| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a theme in heroic fantasy where using poor/no tactics = heroic (because you don't need them; your pure heart gives you the strength of ten) and fighting as effectively as you can = morally suspect. It doesn't work great IRL, but it's a fundamental idea in fiction and especially in swords+sorcery.
I don't see this and I read a TON of heroic fantasy. A TON.
Give me some examples of heroic fantasy heroes who use no or poor tactics and rely on their pure heart to win the day.
Beowulf? Nope. Trained soldier. Leader of men in combat.
Lancelot? Nope. Best knight in Arthur's army. Best by SKILL AT ARMS. He says his skill comes from his purity of heart. But he uses those skills to win, not his purity of heart.
Gandalf? Hah. Gandalf is the very archetype of brilliant tactics and strategy defeating an opponent. That was his entire TASK in middle earth.
Aragorn? Again trained soldier. Skilled combatant. Brilliant tactical mind.
Even a tactical idiot like Harry Potter doesn't win due to his purity of heart, he wins because the author suddenly reveals some previously unknown or hidden plot device or power which suddenly manifests at exactly the right time. Not purity of heart, deux ex machina.
Anyway... give me your examples of brainless tactical incompetents in heroic fantasy who win the day strictly through purity of heart. I'd love to see the list.
Assassins, by definition, take money to kill people. That's pretty evil by most reasonable definitions. If you want to play a killer for hire who has scruples, play a rogue or a monk. Assassins don't have scruples. That's what "assassin" means.By the game mechanics Assassin means the wealthy villain's pet cleric can't raise him.
In the English language Assassin means the target is political. The morality depends on the target. John Wilkes Booth was a villain. Johann Georg Elser was a hero.
In the English language "hero" =/= "good" and "villain" =/= evil. There is frequently a relationship, but there is no equivalence. For example: George Patton: Hero or villain? I can guarantee you that there are many who would say "hero" but would then say "evil" if asked "good or evil."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me some examples of heroic fantasy heroes who use no or poor tactics and rely on their pure heart to win the day.Beowulf? Nope. Trained soldier. Leader of men in combat.
LOLwhat?
You mean the Beowulf who swam for a week in the ocean in a competition against his friend?
You mean the Beowulf who ripped off the arm of Grendel (a giant) with his bare hands?
You mean the Beowulf who swam underneath a dark marsh alone and weilded a giant sword to kill Grendel's grieving mother?
You mean Beowulf who took on a Dragon with only the help of his cousin because everyone else ran off scared?
I just find it ironic that the first of your examples is probably the poorest and actually antithetical to your statement.
Maybe not pure heart, but definitely headstrong and one of the shining examples of what people use to define epic heroism.
Give me some examples of heroic fantasy heroes who use no or poor tactics and rely on their pure heart to win the day.Beowulf? Nope. Trained soldier. Leader of men in combat.
LOLwhat?
You mean the Beowulf who swam for a week in the ocean in a competition against his friend?
You mean the Beowulf who ripped off the arm of Grendel (a giant) with his bare hands?
You mean the Beowulf who swam underneath a dark marsh alone and weilded a giant sword to kill Grendel's grieving mother?
You mean Beowulf who took on a Dragon with only the help of his cousin because everyone else ran off scared?I just find it ironic that the first of your examples is probably the poorest and actually antithetical to your statement.
Maybe not pure heart, but definitely headstrong and one of the shining examples of what people use to define epic heroism.
Yes, I mean that Beowulf.
I fail to see how swimming in a competition is even relevant to a discussion of combat tactics.
Ripping off Grendel's arm was a necessary maneuver, as I recall once he had done so, he beat the Grendel to death with the arm. How was that demonstrating his "purity of heart" again?
In the Beowulf story the only monster more powerful and feared than the Grendel was Grendel's mother. Killing her was a tactical necessity since it was clear that as soon as her grieving was over, she would wreak terrible vengeance for the death of her son.
As far as the dragon, Beowulf did what he had to do. And paid the price. Even so, he didn't walk up to the dragon and appeal to its better nature. He used every tactical skill he had at his disposal.
I think Beowulf is an excellent example of a "heroic fantasy" hero who does what he has to do, uses whatever force necessary and doesn't give a crap about "purity of heart." So yes, I stick with Beowulf.
If anything your "rebuttal" here simply makes my points even more obvious than if you hadn't responded at all.
So your saying every "good" adventurer takes the time to determine every goblin they kill for the 100 go bounty per ear was deserving of death?
Heh. I love how people "debate" on the internet.
"The sky is very blue today."
"So you're saying that blue is the only color that ever appears in the sky and anyone who sees any color other than blue is insane and should be executed?"
Uh.. yeah, sure. Totally dude. :-p
I'm saying that if an adventurer starts whacking innocent goblins just for the sake of harvesting their ears and gaining a bounty, they aren't "good" by my definition.
If they are forced to fight goblins to protect a village and cut off the ears after the battle, then that's fine.
Let's see how I do here, memory only.
Arthur - walks up to a giant, challenges it to make sure he has its attention before cutting it down.
Cuchulain - goes into his final battle even though a geas has sucked the strength out of his arm and leg - because his vows of loyalty demand it.
Mandorallen - disarms himself before confronting a lion, because the lion has no weapons. (And he hands his sword to the lady nearby, so she can defend herself in case he fails - rendered comical by the fact that she can't even lift the thing, it's so huge.)
Coll son of Collfrewr - makes a final stand against the Cauldron-Born, undead who literally, absolutely cannot be killed.
Skurge - holds the bridge of Gjallerbru against (pretty literally) all the hosts of Hel so that his comrades can escape.
Sanguinius - attacks the chaos-empowered warmaster Horus aboard his battle barge, with minimal chance of winning. (He gets his ass kicked, so you might argue this shouldn't count.)
Brave Leonidas and the three hundred - you might not like this one either, because they used a shield wall and set up in a choke point - but they also refuse to displace even when it's becoming obvious they're about to be annihilated, reposing their faith in valor and manly virtue. But I'll put it out there.
The Charge of the Light Brigade. (Not fantasy, but a celebration of the idea of doing something tactically daft because duty and honor demand it.)
The charge at the end of The Man in the Iron Mask. Suicidal rush by three musketeers (No Porthos - IIRC in the book he's died before this happens) into a block of guns. The shooters are so stunned by the musketeers' awesomeness that they either don't fire, or all fire wide.
Theoden's charge out of Helm's Deep. "If we are to die, let us make such an ending as will be worth a song." Only works because of Just-In-Time Gandalf. (You might not like this one because it appeared they were screwed either way.)
Roland refuses to sound his horn and call the reinforcements that might have saved him, preferring to face an overwhelming force unaided.
I know ridiculously little about japanese folklore, but I'm pretty confident they'd have a story about samurai doing suicidal stuff because duty demands it. (Maybe even two or three!)
Will Thatcher from A Knight's Tale. ("Your men love you. If I knew nothing else about you that would be enough. But you also tilt when you should withdraw...and that is knightly.")
Look, if you prefer your games to resemble certain books, that's fine. I prefer my games to resemble different, less realistic (more fantastic?) books.
While there is no doubt that people on this board quibble over the most ridiculous things, I doubt you would find a single ethicist or moralist or even philosopher who would argue that a person's morality was driven by ANYTHING but their intentions.
Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.
You don't know many philosophers, do you? ;)
You don't know many philosophers, do you? ;)While there is no doubt that people on this board quibble over the most ridiculous things, I doubt you would find a single ethicist or moralist or even philosopher who would argue that a person's morality was driven by ANYTHING but their intentions.
Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.
Just extending this - the other school of thought is consequentialist. A consequentialist says that it's only the outcomes of your actions that really matter, so if you try to do something good, screw up and end up hurting someone, that was an evil action.
The big argument for it is that it's more practical, because I can
measure the consequences of your actions but I can't measure your
intentions. Even you might not always be clear about your intentions.
Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.
While there is no doubt that people on this board quibble over the most ridiculous things, I doubt you would find a single ethicist or moralist or even philosopher who would argue that a person's morality was driven by ANYTHING but their intentions.
You don't know many philosophers, do you? ;)
Just extending this - the other school of thought is consequentialist. A consequentialist says that it's only the outcomes of your actions that really matter, so if you try to do something good, screw up and end up hurting someone, that was an evil action.
The big argument for it is that it's more practical, because I can
measure the consequences of your actions but I can't measure your
intentions. Even you might not always be clear about your intentions.
One reason a lot of people (including myself) judge actions rather than intentions or outcome is human nature. Or PC nature anyway. The little weasles try to justify every action by their "intentions". The intentions argument is basically that the ends justify the means. If your intentions are "good" and your actions are, then there's no arguing it. If your intentions are good and you do horrible things to get there... not so easy to judge. Any number of terrorists have "good" intentions. They are usually judged by the means they use. And in the end, the means taint the ends. The use of consequence to judge things is problematical because of the accidental, unforseen or literally unforseable outcomes. Depending on how far off those consequences are it can lead to delayed judgement on the morality of any act. And you can argue "intentions" and "consequences" until you're blue in the face. Actions are more concrete and easier to lay out in the "good vs. evil" (or law vs. chaos) axis.
Is this "realistic"? Certainly not completely. Intent and consequence are important in real life. In a game that has absolutes of alignment actions are easier tools to measure alignment than the "fuzzier" metrics of intention or consequence. If the game didn't involve absolutes of alignment I'd be more likely to weigh intentions / consequences more heavily in "alignment" (or whatever you might call it, say "character"). I find it appropriate to use more concrete tools in this type of game.
Does that mean that every individual action should be alignment changing? No, of course not. I would argue that even in a Paladin's case minor actions shouldn't have as profound a consequence as a fall from grace. A serious, intentional action? Maybe. More likely a string of them. But Paladin's have the strictest alignment requirements of any class. Other classes can waffle back and forth. An evil Assassin could have scruples about killing children and even save one without "endangering" his evil alignment :) As long as his other actions outweigh these odd kindnesses. If they don't, if he keeps doing the good thing then eventually his alignment will slide from evil to neutral and then, in the long run, good.
It's an old fashioned view of alignment. I track it over time. It suits me, and my players, but it's not for everyone. With alignment I think it's pretty much every DM for himself :)
My 2 cp.
*edit* Btw, I don't use the "evil" only view of Assassins. I require a non-good alignment. It has to do with the nature of the Assassin's Guilds in my game. I also have a non-chaotic rule. I'm sure that will annoy someone :) And I use my own Assassin base class. designed to bring the old 0E / 1E AD&D Assassin into 3.x. In any event, alignments shift as actual gameplay commences. People change. Alignments change. Unless your an outsider :)
Why not? If a Rogue can be an assassin, a detective, a charlatan, Robin Hood, a swashbuckler, or an actor, why can the Assassin not include Altair and Ezio, the Punisher, military snipers, and Thane under its banner along with the utter psychopaths?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.
Because Assassin is not a base class. It is a PrC. It is by defination more tightly focused.
Now if they came out with a Assassin base class...sure it should not have alignment restriction as it is meant to be more open. Actualy a pretty good one can be find in the Swashbuckler D20 system...though I don't know how well it qould translate to PF.
Also the Assassin PrC would be my last choice( and that would mostly be for laughs) to use to represent The Punisher, miltary snipers, and most assassins I can think of.
You don't know many philosophers, do you? ;)While there is no doubt that people on this board quibble over the most ridiculous things, I doubt you would find a single ethicist or moralist or even philosopher who would argue that a person's morality was driven by ANYTHING but their intentions.
Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.
LOL, OK, you can find a single philosophy that argues outcome is more important than intent. I'm comfortable that they are a tiny fraction of the philosophers who have written on morality.
All soldiers (and anyone else who kills) ARE murderers and sinners. When God decreed that "thou shalt not kill" he didn't add the addendum "unless you're a soldier or other 'lawful authority'."
Also, he didn't specify what we could and could not kill, so we should all be vegetarians too.
:P
Well, firstly, all undead are evil.Untrue. Also, my ghost paladin would like to have a word with you.
To be fair it was written "thou shall not murder" and not "thou shall not kill." The latter is a misinterpretation from the numerous translations from hebrew to greek to latin to english that was made popular via the Catholic Church. The easiest way to remember this is due to the fact God follows his own commandments (his words, not mine). God kills when he has reason to and therefore killing is not a sin; though most definitely murder is.
Philosophy aside, I can see *some* assassins being lawful good (and most killing in the service of a good-aligned deity). I have always understood the alignments to be a base translation that can be modified by most GM's as needed. (For example, paladins of evil alignment gods are lawful evil.)
No, you SAY it shouldn't be generic. I say the opposite.
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).
Actualy I am not say it at all...that is how it is written. If it was generic it would not have alignment restriction.
Personaly I would not waste my time with the Assassin PrC as it is boring and very much not needed.
Now if you want a Assassin that can cover all the different archetypes out in literature, movies, etc. The Assassin PrC fail miserably(ignoring the alignment restriction and fluff) just based on the mechanic of the class. What you people realy should want...or need is a Assassin base class.
|
The only value of any psychological evaluation involving Batman would be to evaluate his writers. Because Batman doesn't have a psyche.
AD--
Arguable point, but IMO wrong.
Psych Evaluations of Batman (and other fictional characters) are a useful and interesting hypothetical exercise for psych students and people studying particular theories, philosophies, and/or applications of psychology. These psych studies also (allegedly) provide interesting insights into aspects of pop-culture, and insights into various works of fiction.
So, not entirely useless-- though the last part, about insights into various works of fiction, do sort of reflect back on the writers as much as on the story and character.
|
|
If you kill someone for no other purpose than to benefit yourself, then you are evil.(stuff cut for space)
This is pretty basic morality stuff. And it's pretty clearly evil.
No, and Yes.
If you kill someone for no other purpose than to benefit yourself, then it's an evil act. Are you "evil" because you did this once, or should we evaluate the rest of your life-conduct before we make that judgement?
|
|
It's kind of the same thing we're talking about in the other alignment thread. There's a theme in heroic fantasy where using poor/no tactics = heroic (because you don't need them; your pure heart gives you the strength of ten) and fighting as effectively as you can = morally suspect. It doesn't work great IRL, but it's a fundamental idea in fiction and especially in swords+sorcery.
Not in most of the Fantasy works that I read and enjoy-- but I've certainly seen that in quite a bit of mythology and some fantasy works, classic hollywood movies, and such.
Excessive concerns with "fighting fair"? Not in the Army, pretty much any Army, that wants to win... "Shock and Awe" really isn't a new concept-- it's just a new tagline for an idea that's as old as the hills in military circles...
@AD: glad to hear i'm not the only one who thinks that Harry Potter has the tactical skills of a stunned doormouse. in a bag. while sleeping.
the biggest irony of that entire series is that the wizards refused to look into 'muggle' solutions to their problems even when... [/threadjack]
back to the original thread: the alignment requirements fit to some extent for many of the classes that have them, but not all. as alignment is very much a matter of perspective (see above... all five pages) it's one of those things that i don't feel should be part of class restrictions with the possible exceptions of Paladin/antipaladin, and even then it should be re-evaluated. as to creatures like liches... it's infered that becoming a lich requires an evil act, but i don't think that it's actually RAW. make of that what you will.
and again: WHY do you have to kill someone just to become an assassin to become an assassin? it's one of the wierder prestige class requirements, as the vast majority of such requirements are purely mechanical. fluff wise i can understand but unlike horrizon walker or pathfinder chronicaler you're not joining a club or unofficial organisation (Granted there are assassins guilds ect but you don't HAVE to join one.)
No, you SAY it shouldn't be generic. I say the opposite.
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).
Actualy I am not say it at all...that is how it is written. If it was generic it would not have alignment restriction.
Personaly I would not waste my time with the Assassin PrC as it is boring and very much not needed.
Now if you want a Assassin that can cover all the different archetypes out in literature, movies, etc. The Assassin PrC fail miserably(ignoring the alignment restriction and fluff) just based on the mechanic of the class. What you people realy should want...or need is a Assassin base class.
Assassins can prevent resurrection. I can think of lots of reasons for a good person to want this. Therefore, it should not have had the alignment restriction.
The problem with the Assassin with an Evil alignment restriction is that there just isn't enough background or mechanics to justify it.
Paladin, virtue of order and goodness who channels positive energy to heal teammates and smites evil - Good.
Lich infused with negative energy, most likely ruined many souls, gave up on humanity - Most likely Evil.
Assassin... Kills people (just like all adventurers)... for money (So mercenaries are evil?) ... Well Assassins are sadistic (Uh, if you play it that way, but why must you play a sadist, why make a class just for sadists?)... Well they have death attacks (Why is that evil? Is it really an action with an evil descriptor? It's not even Necromancy)...
Any justification for why the assassin must be evil is either making stuff up or insulting everyone else or both. If you're going to go through the trouble of houseruling or interjecting your own fluff why go through all the trouble to restrict a set of class abilities which are pretty alignment neutral to certain alignment?
I disagree with your relativism regarding the Assassin in particular. I would contend that 'good-aligned' adventurers generally shouldn't be killing sentients (except in the defense of others). The evil necromancer in the tower causing problems kidnapping/raping/murdering - sure, go kill him, even make a profit off of it especially if you're NG/CG, but don't lose much sleep over it.
And yes, a mercenary troupe which murders mostly-innocent individuals to circumvent common-law justice for money would probably be considered evil IMO. This is counter to: a mercenary group that just 'attaches' to an army for a common defense. In general - the 'soldiers for hire' type mercs are probably neither good or evil intrinsically. IMO war/soldiers aren't evil generally because of the 'honor' part - they're defending their land or fighting for a righteous ideal (even sometimes over two psudo-opposed righteous ideals). There may be some that are blood thirsty, even in a righteous army - but in general I see protagonist soldiers as being LN. There is also a concept of honorable combat to most 'good' folks - dueling and a field of battle, even to the death, aren't evil and can have ultimately good outcomes (by a swift resolution of a disagreement). Killing someone in itself is not evil, but killing someone when a reasonable alternative still exists is. I think that many people don't look for enough alternatives...
Also, back to assassins in particular, much of the 'common fluff' in D&D and Pathfinder has using poisons as pretty Evil. Death attack preventing a 'good god's intervention' of ressurection also seems pretty not-good as well.
I think in general my disagreement with most is how 'low' many people set the bar for good-aligned characters. One of the few times I've vocally disagreed with one of my co-players is when a chaos-cult member tried to surrender to the (mostly good) party and they just killed him anyhow. The NPC was perfectly prepared to surrender and give the party information after a little bit of chiding, but instead they murdered him while he was on his knees, cowering with his hands above his head (he was never agressive to them).
LOL, OK, you can find a single philosophy that argues outcome is more important than intent. I'm comfortable that they are a tiny fraction of the philosophers who have written on morality.You don't know many philosophers, do you? ;)While there is no doubt that people on this board quibble over the most ridiculous things, I doubt you would find a single ethicist or moralist or even philosopher who would argue that a person's morality was driven by ANYTHING but their intentions.
Definitely non-good. Though if it was someone who had it coming you might be able argue neutral.
It's more prevalent and mainstream that you might think, I suspect. Kantian ethics would fit within this, in my view, but moral absolutists, in general are not that marginal. (plenty of philosophers would defend the view that torture is always wrong, for example - irrespective of motivation or intent).
Of course, I don't think real world morality has anything to do with alignment in the game - in D&D good/evil/law/chaos are indisputable real, absolutes. I don't personally think they are good representations of the real-world concepts good/evil/law/chaos and (once again, in my view) this is the main reason alignment debates go nowhere. People in general argue at cross purposes - shifting from game mechanics and/or flavor material and back to ethical/moral principles and thought experiments.
The abridged version being that, IMO, you can't determine whether something is "good" in-game by considering what "good" means in real life. We're using the same word for two different concepts.
The problem with the Assassin with an Evil alignment restriction is that there just isn't enough background or mechanics to justify it.
Paladin, virtue of order and goodness who channels positive energy to heal teammates and smites evil - Good.
Lich infused with negative energy, most likely ruined many souls, gave up on humanity - Most likely Evil.
Assassin... Kills people (just like all adventurers)... for money (So mercenaries are evil?) ... Well Assassins are sadistic (Uh, if you play it that way, but why must you play a sadist, why make a class just for sadists?)... Well they have death attacks (Why is that evil? Is it really an action with an evil descriptor? It's not even Necromancy)...
Any justification for why the assassin must be evil is either making stuff up or insulting everyone else or both. If you're going to go through the trouble of houseruling or interjecting your own fluff why go through all the trouble to restrict a set of class abilities which are pretty alignment neutral to certain alignment?
I disagree with your relativism regarding the Assassin in particular. I would contend that 'good-aligned' adventurers generally shouldn't be killing sentients (except in the defense of others). The evil necromancer in the tower causing problems kidnapping/raping/murdering - sure, go kill him, even make a profit off of it especially if you're NG/CG, but don't lose much sleep over it.
And yes, a mercenary troupe which murders mostly-innocent individuals to circumvent common-law justice for money would probably be considered evil IMO. This is counter to: a mercenary group that just 'attaches' to an army for a common defense. In general - the 'soldiers for hire' type mercs are probably neither good or evil intrinsically. IMO war/soldiers aren't evil generally because of the 'honor' part - they're defending their land or fighting for a righteous ideal (even sometimes over two psudo-opposed righteous ideals). There may be some that are blood thirsty, even in a righteous army - but in general I see protagonist soldiers as being LN. There is also a concept of honorable combat to most 'good' folks - dueling and a field of battle, even to the death, aren't evil and can have ultimately good outcomes (by a swift resolution of a disagreement). Killing someone in itself is not evil, but killing someone when a reasonable alternative still exists is. I think that many people don't look for enough alternatives...
Also, back to assassins in particular, much of the 'common fluff' in D&D and Pathfinder has using poisons as pretty Evil. Death attack preventing a 'good god's intervention' of ressurection also seems pretty not-good as well.
I think in general my disagreement with most is how 'low' many people set the bar for good-aligned characters. One of the few times I've vocally disagreed with one of my co-players is when a chaos-cult member tried to surrender to the (mostly good) party and they just killed him anyhow. The NPC was perfectly prepared to surrender and give the party information after a little bit of chiding, but instead they murdered him while he was on his knees, cowering with his hands above his head (he was never agressive to them).
Therefore making my point. You're placing addendums to what it means to be evil to include poisons or stopping resurrection. You're adding fluff to say that it's part of some group that was never stated in the book.
It's kind of the same thing we're talking about in the other alignment thread. There's a theme in heroic fantasy where using poor/no tactics = heroic (because you don't need them; your pure heart gives you the strength of ten) and fighting as effectively as you can = morally suspect. It doesn't work great IRL, but it's a fundamental idea in fiction and especially in swords+sorcery.Not in most of the Fantasy works that I read and enjoy-- but I've certainly seen that in quite a bit of mythology and some fantasy works, classic hollywood movies, and such.
Excessive concerns with "fighting fair"? Not in the Army, pretty much any Army, that wants to win... "Shock and Awe" really isn't a new concept-- it's just a new tagline for an idea that's as old as the hills in military circles...
I think that it's important to note the difference between 'fighting fair' versus fighting honorably. I don't think either is intrinsically good or evil - but in the local cultural context one or both may be a requisite to be considered 'good'. (this is something that is totally setting/time dependent IMO)
Also, back to assassins in particular, much of the 'common fluff' in D&D and Pathfinder has using poisons as pretty Evil. Death attack preventing a 'good god's intervention' of ressurection also seems pretty not-good as well.
The Poisoner Rogue path in the APG doesn't tag that Rogue as evil.
As to your other point, well, the reason Necromancy is considered evil (or at the very least, frowned upon) is because it's considered unnatural. It gives the caster "power over life and death that a mortal should not have, etc etc etc..."So, a good spin would be that the Assassin's Death Attack/True Death are tools for good, because they prevent unnatural magics from being used to bring someone back from the dead. (How Raise Dead/Ressurection/True Ressurection are considered Conjuration instead of Necromancy are way beyond me, but hey, the argument is there!)
------------------------
To touch on the "killing someone" requirement of the PrC, it never says you don't have the choice of who you kill.
Neutral character knows of a killer/rapist/whatever that lives on Blah street. His final task is killing someone to join the ranks of the Assassins. Normally, this neutral character wouldn't kill this killer/rapist/whatever, because they aren't doing anything to said Neutral character. But Neutral character needs to kill someone, and hey, the world will be better off without this other guy anyway, right? I can potentially save a future life/lives (though I'm not really concerned with that) and I still get to be in the "Cool kids assassin club."
|
Gandalf? Hah. Gandalf is the very archetype of brilliant tactics and strategy defeating an opponent. That was his entire TASK in middle earth.
I'd have to argue against this, since he apparently could have summoned some giant eagles to fly the Fellowship right above Mt Doom at any given time, so that Frodo could simply have plopped the ring into the fire without all the trouble.
Of course, it would be a far less interesting story that way. At any rate, Gandalf = tactical moron.
I'd have to argue against this, since he apparently could have summoned some giant eagles to fly the Fellowship right above Mt Doom...
...to get attacked and killed by the fell beasts and their ringwraith riders?
|
|
And yes, a mercenary troupe which murders mostly-innocent individuals to circumvent common-law justice for money would probably be considered evil IMO. This is counter to: a mercenary group that just 'attaches' to an army for a common defense. In general - the 'soldiers for hire' type mercs are probably neither good or evil intrinsically. IMO war/soldiers aren't evil generally because of the 'honor' part - they're defending their land or fighting for a righteous ideal (even sometimes over two psudo-opposed righteous ideals). There may be some that are blood thirsty, even in a righteous army - but in general I see protagonist soldiers as being LN. There is also a concept of honorable combat to most 'good' folks - dueling and a field of battle, even to the death, aren't evil and can have ultimately good outcomes (by a swift resolution of a disagreement). Killing someone in itself is not evil, but killing someone when a reasonable alternative still exists is. I think that many people don't look for enough alternatives...
I'd add, actually, that (especially in a troubled world), quite a few Soldiers are going to merit "Good" alignments, if they are fighting to defend their homelands and conducting themselves honorably in the fight, with care to avoid unnecessary killing and violence, because they are willing to stand up and lay their lives on the line in service to a cause, in defense of others (those for whom this is the primary motivation, anyway, rather than being primarily after the money).
I think in general my disagreement with most is how 'low' many people set the bar for good-aligned characters. One of the few times I've vocally disagreed with one of my co-players is when a chaos-cult member tried to surrender to the (mostly good) party and they just killed him anyhow. The NPC was perfectly prepared to surrender and give the party information after a little bit of chiding, but instead they murdered him while he was on his knees, cowering with his hands above his head (he was never agressive to them).
Yep, on this I entirely agree with you. I too am surprised at how low the bar is for deciding that an action is 'good', or even 'neutral'... and how low the overall bar is set for "good" characters to maintain their alignment. I'm frequently disturbed at how violent and bloodthirsty many people's allegedly "good" characters are, too.
I think that it's important to note the difference between 'fighting fair' versus fighting honorably. I don't think either is intrinsically good or evil - but in the local cultural context one or both may be a requisite to be considered 'good'. (this is something that is totally setting/time dependent IMO)
'Fighting fair', historically, has never been a part of war, except in fiction and propaganda (though it's surprising how many people buy into that fiction and propaganda). Fighting honorably is still a part of war, to the professional Soldier-- but as you say, there are huge differences depending on time, setting, and many other factors). 'Chivalric' Honor, even as actually practiced (rather than the fiction), is, for instance, very very different from the modern Soldier's concept of "honor"-- and what is therefore expected, of honorable fighting men and women, is very different. Roman "honor" was likewise different from Medieval concepts of "honor", and both were different from Spartan concepts of "honor".
However, I don't think 'honor' directly relates to 'good' (at least not in my understanding) at all. It's possible to be extremely honorable, and nonetheless have every action you take basically be "evil", because you're still out to heartlessly kill everyone who crosses your path and eliminate all threats to your supremacy-- you just do it within the confines of a code, rather than doing literally anything and everything to get to your goals.
Although, contrariwise-- if you're good, no matter how much you may believe you despise the constraints of "those damn warriors and their damn honor", some things you are going to consider necessary and appropriate (accepting surrender rather than murdering helpless foes in cold blood) are probably going to be inline with some requirements of the locally-accepted definition of "honor".
|
|
I'd have to argue against this, since he apparently could have summoned some giant eagles to fly the Fellowship right above Mt Doom at any given time, so that Frodo could simply have plopped the ring into the fire without all the trouble.Of course, it would be a far less interesting story that way. At any rate, Gandalf = tactical moron.
I believe Umbral Reaver is right about the flaws in the 'Eagle' plan.
The real idiocy in Gandalf's understanding, is why did it take him so f***ing long to figure out that the nifty 'Ring of Invisibility' that Bilbo found was the One Ring? And, when he did figure it out, why did it take him so gods-damned long to do anything about it?
He knew or (to be fair) should have known as far back as Bilbo's 'Birthday Party'-- years before the "War of the Ring" really got going... all those years, when a small, elite team probably could have infiltrated Mordor and destroyed the damn thing before Sauron really got his s*** together...
Thus saving Middle Earth from a whole lot of death and trouble...
Of course, that wouldn't have been as dramatic a story.
If you kill someone for no other purpose than to benefit yourself, then you are evil.
...
This is pretty basic morality stuff. And it's pretty clearly evil.
Clarification is needed for a lot of people.
Continued existence is pretty beneficial to me. Clearly, self-defense is not useful in justifying homicide.
The continued health, well-being and existence of my children and loved ones is pretty beneficial to me. So defense of others is not useful in justifying homicide.
Obviously, this is hyperbole, but defining the boundaries at which you could have protected yourself/the innocent/John Connor without killing the aggressor would probably result in tracts longer than any nation's tax code.
"Is it all right, since I didn't realize his gun was fake? I meant well." "So did he." "He was delusional, though." "He couldn't tell that."
Then the D&D quandary: "Can my god?" "Try to cast Commune and find out." "What do you mean, 'try'?"
Gandalf? Hah. Gandalf is the very archetype of brilliant tactics and strategy defeating an opponent. That was his entire TASK in middle earth.I'd have to argue against this, since he apparently could have summoned some giant eagles to fly the Fellowship right above Mt Doom at any given time, so that Frodo could simply have plopped the ring into the fire without all the trouble.
Of course, it would be a far less interesting story that way. At any rate, Gandalf = tactical moron.
This is an old dismissive anti-LOTR trope that is falsifiable easily.
Eagles could not have flown into Mordor unseen. Sauron had ways to fight against eagles if they tried. We KNOW that the Nazgul flew on dragon-like steeds. It is presumed by Gandalf that Sauron has a breeding program for those steeds, so presumably the Nazgul are only riding the nine BEST dragon-mounts. We know that Legalos shot one down, but it appeared to be replaced quickly. So how many dragon-like beasts would have risen to fight the eagles? And what else did Sauron have that could fight eagles?
In "The Hobbit" the lord of the eagles is described as a somewhat bloodthirsty and vindictive eagle, and the race of eagles themselves were described as somewhat uncaring of the other races. Such a personality would seem to be perfect for the ring to corrupt as it corrupted Boromir.
I know it is fashionable to snark about flying eagles into Mordor, that doesn't mean it would have actually worked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I am Gorum, the CN deity of war, and I can tell you right here that I'd love to have servants in the mortal world to carry out my will. So what I need to do is find someone appropriate and give them a portion of my divine power to give them an edge so that they may serve me.
"Aha! Here's one. Now to imbue him with my might. Here we go - no, wait, stop! - I didn't want to give you that much! [Gorum makes a Cleric] Dammit! Now, I have another guy with a large portion of my power, but in order to learn all that, he'll never have the same proficiency with the more mundane methods of war that I approve of.
"What about this guy [a Fighter]? He already knows how to fight, how to fight with multiple weapons, he will have respectable accuracy. I could try imbuing him with my power, but I don't want to overdo it and rob him of the very qualities that make him attractive to me as a servant.
"[From the clouds] Say, you there! Warrior! Would you like to become one of my divine agents in the world? I can't so much as lift a finger to help you or give you aid, but if you go out and fulfill my will, I can maybe put in a good word for you after you croak. What? You're not remotely interested? [Gorum leaves, a perfectly good opportunity to acquire a servant after his own heart wasted]
"Maybe if I try that method I've seen Iomedae, Urgathoa, and Rovagug use, I can give a potential servant just enough divine power to give him an edge, but not so much that he ceases to be able to conduct war in the conventional sense like I approve of.
"[From some other clouds] Ho! I have decided to grace you with my power that you may go out and do my bidding [Gorum prepares to make a Paladin]. But be forewarned, my servant, for if you ever behave in a manner that I approve of, I'll have to take my divine power away from you. But it's no hassle; all you have to do is seek an atonement, apologize for behaving how I want you to in the first place, and promise to never do so again even though this will sadden me greatly, and I'll give you my power back. What? No, I don't think I can front you the money for the atonement. Hello? Hello? [sighs] Yet another potential instrument of my will lost to me.
"And I'm equally loathe to use the other method [making an Antipaladin]. Sure, I may be neutral, but all that that means is that while I do not seek good, I still prefer it over evil. And imbuing a servant with Antipaladin power would create a divine servant like I want, except I would probably have to pit my other servants against him for taking things too far and displeasing me. And then I'd only be able to reimbue him with my power if he promised to go out in the world and make me disappointed again."
Poor, poor Gorum. He's a God of War and he can't make a Divinely-powered Full-BAB warrior like he wants. Sure, Iomedae can do it, but she's another God of War, so it's to be expected. Rovagug can do it, but it makes sense that he would be able to, for the same reason.
But then you also have to see that Erastil and Torag can make Divinely-powered Full-BAB warriors and they have nothing to do with the domain of War. Same with Lamashtu. He's not a God of War, Gorum is. And yet, which of them makes Antipaladins and who wishes he had his own equivalent?
This may or may not have been said before (in this thread or elsewhere), but my take is this: I'm not asking for Paladins (or Antipaladins) to be multiple alignments. Rather, why did we start with those two in the first place. The Paladin should never have been a class. The Holy Warrior (or rather, the Divine Warrior) should have been the class and the Paladin could be the LG version of that. We're asking to be able to combine a semblance of Divine casting (like Rangers, but more celestial and less natural) with a Full BAB and Martial Weapons and Armor use.
And when Druids only have to refrain from using metal armor and do not have to act in respect of nature, when I can use the Cleric class to make a serviceable Artificer, all the while making the character the single most atheistic jerk who ever lived, I think I shouldn't have to gear up to fight an uphill battle on this.
Or for non-evil characters with death-dealing attacks (Monks get quivering palm and they don't have to be evil, so it makes no sense for Assassins). Or for non-lawful characters who are able to use ki and fight and defend themselves well without requiring a whole bunch of equipment. Or for lawful characters able to briefly draw in primal power to augment their combat abilities (referring to the Barb).
Alignment as a game mechanic should be simultaneously roundhouse-kicked by Chuck Norris and pitied by Mr. T (if I could think of something closer to Total Existence Failure, I would). Alignment as a character descriptive tool (like describing a character as being decisive or wishy-washy) should not have game mechanics attached to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you kill someone for no other purpose than to benefit yourself, then you are evil.
...
This is pretty basic morality stuff. And it's pretty clearly evil.
Clarification is needed for a lot of people.
Continued existence is pretty beneficial to me. Clearly, self-defense is not useful in justifying homicide.
The continued health, well-being and existence of my children and loved ones is pretty beneficial to me. So defense of others is not useful in justifying homicide.
Obviously, this is hyperbole, but defining the boundaries at which you could have protected yourself/the innocent/John Connor without killing the aggressor would probably result in tracts longer than any nation's tax code.
"Is it all right, since I didn't realize his gun was fake? I meant well." "So did he." "He was delusional, though." "He couldn't tell that."
Then the D&D quandary: "Can my god?" "Try to cast Commune and find out." "What do you mean, 'try'?"
Hmmm... this sort of overthinking and semantic wordplay is not conducive to debating in good faith. "Continued existence" is not a benefit, it is a right. Calling self-defense a form of greed is not a debate point worth engaging.
Yes there are boundaries. Taking someone's innocent life so you can join a club crosses the one between "evil" and the rest of morality. The possibility that there may be corner cases which blur the boundary doesn't change the fact that this act is clearly over the line.
Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post these threads bother to read the flavor text which comes with the objects of their gripes.
From the Core Rulebook:
Assassin: "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin."
A good bit more difficult to find, since it's in a support article from Carrion Crown 6:
Lich: Some stumble upon lichdom with hope in their hearts, looking to further an otherwise good cause by “sacrificing” themselves to this fate. In every known case, this misguided approach has twisted the person to foul outlooks, if the process of getting there didn’t already. Perhaps it is a natural result of divorcing the body from the soul, but those who pass beyond death in this manner invariably turn to evil as they gradually lose touch with the concerns and feelings of mortals.
and
Power-hungry narcissists, liches are megalomania incarnate, carrying their quest for power beyond the grave. Only the most dedicated and competent spellcasters can ever hope to attain lichdom, as the precise magic involved is unique to each individual and must be discovered through personal study, yet no sane person of a good heart can attempt to suspend her soul in this manner without losing any last spark of morality.
In D&D 3.5 the text in the Monster Manual was even more unambiguous:
The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.
You're all ignoring that the murder requirement to enter the PrC exists only to justify a terrible game design decision to restrict the alignment of the only mundane class that can try to kill important figures who can afford clerical services.
No. We are simply explaining the rules. It was clearly stated several posts ago that trying to go beyond interpreting the rules was beyond the scope or ability of this thread. Reading the developers' minds to ascertain their motivations would be part of that "beyond the scope of this thread" area.
What about a catapult?
I know it is fashionable to snark about flying eagles into Mordor, that doesn't mean it would have actually worked.
LOL, that's one heck of a powerful and accurate catapult. And if you miss? You've just put the most powerful maguffin in the history of literature in Sauron's back yard with no way to recover it before he finds it.
Why not find a friendly badger and tunnel through Mordor? Surely Radagast the brown could have arranged that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean you haven't seen this?
Heh, actually no. Pretty funny. But I still think it's retarded...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The assassin class doesn't have the flavor that the other classes have. It's just a person that kills. The whole "evil" prerequisites that are latched onto it is obviously added as an afterthought. The description mentions how being assassin will likely lead one to evil (which doesn't even make sense if they have to be evil in the first place), but it doesn't give any description or imagery of how it leads to evil. There are no examples of the evil that is the assassin. Instead of giving flavor to the class (as there are not really examples or descriptions or imagery of how this assassin is so evil and in fact talks a lot about how it's just shady) it suffocates the class from interesting concepts.
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.
Political Assassins work too. Flavor minus the evil prereqs. Mechanics make sense.
The prereqs don't even inquire whether or not there's an assassin guild, making the one wonder if the character is aware of "classes" in game, because if not, who is deciding what this target is? Is there some knowledge floating around that if you kill a person with the intent to learn to become immune to poison and obstruct resurrection, that killing a person will lead to that!?
The prereqs don't have any fluff to support it and shoot down a lot of interesting concepts.
Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.
|
|
You also need to remember that Gandalf was not the member of the White Council who was the definitive expert on Ring Lore. That was Saruman, and he had his own agenda and by the time period you're thinking of he was already sabotaging the efforts of his one time colleagues.
I still think he should have "clued in" to the fact that that was the One Ring sooner than he did-- I believe he mentions at least having suspicions many years before Frodo makes his mad-dash escape from the Shire, and the "throw the ring in the fire, look at the glowing script" occurs well before Frodo actually arranges to leave the Shire (at that point, IMO, a big mistake to have Frodo continue to wait in the Shire...)-- but probably an unfair exaggeration to call Gandalf an idiot.
He did make some serious mistakes in this area, though....
Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Though you are absolutely right in that there is nothing stating you lose the abilities once gained, I'm pretty certain the developers have said in a number of places that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a prestige class, you cannot continue taking levels in it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may or may not have been said before (in this thread or elsewhere), but my take is this: I'm not asking for Paladins (or Antipaladins) to be multiple alignments. Rather, why did we start with those two in the first place. The Paladin should never have been a class. The Holy Warrior (or rather, the Divine Warrior) should have been the class and the Paladin could be the LG version of that. We're asking to be able to combine a semblance of Divine casting (like Rangers, but more celestial and less natural) with a Full BAB and Martial Weapons and Armor use.
And when Druids only have to refrain from using metal armor and do not have to act in respect of nature, when I can use the Cleric class to make a serviceable Artificer, all the while making the character the single most atheistic jerk who ever lived, I think I shouldn't have to gear up to fight an uphill battle on this.
You've failed your "Knowledge-- History of D&D" check.
We started with the Paladin, way way way back-- back in the day when there were only 3 alignments, in Original D&D-- because someone evidently wanted to make Sir Galahad (straight out of Malory), or a very near likeness. This is also before any discussion of "Gods" in D&D, and many of the other complications. The purpose of the Paladin class, wasn't to create a generic 'Holy Warrior' (although yes, the Paladin was always seen as sort of a Holy Champion), it was to create a 'Knightly and Chivalrous' Paragon of all that is good, pure, and valorous (inspired by Le Morte d'Arthur, and the tales of Charlemagne's Paladins-- source of the class-name; of course Roland could have been the first inspiration for 'Lawful Stupid' play too). Paladins originally weren't a separate class- it was a special status for high Charisma Lawful fighters who had never deviated from the straight and narrow path, with powers based on maintaining that status. Note that at this time, Lawful = Good, by the rules of the game. Paladins were introduced in "Greyhawk", the 1st supplement for original D&D, officially released in 1976 (the year I started playing). :D
Paladins have been with us ever since. The flavor of the class (the abilities they get), the code, the LG alignment requirement, are all issues that reach back through the history of the game to when Paladins were introduced, and that have never been dropped from the class.
Anti-Paladins do not appear until several years later-- when someone decided that the "paragon of ultimate virtue" (the Paladin) should have a dark, negative, reflection to challenge him. Thus, the "Anti-Paladin" (the name says it all already)-- everything a Paladin holds dear, the Anti-Paladin defiles... The Anti-Paladin was introduced in July 1980, in Dragon #39, and reprinted in the first volume of "Best of Dragon".
That's why it started there.
From the Pathfinder Core Rules:
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature...
Maybe it's another RAI vs RAW not actually spelling it out... but, Druids do have to act in respect of nature-- if the Druid doesn't, IMO, he or she just blew that 'must continue to revere nature requirement'-- you can ignore that if you wish, but I don't think you can deny that that intention is in there. Also in Golarion, you can't play an atheistic Cleric-- you have to have a patron, and if being a total jerk is against your Deity's expectations, you'll be an ex-Cleric pretty quick.
Now, your whole long string of elaboration on poor Gorum's struggle to secure a champion to his liking... I don't see that as reason to change or get rid of the Paladin. IMO, the answer is to create a separate 'Divine Champion' class, whether base or prestige, that's a little more open in flavor and attitude, flexibly adaptable to the different alignments-- to use with nearly any deity. It's a very good argument for the need for that.