Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful. What is the law? It is set by the kingdom. Conflict in law will lead to war if there is no alternative.
Whether morality or goodness is relative or not, law is NOT absolute.
And that works for lawful neutral and lawful evil, but lawful good people who don't seek out non-violent solutions with other lawful good people are very similar to people who join Greenpeace but hate whales.
A good politician, looking across at another good politician, would rather try to set up a deal where one side controls the territory but allows the other partial access to the resources. If you can't do that, you're just pretending to be good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all, as I already explained, lawful good often means unyielding in their resolve.
If there is a disput between two intractable kingdoms there is NO alternative to war. Both are in violation of the other's law.
Unyielding is a good quality when dealing with evil, but not when dealing with good. It is hypocritical and phoney when dealing with good.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To me this is kind of a moot point since in game terms a LG settlement can have players that are within 1 jump of alignment so if the guy running the settlement is actually LN then there is no reason he wouldn't have a problem going to war.
I would think it would be very, very difficult for someone to be a ruler of an entire settlement and stick straight to LG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is resolved through diplomacy. I already gave one suggested example.
Good people have the sense when making their laws to consider others. When you make an inconsiderate law over disputed land and then beat your chest and say you're being "lawful" in sticking to the law you just made up by slaughtering the other good guys who want it, it is an absurd stretch to say that is also good. Lawful: yes. Good: not by a longshot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me this is kind of a moot point since in game terms a LG settlement can have players that are within 1 jump of alignment so if the guy running the settlement is actually LN then there is no reason he wouldn't have a problem going to war.
I would think it would be very, very difficult for someone to be a ruler of an entire settlement and stick straight to LG.
The leader has a lot to do with the alignment of the settlement. To me, calling a settlement by a particular alignment does not mean the average alignment of its citizens, but the philosophy used to govern the settlement. If that philosophy is Lawful Neutral, then I see it a flawed system that calls the settlement itself Lawful Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Respecting other laws you don't think are good?
If both settlements are good, they would take each other into consideration when making their laws. Good means compassionate and considerate. Lawful good means after you have taken compassion and consideration into account, then and only then can you justify an unyielding stance.
I'm not saying at all that war between two lawful good settlements could never happen, but it should definitely be the exception, not the rule.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then we may as well just have one big lawful good kingdom unyielding and dominating all the land as it crushes all non lawful good and everyone coming to the same conclusion that one law (since, being absolute, they must all be the same by definition to be good) and we have one big happy lawful good kingdom.
That's the logical conclusion of your reasoning, and I don't think it holds very well.
By good bring absolute, they mean mechanically this action is good or evil, there's no interpretation, by doing this action you are doing something good, by doing this one, you are doing evil.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The leader has a lot to do with the alignment of the settlement. To me, calling a settlement by a particular alignment does not mean the average alignment of its citizens, but the philosophy used to govern the settlement. If that philosophy is Lawful Neutral, then I see it a flawed system that calls the settlement itself Lawful Good.
I guess that is another question to the devs as to how settlement alignment is determined. I would have thought it would be based of the average alignment not the alignment of the particular leader.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has been the one to say that good and evil are absolute. If you want to debate that with someone, drop Ryan a PM.
And you yourself have pointed out that different "good" people will want different laws. From my assertion that good people make compassionate and considerate laws, and from me not disagreeing that they will want different laws (only asserting that they will be diplomatic about it), you think my logic points to one lawful good kingdom dominating all others? No. That is definitely not the logical conclusion of my reasoning.
The logical conclusion of my reasoning is that different lawful good settlements will choose diplomacy towards each other repeatedly, and use war only as a last desperate resort on very rare occasions. Peaceful coexistence. Heavy handed domination is the version of lawful good you have described, not mine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The leader has a lot to do with the alignment of the settlement. To me, calling a settlement by a particular alignment does not mean the average alignment of its citizens, but the philosophy used to govern the settlement. If that philosophy is Lawful Neutral, then I see it a flawed system that calls the settlement itself Lawful Good.I guess that is another question to the devs as to how settlement alignment is determined. I would have thought it would be based of the average alignment not the alignment of the particular leader.
You can ask them whatever you want. But if they say a settlement can indeed be considered lawful good while being governed by a non lawful good philosophy, then they will have chosen a flawed system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... It's actually been the way I understood it to be all along. That's gratifying.
It is indeed. And I thank you for finally wrenching that clarification out of them.
However clear you think the earlier blogs said what you thought they meant, there has been a lot of discussion about it, not just today's threads. It seems odd that of all the things GW has responded to and clarified that this one hot topic has taken so long, and only after several lengthy and dramatic threads on the topic.
A suspicious conspiracy theorist might look at the PvP issue as being the most polarizing one facing most potential customers and then conclude that it is in GW's best financial interests to keep all explanations of how it will work quite vague for as long as they can get away with, hoping that people will draw their own conclusions that favor in the direction of how they themselves want things to be. Such an approach would result in more signing up for the kickstarter.
I'm not saying that's what they've been doing though, and you didn't hear it from me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because, as you just argued, it is the last resort of two intractable forces coming into conflict. The result is "we regret to inform you that our nations are now at war, the next time we meet will be on the battlefield"
Which would result in a shift away from good. They may still be lawful good afterwards, but if they make a habit of it, they won't be good for long. When I say it is a rare possibility, I mean that in terms of alignments being dynamic. If you want to insist on a 2 dimensional world with static characters, then I would rule it out even as a last resort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, as you just argued, it is the last resort of two intractable forces coming into conflict. The result is "we regret to inform you that our nations are now at war, the next time we meet will be on the battlefield"
Indeed both sides are likely to treat POW's with a high degree of respect. And substantial effort would be put into forcing the other side surrender non-violently. Armies may even have champions duel in order to avoid the pointless slaughter of hundreds of good men.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because, as you just argued, it is the last resort of two intractable forces coming into conflict. The result is "we regret to inform you that our nations are now at war, the next time we meet will be on the battlefield"Which would result in a shift away from good. They may still be lawful good afterwards, but if they make a habit of it, they won't be good for long.
To be lawful good, a war must be justifiable, that is all. It is exactly the same reasoning for justifying war against evil, or showing no mercy to bandits. Lawful good can actually be a very harsh philosophy. Despite what you say, absolutes that deal with anything but mechanics is not a moral absolute.
An order following a strict law, dedicated to the eradication of evil and showing no mercy to any that assist evil, believing fair judgement is blind is perfectly within lg. the law is strict, the law is harsh, but it is for the good of all. To show leniency is to permit evil, and to permit evil is to be evil.
It comes down to philosophy and interpretation any way you look at it. As long as the law falls into not killing innocent people or stealing and pillaging, it is good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because war in DnD isn't inherently evil? The two Lawful Good societies in question might engage in war with specific rules of war - Avoid property damage, do not slaughter the innocent (and by extension of that AOE spells within the vicinity of cities might be viewed as a war crime), casting of evil spells is a war crime, etc.
Like Hark said, POWs are likely to be treated well enough.
2 Lawful Good societies engaging in war might set agreed upon victory conditions to determine the victor in such a way that would prevent needless slaughter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is good as long as the killing is necessary. There is no way to justify a war over resources that either settlement can survive without. When they can come to an agreement and share the resources and grow stronger together, no war is good.
When the other side is known to be good, then to say that "showing leniency is to permit evil" is completely false. In fact it is not only false, but it is selfish, which is not good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is good as long as the killing is necessary. There is no way to justify a war over resources that either settlement can survive without. When they can come to an agreement and share the resources and grow stronger together, no war is good.
When the other side is known to be good, then to say that "showing leniency is to permit evil" is completely false. In fact it is not only false, but it is selfish, which is not good.
If it was a war for a resource either could survive without then they likely would come to an mutual agreement without war sure....
But what if it is a resource that neither could survive without and there was only enough to support a single one of the groups and not both together.
Then I'd say it is firmly neutral and not evil nor would it pull either society towards LN or LE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Only in your interpretation of good.
Selfish? How is dedication to law and the eradication of evil selfish?
It is selfish when the violence is not applied to eradicating evil but in taking resources from other claimants for the sake of one's own power. When another good society can also benefit from the resources, it is pure selfishness to instead force both sides to waste resources fighting over it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is good as long as the killing is necessary. There is no way to justify a war over resources that either settlement can survive without. When they can come to an agreement and share the resources and grow stronger together, no war is good.
When the other side is known to be good, then to say that "showing leniency is to permit evil" is completely false. In fact it is not only false, but it is selfish, which is not good.
If it was a war for a resource either could survive without then they likely would come to an mutual agreement without war sure....
But what if it is a resource that neither could survive without and there was only enough to support a single one of the groups and not both together.
Then I'd say it is firmly neutral and not evil nor would it pull either society towards LN or LE.
Fair enough. But consider then the resources wasted on fighting over the resource.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ones own power? The eradication of evil is not done for ones own power. If one must be brought into the fold to follow the true path, that is not greed, it is salvation and a liberation from evil.
What they consider good, you consider evil. You say they are not "truly good" I think you just justified the war for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep trying to make it out that I'm discussing a fight between good and evil, and I have never disagreed with you that good can justify fighting evil. You are making that up.
And your last argument ignores that PFO will be a world where the gods declare what good is, not the players. Absolute. You keep arguing with me what you need to be arguing with Ryan. I love the notion of twisting morality into relative terms, but that has no room in the setting we're being given.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not if it is to benefit this'd people, you are protecting them from evil after all.
And now you're talking about something that should involve diplomacy. People who were truly compassionate and considerate would not just flat out state their reason and then demand compliance. That's a dictator's approach, aka lawful evil.
People who were actually lawful good would be open to the other side suggesting alternatives, like they cooperate in defense against evil.
Only after all channels of compassion and consideration have been attempted can someone take a stubborn approach like that and honestly call themselves good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@vonFiedler I don't see how that is good in the sense of alignment. You're talking about a very violent, bloody, and immoral period of history and give examples of personal selfishness. So I really don't see your point. The eras that Pathfinder draws influences from were called the "dark" ages for a very good reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we have established with this discussion is that your interpretation of good does not match my hypothetical order's interpretation of good.
You question their motivations, their methods, their goodness even.
You say selfishness, they say justice.
All are reasonable grounds for conflict between two lawful good entities.
I had also been under the impression from the early stages that there would be mechanics SPECIFICALLY intended to avoid being killed randomly without repercussions.
It's one thing to get assassinated from a contract but some griefer running around randomly killing people just to kill people should have consequences whether it is in the wild or in a settlement.
But isn't that what PvP is all about? :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we have established with this discussion is that your interpretation of good does not match my hypothetical order's interpretation of good.
No, we have not. Good is absolute. The god's decide how it is defined, not you. Your interpretation is nothing more than a joke for the gods to tell around the dinner table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
War was seen as good by the dark ages. Things such as glory, honor, justice, were all frames of mind that 'justified' war in the eyes of the people for thousands of years. Golarion works no differently. Neighbors have grievances and as a result they go to war. That's realism. As a good character, join whichever side you think is more just and honorable.
Those were justifications by lawful neutral or lawful evil people who wrote their own history books and called themselves good. Their concepts of honor and justice were a selfish joke.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would have to side with Blaeringr in these last discussions about alignment.
There isn't a *good* reason to kill another *good* person just because they own something you want. The only place that is even close is if that something you want is actually something you *need* and the other good person can not come to some reasonable agreement to share which shouldn't happen if they are both truly good. LG and LG shouldn't really be fighting each other, but instead co-operating with each other.
Edit* Now LG and LN or LE would definitely have points of contention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we have established with this discussion is that your interpretation of good does not match my hypothetical order's interpretation of good.No, we have not. Good is absolute. The god's decide how it is defined, not you. Your interpretation is nothing more than a joke for the gods to tell around the dinner table.
It's nice to know you have a direct line to the gods telling you what to do constantly, the rest of us mortals don't have that luxury. I can't see anything so clear cut in the dictates of the gods. Also, WHICH god's morality are you following?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's nice to know you have a direct line to the gods telling you what to do constantly, the rest of us mortals don't have that luxury. I can't see anything so clear cut in the dictates of the gods. Also, WHICH god's morality are you following?What we have established with this discussion is that your interpretation of good does not match my hypothetical order's interpretation of good.No, we have not. Good is absolute. The god's decide how it is defined, not you. Your interpretation is nothing more than a joke for the gods to tell around the dinner table.
Not me - Ryan. That is Goblinworks; stance. I've already told you that a couple times in this thread. If you're too sleepy to read my posts accurately then I'd be pleased to continue this tomorrow.
We had a big discussion a while back about how good and evil could be relative and interpreted differently by different religions or just different people, and Ryan brought the hammer down on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lower the scale a bit:
If a LG Paladin is trying to collect medicine to save a little girl's life and the only salve he can get to the girl in time belongs to a farmer who's own daughter is dying of the same illness, is he going to murder the farmer for it? Or is he going to try to find another solution?
This is extreme, but it seems you are only tweaking the scale when you talk about kingdoms going to war over resources.