
as i said before, killing isn't always an evil act depending on who you talk to and the circumstances.
however, i'd argue that killing another living thing is never a good act. it might not be evil, but that just makes it nutral, not good. my $.02
I would argue that, within D&D terms, killing a Demon, Devil, Daemon, or other outsider with the [Evil] subtype is a Good act*.
*With the caveat that the world you are in does not have 'fallen' devils who are good/neutral.
i'm sure i said 'living' creature. to my mind that excluded constructs, undead, and most outsiders. (if it bleeds pure evil, then killing it is likely a good thing.)
Well,
Devils and Demons and Daemons and all other outsiders are still living creatures (unless they have the [undead] tag). So I thought it important to clarify.
Well,
Devils and Demons and Daemons and all other outsiders are still living creatures (unless they have the [undead] tag). So I thought it important to clarify.
fair enough. i tend to classify them as embodyments of an ideal, rather than actual life.
How on earth has this gotten to over 100 posts.
It's evil.
[/thread]
it was evil, but it has grown beyond its origins and become something new in its own right. who are we to stop it from reaching its full potentual?
Im the gm in the game. The party didnt know anything about werewolves, and the townsfolk were going to let them leave but one of the pcs kinda found out there secert nor wheb they were surronded did the barb put away her weapon as asked. One of the townsmen whispered to their leader that they should attack the pcs. Before the converation was even done or decided the wizard cast a spell which then the people rushed them
I as a player would assume werewolves were evil. As a barbarian I would be distrustful of these humanoids and not put myself in a position where they could get the drop on the party.
As a wizard once I heard an attack was in the offing I would have a choice - let them attack first which would prevent me from safely using area of effect spells, or act before the enemy did.
It appears your expectations for the encounter were different than your players perceptions. That can happen, no matter how good the communication is between players and GM. A good GM is able to adjust and roll with it, going in a different direction from what was planned.
So outsiders are basically alignment constructs?
Works for me.
Just remember, within my game world, they are basically living alignment constructs... so long as they are on the outer planes.
To come to the material plane, they have to drape themselves in material plane essence, which means they are now 'tainted' for the duration of their stay. Thus the mythos of 'fallen angels' and 'fallen demons' is kept, as they can be tempted into alignment changes while on the mortal plane.
I like this as it explains how things that are hard wired can change, but makes it very very rare.
What does it matter for a rouge if this is evil? Even if he is good he don't have a code of conduct and possibility of loosing class features.
I never shy away from the occasional evil act even when playing good characters, if I feel like being bad one day :p
Now don't get me wrong demons, devils and the like are generally a safe bet to kill but even then having a reason is a good idea
It bleeds! is that reason enough? ;)
I'm not sure what kind of homebrew game some people run but in the D&D/Pathfinder world Werewolves are blood thirsty murderers. Its not unheard of to find those that are not Chaotic Evil but they are a minority.
Kill them all and get rid of the curse one dog at a time.
My general rule of thumb is that if you have to ask, it probably is. If you feel the need to justify your actions, it is probably not inherently a good act.
When you're a PC and you have to ask yourself whether or not something is Evil, it probably is and you should probably not do it if you care whether or not you're Evil, because that's staying in-character for a person concerned with right and wrong.
When you're the DM and you have to ask yourself whether or not something a PC has done is Evil, it probably wasn't and you should probably let it go. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun, and heaping moral condemnation on your friends over something their imaginary people did to your imaginary people is not fun. In-character moral arguments are great, but reinforcing OOC moral arguments with the DM stick is pure inexcusable dickery.
I agree with the "its evil" there's really no other way I can see it.
The issue is both good and evil can be jerks and stay there alignment.
You seem to think otherwise unwisely.
On the more general topic if you'll forgive the stereotype what if the "evil" person was a lawyer. Never physically harmed a person everything they've ever done was done by the law. Maybe they exploited a loophole here or there but they never outright broke it. They want wealth and they will happily represent a good man as freely as an evil one so long as they get their large payment of cash. They're evil so they wont do any charity cases and they'll have no problems knowing their client murdered an orphanage but similarly if they can't get the client off by legal means then they don't get them off at all. Of course since they want a good reputation they try not to take cases they think they'll lose but hey what do they care if that sweet apple cheeked orphan goes to jail for murdering her fellow orphans since they proved to the court that she was the one who did those horrible murders. Is it still okay to just kill them out of hand?
No evil. What has he done evil?
What about the evil wizard who doesn't care if their peasants are happy or not but will ensure they're fed and healthy so they can harvest his crops, lumber his forest, fish his rivers and clean his garderobe. He may only view them as property but they're his property and for 204 years he's brutally crushed any invading force which might damage said property taking plenty of prisoners to use in his experiments as it causes him less inconvenience than when he uses some of those excess peasants. Is it good to kill him, free them and then leave them to be overrun by the various monsters/neighbouring countries now they no longer have a powerful protector?
Again not evil.
Personally I can't accept the "its evil" as a reason to kill anyone ever. If somethings a known threat or for adventurers if you've been hired to eliminate something then yes kill them however you can but even in a world with objective good/evil/chaos/law (another thing that bugs me why didn't they use order) killing someone out of hand is evil. Now don't...
Becauase you aren't using evil in your examples.
I reject the premise that it is "good" to "kill evil." Good strives to stop evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean killing all evil things.
The whole "is it 'good' to kill 'evil' people?" question is one of the oldest moral dilemmas in the book. This has been debated both academically and in the real world for as long as people have been able to contemplate morality.
Most people agree that it is acceptable for good people to kill evil people in the following circumstances:
1. The evil person is threatening an innocent person with bodily harm or death.
2. The evil person has been convicted of a horrible crime, usually involving murder or multiple murders.
3. The evil person was responsible for the organized slaughter of other people.
Many people agree that it is acceptable for good people to kill evil people in the following circumstances, however many other people disagree:
1. The evil person committed treason against their country.
2. The evil person committed the rape or abuse of a child.
3. The evil person is planning and has the capacity to commit horrific acts.
Most people agree that it is NOT acceptable for good people to kill evil people in the following circumstances:
1. The evil person is just evil, but hasn't done anything yet.
2. The evil person has committed lesser crimes than murder, child abuse, treason or genocide.
3. The evil person is sleeping in their beds having done nothing anyone knows about that has harmed anyone.
The whole "is it 'good' to kill 'evil' people?" question is one of the oldest moral dilemmas in the book. This has been debated both academically and in the real world for as long as people have been able to contemplate morality.
The thing is, these issues are difficult in the real world. But they are not in a world with concrete, detectable Alignments.
There would be no question in such a world. As difficult as it is for us to decide on these issues in the real world, it would be trivial to know for certain, what Alignment each of these cases falls under.
The whole "is it 'good' to kill 'evil' people?" question is one of the oldest moral dilemmas in the book. This has been debated both academically and in the real world for as long as people have been able to contemplate morality.The thing is, these issues are difficult in the real world. But they are not in a world with concrete, detectable Alignments.
There would be no question in such a world. As difficult as it is for us to decide on these issues in the real world, it would be trivial to know for certain, what Alignment each of these cases falls under.
Even in RPG worlds alignment is not a preprogrammed set of instructions for how to act.
I disagree with this entirely. Every GM has their own way to interpret things, but detecting alignment and killing those who radiate evil would qualify as "evil" in my worlds.
Even in RPG worlds alignment is not a preprogrammed set of instructions for how to act.
I disagree. I think that is exactly what Alignment is--I think that is the entire purpose of including it.
I disagree with this entirely. Every GM has their own way to interpret things, but detecting alignment and killing those who radiate evil would qualify as "evil" in my worlds.
In my worlds, there's no Alignment at all. Because it's dumb and outdated.
Even in RPG worlds alignment is not a preprogrammed set of instructions for how to act.I disagree. I think that is exactly what Alignment is--I think that is the entire purpose of including it.
I disagree with this entirely. Every GM has their own way to interpret things, but detecting alignment and killing those who radiate evil would qualify as "evil" in my worlds.In my worlds, there's no Alignment at all. Because it's dumb and outdated.
Run your games how you like mpl. I interpret alignment differently than you do. In part I do that deliberately to allow more freedom of choice in my campaigns, both for the NPCs and the PCs.
For whatever it's worth, here is the actual first paragraph from the PF rule book on alignment:
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are
represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good,
chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral,
lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s
identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.
Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the
same alignment can still be quite different from each
other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
That's more or less how I play it. Play how you like.
I would say that you don't understand the alignment system then or rather that your take is radically different from most everyone I've spoken to about it.
This statement was in reference to mplindustries
Your personality determines your alignment and actions. Your alignment does not influence your actions.
This, mostly. It's your outlook on life that guides your actions and your actions determine your alignment over time. Alignment can shift depending on changes in outlook and actions.
I've had NPCs slowly change alignment from evil to neutral based on their interactions with good PC's. I've had good PC's slide to neutral because of consistent behavioral changes.
I think changes along the "good" and "evil" continuum are more likely for most than changes along the "chaos" and "law" continuum, but both are certainly possible.