"Kill them all, god will recognise his own"?
Objective good and evil do not exist in the real world, despite us having established morals and beliefs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a pacifist stance: this is an empirically-observable fact. Violence is bad for you. It erodes the soul. Some ARE more durable in their resistance, but it remains corrosive.
Is it possible to avoid violence entirely? Probably not, irl or in game. The world isn't perfect in either place.
Given the circumstantial influence of murder-for-cause, etc., that have been argued, yeah, you can maintain a non-evil alignment while pursuing your course of killing.
But you cannot, RAW, justify killing as a good ACT.
Your motives may be good; the side-effects of your murder-spree may well be good for the people whom you defend.
The ACT of killing, and the HABIT of killing repeatedly, are bad for you and cannot be handwaved into being good.
Once again, this is a Lawful/Doesn'tMatter interpretation of the alignment rules. YMMV.
It is just as easy to commit evil in the service of good as it is to commit evil while maintaining a facade of heroism. No, it's easier, since maintaining a facade takes a bit of work.
Say rather, you can do evil while trying to do good as easily as you can do evil in the service of evil.
Bwahahahahaha!
What? Violence erodes the soul? Empiricism proves this?
The soul is an imagination, and not empirically proven to even exist. How do you prove an invisible, imagined construct exists? In the attempt to sound credible you are mixing some odd combined ingredients.
Violence does not corrode the imaginary soul. You threw in the durability aside because you know that some people just do it for years, adapt, and keep on going. They don't become soulless husk-zombies because they are bouncers/in security, cops, soldiers, martial arts enthusiasts, pest-killers or hunters. Killing a fly is not bad for you, controlled boxing drills with a friend is healthy for you, not corrosive (kickboxing enthusiast here).
I don't think you have much of a clue on this issue Alitan. It is possible to mix violence with philosophy (every Eastern martial art) and never lose yourself or erode away your identity or character.
To give another example other than myself, amongst my friends one is a truly nice guy, a good guy Greg. He is a dentist, so he spends his days helping people out via dentistry and pulling teeth. His favourite past-time is juijitsu, learning how to strangle, grapple and counter. Just the other week he trained with one of the Silva's (the lucky sod), from one of the most esteemed families of martial artists that have fought all over and broken many limbs. My friend is not corroded or greatly changed by up-close violence, he is still a great guy after all these years. This Silva guy also was really welcoming and friendly to my pal No corroded husk-zombie there either.
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Bwahahahahaha!
What? Violence erodes the soul? Empiricism proves this?
The soul is an imagination, and not empirically proven to even exist. How do you prove an invisible, imagined construct exists? In the attempt to sound credible you are mixing some odd combined ingredients.
Violence does not corrode the imaginary soul. You threw in the durability aside because you know that some people just do it for years, adapt, and keep on going. They don't become soulless husk-zombies because they are bouncers/in security, cops, soldiers, martial arts enthusiasts, pest-killers or hunters. Killing a fly is not bad for you, controlled boxing drills with a friend is healthy for you, not corrosive (kickboxing enthusiast here).
I don't think you have much of a clue on this issue Alitan. It is possible to mix violence with philosophy (every Eastern martial art) and never lose yourself or erode away your identity or character.
To give another example other than myself, amongst my friends one is a truly nice guy, a good guy Greg. He is a dentist, so he spends his days helping people out via dentistry and pulling teeth. His favourite past-time is juijitsu, learning how to strangle, grapple and counter. Just the other week he trained with one of the Silva's (the lucky sod), from one of the most esteemed families of martial artists that have fought all over and broken many limbs. My friend is not corroded or greatly changed by up-close violence, he is still a great guy after all these years. This Silva guy also was really welcoming and friendly to my pal No corroded husk-zombie there either.
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Yeah, I get responses like this a lot from people who have developed an addiction to violence.
YMMV, have fun.
|
Kill them all and let the gods sort them out his
Someone once thought that about an evil, bloated spellcaster...
At first, the being appears to be a fat, grotesque human – probably a foul wizard or wicked priest, judging by the evil affectations and horrid symbols on his clothing. But the figure shrinks as if melting, becoming a wormlike larva. It then bloats and takes the shape of a manes, then a bar-lgura. Next, the being mutates further, changing to become a floating chasme, then a vrock. The vrock screeches and becomes a hezrou, which immolates and transforms into a huge, fiery balor. The loathsome balor bloats, its head growing ramlike, adopting the traditional form of Orcus.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree violence is bad in the real world, but a D&D game operates on its own version of reality, and that includes morality.
Violence is not inherently evil or corrupting, otherwise it would say in the good alignments that engaging in violence could alter you alignment away from good. The idea that a paladin automatically loses his powers for using them as they are intended is a flawed concept IMO for most campaigns.
I run a game, different system, where taking power does corrupt, but that is an basic theme of the campaign, there characters do not retire or live out their lives in peace. They either die fighting the monsters or survive long enough to become one. But it's a very different style of game from normal D&D.
I agree with you on reality's morality Alitan, but games can have whatever version of morality that works best for that game. D&D is not real life, so it can change the rules of humanity and morality as needed to present the kinds of stories that it wants.
Bwahahahahaha!
What? Violence erodes the soul? Empiricism proves this?
The soul is an imagination, and not empirically proven to even exist. How do you prove an invisible, imagined construct exists? In the attempt to sound credible you are mixing some odd combined ingredients.
Violence does not corrode the imaginary soul. You threw in the durability aside because you know that some people just do it for years, adapt, and keep on going. They don't become soulless husk-zombies because they are bouncers/in security, cops, soldiers, martial arts enthusiasts, pest-killers or hunters. Killing a fly is not bad for you, controlled boxing drills with a friend is healthy for you, not corrosive (kickboxing enthusiast here).
I don't think you have much of a clue on this issue Alitan. It is possible to mix violence with philosophy (every Eastern martial art) and never lose yourself or erode away your identity or character.
To give another example other than myself, amongst my friends one is a truly nice guy, a good guy Greg. He is a dentist, so he spends his days helping people out via dentistry and pulling teeth. His favourite past-time is juijitsu, learning how to strangle, grapple and counter. Just the other week he trained with one of the Silva's (the lucky sod), from one of the most esteemed families of martial artists that have fought all over and broken many limbs. My friend is not corroded or greatly changed by up-close violence, he is still a great guy after all these years. This Silva guy also was really welcoming and friendly to my pal No corroded husk-zombie there either.
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Yeah, I get responses like this a lot from people who have developed an addiction to violence.
YMMV, have fun.
That's a rather grave assumption to make, especially coming from a guy with an apparent addiction to evil characters.
Irontruth: I didn't put killing on the evilboat, that's one of the primary definitions of evil action out of the game.
Icyshadow: how else do you explain people unwilling to accept killing is evil because they want to indulge in the EASY, EXPEDIENT way of combating evil? (That is, killing it off.)
Further, it is a source of nigh-endless amusement to me that my evil characters are TYPICALLY less-violent, more often turn to diplomacy, and more willing to compromise than the "good" people with whom they associate.
Finally, consider the "takes one to know one" factor here. Yeah, I play evil characters: I know what evil is.
|
In my fighters case, he find no need to lie about his doing, he thinks duergars, drows and orcs are monsters, and he can vent all his cruelty in monsters. Humans can be monsters too, thinking about that, if they are against "heroism".
Of corse, he is fun, he is gentle, he have friends, loves parties - well he loves fight too, and more than once had been involved in a bar brawl, but, loosing or winning, is all sport. Except against monsters. For me, he is chaotic evil.
You pally with sense motive would sense no lies, and would have a hard time trying to defend orcs and drows to the people who suffered against them.
How does he go against half orcs and half drow? and really if a Drow is a monster so are elves, dwarves, and halflings...
Given an Ideal Paladin would believe in the sanctity of all life, it would be prudent to function purely as an enforcer of the law on all. If the villagers kill a Drow, you execute them for depriving a citizen of their right to life - the crime being Treason (Resisting Arrest under charge of Treason being the only mandate for the death penalty). The crimes of individual orcs and drow would be irrelevant to the rights of a particular individual - otherwise it would be lawful to slaughter villagers because they are citizens of a nation whose fellow citizens might commit murder against others.
As a Paladin I would feel obliged to put up a sign at the only way in to the village declaring all within guilty of Treason for their act of conspiracy to murder and execute anyone trying to leave for resisting arrest under charge of Treason.
First of, my character its not a sociopath, if half-orcs and half-drows are accepted on the society, he considers them "humans" that's apply with elves, halflings, dwarves, etc.
Historically, many "races" were viewed as "inferior" or "nonhumans", that was cases that even members of the same race and same culture were seen as inferior. Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks enslaved their own and considered them as tools, not people, so to say one example. Another good example was WWII Axis, German and Japanese fighting against people they see as inferior (Jews and Chinese), but - even then being different, considers themselves as equals in many ways.
So, if the society considers a race as an monstrosity, my fighter considers it too.
The Ideal Paladin you mentioned is a Sociopath, he puts law in front of life, and practices evil by considering a invader - like the orc or, worst yet, Drow - as a citizen just to legalize the slaughter of civilians.
For me, as i paladin i would detain the surrendered orc/drow captive, as a criminal with no citizen rights (after all, he is not a citizen) and turn them to the authorities (that will normally means death to the "monster"). If no authority nearby, he would judge him himself in a public space, like the city's square and execute him with his own blade.
Second, i never said that he my fighter make prisoners, he don't. If he do (like the duergar) he makes sure he will never be seen or will live his imprisonment (lock him up in the dungeon cave, with no food and throw the key away). What he makes is with no witnesses, the head he brings can be of innnocent monster, but the citizens couldn't tell - or care - the difference.
In my fighter's case, he would kill gladly orc woman, and children, like someone would kill gladly a blotched female rat and it's cubs - to stop a plague.
In my games, i had many (MANY) situations of how deal with noncombatants and surrendered monsters, my chaotic good guys let them go just with 2 or 3 with sticks (staves and clubs) to defend themselves and with their promise to never go back under the penalty that, in the next combat, they will consider them dishonorable, and his words and promises of surrender and peacefull ways means nothing. my lawful good ones leave them were they are (if that's was their lair) but warn the authorities about their location as potential future threat (and they go far to ensure that the authorities will not harm innocent members of this "monster community"). my lawful neutral guys do what the lawful good do, except that any decision the authorities make - if not cruel, harsh, imprudent or unnecessary - it's made for the good of the community, and let them do whatever they deem necessary to keep the civilization safe. My chaotic neutrals like to duel (no to death) with the strongest surrendered (if combatant) to judge the fate of the community, if he win, the community leaves to never return, to be slaughtered if they do, if he loses, they can leave by his own terms - if lethal damage is made, all the group attack the creature with lethal force, and he is consider victor. My lawful evil guy would just judge them as a plague and execute them in an orderly, merciful manner.
But, like i said earlier in this post, i love heroic campaigns and heroic characters, but they need not to start as an heroic type, he can "learn" heroism. To that happens, is up for the GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Citation needed.
No, Paladins being able to kill is not proof.
You kill the evil dragon or demon or lich or beholder or mindflayer or vampire behind it all and rescue the princess and stuff. Not slap it's hand, and leave it to do it's thing, then take it's stuff.
Yep, and if you clean house and expunge the dragon/demon/lich/beholder/mind flayer from the area with violence1, then the area is in the clear, and saved from this day forth. Until evil creeps forth from the dankwood of the swampdonkeys, and dares to show its many-sided face again. At which point adventurers with axes, swords, bows, lightning bolts and other spells will be waiting.
If they lose, the big bad takes control, or its faction, and then real evil will be revealed, not the "evil" of whacking the moles of evil on the head.
1 Or with fine tactical skill demonstrated via the perfect spells, not all of which will do damage necessarily, they may be save or suck or save or die spells.
Alitan's jab (which may be a new magic dagger in my campaign).
"I get responses like this a lot from people who have developed an addiction to violence."
Sure, you can try and discredit me with the label of addict, but part of my exposure to violence (alas I don't come from the nicest and safest of backgrounds) also includes reflection on when it should be used and when it should not. Excess and wanton violence in real life, is foolish and uncontrolled. I suggest more exposure before you preach again.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You kill the evil dragon or demon or lich or beholder or mindflayer or vampire behind it all and rescue the princess and stuff. Not slap it's hand, and leave it to do it's thing, then take it's stuff.
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Citation needed.
No, Paladins being able to kill is not proof.
So stopping the evil is a good act. Not the killing part.
Less evil is a good thing. If they are dead, they are only a problem for the various carrion eaters squabbling over them.
If we are talking lawful good, they want evil combated, as well as the forces of chaos and criminality. Neutral good more wants protection and good will for all, that people aren't chewed by monsters or abducted by necromancers, and cares less about law and chaos.
A char can absolutely do good without killing (charity, helping folk out, teaching them to get along with eachother and prepare the militia to fight monsters when the pcs cannot), but killing can also do good if evil is removed from the world. Although it is but taking out the smallest part, it has benefits for the immediate area. One vicious bandit is just a bandit, but if taken out by an adventurer raid, isn't a problem in that area anymore. You can compartmentalise the world like a dungeon in a fantasy game, clear out room, floors, etc. Now more monsters/demons etc can always invade or re-invade, but peace and security can be given if adventurers fight hard. I think this is one of the key themes behind kingmaker, and second darkness is all about defeat the nasty dark elves before they cause problems for everyone (and not just their ancestral enemies).
3.5 L,
if you ignore the RAW argument and jump to argumentum ad hominem, expect to get a jab.
If excess and wanton violence is foolish irl, you MIGHT examine the foolish excesses of wanton violence in the game.
So far, NO ONE who wants to be a good-aligned murder-hobo has addressed the fact that killing is an evil act, as defined by the game. It's always jump to the "but MY killing has good results and/or motivation" argument (I won't dignify it as a defense).
Okay, so wanting to play a Good character means you can never kill, or that you're allowed to kill only a few?
In a world where pretty much everything that comes your way is usually hellbent on actually killing you or doing even worse?
That'd pretty much make good-aligned characters impossible to play in D&D / Pathfinder and also say many NPCs lie about their alignment.
Murder, a highly emotional concept connected to the killing of the innocent or non-combatants "you murdered that child", is not the same as killing evil foes and monsters "you killed that troll".
Please tell me where it is officially stated in pathfinder, that killing the evil foes/monsters, is an evil act?
3.5 L,
if you ignore the RAW argument and jump to argumentum ad hominem, expect to get a jab.
If excess and wanton violence is foolish irl, you MIGHT examine the foolish excesses of wanton violence in the game.
So far, NO ONE who wants to be a good-aligned murder-hobo has addressed the fact that killing is an evil act, as defined by the game. It's always jump to the "but MY killing has good results and/or motivation" argument (I won't dignify it as a defense).
In D&D there is nothing foolish or excessive about putting down monsters, lords of evil and their henchmen. How do you propose characters make the lands safer?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So stopping the evil is a good act. Not the killing part.You kill the evil dragon or demon or lich or beholder or mindflayer or vampire behind it all and rescue the princess and stuff. Not slap it's hand, and leave it to do it's thing, then take it's stuff.
Back on dnd, killing evil is a good act, and has been since the start.
Citation needed.
No, Paladins being able to kill is not proof.
My answer was partialy a joke, but yes, in both Pathfinder and in 3E, officially, KILLING evil (and stopping evil) are both Good acts. I do not believe this out of game, but (and evn in game, TOZ has seen this a few times, I tend to try to not kill enemies).
Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in that world. The deitiyes of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A Paladin smiting a Blackguard or a blue dragon is not commiting an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.
That being said, there are certain limits on the use of violence that good characters must observe. First violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. . . . <Thou shalt not provoke evil so you can slaughter it later on a high horse, revenge leads to the dark side>. . .
The Second consideration is that violence should have good intentions.
. . .Launching an Orc hunt for profit is not good. . .
Violence against evil is acceptible when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.
The third considration is one of discrimination. Violenc cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatats, (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures).
Finally the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. . . <Thou shalt not use evil spells and/or torture>.
Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Iomedae The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they
must give them.
. . .
• I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
. . .
Sarenrae The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support to the righteous. Their tenets include:
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade, shining with the light of truth.
Torag . . .
• Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing is an politically incorrect act - not evil, nor good - it's consequences maybe judged as one of those acts (or not).
We may say that killing is a evil act because we have a modern occidental way of thinking, but this is only us messing around terms. The right term is that killing is a unaccepted social act, and unaccepted social act is frequently mistaken as an evil act.
That said, killing is an accepted act in your campaign or not? Evil or good don't apply here.
The most good focused class in the game is the paladin, and the paladin trademark is smiting. Smiting is not a pacifist ability to the contrary, smite is the best and most brutal killing ability in the game, doing massive amount of damage to the evildoers.
Killing is evil? Ridiculous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bwahahahahaha!
What? Violence erodes the soul? Empiricism proves this?
The soul is an imagination, and not empirically proven to even exist. How do you prove an invisible, imagined construct exists? In the attempt to sound credible you are mixing some odd combined ingredients.
They might mean soul in the other sense, sort of a combination of core self, behavioral health, and morale, which can be empirrically proven, and we do know for a fact that violence and battle do affect the person.
|
|
They might mean soul in the other sense, sort of a combination of core self, behavioral health, and morale, which can be empirrically proven, and we do know for a fact that violence and battle do affect the person.Bwahahahahaha!
What? Violence erodes the soul? Empiricism proves this?
The soul is an imagination, and not empirically proven to even exist. How do you prove an invisible, imagined construct exists? In the attempt to sound credible you are mixing some odd combined ingredients.
In PF a soul is a very real thing, it can even hurt you.
Based on what PF says about killing (appointed by Devil's Advocate)
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
That made clear, what means protect life?
Protecting life does not prohibits killing, it only made clear that, before killing, others ways must be tried before taking life, the exception is if life is being threatened, so the threat must be dealt as swiftly as possible, killing if need be.
PF specifies that evil has no qualms against killing, it mean a evil person don't measure the consequences of using this act.
Killing is a tool that can be used for good or evil, but is often used in situations that have nothing to do with these two axis.
Many (if not all) police officers code of conduct specifies protecting life and property, that does not means officers are prohibited killing, as many of you know.
|
|
Note, as I tried to point out, it specifies "innocent" a lot. Also for Good, it says they hold a Respect for Life (not just innocent here). Taken as a whole, this implies that Good have qualms about killing, but not that they can not or should not do it. Just not for no reason like Evil can and does, and to a lesser extent Neutral as well.
The difference between Good and Neutral is that Neutral is not willing to make sacrifices for others, (which also means that many people play Neutral incorrectly and should actually be good, but there is a Cool-stigma attached to Neutral, and the fact that it is not affected by most Alignment mechanics at play here, as well as this very wrong idea that Good characters can not have a dark side or do any Evil).
|
So did we ever have the discussion about why people might not want to play heroic characters? I'm afraid I got a bit side-tracked by the alignment discussion. You know, threads like these remind me that we all play the same system for the most part but not always the same game.
And that's okay! Pathfinder's got a spot for everyone. :)
Random curiosity: did the OP's players ever specify to the OP why they don't want to play heroic characters?
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
...and if they're killing out of duty to a deity or master that isn't evil -- so what? The act is defined as evil, no exceptions given.
Do I believe in mitigating circumstances? Yes, but.
If you continually kill people, when killing becomes your first response, as violence becomes more and more common in your acts, you stop being good and slide into neutrality.
As the rules stand, currently.
Yeah, this IS a strict interpretation: good OUGHT to have high standards, don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what if Diplomacy remains your first response at all times, but people still run towards your sword?
By your interpretation, that person should still remain Good. And also, what if the person cannot be negotiated with?
One good example would be an undead creature. Few are really swayed even by the best diplomats, and usually just kill you anyway.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you Alitan, for my own interpritation and beliefs. I'd love to play with a group that didn't want to hack n' slash almost everything and Diplomacy could be used to prevent a few combats. That being said, the rules don't actually work that way. Above I listed (under Faiths of Purity) a few of the higher standard Paladin codes of behavior. These show that it is perfectly fine to kill evil as a first resort within the fame world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you Alitan, for my own interpritation and beliefs. I'd love to play with a group that didn't want to hack n' slash almost everything and Diplomacy could be used to prevent a few combats. That being said, the rules don't actually work that way. Above I listed (under Faiths of Purity) a few of the higher standard Paladin codes of behavior. These show that it is perfectly fine to kill evil as a first resort within the fame world.
Can't argue it, don't own anything but CRB.
And I'm not actually advocating diplomatic solutions: I play evil characters, so killing things is not an issue.
Just tired of the endless stream of "good" murder-hobos.
Who exactly is suggesting that murder-hobos should have a good alignment?
Who exactly is suggesting that murder-hobos should have a good alignment?
Um, imo, that would be anyone arguing for (a) a standard, kill-heavy campaign and (b) being allowed a long-term good alignment while pursuing said campaign. (C) without some adjustment, as via house rule, to the alignment system as it stands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a murder-hobo isn't the same thing as being a crusader for good or a good adventurer chopping through the forces of darkness (e.g. Aragorn). The term crusader might make you wince, but Golarion isn't our messy world of allegiances and grey-zones, there good needs to fight evil or the bad times cometh.
I do like putting some tough decisions before the party, but they stay good if they ever kill what is truly evil. It is as some say, a no-brainer.
Who exactly is suggesting that murder-hobos should have a good alignment?Um, imo, that would be anyone arguing for (a) a standard, kill-heavy campaign and (b) being allowed a long-term good alignment while pursuing said campaign. (C) without some adjustment, as via house rule, to the alignment system as it stands.
And who is that exactly?
And who is that exactly?Who exactly is suggesting that murder-hobos should have a good alignment?Um, imo, that would be anyone arguing for (a) a standard, kill-heavy campaign and (b) being allowed a long-term good alignment while pursuing said campaign. (C) without some adjustment, as via house rule, to the alignment system as it stands.
Look, I'm not back-threading to make a list of people whose posts fit the criterion.
If you feel like taking it personally, that's entirely up to you.
It's a common stance, sweeping the problem of killing=evil under the rug to preserve the status quo of adventuring "heroes."
Many folks don't seem to have a problem with the inherent contradiction, and that's fine. But I don't think it's as simple as "I'm killing evil things, so I'm exempt from the (alignment-related) consequences of my actions."
|
|
Many folks don't seem to have a problem with the inherent contradiction, and that's fine. But I don't think it's as simple as "I'm killing evil things, so I'm exempt from the (alignment-related) consequences of my actions."
I have pointed out that in the PF/D&D world, it's because this is true. There will be consequences in the sense that evil dragon probably has allies and cohorts to deal with later, that vampire count was still a nobleman, etc. . ., but these acts do not at all threaten to shift you towards Evil or even Nuetral, and in fact do strengthen a good character's Good Alignment. Assuming they are not doing it for fun, torturing and raping, or just to mug them.
And who is that exactly?Who exactly is suggesting that murder-hobos should have a good alignment?Um, imo, that would be anyone arguing for (a) a standard, kill-heavy campaign and (b) being allowed a long-term good alignment while pursuing said campaign. (C) without some adjustment, as via house rule, to the alignment system as it stands.
Look, I'm not back-threading to make a list of people whose posts fit the criterion.
If you feel like taking it personally, that's entirely up to you.
It's a common stance, sweeping the problem of killing=evil under the rug to preserve the status quo of adventuring "heroes."
Many folks don't seem to have a problem with the inherent contradiction, and that's fine. But I don't think it's as simple as "I'm killing evil things, so I'm exempt from the (alignment-related) consequences of my actions."
I don't see anyone claiming that wonton murder makes you a hero, so I'm just curious who you're debating at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what if Diplomacy remains your first response at all times, but people still run towards your sword?
By your interpretation, that person should still remain Good. And also, what if the person cannot be negotiated with?
One good example would be an undead creature. Few are really swayed even by the best diplomats, and usually just kill you anyway.
Indeed. Good points Icyshadow. I remember a lawful good warmage in the crimson throne campaign I ran. PC had a diplomacy modifier of through the roof and that helped prevent certain tense situations from escalating into full blown combat. However, there were still some evil opponents who refused to listen and charged the warmage and the party straight on.
Then the warmage would pretty much go all out on the opponents, no pulling punches on any of them. At times, the character was more neutral good than lawful good but thats fine.In regards to the issue of "sweeping the problem of killing=evil under the rug to preserve the status quo of adventuring heroes", I think it is an oversimplification of the matter. Where words fail against opponents who are charging forward to skewer you like a kebab or start trying to turn you into a frog, you may not choose to kill them. However, its still a fact that you have to immobolize them and render them not dangerous to yourself or others around you. The other option, if you don't have spells is to burn multiple rounds making a diplomacy check as they rain mayhem down upon you. I somewhat understand the "good should be held to higher standards" perspective but taking it too far will either get you killed or your friends killed or the people in the region the pcs are protecting killed. Possibly all three of the above. An individual who refused to take up arms or takes a large risk in only attacking to subdue and not to never kill is either extremely naive, arrogant or living in the delusion tha they are a good aligned character. After all, I doubt an individual can be labelled good-aligned if they aren't willing to do everything in their power to protect their loved ones and innocent people.
Many folks don't seem to have a problem with the inherent contradiction, and that's fine. But I don't think it's as simple as "I'm killing evil things, so I'm exempt from the (alignment-related) consequences of my actions."I have pointed out that in the PF/D&D world, it's because this is true. There will be consequences in the sense that evil dragon probably has allies and cohorts to deal with later, that vampire count was still a nobleman, etc. . ., but these acts do not at all threaten to shift you towards Evil or even Nuetral, and in fact do strengthen a good character's Good Alignment. Assuming they are not doing it for fun, torturing and raping, or just to mug them.
No offense, DA, but you quoted a bunch of books I don't own. Not that I doubt you've quoted them properly. But my game play is CRB with a LITTLE bit of APG. I will grant you have arguments that fit into Golarion there, and that there could be wider application of the principles. But I'm not willing to take Golarion-specific supplements as canon for non-Golarion play.
And I do think that a hefty percentage of adventurers ARE doing it just to mug them, but that's just an unfounded opinion of mine.