| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, the fundamental problem with any alignment restriction, and which is especially prominent with the assassin,is the clash between the concepts of 'class as concrete concept' and 'class as mechanical effects which you can drape the flavor of your choice over.' No one minds that the Red Mantis Assassins have to be evil, because they are very clearly part of a very specific organization, with a clearly evil ideology and modus operandi. But 'Assassins'? The implications of the special requirement of the PrC aside, it's much easier to see this as a generic class to which you can attach your own flavor. So many people view only the mechanical abilities of the class, and find nothingthere that is inherently evil. After all, is it not arguably more morally defensible to end a tyrant's reign with a single knife thrust in the dark, then to storm his keep, killing the guards who are just doing their jobs to fight your way to him? And that's not even getting into the fact that with a straight Rogue or Ninja, you can build a character who can do virtually the same things as the Assassin, and is arguably more effective at them, all without alignment restrictions of any kind.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for you all to ponder:
The Joker has killed thousands of poeple. It's become rather evident that there's absolutely no chance that he will ever be "cured". And to him, the security at Arkham Asylum might as well consist of wet tissue paper. Given that Gotham City is evidently in a state that does not allow the death penalty, would it be evil of Batman to kill the Joker, thus preventing, with near certainty, thousands of additonal deaths? Is it evil and selfish of Batman to NOT kill the Joker?
|
Finn is it possible that you're jumping on a intent that isn't there because of your history as a soldier?
Jak--
It's quite possible. While I won't apologize for being sensitive at this point, I do get disability pay from the VA for PTSD-- and I'm not soaking the system, I do have significant PTSD issues (and aggravated depression problems) as a result of things that occurred during my military service. Are there "hot button issues" that will set me off as a result? You betcha... I hope y'all can understand why I go off like this if I am over-reacting, because I do not deny that that may be the case.
Edit: You seem to be looking at how the soldiers determine the lawfulness of their actions as opposed to the populace.I don't think Ashiel is trying to rag on soldiers here.
The question of whether or not murder is killing is solely bound up in whether or not the killing is lawful. Therefore as logic attests might in this case makes right or rather law.
As far as the question of whether or not soldiers who do actions that are commonly considered atrocities for no reason other than they were told to do so can live with themselves one has to consider the nazi soldier, or the aztec warrior, or insert various soldier throughout history who did fantastically vicious actions for no reason other than his patron nation thought it was right. Heck see the crusades they were on a war from god and sacked everything they could get their hands on.
After Ashiel's response to me, I did understand that Ashiel wasn't trying to rag on Soldiers-- hopefully my next response was what it was intended to be: pointing out how the language could be misconstrued and asking for a little more precise language in future, rather than pushing the idea that Ashiel intended to cause offense-- if what I wrote in that post doesn't read that way, y'all have my apologies for it.
Truthfully, I think all of them that did things that were wrong according to their understanding of ethics and morality probably had trouble living with themselves. The Aztec warriors who did things we thought were atrocities probably got by okay, because of a thoroughly different understanding of whether those acts in question were right or wrong, compared with our views on them. Same goes for particularly fanatical Nazis... I'm not sure how the Crusaders excused their actions, except that they didn't read the Bible for themselves, and from what little they wrote-- some of them spent the rest of their lives trying to atone for what they'd done.
I do admit my concern with "killing" or "murder" (my personal concern anyway) is more about the moral questions than the legal ones, particularly since I believe that people have gotten away with murder more than a few times, either escaped conviction, or escaped even being charged and tried for it, throughout the centuries. Lots of killings throughout history that were "legal" still seem like they should be considered 'murder' and 'crimes against humanity' to me. More than a few examples were committed by Americans against other Americans in our Nation's history (including those committed by Americans against people who were officially denied status as Americans).
If everything Ashiel is getting is strictly the matter of legal definitions-- I'd probably still feel compelled to point out that as a legal matter, the Laws of War do set more objective standards on "murder vs. justifiable homicide" on the battlefield than "depends on whose side you're on", and many of those principles (respect for soldiers on the other side for instance) go way way back-- but if that intent of it strictly being legal definitions rather than morality had been more clear to me, I wouldn't have reacted as negatively to those portions of Ashiel's post that got my particular attention.
|
|
Most of us, including the modern Germans, believe that the Nazi leadership was utterly wrong, and agree with many of the charges, verdicts, and sentences handed down at the Nurnberg Warcrimes trials following World War 2.Well of course we do. We won the war.
I have a historian friend who believes without a doubt that, had Germany won the war, we would all likely be LOYAL Nazi spinoffs now.
He's very probably right.
Nurture > Nature.
It's quite possible. I think that both Nature and Nurture are involved in who we are-- not just one or the other, but yeah-- since they're both involved... Politics and government would be very different if the Germans had conquered Europe and kept us locked up here on our own continent, and the Nazi sympathizers in the U.S. would definitely have taken the upper hand.
Everyone is sensitive about something at least you have cause for it.
I think as far as morality and legality is being used it is intended more as a question of the lawful nature of the killing as opposed to the right or wrong nature of it. Murder is not necessarily wrong although by definition it is unlawful. A soldier killing may be murder, but on a statistical basis is rarely so at least as far as the laws of war are concerned.
Agreed the people who thought that they did wrong probably had issues sleeping at night. However most of them believed that they were doing right. On the other side of that equation the forty percent of the village that is left after the massacre last week by the aztecs are most likely thinking about the insane murdering fiends that decided that the local village had to go. On side a noble warrior. Side B psychotic lunatic. Oddly enough an Aztec Paladin could easily be from the present societal values an antipaladin.
Part of the problem with defining a particular killing as murder is that murder depends entirely upon whose rule set the judges happen to be using. A soldier may kill only as his duty requires and the opposing side may not find fault with that, but his own nation may rule that his act was unlawful due to <insert random circumstance>. This in an of itself makes using murder a lousy word for trying to find intent of action imo.
Well, this blew up in a way I wasn't expecting, haha. I was actually more bugged by the "Chaotic" requirement for the Antipaladin, but hey, this is an interesting discussion regardless. :)
Finn K - It seems my erroneous use of the term "murder(er)" has offended you, and for that, I wholeheartedly apologize. I was not considering the exact definition of the term, and was just using it as a synonym for "killer." In fact, you can substitute any time I used the word "murderer" with "killer" and my original point still stands, without bringing into the argument all the ethics issues with murder, or what constitutes as murder, etc. (If suggesting that all soldiers are killers offends you as well, I apologize again, but there isn't much I can do about that one.)
My intent, when mentioning the Assassin PrC at all, was that every ability gained from said PrC can be gained in other ways, none of which require an evil alignment (sneak attack, poison use, death attack, even the Angel of Death effect via spells like Disintegrate).
It just seems incredibly interesting to me that they've decided that Race-based requirements are bad for the game, but Alignment-based requirements are totally 100% valid.
(Paladins, as mentioned a few times above, are another offender. What does a Paladin to a CG/CN deity do, for instance, when the Paladin code clashes with the deity's code? ;) )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins, despite being a paragon of Good and Law, can't use knockout toxins on their weapons to end fights quicker and less painfully. They can't even allow an Alchemist or Rogue follower to do the same for them, for some reason.
@ Neo2151- Step 1: lose Paladin powers. Step 2: retrain as Inquisitor. Step 3: be a hero.
(Paladins, as mentioned a few times above, are another offender. What does a Paladin to a CG/CN deity do, for instance, when the Paladin code clashes with the deity's code? ;) )
Go with his heart/gut, appeal upstairs for confirmation, or last but not least hide and hope the whole thing blows over.
|
|
Everyone is sensitive about something at least you have cause for it.
TY for understanding. :)
Although I still gotta calm down a little bit, I think I agree with what you're saying in the rest of the post.
Finn K - It seems my erroneous use of the term "murder(er)" has offended you, and for that, I wholeheartedly apologize. I was not considering the exact definition of the term, and was just using it as a synonym for "killer." In fact, you can substitute any time I used the word "murderer" with "killer" and my original point still stands, without bringing into the argument all the ethics issues with murder, or what constitutes as murder, etc. (If suggesting that all soldiers are killers offends you as well, I apologize again, but there isn't much I can do about that one.)
Apology accepted. Thank you for understanding what I was getting at.
I can't take offense at using the term "killer" for Soldiers who have had to kill in combat, because that is true and a correct reference term for anyone who has killed another ("killer" applies to all who have killed-- justified killers and ones who are guilty of criminal killings alike). It's just the criminal/immoral definition & connotation of calling someone a "murderer" that I found offensive.
On the game issues: I believe Paladins should have the LG requirement-- but I agree with those of you who think that Assassins (the class, not necessarily the occupation) shouldn't have to be 'Evil'.
Maybe I could see the Paladin being any 'Good' instead of Lawful Good only-- an argument can be made for that (though as yet I'm not convinced), but the Paladin (as presently written) IMO must be good-- it's in the nature of the powers and extra abilities they are granted and their evident purpose from all the fluff. I don't consider the issues of law vs chaos as terribly important to a Paladin's core purposes, but I do see Paladins as 'Champions of Good', period. Not that Gods of other alignments couldn't have Champions, but IMO they would turn out different from the current Paladin class.
right, time to stoke the fires once again:
my major problem with this flame war is that people are comparing assassins/murderers with MODERN soldiers, who could primarily be said to be heavy-duty long-distance cops rather than soldiers in days of yore.
back in the day soldiers were not paid, instead being promised a share of the loot. throughout history infantry have been what almost anyone here (on either side of the flame war) would consider murderers, as armies killed, raped and looted their way across the land as a matter of course. comparing these men to most modern armies is, to me, very offensive to the men and women who are serving in our various armed forces. as to assassins being evil...
i don't feel that they should be required to be evil OR to kill someone to join the club. the two go hand in hand to my mind and should be kept or removed together. it makes no sense to me that you have to kill someone to gain levels in assassin (the class), though it does make sense if you want to become an Assassin (the organisation).
@FuelDrop. Bah I'll break out the hose.
You're collectively defining all of the soldiers in the "days of yore" with the circumstances that applied to some, but not all. I wouldn't even say most being the military history buff that I am. You don't recruit soldiers with permission to ravage you recruit them with a cause be it monetary, political, survival based, or religious. So bah. ;p
Edit: I don't find the notion of comparing them to modern soldiers offensive although I do think that trying to apply the societal norm from now to then to be somewhat ridiculous. Somewhat akin to trying to convince the wyvern that eating people is wrong.
Therein lies the catch if I join the evil assassin class do I get association benefits? Because if I'm going to have to be evil to get it then I'd like a little more carrot and a little less "you have to be because I said so stick".
@Jak. ok, my statement was a little bit too sweeping. would it be alright if i amended it to "throughout history, noticably around the dark and middle ages, there were many incidents of soldiers being recruited on the promice of pillaged loot who did terrible, reprehenceable things to our current viewpoint as they rampaged across the land (england during the lead up to agencourt, vikings, normans {though to a lesser extent as they wanted to keep the lands}, the crusades {could be viewed as noble intent gone wrong, but not by me.} the list goes on.)
@Jak. ok, my statement was a little bit too sweeping. would it be alright if i amended it to "throughout history, noticably around the dark and middle ages, there were many incidents of soldiers being recruited on the promice of pillaged loot who did terrible, reprehenceable things to our current viewpoint as they rampaged across the land (england during the lead up to agencourt, vikings, normans {though to a lesser extent as they wanted to keep the lands}, the crusades {could be viewed as noble intent gone wrong, but not by me.} the list goes on.)
Sure amend away. That is the problem I find with making bold definitive statements. Typically there is that little hole that sneaks up on you and your argument is suddenly sinking. The people who were trying to compare the societal values of today to the ones present in character were from my perspective doing the same thing. They were thinking of a specific scenario and broadly using terminology to apply it to every circumstance. If only we could all sit down and decide on specific reference cases before coming to the debate table. Alas.
Yeah viewing the crusades as noble is tricky. Seems to me to be more like the results of giving a lunatic absolute power to define good and evil based upon his mood and the inclination to act on said moods.
@Liam. In Leon he died to protect the girl and to take down a corrupt cop trying to kill her. I would find it very hard to define his class as anything but an assassin. I would also find it rather difficult to define him as evil. He took no pleasure in killing, although he was frighteningly good at it. I could see a case made for lawful evil, but he seems more like lawful neutral to me.
|
|
In game there is a template called innocent which has no mechanical effect for the creature. For other creatures killing an innocent makes you a little more evil. Kill enough innocents and you become evil.
Some might say that innocent is not a game feature but it most assuredly is as the game refers to it constantly. It is the feature that is used to distinguish good from evil.
How can you recognize the innocent template? Here are some common signs:
1) They are unarmed. (In this case armed can refer to offensive magic)
2) They belong to a demi-human race or are human.
3) They are young. i.e. Not yet a teenager. Though some innocents are much older.
4) When you pull out a weapon they scream and run away suspiciously clearing the area of anyone who is not armed.
edit: taking advantage of innocents also makes you a little more evil.
IMO - I think too many 'Good' aligned PCs are way too caviler about killing other sentient creatures. That's what makes this debate all relative is that some in the thread see no problem with 'Good' creatures going out and killing mercilessly (even if it is 'justified' by most standards).
If a LG Paladin meets an escaped CE Human Rapist/Murder on the street and knows that he's been convicted already of his crimes - is the Paladin really going to just kill him? Absolutely not (IMO). The Paladin, by his nature is going to bring him back to jail without killing. If a Paladin in my campaign killed a convicted criminal he met on the street without provocation, the Paladin would have a serious heart to heart with his senenshal. If the Rapist/Murder fought back and provoked the Paladin that is a different story, but if a criminal is trying to get away - most Paladin would always go for the 'live catch' unless he or someone else was somehow directly threatened.
Where I differ from many individual's perception is: (mundane*) evil isn't neccessarilly a game breaker in a fantasy world. There is such thing as a 'neccessary evil' but it doesn't make them 'good' in an alignment sense. An evil character is one who would see a convicted murderer wander down the street, know there's a bounty and choose the 'dead' option first of dead or alive. I can't rationalize a scenario where any good hero would attempt to kill this individual during a chance encounter. A neutral hero (especially CN) may attempt to kill if they thought the target was exceptionally dangerous, but I think a LN Hero in this case would attempt a 'live catch' more than not.
For the most part wrt to killing civilized sentients (on the Good-Evil spectrum, IMO):
Good - Will never kill except in (direct) self-defense or extreme cases of malice. For a LG character that malice is generally given via an edict from someone of higher authority, a NG/CG character may take it upon themselves in extreme situations.
Neutral - Vigilantism. Generally will not kill sentients, and 'self-defense' becomes a broader definition. If an evil individual has some plot 'brewing' (a terrorist for lack of a better term) a Neutral character may murder them for the greater good. They don't neccessarilly revel in the kill, except as an honor/glory piece.
Evil - Indiscriminate killing. Even a 'lawful evil' character will more often choose to kill a criminal if the option is available. They've already been tried and found guilty and the evil character revels in the idea that they're the executioner. A CE character may just randomly kill someone that's in their way of course - but as a PC this would have consequences. A LE character can coexist in a generally 'good' party, but someone better be able to give them a reason not to kill their prey in the end...
Using those definitions there is a little room for a LN assassin, but I think that the Evil requirement forces the PCs to remember: they're playing a class that ENJOYS killing and gets their 'power' from having killed just for the sake of killing.
*I think it's also important to talk about mundane evil (in the general case of an Assassin or other evil mortal) versus intrinsic evil (outsiders generally). A Paladin would (IMO) go for the throat when confronted with an evil outsider (Devil, Demon, etc) but an assassin or other mortal evil isn't neccessarilly someone worthy of being 'purged' in the strictest sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your definition of Good is wrong.
The game has a very particular slant. Certain creatures are evil and it is actually a good deed to kill them. They have bad template which makes killing them not evil.
You also have to consider the morality of a world where cities and strongholds are the only places that have laws enforced. The area between cities is almost always lawless. Every forest is infested with Fey and Dark Fey and other bad things. Mountains hold all kinds of bad stuff. Read the Inner Sea Primer it gets rather predictable.
If you live in a world where your safety depends on your sword or the swords of others then killing becomes a lot less shocking than it is now. Keep in mind that we are living in the safest era since the first man jumped out of a tree. Your safety is so easy to take for granted that you forget all the things that make you safe now. Go back 100 years or more and safety was a very precious commodity. In the middle ages people gave up many rights just to be a little bit safer. People (in general) will trade rights for security every single time.
In any case the game assumes that wholesale killing for a nation, ideal, or self is fine and possibly good. The paladin could probably kill your escaped murderer on sight as the reward signs would say Dead or Alive and if lawful authority says dead is ok then it is.
|
|
Your definition of Good is wrong.
Uh huh. Heard this one before. Sorry, but that is a matter of opinion. Your game may presume all those definitions and issues for determining what 'Good' and 'Evil' are through such artificial labels (IMO, might as well call the alignments "Blue" and "Orange"), but just about everything discussed here is to a large extent, matters of opinion.
I don't buy your "One True Way" pronouncements on how to understand and apply alignment in the game.
|
|
IMO - I think too many 'Good' aligned PCs are way too caviler about killing other sentient creatures. That's what makes this debate all relative is that some in the thread see no problem with 'Good' creatures going out and killing mercilessly (even if it is 'justified' by most standards).
Mege--
Good post.
I don't entirely agree, but there's really just (IMO) minor problems I see with it-- I think you're over-restricting the situations in which a genuinely good character would still find it justified and morally acceptable (and within his/her alignment) to kill. For instance: not just self-defense, but also defense of others... and some extension of that to permit seeking out and eliminating deadly threats rather than waiting for them to come after you one at a time.
I also see the Paladin in your example legitimately 'going for the kill' rather than allowing the Rapist/Murderer to escape if the 'Live Catch' wasn't possible, and there was clear evidence and/or threats that this Rapist/Murderer was going to rape and murder again if the Paladin didn't stop him (I do agree that the Paladin should go for the 'Live Catch' if at all possible).
|
|
Your definition of Good is wrong.
Uh huh. Heard this one before. Sorry, but that is a matter of opinion. Your game may presume all those definitions and issues for determining what 'Good' and 'Evil' are through such artificial labels (IMO, might as well call the alignments "Blue" and "Orange"), but just about everything discussed here is to a large extent, matters of opinion.
I don't buy your "One True Way" pronouncements on how to understand and apply alignment in the game.
It is not really a matter of opinion. The game does not change mechanical effects based upon someone's deeds but their alignment. Alignment is the mechanical portion.
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.
Here is the kicker. The game makes a specific mention of innocent life. Innocent life is never defined but if you defend and protect it you are good. If you kill and debase it you are evil. I jokingly said it was a template because the game kinda treats it like one for alignment purposes. It fits because changing alignments is in the purview of the DM and the DM decides who gets the innocent template.
The rules are fairly clear that killing sentient creatures is not evil. It says so in the alignment rules. Innocent life is what is to be protected not sentient life. Any definition that equates innocent with sentient is false on its face. That is why Mege's definition of good is wrong.
His paladin and rapist example is wrong. The murderer/rapist is certainly evil (which the paladin can independently confirm) and the Paladin could kill him without endangering his good alignment. The paladin's code and lawful alignment only come into play if the penalty for murder/rape is not death. For most of history it was death and jails were only for people being held for trial or execution. Of course, trial had a very loose definition too.
Three pages of differing views, whether through objective discussion or assumed personal attacks, is probably a perfect example of why I don't find alignment's required for any class.
The main part of this reason is that there's so much grey area in every alignment. And people can easily to certain acts that are out of their alignment for them normally, tendencies, etc.
I'll usually ask my players to fill out a morality list, then pick an alignment. I feel like it helps give a better sense of their character then the small variance of the 9 alignments.
http://worldofgrey.org/morality.jpg
And the times when some game mechanic strictly requires an alignment check, i usually poll the party (anonymously) on the player in question, counting the player's own vote twice, and GM discretion of course.
I've had the same playgroup for quite some time, so the worry of anyone spite-voting is pretty much nil. Usually the difference in votes comes from neutral, lawful or chaotic, and not if they're good or evil.
|
|
If you do not or cannot understand the difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct (in a moral sense, not just legal) in the context of military operations in armed conflicts, perhaps you should lay off any mention of military/war-related examples. If you can understand these principles-- try to be more careful about paying attention to them. Otherwise, by calling everything entirely "relative", and stating that the only difference between a 'murderer' and a justified killer depends on whose side you are on, you are by extension implying that every combat veteran out there who's ever had to pull the trigger on an enemy can be properly regarded as a murderer-- which is a damned offensive thing to imply.And a less volatile response may be that you're not playing the game you want to play. You might want to be playing GURPS, Storyteller, or something more modern where Alignment isn't something that's on the table as a game element. D&D and it's cousin games aren't really the venue for modern morality plays and ethical discussion.
That's much more the province of Storyteller, in particular Vampire where alignment is replaced by the far more interesting mechanic of the Humanity score.
A couple bad rolls and your humanity can go tumbling down the drain then you gain a derangement and the next thing you know your vampire won't go outside because the Tremere are gonna get him.
|
|
While that's possible, Vampires who go down to low Humanity usually do so by choice. But yes it's definitely possible. That's why it's a Horror game.
A couple bad rolls and your humanity can go tumbling down the drain then you gain a derangement and the next thing you know your vampire won't go outside because the Tremere are gonna get him.
I wasn't criticizing. The problem in the games I played is that the storyteller made us roll every time we hunted and the way he had us roll made a problem more likely. It kinda sucked to have your humanity disappear to random chance rather than role playing. Still, fun game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't criticizing. The problem in the games I played is that the storyteller made us roll every time we hunted and the way he had us roll made a problem more likely. It kinda sucked to have your humanity disappear to random chance rather than role playing. Still, fun game.While that's possible, Vampires who go down to low Humanity usually do so by choice. But yes it's definitely possible. That's why it's a Horror game.
A couple bad rolls and your humanity can go tumbling down the drain then you gain a derangement and the next thing you know your vampire won't go outside because the Tremere are gonna get him.
Having used the Alignment rules since I began playing, and recently abolishing most of the the alignment stuff beyond mechanical effects based on subtypes and spells, I have to say Alignment exists to hinder roleplaying. No good comes of it that could not be done better without it. It is a source that was meant as a roleplaying aid, but flies in the face of roleplaying and starts more arguments than almost any other thing, and has does so nearly since its conception.
This is old but accurate. Even up above, James Sutter noted that alignment contentions exist even between the staff members at Paizo.
The majority of Paladin arguments are derived from alignment issues, but would be ended if alignment was more or less removed, and a more detailed explanation of what is expected of them, what isn't, and what their code actually entails.
This is the conclusion that I have come to, after these years of gaming, and frequenting the Paizo boards and others. No good comes from it. Any good that is attributed to it is false, because other games have this good without it. There is nothing stopping you from having a character who acts in every way "lawful good" in a game like Deadlands, which has no morality system at all. Meanwhile, alignment in D&D is supposed to be reactive, changing with your character, so it's not a script or cue to try and act a certain way; so again, there is no benefit.
Im saying this is a rule 0b moment where it just depends on the circumstances and the world.
Like in the world I just finished designing the main "Good Guys" have a group of assassins in a similar state as Assassin's Creed does.
What I say is:
-Paladins: Any Good
-Anti-Paladins: any Evil
-Assassins: Any
-Et Cetera
and make it to where either you or them make a code that their character follows.
Here's a question for you all to ponder:
The Joker has killed thousands of poeple. It's become rather evident that there's absolutely no chance that he will ever be "cured". And to him, the security at Arkham Asylum might as well consist of wet tissue paper. Given that Gotham City is evidently in a state that does not allow the death penalty, would it be evil of Batman to kill the Joker, thus preventing, with near certainty, thousands of additonal deaths? Is it evil and selfish of Batman to NOT kill the Joker?
No, it isn't evil, but it is damned irresponsible, and a bit selfish. Joker is a proven threat to innocent who cannot be stopped by a prison cell, and therefore must die to preserve public safety.
where did the batman discussion come in?
And here's an idea just use the Alignments as Guidelines like they were meant to be!
I
What I say is:
-Paladins: Any Good
-Anti-Paladins: any Evil
-Assassins: AnyWhat I might try on my next campaign, to paraphrase Prime Minister Harold Saxxon. " *shakes head furiously* Deleted! *evil laugh*"
I would go with subbing in the Champion from Arcana Evolved class to replace all three of the above and more. I would also use it's guidelines for removing alignment as a game mechanic.
Not sure what you are talking about there...
Edit: btw nice Docter Who quote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it isn't evil, but it is damned irresponsible, and a bit selfish. Joker is a proven threat to innocent who cannot be stopped by a prison cell, and therefore must die to preserve public safety.
That's turned into a battle of will and stubbornness between the two of them. They're both fully aware that it's insane for Batman to keep hauling the Joker back to the same old institution, and Joker makes a game out of doing the most atrocious things he can think of to try and make Batman crack. Batman personifies order, discipline and adherence to an idealistic code, and it puts him in the position of a cornered politician who's stuck adhering to a principle even when it takes him to outrageous places.
"Would you raise taxes?""No. Never."
"Would you raise taxes if you thought it would eliminate the deficit in two years?"
"No. Besides, I'm sure it wouldn't."
"Would you raise taxes for a week in return for a cure for cancer?"
"I said never, I'm a man of my word. And our hospitals are getting better all the time..."
It's a doubling-down phenomenon, and Joker loves to rub his nose in the absurdity of it. "Will you kill me if I kill hundreds of people and promise to kill more? No? How about if I paralyze Batgirl? NO!?"
Extreme cases like those two are a kind of thought experiment that we can use to test ideas, and they keep us away from Godwin's Law territory. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it isn't evil, but it is damned irresponsible, and a bit selfish. Joker is a proven threat to innocent who cannot be stopped by a prison cell, and therefore must die to preserve public safety.That's turned into a battle of will and stubbornness between the two of them. They're both fully aware that it's insane for Batman to keep hauling the Joker back to the same old institution, and Joker makes a game out of doing the most atrocious things he can think of to try and make Batman crack. Batman personifies order, discipline and adherence to an idealistic code, and it puts him in the position of a cornered politician who's stuck adhering to a principle even when it takes him to outrageous places.
"Would you raise taxes?"
"No. Never."
"Would you raise taxes if you thought it would eliminate the deficit in two years?"
"No. Besides, I'm sure it wouldn't."
"Would you raise taxes for a week in return for a cure for cancer?"
"I said never, I'm a man of my word. And our hospitals are getting better all the time..."It's a doubling-down phenomenon, and Joker loves to rub his nose in the absurdity of it. "Will you kill me if I kill hundreds of people and promise to kill more? No? How about if I paralyze Batgirl? NO!?"
Extreme cases like those two are a kind of thought experiment that we can use to test ideas, and they keep us away from Godwin's Law territory. :)
This is actually why I so dislike the Paladin's strict code of conduct. It pretty much turns into this same thing. That's why mechanics should never, EVER be balanced with fluff. It leaves GMs with the impression that they NEED to do this crap to keep the class balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sad but true. I definitely get the sense that DMs see this as part of their duty. "Making a paladin, eh? Better read up on Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and come up with some moral dilemmas that have troubled theologians for centuries."
I've also pretty much stopped caring about alignment as a DM. I pay attention to behavior, as do my NPCs, I give RP awards - especially when a character does something suboptimal or even self-injurious because it's consistent with his personality - but I really see little or no benefit to using the alignment constructs.
If they have a benefit at all, it's for inexperienced players - encouraging them to think about what kind of person their character is.
The conclusion you reach is YOUR conclusion, your summation of YOUR experience.
This is the conclusion that I have come to, after these years of gaming, and frequenting the Paizo boards and others. No good comes from it. Any good that is attributed to it is false, because other games have this good without it. There is nothing stopping you from having a character who acts in every way "lawful good" in a game like Deadlands, which has no morality system at all.
...
This is the conclusion that I have come to, after these years of gaming, and frequenting the Paizo boards and others.
Well duh. :\
If you disagree or have another conclusion, feel free to explain why the alignment system works, makes for better roleplaying, and allows you to have characters you couldn't have in any other roleplaying game or form of media. That's your prerogative.
Like I said, after removing the majority of alignment from the game, it still felt like the same game. Nothing felt like it was lost. Nothing suddenly fell apart. If anything, characters became more rich, and people started thinking more in terms of "what would my character do?" instead of "what is the lawful neutral thing to do?".
Lost nothing, gained so much more. That is my conclusion. I was sharing my conclusion with others. Chill out.
Sad but true. I definitely get the sense that DMs see this as part of their duty. "Making a paladin, eh? Better read up on Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and come up with some moral dilemmas that have troubled theologians for centuries."
I've also pretty much stopped caring about alignment as a DM. I pay attention to behavior, as do my NPCs, I give RP awards - especially when a character does something suboptimal or even self-injurious because it's consistent with his personality - but I really see little or no benefit to using the alignment constructs.
If they have a benefit at all, it's for inexperienced players - encouraging them to think about what kind of person their character is.
I don't use alignment at all in my games.
How do you handle alignment-sensitive magic?
Detect Evil/Good, Protection from Evil/Good, Holy/Unholy Word (or whatever those have been reskinned to), Know Alignment, Helm of Alignment Change, Holy Avenger, Robe of the Archmagi, stuff like that.
Did you just chuck them all, or improvise whenever they come up, or...?
How do you handle alignment-sensitive magic?
Detect Evil/Good, Protection from Evil/Good, Holy/Unholy Word (or whatever those have been reskinned to), Know Alignment, Helm of Alignment Change, Holy Avenger, Robe of the Archmagi, stuff like that.
Did you just chuck them all, or improvise whenever they come up, or...?
Nifty, thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Alignment System isn't Good vs Evil. We all understand to one degree or another of Morality. Good is Moral. Evil is Immoral. Neutrality can be Amoral or Good people willing to do Evil things to defend a group of good people, etc.
The problem is Law vs Chaos. Here we find nothing like Morality at all - no evolutionary adaptation (objectively speaking, i.e. sans religious or philosophical definitions). Originally, D&D had 3 alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, which represented Good to Evil. It was AD&D that added the 90 degree L-N-C shift. What they did to define Law vs Chaos was to string a bunch of personality traits (etc) together and defined them as Lawful or Chaotic. The problem is that this makes no practical sense whatsoever. Chaotic = undisciplined? What? So there's no such thing as a highly disciplined individual who rigidly believes in absolute human liberty as the ultimate governmental code? What? Dwarves always behave rigidly, while elves behave randomly? Really?
In conclusion, Morality exists in the real world and everyone has a practical understanding of it. L-N-C does not. L-N-C is D-U-M-B. A better paradigm might be Liberal-Moderate-Conservative, which means their far less important than actually being Good or Evil.
The problem with the Alignment System isn't Good vs Evil. We all understand to one degree or another of Morality. Good is Moral. Evil is Immoral. Neutrality can be Amoral or Good people willing to do Evil things to defend a group of good people, etc.
The problem is Law vs Chaos. Here we find nothing like Morality at all - no evolutionary adaptation (objectively speaking, i.e. sans religious or philosophical definitions). Originally, D&D had 3 alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, which represented Good to Evil. It was AD&D that added the 90 degree L-N-C shift. What they did to define Law vs Chaos was to string a bunch of personality traits (etc) together and defined them as Lawful or Chaotic. The problem is that this makes no practical sense whatsoever. Chaotic = undisciplined? What? So there's no such thing as a highly disciplined individual who rigidly believes in absolute human liberty as the ultimate governmental code? What? Dwarves always behave rigidly, while elves behave randomly? Really?
In conclusion, Morality exists in the real world and everyone has a practical understanding of it. L-N-C does not. L-N-C is D-U-M-B. A better paradigm might be Liberal-Moderate-Conservative, which means their far less important than actually being Good or Evil.
I agree. It's usually Law/Chaos that causes trouble, not Good/Evil.
Nifty, thanks!
Welcome. It's very useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said this earlier....The Assassin PrC is not the king's elite assassin who kills only bad people.
It is not the vilgante who hunts down evil people etc.
It is meant to reflect the mob hitman...or the even in a way the King's Assassin who never questions his orders. So yes he may one week be killing terroists....next week he is killing a peasent leading a revolt against a unjust king.
It is a PrC meant to reflect somebody who does not care rather his target is evil or good....but will kill them all the same because they just don't care or because they just follow orders without question.
Think the Agent from the movie Serenity.
The Assassin PrC is not meant to be generic as people seem to think. If you want to play a Assassin without the fluff it is called a Rogue(or any class really can do it to a certain degree).
Personaly one of the things I agreed with in 2nd ed was the removal of the class as any class can make a effective and deadly assassin.
Why is everyone treating alignment like a straight jacket? It is as important as race, gender, ability scores, class, level, skills, or past experiences when you make decisions.
I agree with you 100%. It even says under alignments (since I believe 1st ed...but defintly in 3.5/PF) they are suppose to be loose guidelines to help players define their characters.