| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no conflict between objective evil and subjective evil in PF.
Seriously, there isn't.
The big problem is usually people don't disconnect their own expectations from the world expectations when they talk about the subject.
Here's an example. If I were playing a game of Rifts, and I ended up in a dimension where there was no planet earth, instead, the star had a giant cloud of gaseous material around it forming a nebula that just happened to be mostly nitrogen and oxygen, then I would suspend my disbelief and go with it, I'd be ok with the idea of giant broom trees that floated through the cloud, in orbit around the sun about where earth would be, and giant helium filled birds that flitted from one tree to the next, and people with almost monkey toes living in the trees. (Props if you can figure out what book that's based off of). I wouldn't get all prissy about the fact the whole thing should burst into flames due to the oxygen/nitrogen coming into contact with the sun, or whatever. I would play a character from that world as if that were perfectly normal.
When it comes to good/evil though, people want to mix and mash world concepts between their own reality and the game reality. Within the game, Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are as concrete and solid as Chair/Window/VW Jetta are in our world. And, people absolutely understand this within the game world.
The catch is, not everyone in the game world is functioning on the same reality matrix as everyone else. Yes, everyone in the world considers good and evil and law and chaos as real things, but just like in the real world people are absolutely fine with self deluding themselves that reality is not reality. This can take many forms, the lawful evil Knight convinced he's following his code of honor and is not evil because of it, even as he slaughters innocent children for his lord's honor. Or, it could be an entire city or country who is chaotic evil, but is absolutely certain they are good. So, when they do detect evil, they are calling it 'detect righteous', and detect good is 'detect sinfulness'. Their entire worldview is turned around and 180 degrees from objective reality. An entire branch could convince itself that good and evil is entirely subjective, and the detect good and detect evil spells simply report what the caster thinks of as good or evil. And within the world, all of these subjective good/evil paradigms are going to seem perfectly valid to the inhabitants.
However, for a Paladin, they are simply unable to self-delude. They are absolutely defined by the concrete 'meta-reality' structure of concrete good/evil/law/chaos. Of all the creatures in the world, only a paladin can't self-delude themselves over what is subjectively good or evil. That requires that the GM be entirely up front about what he considers to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Because the GM's definition, by default, is the concrete reality of the game world.
So, in all, you can have subjective and objective good in a PF game, and be entirely consistent. You just have to know when objective game reality takes precedence over subjective game reality. Just like we do when we suspend objective 'real' reality to engage in subjective 'game' reality.
|
I have skimmed most of the threads so forgive me if this has been raised already.
Evil is determined by society. When you move from one society to another, the shift in values means a shift in the perception of evil.
What is good and evil other than opposite perspectives of behaviour? Evil people rarely believe they are in fact evil! They justify their actions and in most cases believe that they are in the right - as they see it.
Somebody I can't recall once said; "No army on this Earth, has ever marched into battle believing that God is on their enemies side." Not totally applicable to an RPG setting but you get the point.
From a practical view point, I allow paladins to determine what is evil and therefor what is affected by their smite. And before you all attack me for that - remember there is a difference between evil and not good (i.e. Neutral)!
Additionally, this is balanced by the fact that they have to hold themselves to the same moral code they are holding the enemy to. E.g. If they designate an enemy soldier evil simply because they killed an allied combatant of the PC, then by definition the Paladin is committing an evil act if he does the same with all the repercussions due to him.
You still have to be careful when it comes to society. You could have a Logans Run type of society which would still be against the Paladins code.
I think the simplest way to play it(while maintaining the alignment system) is to say that the alignment system in Pathfinder isn't necessarily right. If we assume that alignment is decided by a large list of laws, then its possible these lawsare simply imperfect. IE just because you have an evil alignment doesn't mean you are a bad person.
From this perspective, Good characters are people who follow the laws. Generally speaking, someone who breaks the law(IE Evil alignment) is a bad person, but there are exceptions.
You're confusing good with law and evil with chaos.
I am a person that see's someone with too much gold, and another with not enough, and I steal a bit of the rich guys purse to give it to the poor beggar. I break the law every day, but I am a good person, for I do it not for personal gain but for the good of the weak and downtrodden. I am Chaotic Good.
I will kill anyone that threatens me. I know that might makes right, and I impose my will on the throngs around me, bringing order to the weak masses around me. This city is mine, and I make the rules here, and they are strictly followed. I protect that which is mine, I do not let others prey on my belongings. I kill the orcs that attack my sheep, I slaughter them without pity. I work those who are under my protection as hard as I can without killing them, because dead serfs do not produce money for me. I slaughter those who harm children, because they are my next generation of serfs. My serfs are fed well, so I can get more work out of them. Anyone who tries to 'liberate' them is going to be my next bit of fun. I am Lawful Evil.
The whole thing always baffled me.
You are supposed to act according to your alignment and if you don't your alignment changes.
Now let's say we have Tommy. Tommy is a Neutral guy, doesn't really have a propensity towards any alignment. He's nice and friendly but won't go out of his way to help people, let alone risk his life. He generally obeys law but doesn't see the point in making others do the same as long as they don't bother him with it.
Now he eats the afore mentioned awakened boar and turns evil, just because it looked good and a boar is a boar.
Now as a Neutral Evil character, because of last nights dinner, does Tommy suddenly need to be a murderous prick? Does he need to steal candy from babies just because he can? Or can he keep acting like he did before, once again moving himself into Neutral territory until he does something considered good/evil/chaotic/lawful?
The whole thing always baffled me.
You are supposed to act according to your alignment and if you don't your alignment changes.
Now let's say we have Tommy. Tommy is a Neutral guy, doesn't really have a propensity towards any alignment. He's nice and friendly but won't go out of his way to help people, let alone risk his life. He generally obeys law but doesn't see the point in making others do the same as long as they don't bother him with it.
Now he eats the afore mentioned awakened boar and turns evil, just because it looked good and a boar is a boar.
Now as a Neutral Evil character, because of last nights dinner, does Tommy suddenly need to be a murderous prick? Does he need to steal candy from babies just because he can? Or can he keep acting like he did before, once again moving himself into Neutral territory until he does something considered good/evil/chaotic/lawful?
First off, it's hard to move your alignment with one act.
Second, he committed an unwitting evil act (if he had known the boar was sentient, he wouldn't have eaten him right, because he's a nice guy). Unwitting evil acts are usually treated as less altering than intentional evil acts.
Third, yes, if he did do enough evil acts to be NE, if he stopped the evil acts, he'd eventually swing back to NN, by simple dent of not applying himself to evil/good/law/chaos.
I am not. I am trying to avoid table arguments over morality and odd instances in the rules. Things like spells with the evil descriptor or certain feats always being considered evil.
When a player thinks "my character is a good person therefore he has the Good alignment", there is the potential for argument over the character's actions.
I am suggesting that we instead treat it as "my character is a good person because he follows the laws of the universe for being good".
Which brings us back to 'lawful <> Good'. Because, how can someone be chaotic and still 'obey the laws of being good'.
Plus, it opens up just as many worms as you seem to think it's going to solve.
"Hey Paladin Pam, why did you kill that church load of nuns and orphans for no reason?"
"Hey, I did it, and I'm LawfuL Good, says so on my Pete The Paladin Tin Badge, so obviously they were chaotic evil nuns and orphans in disguise."
"Oh, ok, forgot about that. Say, that guy over there has a nifty set of mithral armor, and I really could use it, would you kill him for me? If you do it, obviously he was evil and deserved to die a horrible death."
"Oh, sure, RAAARRRRR!!!!!!! There you go, just wash all the blood off before you put it on."
First off, it's hard to move your alignment with one act.
Second, he committed an unwitting evil act (if he had known the boar was sentient, he wouldn't have eaten him right, because he's a nice guy). Unwitting evil acts are usually treated as less altering than intentional evil acts.
Third, yes, if he did do enough evil acts to be NE, if he stopped the evil acts, he'd eventually swing back to NN, by simple dent of not applying himself to evil/good/law/chaos.
I know a single act tends to not be enough, it was merely an example.
As for the boar, he may well know it was awakened and was shouting things. To someone not working magic it would still be a boar, just a strange (and probably expensive) one.
The point I was trying to illustrate is the problem I have with alignment. Because it's part of mechanics people tend to build personality based on alignment instead of the other way around. If someone becomes evil because the DM thinks he has done enough evil to warrant it, does that mean the character's personality has to change accordingly? Personally I think not, but if you don't you are not playing according to your (forced) alignment and as such are considered a bad player by quite a few people. It's just silly.
As far as I'm considered alignment is nothing but a simplified way of putting your character's personality in a certain group so that game mechanics can act on it.
Well I have simple system as DM in my Campaigns, like in some Games I have for every player 2 scores ranging from 1 to 100:
1-25 Evil/Chaotic 26-74 Neutral 75-100 Good/Lawful.
Now I deduct or add points for every Evil/Chaotic or Good/Lawful Action.
As that system is exploitable (I Kill innocent but I want to be good so I donate) , I have to use common sense every time I add or deduct points, If a paladin would slaughter a child he would lose 100 Points instantly and become evil,if it was a command of his lord he could gain a few points for his lawfulness, an Knight of Evil would lose none or only a few points.
This system has the advantage that the players feel the consequences of their actions and would give the players a good feeling for the ethics in the DM's World.
If you want to keep it from being gamed, you have to do something like diminishing returns.
1st good/evil act, +/-100%.
2nd good/evil act, +/-75%.
3rd good/evil act, +/-50%.
4th good/evil act, +/-25%.
5th good/evil act, +/-10%.
6th+ good/evil act, ---0---
So, everytime he does a good/evil act notate it, and assign it a score between 0 and 5 say, with 5 being 'threw an orphan from a burning building and got horribly burned alive and died doing it' and 0.25 being 'Threw coppers in beggar's bowl'.
At the end of the game session, the one with the highest point value is the '1st' good/evil deed. The second highest point value is the '2nd' and so forth. So, murdering a child is a 5pt evil act let's say. Then he turns around and helps two kittens (1 pt each) and also takes down a minor demon (1.5 pt good deed), and then to . At the end of the day, he took the money he got from the demon's treasure horde and tossed silver pieces in every beggar bowl in town (30 beggars, 2 silvers each).
So at the end of the gaming session we have :
-5 * 100%
1.5 * 100%
1 * 75%
1 * 50%
0.4 * 25%
0.4 * 10%
0.4 * 0 x 28
So the numbers are -5 + 1.5 + 0.75 + 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.04 = 2.89 - 5 = -2.11
His alignment on the good/evil axis drops by -2.11 toward evil.
Divorce the whole paladin thing from it. If he committed an evil act, he get's to lose his powers. To get them back requires an atonement spell. A minor infraction (cursing his chapter leader out) might be just a spell, nothing else. A more serious one (murdering in cold blood) might require a hefty gold deposit or a quest to complete.
Edit : If you really want to keep the system from being gamed, combine the good/evil deeds into 1 group when determining the adjustments... so, like this...
-5 * 100%
1.5 * 75%
1 * 50%
1 * 25%
0.4 * 10%
0.4 * 0 x 29
This makes the biggest thing he did the most influencial on his alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there is no guideline at all in Pathfinder? Its all subject to Gamemaster interpretation? I find that hard to believe. From what I have seen on these threads, there are some pretty questionable ideas as what is evil. And give me a break, casting a spell with the evil descriptor isn't evil?
Yes, it's not evil. It never has been. Nor is it good, lawful, or chaotic. The alignment descriptor affects how it interacts with other effects, and it restricts access for clerics. Nothing more, nothing less. If you cast protection from law on someone, its aura is one of chaos, and if you cast dispel chaos it will dispel the protection from law. Effectively, spells with an alignment descriptor are treated as being cast by someone of that alignment regardless of the caster's actual alignment.
As to there being no guideline in Pathfinder, that's not even close to the truth. And the rules for alignment in Pathfinder (or even core D&D 3.x) are much better than the nonsense in the Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, which are arbitrary and in many cases stupid and contradictory.
Here is D&D/PF alignment broken down to the basics.
From .
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.
Good
Altruism, protecting others, making personal sacrifices.Evil
Hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
Cannibalism is the eating of sentient creatures / your own species. Of course, assuming you're not eating them alive (which would be harming others), you're probably just eating a corpse (an object). This is not evil. It is usually considered gross, but gross is not evil. You are not harming, debasing, nor oppressing anyone. It doesn't meet the criteria for being evil.
Murder is evil. It meets the criteria for hurting / killing people.
Torture is evil. It meets the criteria for hurting / oppressing people.
Slavery is usually evil. It meets the criteria for hurting / oppressing people.
Bigotry is evil. It meets the criteria for hurting / oppressing people.
Sexual assault is evil. It meets the criteria for hurting / oppressing people.
Killing (killing a sentient is evil) in self defense or defense of others (protecting someone, yourself or otherwise, is good). The result is this is pretty much a neutral situation. It's neither good, nor evil. This is why Paladins can exist without falling every time they run an orc through in the defense of someone else or themselves. Likewise, execution - seen as both a punishment and a precaution to prevent the guilty from enacting more crimes/evils - is usually Neutral for these same reasons.
These simple yet highly effective rules for alignment allow a GM and its players to quickly and efficiently assess good/evil based on weals and woes for any situation.
Using Cannibalism once more (because it's often brought up in these things) as an example, the following scenarios can quickly be assessed with the rules for alignment.
Scenario #1: A group of hobgoblins are working their way through a mountain when an avalanche occurs. To reach safety, they duck inside a cave and sealed inside. Two of their group died in the avalanche but their bodies on on hand. To survive until they can get out, the remaining hobgoblins eat the corpses of their former companions. Neutral act. It's gross, but they're not hurting anyone.
Scenario #2: A group of hobgoblins are working their way through a mountain when an avalanche occurs. To reach safety, they duck inside a cave and sealed inside. To survive until they can get out, the remaining hobgoblins kill and eat two of their former companions. Evil act. Not for the cannibalism, but for the murder.
Scenario #3: A group of hobgoblins are working their way through a mountain when an avalanche occurs. To reach safety, they duck inside a cave and sealed inside. Seeing that they are all going to starve to death, one decides to save his companions by letting them eat him. He kills himself and the others eat him. The hobgoblin who made a personal sacrifice for his companions did a greatly good act, and his friends are neutral in honoring his wishes to be eaten (they're not actually making any sacrifices, unless perhaps they are making a personal sacrifice to honor his wishes, such as putting aside their own taboos to do so, assuming they would have chosen to starve to death without honoring the last wish of their sentient companion).
In all scenarios, cannibalism is involved, but in only one scenario is it evil. In that scenario it is evil because it involves hurting and oppressing someone (with the murder). In one case, a good act was involved (but not by the cannibals). Now cannibalism may be taboo. Taboo does not mean evil. The hobgoblins may keep it a secret that they ate their former companions (even in the case without murder) because their social order doesn't condone cannibalism and they may be punished based on laws and traditions. Some may evil say any act of cannibalism is evil, but we can look at the facts and say out of game which is right.
For the record, there are tribal cultures in the world whose holy funeral rites included cannibalism of the dead (which some spiritual significance, such as the idea of carrying a part of them in their own lives). Catholicism promotes cannibalism of the savior (the eating of the flesh of Jesus and the drinking of his blood). Don't be so quick to dish out judgment and blanket statements.
(^-^)
|
MDT, would you please provide the link that describes alignment as being a concrete thing in PF? I am currently building a world based on this concept and must have missed it.
In any case, MDT supports my claim that evil/good/law/chaos are abstract because each GM makes the decision. Whether or not evil becomes concrete is trivial.
The alignment system threads remind me of the endless hit point debates - another design that cannot have a definitive solution :(
Accept that every GM will define alignment differently, expect GM rulings to upset you, and try to play through it. Hopefully your paladin will have a GM that tells you up front if something is evil before you follow through on an action.
|
|
PS. Ashiel, how do you know that eating the flesh of Jesus does not hurt him? Are you omniscient?
You can assume away, but you cannot prove it because it does not exist anywhere other than your mind which is inaccessible to everyone but you.
The decision boils down to the GM and his interpretation of your actions.
As to there being no guideline in Pathfinder, that's not even close to the truth. And the rules for alignment in Pathfinder (or even core D&D 3.x) are much better than the nonsense in the Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, which are arbitrary and in many cases stupid and contradictory.
Here is D&D/PF alignment broken down to the basics.
The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
Cannibalism is the eating of sentient creatures / your own species. Of course, assuming you're not eating them alive (which would be harming others), you're probably just eating a corpse (an object). This is not evil. It is usually considered gross, but gross is not evil. You are not harming, debasing, nor oppressing anyone. It doesn't meet the criteria for being evil
So wait, you make fun of Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, but you say exactly what the books say? Doesn't that make you hypocritical?
The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.
The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.
Can you cite this?
|
|
This hits on my issue with making people lose class features for alignment. Falling doesn't make the game more fun.
I disagree completely with this. Falling from grace, striving for redemption, embracing evil after fighting it for so long are all great themes to roleplay.
Being the model soldier for good and deciding willfully to commit an evil act (and fall for it) because you feel it is necessary is a perfect situation to roleplay, to add depth to your character. If there was no risk of falling, there is one less theme to roleplay and the game becomes poorer for it.
What I dislike is the falling trap, where a Paladin unknowingly breaks the code and fall. And I dislike it not because of the fall, but because such a situation robs the player of a wonderful opportunity of roleplaying the fall/not fall dilemna when it should be the crux of a Paladin's roleplay.
PS. Ashiel, how do you know that eating the flesh of Jesus does not hurt him? Are you omniscient?
Last I checked, most consider Jesus to be dead in the physical sense of the word. And, if taken literally, it was Jesus who said he wanted you to eat him. Some Catholics believe that bread and wine can transform into the flesh and blood of Christ. Whether true or not is pretty irrelevant. As if whether he meant it to be figurative or literal. I was just saying that branding something - without looking at context - good or evil is a dark and terrible road to tread. You can very easily insult someone unjustly with such bias.
You can assume away, but you cannot prove it because it does not exist anywhere other than your mind which is inaccessible to everyone but you.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I gave examples of the rules, and then explained that even in reality cannibalism is not black and white. Whether I'm omniscient or not is pretty irrelevant, and if you can prove that following Jesus' instructions literally harms him, then we could probably agree that it's neutral (though if it harms him but Jesus is giving himself for the benefit of others, then we can see Jesus is being "good").
The decision boils down to the GM and his interpretation of your actions.
I'm not sure what the relevancy here is. It doesn't concern the rules, and you just seem to be arguing that good and evil - though clearly defined - are entirely subject to the whims of the GM, which isn't the case. The GM is the final arbiter - which can be a problem if the GM is a tool - but it's not by any means the indicator as to whether something is good or evil in D&D.
So wait, you make fun of Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, but you say exactly what the books say? Doesn't that make you hypocritical?
The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is worse than the Book of Vile Darkness (at least the BoVD is honest about its evils). However, the Book of Vile Darkness has its troubles too, including throwing out the basic structure of good/evil in the core rules that defines good and evil. It is the book that first broke the rules that mindless creatures cannot be aligned (and still can't by the way, according to the core rules). It is the book that begins to brand things not based on evidence or circumstance, but based on bias. Like declaring Negative energy to be evil when it clearly isn't (and positive energy good).
Though the two are meant to go hand in hand, the Book of Exalted Deeds is the worst. Might as well be called the Book of Extreme Hypocrisy or Evils Posing As Goods. The two contradict pretty fiercely as well, including putting [Evil] spells onto the spell lists of exalted characters.
The solution is obvious.
Since paladins are good (it says so under Alignment heading on the class description) whatever a paladin does must be good.
The question is not "is killing babies evil?" but "what made those particular babies evil?" and it's an academic question at best, because the paladin has already killed them.
While this approach may seem distasteful to you at first, it saves an enormous amount of time and energy at the table. Remember, it is not your responsibility, as a GM or a player, to teach sociopathic munchkins to be virtuous. It's just a game.
was it Nixon that said "when the president does it, it is legal"?
snip
Good
Altruism, protecting others, making personal sacrifices.
Evil
Hurting, oppressing, and killing others.The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
What if you have the Groetus cleric earlier? He makes personal sacrifices to improve the status of others by providing them with the favor they don't know they need by killing them.
What if you have the Groetus cleric earlier? He makes personal sacrifices to improve the status of others by providing them with the favor they don't know they need by killing them.snip
Good
Altruism, protecting others, making personal sacrifices.
Evil
Hurting, oppressing, and killing others.The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
I didn't see that cleric (link to post?), but it seems pretty clear to me - based on the rules for alignment as they are - that if it was uninvited, it would fall into the evil category. Misguided evil perhaps, but evil none the less. If I murder you against your will, I'm hurting, oppressing, and killing you. Even if I think that you're going to a better place, it's evil.
But that doesn't mean we have the whole story. It's entire to do both good and evil in the same action. Paladins do this each time they engage in combat (killing / harming is evil) while they generally do it for good reasons (protecting others), resulting in it being Neutral.
In your post you said the cleric is making personal sacrifices to do, what he believes, is improving the condition of others. So in essence, this cleric appears to be committing both good AND evil in his actions, and seems poised to be a rather interesting Neutral character. Possibly gripped by insanity or religious conditioning.
There are many cases of evil that are done out of a desire to do good, or by people confused, misguided, or twisted to believe is good when it's not. However, it's fairly difficult - IMHO - to find a situation of moral quandary that can't be dissected through these basic principles.
The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.Can you cite this?
Yep, Cannabalism is itself untyped alignment wise and treated as a fetish pg 10 (BoED).
It does say that powering vile spells is a evil act. Thus, unless powering a vile spell it is not evil (or doing for fun not because hungry).I'd like to know where the opposite's approach is supported by.
People casually say it is evil, but never support where and when they say where they never say what page.
|
|
Ashiel wrote, "It doesn't concern the rules, and you just seem to be arguing that good and evil - though clearly defined - are entirely subject to the whims of the GM, which isn't the case."
I completely disagree. Good and evil are not clearly defined. Simply because it is impossible.
You cannot define something for everyone that is only definable for one and then only definable for a certain time period. What tastes good to one may not taste good to another (what tastes good at age 15 may not taste good at age 30). What is evil to one is not evil to another.
You cannot have "rules" for abstract concepts because those concepts are both subjective and ever-changing. In the Middle Ages, it was not only acceptable for a 12-year-old girl to marry a 40-year-old man, it was considered a blessing. Not so much today.
The best you can do is create guidelines to help the GM make decisions.
I mean this in all sincerity, take some time to consider how applying your belief system on to other people is detrimental to this conversation. If you are unable to understand my most recent request then please post the exact text you believe has defined good and evil. I will try to help you understand why it is not defined.
imho, yes, those all count as cannibialism in a fantasy world, and I as a Game Master would rule eating them as an evil actCannabialism (which in a fanatasy world means eating of the flesh/drink blood of a intelligent creature).
Is eating the following considered Evil:
- Red Dragon Ribs in Honey and Chilli Glaze
- Cutlet from an awakened Dire Boar that evil druid used to keep around
- shish-kebabs from those talking dinosaurs that tried to eat us alive the other day on CastrovelJust curious.
That's ridiculous. Human beings in the real world eat all sorts of intelligent creatures. Honestly, there are pigs and dogs that are smarter than a lot of people. There's absolutely no reason that eating a dragon, speaking boar, or dinosaur should be considered an evil act.
The difference between communicating with "sign language" (pawing, wagging a tail, moving a head, etc...) and speaking is slight enough that if cannibalism was used in the way you're describing, everyone would be a vegetarian.
|
I believe much of this comes down to what form of game your group wants to run. Some folks like black and white, clear boundries of right and wrong. Other groups love playing in the grey areas or moral quandary.
One of the reasons I liked Eberron was its greyer moral areas. It was aided by the fact that their deities were ideals rather than anthropomorphic representations of gods. In that campaign world, the act of evil depended on what side of the border you belonged. One nation fought half the 100 year war by animating their dead soldiers, and the people of that nation thought it was fine given the desperate situation they were in and the fact it saved their sons and daughters having to be slaughtered at the front. Their enemy of course presented this as an abomination and affront to all things that were good.
Remember, the core rules are written to be as flexible as possible so people can apply them or interpret them as needed to fit their campaign. It's always good to leave things such as good and evil a little ambiguous in order to achieve this goal.
If you want to find out what it means specifically for Golarian, then you probably need to check the campaign books, rather than look to the core book.
The more people push for the core book to clearly define absolutely everything, the less flexibility that resource has in applying to multiple campaign worlds.
Cheers
The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.Can you cite this?Yep, Cannabalism is itself untyped alignment wise and treated as a fetish pg 10 (BoED).
It does say that powering vile spells is a evil act. Thus, unless powering a vile spell it is not evil (or doing for fun not because hungry).I'd like to know where the opposite's approach is supported by.
People casually say it is evil, but never support where and when they say where they never say what page.
Starbuck, I don't mean to be rude, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about the Bo*Ds and their views on cannibalism. Nor did I say anything about what either of those books said about aligned spells. The Book of Vile Darkness even says that good characters can cast [Evil] spells for good reasons.
When Whale Cancer asked you to cite your seemingly random claim concerning spells you respond with something about cannibalism. I'm just very confused. You also thought that I was being hypocritical when I said that the core explanations of alignment are better that of those books. And I stand by what I said, and I don't think it was hypocritical (the the two comments were about two different things). I'd be willing to discuss it in great detail with you sometime, but I don't think this is the time or the place to do so now.
========================================================================
I completely disagree. Good and evil are not clearly defined. Simply because it is impossible.
You cannot define something for everyone that is only definable for one and then only definable for a certain time period. What tastes good to one may not taste good to another (what tastes good at age 15 may not taste good at age 30). What is evil to one is not evil to another.
You're missing my point. I'm saying D&D does define what is considered evil in its context. It says so in the alignment rules themselves, and they're quite well defined, if simple. I posted them before and the quotations. Evil revolves around harm, oppression, killing. Good is altruism, protecting innocent life, and concern for others. These basic concepts are what D&D/PF defines as good and evil. It's a very clean system of morality at its foundation because it is practical, modern, and doesn't rely on arbitrary morality. It's very forward-thinking in that we as people can generally accept that we do not like being hurt, oppressed, or killed, and appreciate when people are altruistic, kind to use, and have respect for us. We can see that one is good to us and one is bad to us. Pretty basic and shared universally barring social constructions.
You cannot have "rules" for abstract concepts because those concepts are both subjective and ever-changing. In the Middle Ages, it was not only acceptable for a 12-year-old girl to marry a 40-year-old man, it was considered a blessing. Not so much today.
You're mistaking social acceptability for good and evil. There is nothing inherently evil about such a marriage. It is a social construct.
Now if you want to argue that the union creates potential danger for those involved, we could objectively decide it should not be done for those reasons. However, in terms of D&D, there is nothing inherently good or evil about it.
My great-great-grandparents were married when they were 13. Today this is not socially acceptable. It is not an issue of morality however, but of social norms and what our current generation sees as beneficial or harmful. Much like cannibalism is not socially acceptable, but not evil.
The best you can do is create guidelines to help the GM make decisions.
No, it's not the best you can do. As I noted here, D&D/PF defines good and evil in clear ways. You can then look and see which is the result in a given situation. It is not merely a guideline. It is not entirely up to the GM to determine what something is.
If a GM decides that murdering people is Good, the GM is wrong. He is wrong because the rules say he is wrong. The GM does enjoy (or suffer) the right of arbitration and final verdict when weighing good vs evil, but it doesn't change that good/evil in D&D are already defined.
Starbuck, I don't mean to be rude, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about the Bo*Ds and their views on cannibalism. Nor did I say anything about what either of those books said about aligned spells. The Book of Vile Darkness even says that good characters can cast [Evil] spells for good reasons.
Ys, you did.
I'll requote you:"As to there being no guideline in Pathfinder, that's not even close to the truth. And the rules for alignment in Pathfinder (or even core D&D 3.x) are much better than the nonsense in the Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, which are arbitrary and in many cases stupid and contradictory.
Here is D&D/PF alignment broken down to the basics.
The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
Cannibalism is the eating of sentient creatures / your own species. Of course, assuming you're not eating them alive (which would be harming others), you're probably just eating a corpse (an object). This is not evil. It is usually considered gross, but gross is not evil. You are not harming, debasing, nor oppressing anyone. It doesn't meet the criteria for being evil"
Look, you mentioned Canabalism and mentioned BoVD. You can't not see the words you write can you? You are Ashiel, who I quoted?
I never said you aid anything about aligned spells though. Where did you infer that assumption?
When Whale Cancer asked you to cite your seemingly random claim concerning spells you respond with something about cannibalism. I'm just very confused. You also thought that I was being hypocritical when I said that the core explanations of alignment are better that of those books. And I stand by what I said, and I don't think it was hypocritical (the the two comments were about two different things). I'd be willing to discuss it in great detail with you sometime, but I don't think this is the time or the place to do so now.
No Whale Cancer did not make that clear.
He asked this:"About: The books say it isn't evil unless you are powering a vile spell.
Can you cite this? "
Since I was discussing canabalism and BoVD's mention thereof, he should have been more clear of was thinking of another topic.
Now if he was instead asking if Vile spells are an evil act. It is in the name, but pg 8 mentions that they are evil (so evil take a physical/spiritual tol on a caster) refering to Corrupt Magic (like Vile spells) on chapter 6 (why they make you skip around to get info is worrisome though).
We would then have to jump to Ch. 6:
It defines why spells should have evil discriptor.
It says while not an evil act, cannabalism related spells give evil discriptor (which I'll admit is stupid logic).
It says while Death Watch isn't evil, it taps into evil magic: so BoVD is reason Death Watch is evil discriptor.
|
|
"Evil revolves around harm, oppression, killing."
Harm: You have headphones on with your head down, jamming to your music. You are behind a brick wall and the only thing I can see is your head. You are too far for me to run to. You are about to walk into a street without realizing that an oncoming car will kill you. I throw a rock at your head to warn you. I harmed you. Am I evil? Was it an evil act?
Oppression: an evil spirit can only be controlled by forcing his mind to be overwhelmed with thoughts of flowers. You cast a spell that continuously forces the spirit to think about flowers. If you do not oppress this spirit, it will envelope the entire world in darkness.
Killing: I am evil if I kill a chicken to feed my family?
***
"Good is altruism, protecting innocent life, and concern for others."
Altruism: USA Welfare system. Enough said.
Protecting innocent life: Someone is about to murder a child. The only way you can stop him is to kill him. Opps, just contradicted the rule about killing. Hard to have a rule that contradicts itself. It says nothing about protecting life trumping killing in the rules.
Concern for others: Don't even get me started on this one. People already force their opinion on others way too much in our society.
***
Look, the books can type any words they want and try to define good/evil anyway they want, but they still cannot - not will not or do not but cannot - define an abstract word with abstract words. It is in the realm of the impossible. Abstract words are definitions that come out of your head and every head is different.
Think about that concept.
I mean really think about what I am telling you.
What I consider killing is different than you. I may very well believe that murdering anyone for any reason is an evil act so that child dies. Maybe someone sees the act as neutral because he kills the one that is about to murder (evil) and protecting an innocent (good).
On top of all of that, what if the to-be-murderer decides at the last second that he is not going to kill the child and you slice through him at the moment of his revelation. You are now evil because you did not protect the innocent.
You believe that you are good because you saved an innocent. The child believes it. The person who thought twice and is dead would contest such notions.
This post was just filled with several quick examples. They may seem virtually improbable but they are in the realm of possible which means you cannot have a rule. You can only have guidelines.
Ashiel, I feel you really want to win this thread. I truly wish you would just take the time to think about my side of the argument. Don't respond for a day and just think about the things I typed.
MDT, would you please provide the link that describes alignment as being a concrete thing in PF? I am currently building a world based on this concept and must have missed it.
Simply look up the terms Alignment, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. They are not described as being anything other than absolutes.
Alignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have alignment.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
You have An Alignment, singular. If it were subjective, you would have one alignment based on what you believed, and another based on what someone else perceived you to have based on their subjective model. In fact, you'd have pretty much every alignment all the time because someone in the world is going to think you're way too lawful, or way too chaotic, or way to goody goody or way too evil, based on their own beliefs.
Secondly, note the part about animals. If good/evil/law/chaos were subjective, not objective, then animals would have alignments, because people perceive vipers as evil and poisonous spiders and other vermin as evil (especially ones that say, bite small children, who are perceived as innocent and good). Ipso facto, alignments are concrete and objective, not subjective. So you have an alignment, and it's your alignment. It might change, but it's not going to change what it means when it interacts with other things in the world, such as detect good/evil/law/chaos or things like Empyreal Sorcerer's Heavenly Flame ability which heals good and damages evil. If you are good, no matter what someone subjectively believes you to be, you get healed. Or if evil, you get hurt.
In any case, MDT supports my claim that evil/good/law/chaos are abstract because each GM makes the decision. Whether or not evil becomes concrete is trivial.
Wrong. The specifics are up to each GM, but within the game world, those concepts are concrete. If the GM says that in his world cannibalism is evil at all times, then it is evil at all times. There is no subjectivity in the world. It's either good or evil or neutral. If he says it's evil to kill a sentient for food unless you're starving to death, and there's no other food, then it's neutral, then it's concretely evil or neutral depending on the circumstances for every person in that world, npc or pc. Anything else means the GM is not adjudicating the world, he's just randomly deciding each time.
Accept that every GM will define alignment differently, expect GM rulings to upset you, and try to play through it. Hopefully your paladin will have a GM that tells you up front if something is evil before you follow through on an action.
Absolutely each GM will define alignment differently, but within the world he's running in, that alignment is concrete. I never said it was concrete across all games, I said it was concrete within the game world.
|
|
mdt, I have to disagree here. Eberron clearly is an example where your theory of concrete evil and good is absolutley blown out of the water.
See my example above. Raising dead in one nation is not evil, but according to another it is. A character from the nation of animators will raise the dead for use to protect the living as they believe the soul has left and only meat remains. They see the greater good in the act and are not acting evil.
The religious fanatics in the other world (not being inflamatory, in Eberron they were religious fanatics) would never rais the dead unless they were being deliberately evil because of their belief structure.
The act itself is not concrete, but perhaps the reasons behind it are. This is where many people get confused or disagree and thus moral quandary comes into play.
What you're describing is a black and white game. What many other people play is a shades of grey game. In a shades of grey game, it is the intent behind the act that matters, not the act itself. This then comes down to GM and Player agreement.
In a black and white game, intent means less than act. These are easier to GM, since it is clearly defined and less argument about why it happened.
Interstingly, a Paladin is far easier to paly in a shades of grey game than a black and white.
Cheers
Edit - Actually, I may have misread what you're saying there Mdt, appologies. I've left my post up as I still think the points are vaild, but now its not a counter argument to your post.
Secondly, note the part about animals. If good/evil/law/chaos were subjective, not objective, then animals would have alignments, because people perceive vipers as evil and poisonous spiders and...Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Funny, that looks entirely subjective to me.
One creature (an animal) kills and eats an intelligent creature (a human): it is neutral, because it is acting out of instinct/need and not processing the act against a background of morality.One creature (a human) kills and eats an intelligent creature (a human): it is evil, because it is acting according to some degree of logic, and necessarily is aware of that tapestry of morality against which their actions will be measured.
That's subjective: one creature can't be evil because it isn't acting with intent, or a deep consideration and awareness of morality? So now alignment requires an assessment of both intent and knowledge.
-Is a man evil if he kills another man while they are both lost in the snowy mountains and starving to death? He's acting on instinct now (self-preservation, hunger), and not drawing upon societal morals, but he murderer someone, and committed cannibalism. Is he evil?
-Is someone with a 5 intelligence (mentally handicapped) that commits one of the aforementioned evil acts evil? Even though they have only a little more than animal intellect?
-Is a person who was raised in a society that eats its dead (doesn't kill them, just eats the corpses of the naturally diseased) evil? Is the society? What if the person travels to a region that finds such practices appalling?
-What if the animal is given more intelligence, say by a spell? Does it become evil when it eats someone, since it can now think about the act?
-Why are mindless undead evil? They have no morality, no capacity for thought. If anything, they are even MORE base than an animal, and some undead don't even act without being directed. So why are they evil?
-A construct is neutral, even if it performs all of the exact same actions as a zombie. Why? Neither are capable of thought, or rationale, of contemplating morality. The magic that creates a zombie is evil, so the act of raising the dead can be seen as evil in an objective way, but the undead created shouldn't be if they are mindless.
That's all subjective. Sure, it isn't based upon the observation of each other individual you come into contact with, so it isn't subjectivism as Sartre would put it, but it's certainly according to SOMETHING's perception and definition of your actions, knowledge, and capacity for rational thought.
I'll requote you:
"As to there being no guideline in Pathfinder, that's not even close to the truth. And the rules for alignment in Pathfinder (or even core D&D 3.x) are much better than the nonsense in the Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, which are arbitrary and in many cases stupid and contradictory.Here is D&D/PF alignment broken down to the basics.
The simplicity is actually very useful, and makes determining alignment situations very strait-forward and on a case by case basis, without having to have a rule for every individual act. For example, Cannibalism is not evil.
Cannibalism is the eating of sentient creatures / your own species. Of course, assuming you're not eating them alive (which would be harming others), you're probably just eating a corpse (an object). This is not evil. It is usually considered gross, but gross is not evil. You are not harming, debasing, nor oppressing anyone. It doesn't meet the criteria for being evil"
Starbuck_II, I'm going to try and break it down for you here, since we're not getting across here. These are mutually exclusive things. I did not say what you are saying. I responded, specifically, to this:
So there is no guideline at all in Pathfinder? Its all subject to Gamemaster interpretation? I find that hard to believe. From what I have seen on these threads, there are some pretty questionable ideas as what is evil. And give me a break, casting a spell with the evil descriptor isn't evil?
With this:
Yes, it's not evil. It never has been. Nor is it good, lawful, or chaotic. The alignment descriptor affects how it interacts with other effects, and it restricts access for clerics. Nothing more, nothing less. If you cast protection from law on someone, its aura is one of chaos, and if you cast dispel chaos it will dispel the protection from law. Effectively, spells with an alignment descriptor are treated as being cast by someone of that alignment regardless of the caster's actual alignment.
As to there being no guideline in Pathfinder, that's not even close to the truth. And the rules for alignment in Pathfinder (or even core D&D 3.x) are much better than the nonsense in the Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds, which are arbitrary and in many cases stupid and contradictory.
Notice I said nothing about cannibalism in relation to the Book of Vile Darkness. The two are unrelated. There is a communication failure here.
"Evil revolves around harm, oppression, killing."
Harm: You have headphones on with your head down, jamming to your music. You are behind a brick wall and the only thing I can see is your head. You are too far for me to run to. You are about to walk into a street without realizing that an oncoming car will kill you. I throw a rock at your head to warn you. I harmed you. Am I evil? Was it an evil act?
Oppression: an evil spirit can only be controlled by forcing his mind to be overwhelmed with thoughts of flowers. You cast a spell that continuously forces the spirit to think about flowers. If you do not oppress this spirit, it will envelope the entire world in darkness.
Killing: I am evil if I kill a chicken to feed my family?
You aren't reading are you? First off, something akin to this sort of X vs Y scenario was already brought up with the instance of a Paladin killing to protect someone. At worst it's Neutral. Secondly, you're taking things out of context, trying to challenge my words rather than those of the rules which I already quoted. Good and evil are defined. You have the definitions. Now it's only a matter of determining how much of one there is versus the other.
Much in the case of the Paladin with a sword scenario, where the good/evil balance out, you're going to end up with Neutral in many of these cases. Go figure, the majority of people in the world are Neutral. Imprisoning someone is oppressive, but if done to deter harm or further misdeeds (as in the case of jailing) it balanced by a Good.
***
"Good is altruism, protecting innocent life, and concern for others."
Altruism: USA Welfare system. Enough said.
Not enough said. Is this some sort of sick joke?
Protecting innocent life: Someone is about to murder a child. The only way you can stop him is to kill him. Opps, just contradicted the rule about killing. Hard to have a rule that contradicts itself. It says nothing about protecting life trumping killing in the rules.
Concern for others: Don't even get me started on this one. People already force their opinion on others way too much in our society.
Newsflash man, there are other alignments besides Good and Evil. There's this big fat one called Neutral. Believe it or not, the vast majority of things that you will ever do will probably fall into this category. Especially in D&D. Not every act is one of good or evil. Most every situation you've shown here is an example of a situation that is a mixture of both good and evil. By definition, that is the middle ground. Unless there is a clear advantage of one to the other. In the case of the defending the child (almost verbatim what the Paladin issue brings up) you are acting altruistically to protect the innocent though you are killing someone to do so, but your net result is more good than evil. This is pretty much why Paladins can exist at all in D&D.
Look, the books can type any words they want and try to define good/evil anyway they want, but they still cannot - not will not or do not but cannot - define an abstract word with abstract words. It is in the realm of the impossible. Abstract words are definitions that come out of your head and every head is different.
Think about that concept.
I mean really think about what I am telling you.
Then drop alignment from your games entirely. Either it's defined and usable or it's not and is not. I'm telling - nay showing - you that these things are defined clearly as to what they are in D&D/Pathfinder, and in ways that these basic principles can be used to measure any situation with relative ease. These are not abstract terms in D&D/PF because they are defined and therefore not abstract.0
What I consider killing is different than you. I may very well believe that murdering anyone for any reason is an evil act so that child dies. Maybe someone sees the act as neutral because he kills the one that is about to murder (evil) and protecting an innocent (good).
I don't give a flying flip as to what you consider about killing. In D&D, killing is evil. Protecting innocents is good. So when you do this, you're being Neutral. That's fine. Neutral is an alignment too, and the vast majority of actions are going to fall into this category.
On top of all of that, what if the to-be-murderer decides at the last second that he is not going to kill the child and you slice through him at the moment of his revelation. You are now evil because you did not protect the innocent.
Says who? You made a commitment to protect the child as best as you could given the circumstances as you know them. If you leap in front of someone to block a scorching ray, only to find it was a harmless figment, you still acted altruistically, making a personal sacrifice of your own safety, etc. Good and evil is based on the choices you make. This is why animals can be nothing but Neutral, because they cannot make choices. If you cannot make a choice, nothing you do is aligned.
The alignment rules cover this. You're just too damn interested in trying to pick a fight and argue nonsense instead of just reading the alignment rules.
You believe that you are good because you saved an innocent. The child believes it. The person who thought twice and is dead would contest such notions.
So?
This post was just filled with several quick examples. They may seem virtually improbable but they are in the realm of possible which means you cannot have a rule. You can only have guidelines.
No, you have rules on what is good and evil. All you did in any of these cases was display a situation where both good and evil were present in the action, and presenting it like it was a hard question. Due to morality in D&D being well-defined, it's not hard. You end up with an action that is neither good nor evil because it is both. That's called NEUTRAL.
Ashiel, I feel you really want to win this thread. I truly wish you would just take the time to think about my side of the argument. Don't respond for a day and just think about the things I typed.
No. I enjoy philosophy. I understand your position. I just find it incredibly flawed. It's neither new, nor noteworthy. Also, there is nothing to win. This is not a contest with prizes or a high-score card. I have nothing to win, and thus winning is not a motivation.
And how can you ask me to think about the things you typed when you're clearly not even reading what I've typed or the manual? *rolls eyes*
The system of morality in PF, because of the conceit of absolute morality is so alien from the way things work IRL that it very quickly becomes silly when a discussion uses one to try to elucidate the other.
The fact that heavily militarized religious fanatics can be and often are played straight as a good thing within the world of the game should be evidence enough of this.
The system of morality in PF, because of the conceit of absolute morality is so alien from the way things work IRL that it very quickly becomes silly when a discussion uses one to try to elucidate the other.
The fact that heavily militarized religious fanatics can be and often are played straight as a good thing within the world of the game should be evidence enough of this.
I'm inclined to agree, largely due to it being relatively impossible to reconcile the game mechanics with such moral relativism, but it still leaves things open to an awful lot of subjectivity.
It requires setting some explicit rules down, and then fitting exceptional situations into that framework subjectively.
So, in one person's game it can be evil to eat a dead dragon, regardless of the dragon's alignment or why the players have an edible draconic corpse to chow down on.
In mine, I'd say that consumption only counts as cannibalism if the two creatures are of the same type or subtype (maybe). Humanoids eating other humanoids is cannibalistic, but they can go ahead and eat rabbits, bears, unicorns, dragons, etc... without consequence on those grounds alone. This is, if you kill an intelligent creature purely for the sport of it, then you're approaching evil, whereas if you kill another creature of the same type as you because you're starving to death and there aren't any other options, that's going to simply be neutral.
A paladin may choose to die rather than perform such an act, because killing a creature so closely related to themselves is NOT a good act, and is (probably) against the law. Extenuating circumstances may justify the character engaging in cannibalism, and may not even require an Atonement, but that would very much depend upon such a character's philosophy probably.
I also tend to allow more leeway for characters who aren't required to be of a particular alignment, which means that some things that would be problematic for a LG paladin wouldn't be so problematic for a LG fighter, and an act that would read as Chaotic Evil would be a bigger deal to a LG paladin than to a LG monk, who would seriously oppose the Chaotic portion of that, but who isn't as strictly adherent to the Good/Evil spectrum. All that said, if characters continuously, or egregiously, act outside of their alignment, I'll shift it.
mdt, I have to disagree here. Eberron clearly is an example where your theory of concrete evil and good is absolutley blown out of the water.
Wrong.
A) Eberron is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the GM has to interpret the rules within his game world. The writer of Eberron modified the alignment rules.
B) Paizo, in PF, and WoTC, in 3.5 OGL, decided that undead = Evil. Specific worlds might change that (ala Eberron and Golarion with their JuJu Zombies), however, the core rules dictate undead = Evil. Period. Full stop. That's why raise undead spells have [Evil] as a subtype. Period. Full stop.
So, my theory of concrete evil within the core rules is correct. A GM (or more accurately, a specific setting) can alter those rules. But core rules assume concrete concepts with no subjectivity.
Edit :
Edit - Actually, I may have misread what you're saying there Mdt, appologies. I've left my post up as I still think the points are vaild, but now its not a counter argument to your post.
Sorry myself, missed this somehow until I hit submit. I think you are missing what I was saying. I'm saying the rules, as written, are written for law/chaos/good/evil to be concrete concepts, with physical personifications (daemons, angels, etc) that are wholly and completely built of those concepts. An individual world setting can alter those assumptions, but the rules themselves consider them concrete objective absolutes.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Secondly, note the part about animals. If good/evil/law/chaos were subjective, not objective, then animals would have alignments, because people perceive vipers as evil and poisonous spiders and...
Funny, that looks entirely subjective to me.
One creature (an animal) kills and eats an intelligent creature (a human): it is neutral, because it is acting out of instinct/need and not processing the act against a background of morality.
Then please explain how an animal can have no alignment if alignment is subjective? Your argument would require the animal to have a subjective understanding of itself as neutral (which it can't have, since it operates on instinct) and for the entire world to all have the same subjective agreement that it is neutral.
One creature (a human) kills and eats an intelligent creature (a human): it is evil, because it is acting according to some degree of logic, and necessarily is aware of that tapestry of morality against which their actions will be measured.That's subjective: one creature can't be evil because it isn't acting with intent, or a deep consideration and awareness of morality? So now alignment requires an assessment of both intent and knowledge.
No, it is not subjective. I suggest you research what Objective and Subjective mean. In a nut shell, Subjective means that the perceiver's conception of the event/topic/entity provides meaning. Objective means that the perceiver's conception is irrelevant. For Good/Evil to be subjective means that good/evil is defined by the observer, which means that it's defined by EVERYONE involved, not some arbitrary standard.
What you object to is you believe that calling an animal neutral for killing a human and eating him while a human doing the same is evil is an arbitrary distinction made by the players/gm/developers. And that's fine, if you want to argue that. But it has nothing to do with the rules as written. If you want to argue it's an arbitrary distinction, go for it. But it has nothing to do with the argument over whether good/evil/law/chaos are objective within the rules of the game. That's a meta-game decision on how the rules are written, not how they work. You might just as well argue that a d100 percentile would have been better than a d20, that the choice of a d20 was arbitrary and subjective.
A bunch of hypotheticals.
-Cannibalism. Rules Answer : Yes, by the rules of the game, he has committed an objectively evil act, per the devs. Real World Answer : Possibly, it depends on the circumstances, and the state of the person's mind.
-You are incorrect in your surmise. A person with a 5 intelligence is considered smarter than the average bear. They are capable of thinking coherent thoughts, but not, in all likelyhood, deep involved philosophy. An animal has a 1 or 2 intelligence, and PC's cannot have lower than a 3 intelligence and still be sentient. So... Rules Answer : A 3 int character that murders someone to eat them, whether they are starving in a wasteland or not, has committed an objectively evil act. Real World Answer : The person is probably not guilty due to diminished capacity.
-Cannibalism is not, per the rules, evil. Only killing to do so. Game Answer : No, it is not an evil act to eat the dead as long as you did not kill them for that purpose. Real World Answer : Gray area, real world is subjective, some will say yes based on their ethics matrix, others will say no. Secondary question : What if the person is appalled? This drives to the heart of why you are wrong about subjectiveness. If it was subjective morality within the rules, then the answer would depend on the person who was appalled!. They would, subjectively, determine if it was evil. Within the rules, any given character (NPC or PC) can believe it is evil, but that doesn't make it evil. Ergo, Good/Evil/Law/Chaos within the rules is not subjective. It is objective because the observer (the character, be they PC or NPC) has no impact on whether the act is evil or good or lawful or chaotic.
-Animal gaining Int to sentiences : Game Rules : Yes, it commits an evil act if it kills another sentient for the express purpose of eating it. If it eats a sentient it had to kill for some other reason (self defense), then eating it is not an evil act. Killing it could be an evil act, if he killed the person for their equipment for example, but then eating it afterwards wouldn't be, unless he planned both ahead of time. Real World Answer : There are no sentient animals in the real world, bogus question.
-Why are undead evil. Game Answer : Because the rules say they are. The choice of why may have been arbitrary, but the fact they are is objective. A character can believe that mindless undead are not evil, but his belief is immaterial to the question. Real World Answer : There are no mindless (or sentient) undead (unless you count Dick Cheney). Bogus Question (unless we're counting Dick Cheney, in which case, yes, Evil!).
-Constructs. Game Answer : Because Constructs are not Undead. They are not animated with negative energy. They are not Evil, by Game Rules. If you don't like that, that's fine, you can consider it an arbitrary decision, but within the rules, it is objective. Constructs are not evil (unless the GM alters the world matrix to allow an Evil Construct) because they have not a mind. Within Eberron, constructs can be evil, because they gain moral choice. Real World Answer : Despite attempts to demonize guns, they are built objects and are not inherently good or evil, it is how they are used. Dame with nuclear devices (a good use for a nuclear device would be detonating an asteroid to avoid a planetary hit for example, while a bad use would be to detonate a city). They are objects, and not inherently good or bad.
Good Versus Evil
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.
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him
I dont see what is so hard.
there are the guide lines.
What are you intentions?
Because the Paladin can 'get away with' killing evil doers. Then suddenly there is no evil. And we focus on the Paladin and how we can make him fall, for killing.
This is silliness, has been for awhile.
It's pretty plain what evil is.
|
|
MDT, maybe I did not clarify whether the decisions were in game or in real life. My point is that every GM makes the decisions on whether something is good or evil because real life is subjective. Once the GM has made a decision then it is concrete for that specific instance only and most likely many more like it.
Here is where the problem lies...a GM might say some cannibalism is evil while another is not. It is still subjected to GM's beliefs and therefore by definition cannot be a rule, it is a guideline - there are simply too many possibilities.
Additionally, players might argue a decision by the GM. Their belief systems might make an impact upon the outcome of a GM's decision as well, therefore making the decision more complex.
You argued semantics about subjective and objective. Would you take a few moments to look up the definitions of "rule" and "guideline"?
Irranshalee,
You are still missing the point. How the GM rules is entirely up to the GM. I agree 100%. However, within the world the GM is describing, from the point of view of the characters, good/evil/law/chaos is black and white, because the ruels of the system (detect, subtypes, planar entities, etc) treats them as concrete.
There is no such thing in the bestiary as an Evil Angel, nor is there a Good Daemon, because ALL angel's are good and ALL Daemon's are evil. Certain acts are always evil, others are always good.
Exactly what acts are or are not good or evil might be influenced by the GM's desires, but within the reality that the characters inhabit it is 100% concrete what is what. And no amount of argument you present over meta-game considerations changes what is concrete or not concrete in the game world.
|
|
MDT wrote, "-You are incorrect in your surmise. A person with a 5 intelligence is considered smarter than the average bear. They are capable of thinking coherent thoughts, but not, in all likelyhood, deep involved philosophy. An animal has a 1 or 2 intelligence, and PC's cannot have lower than a 3 intelligence and still be sentient. So... Rules Answer : A 3 int character that murders someone to eat them, whether they are starving in a wasteland or not, has committed an objectively evil act. Real World Answer : The person is probably not guilty due to diminished capacity."
MDT, please answer these questions for "Rules Answer" with a yes or no answer only:
Is killing a person evil because you hate them?
Is killing a person evil if you are afflicted with temporary insanity?
Is killing a person evil because your body has gone into starvation mode (note that cognitive thought goes out the window when you reach this point)?
Is killing a person evil because they are evil?
Is killing a person evil because they are about to cast a fireball on a group of children playing?
***
PRD: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Imply is subjective not concrete. You cannot make a rule with emotions. It is as much a law of reality as gravity. It is theoretically impossible.
|
|
Irranshalee,
You are still missing the point. How the GM rules is entirely up to the GM. I agree 100%. However, within the world the GM is describing, from the point of view of the characters, good/evil/law/chaos is black and white, because the ruels of the system (detect, subtypes, planar entities, etc) treats them as concrete.There is no such thing in the bestiary as an Evil Angel, nor is there a Good Daemon, because ALL angel's are good and ALL Daemon's are evil. Certain acts are always evil, others are always good.
Exactly what acts are or are not good or evil might be influenced by the GM's desires, but within the reality that the characters inhabit it is 100% concrete what is what. And no amount of argument you present over meta-game considerations changes what is concrete or not concrete in the game world.
I understand your point completely and to me it appears you are trying to build a house out of water.
I have no issue with angels being the embodiment of good. I have no problem with evil being an actual force in the universe. I simply have a problem with alignment being defined as a rule because it cannot be defined as such. It can only be a guideline.
PS You know, if alignment was simply taken out of the game mechanics we would not be having this discussion.
|
|
Good roleplay involves the character realizing the error of his ways and striving to do better. It is something the player wants to do with his character.
It doesn't involve the DM telling the player he can't do something with his character or else the paladin loses all his powers and has to spending 2500 gold to get the powers back.
Actually the DM isn't telling the player anything new. The player has chosen to play the Paladin class, which includes the risk of falling. In other words, the player accepted to put his character's powers in the hands of the GM. Which should be BTW an excellent reason to check beforehand what actions the GM considers as breaking the code.
And I am all for houseruling Atonement anyway. IMO it should be 1st-level and never cost anything (as paying for it makes me feel like bribing the god). There is already enough GM control built in the spell itself that Paladins will not spend all day in a falling-atone cycle.
That said, I feel like I am missing your point here :-/