|
PS You know, if alignment was simply taken out of the game mechanics we would not be having this discussion.
And we would be much the poorer for it.
I feel that these threads give us a lot of insights in the nature of RL morality by exposing us to many different takes on what is Good, what is Evil, same with Law, Chaos, Neutral. Opinions that we will not agree with but that are quite real and important to their posters nonetheless.
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."
Since the d20 system emerged, 3 Intelligence is high enough to have the moral capacity for right and wrong. Therefor, unless you were reduced to animalistic intelligence (<3) you are responsible for your actions, and whether punishable or not, you develop alignment. There is a very, very large gap between 2 Int and 3 Int.
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?
I'm not MDT but an answer is an answer.
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Yes (in D&D starvation doesn't lead to cognitive insanity).
4) Yes.
5) No.
The alignment rules as they are presented are pretty clear on the matter if you actually read them. I'll break each of them down.
1) Yes: Because hate or not, you're killing them with no good.
2) No: If you don't have the capacity to make moral choices then your choices do not influence your morality (it covers this with the notation about animals and mindless creatures).
3) Yes: Again, D&D starvation doesn't lead to insanity. If it did lead to mind-numbing insanity then the answer would be the same as the insanity question.
4) Yes: Killing someone only due to their alignment is evil. This is akin to killing someone out of hate. One less evil does not make a good, and without a good to balance it, this is evil. This is why Paladins cannot go around smiting everyone who pings on their radar.
5) No: This goes back to the good vs evil. By killing the mage (an evil) you are also acting good (protecting others, altruistic, etc), and arguably in greater amounts than you are doing evil. Net result is at worst Neutral, but generally speaking Good.
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.
I checked the definition of Implied before I went into this conversation the first time.
implied
im·plied
[im-plahyd] Show IPA
adjective
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.
It is understood that traits A, B, and C are what defines Good while X, Y, and Z are what defines Evil. When someone says "evil" in D&D, they are implying harm, oppression, or killing. When someone says "good" they are implying altruism, protecting others, and personal sacrifice for others.
|
*shrug* what your DM considers evil. Usually, though, singular evil actions wouldn't change your alignment.
But lemme see, what I'd consider evil? I dunno. Usually doing something to benefit yourself at the expense of others. Making decisions and taking the easy, lazy way out that causes a negative outcome just because its easier and faster. I don't know. Killing someone in cold blood just because he annoyed you is evil, I guess. Worshiping an evil deity and drawing power from them makes you evil by game mechanics. Indiscriminate violence with the intent to slaughter innocents for no better reason than because you feel like it? I'd say that's pretty evil. Um...lesse...stealing the last crumb of food from a starving child when you have no need of that same food is pretty evil. Sacrificing a non-willing sentient being for power, permanently crippling someone out of spite, ripping out and damaging someone's soul, destroying a soul, forcing people to commit any of the above actions against their will, hurting others for no particular reason, etc.
I think the problem I'm having here putting my finger on an evil action is because once people have reasons for doing something, once the context of the situation changes, things get complicated. Is the soldier killing a member of an opposing army evil? He IS murdering someone, BUT in so doing he's protecting the citizens of his own country, he's helping his companions win a difficult battle, and he's keeping the man from doing the same to others. But he might have killed him in cold blood JUST because he's the enemy, without thinking about any of these benefits. Suddenly, is that evil because the intent was spiteful, or do the outcomes, being mainly positive, make it good anyway? And then you have to consider the ripple effect the enemy's feath has...
*sigh* Yeah, no idea. Whatever it is the table can agree on is the only stable answer. Otherwise, we wouldn't have multiple-page threads on alignment, and philosophers would be out a job by now...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Little late to the Party but here's my own 2 cents:
I'll say the same stuff I said in the Dhampir thread last week(Since we do have one of these once a week). It's rather clear that certain actions and spells are evil in PF and some are good. There are universal truths in Pathfinder like these. Devs have come and said as much. You have to understand that in Pathfinder, as long as you're using their gods and the RAW of the CRB, this is both a RAI & RAW interpretation. You may not agree with it, but it doesn't make it less true.
Now, the context of these good/evil actions grays an otherwise black and white world. Yes, using an evil/good spell to commit good/evil is questionable in terms of alignemnt. However the context of these actions will at best balance the action to neutral because of the inherent nature of the act offsets it. But even if the act itself is considered evil/good , this isn't the end of the world. I've always championed that alignment is simply a mechanical reflection of your morality in game so I don't see why people don't make such a big deal out of it. You do evil once, you're probably not even going to change to neutral from good, unless you make a habit of it. Or say you make some truely great transgression(like burning an entire village population to death like my players did back in October), that could deserve a switch.
But even then, unless you're a paladin/cleric/samurai, an alignment won't affect the way you play your character. It may affect which abilities affect you, or what powers you have, but that's just the temporary effect. You can always redeem yourself, reneutral yourself, or re-evil yourself unless under some sorta compulsion magic that prevents you from playing your character the way you want to.
Here's were you might say, "Darth, I think you're wrong. In my setting, <insert situation> here it wouldn't be evil! It's up to me as a DM." There you're right. However that's your setting. Your gods are different, your setting is different, your whole WORLD is different. But in a Golarion setting using Pathfinder's rules, things are pretty set from a moral perspective. You can still do what you want with it in your game though, just keep in mind that it's not the way its meant to be played by default, and don't preach it as the way it's intended.
If the sword was evil, it would be an evil tool.Zombies and skeletons are evil. Full stop.
Malarkey. Neither are intelligent, and both will simply stand there if given no orders. They are nothing but automatons. Robots. Sit there and tell me that it's evil to buy a RC toy helicopter, and I'll agree about zombies and skeleton creation/use being evil.
The only "evil" inherent in unintelligent nondestructive undead is if their families freak out over their dead relatives' bodies being used as a war tool. To that, I point out that people have been using corpses for thousands of years now as plague carriers. That's precisely how the Black Death got kicked off back in the mid 1300's; the Mongols used some corpses as a way to end a siege by launching them over a city's walls.
Now, creating a vampire, spectre, ghoul? That I think would be an evil act, assuming you didn't immediately slay the thing after it had done a specific job so it couldn't wreak havoc on its own.
I don't think poison use is inherently evil either. It's just a substance, even one that has medicinal uses. Where do you think antivenom comes from, people? The venom fairy?
Also somewhat of an aside, I think that alignment on the whole works like adding positive and negative numbers together. Evil actions are negatives and Good actions are positive.
So an act that's inherently evil, say Blood Transcription, it has a negative value. Yes, its use could be applied for good(say learning a spell needed to save someone good/innocent). The question is, does the application completely negate the negative of the spell?
And on that point, an single evil act(negative) certainly doesn't negate a life time of good(positive), nor does the reverse.
Mind you, I'd never codify alignement with actual numbers though. It would cheapen it imo.
the "old" 1E paladin became a fighter when he "fell", Mechanically there was ZERO difference between a fallen paladin and a fighter in 1E. I think that was the same for 2E except he became a cavalier instead of a fighter, but mechanically again a fallen paladin didnt lose out. He lost his goodies... but didn't fall behind the non paladin version of himself.
in 3.5 This stopped being true and in PF it got even worse.
The Draw back for not being a Paladin anymore is massive comparatively than it used to be. Old paladin was just a better fighter or a better Cav. 3.5/PF Paladin is basically, what a warrior without his pallyness?
I would say if anything the pally code should be given more room, than become stricter than older versions. I think this is also evidenced by PF cannon, Seelah consorts with evil (seltyiel) without having a moral breakdown, and PFS is sorta the same. All in all the "control" of the paladin should be more on with the PC than it has been in the past (IMO).
I mean there are those players who go off on wild rampages that are wild silliness, and need to be curbed or told to play another character.
But someone on here said it best, (I cant recall who but it was real recent) Paladins are not "contained or restricted by their code" they are Lawful Good and Paladins because they WANT to be, this is the fiber of their essence.
Some players might misunderstand or interpret that rule, just like they would another rule like, AoOs and five foot steps. It's OK, IMO, for the DM to step in say: "this is the rule, this is how it works" In either case.
The DM isn't controlling the PC (or the PC hasn't lost control) in a case where the DM says you can't take two standard actions in the same round, or you can't TWF and Flurry, anymore in saying "your Paladin wouldn't do this, because it against his code"
In the case of TWF and flurrying at the same time, the rules are immobile, nada.
In the case of the Paladin being reminded of the alignment/code rule, he can STILL do as he likes (Full PC control, IMO) but the draw back is losing access to all his divinity, which is 2/3 of the class.
So I don't see it as, IMO, any loss of control.
Just seems silly to have a mindless undead (or any mindless creature type, especially if it has no volition of its own) as being any alignment other than Neutral. We CHOOSE to be good or evil, that's the point of alignments in the first place.
It's not like they do anything besides sit there when not being commanded, people. Skeletons and zombies really are nothing but robots. I don't consider my computer to be inherently good OR evil, so why would I think a zombie is evil? Me, I think the creation of these to be inherently unlawful, but definitely not evil, since what people do with corpses the world over is incredibly varied, and subject to interpretation.
Killing someone to feat on their flesh is evil, but not simply eating dead flesh. Otherwise anyone who's been through a Donner party would be locked up despite what they had to endure just to get to that point of starvation.
Ultimately, an evil act is something that is inherently destructive and selfish, without conscience. It makes all others around them miserable. That's probably the best way I know how of defining it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just seems silly to have a mindless undead (or any mindless creature type, especially if it has no volition of its own) as being any alignment other than Neutral. We CHOOSE to be good or evil, that's the point of alignments in the first place.
It's not like they do anything besides sit there when not being commanded, people. Skeletons and zombies really are nothing but robots. I don't consider my computer to be inherently good OR evil, so why would I think a zombie is evil? Me, I think the creation of these to be inherently unlawful, but definitely not evil, since what people do with corpses the world over is incredibly varied, and subject to interpretation.
Well, I've been into D&D a long time (not braggin', just sayin'). I can honestly say that up until 3.5, mindless creatures were in fact Neutral. Even in the 3E books, skeletons, zombies, lemures, and so forth were Neutral (lemures still had the law and evil subtypes). They were - and still are by the alignment rules - incapable of morality.
When 3.5 came around, there was word on the WotC boards/site that the mindless undead and such were made "evil" so that Paladins could smite them, and the first instance of them being evil at all was in the splat-book Book of Vile Darkness, which branded all undead / negative energy evil (something that the core books and countless other source materials did not support).
Still to this day, there are logical issues that continue to pop up from this. Pathfinder is tainted by the mistake 3.5 made due to the pressure to keep in backwards compatible with 3.5 material.
On a side note, mindless undead weren't any less appreciated as enemies/obstacles in pre-3.5. If anything, they were convenient enemies because they're plentiful, lasting, don't screw with verisimilitude greatly (they don't eat or sleep, so it's only natural to guard ancient magical tombs with them, and you don't have to do much work on ecologies), and are without souls or morality (so you didn't mind breaking them up and didn't have to worry about taking prisoners).
Wait, why would any Paladin waste Smite Evil on a crappy mindless undead?! Logically, why not save that for whatever made them?
Seriously, if a NPC doesn't have mental attributes, how could it possibly have an alignment of any kind? That's like saying "I have an Evil boot, it's possessed!" and expecting people to take you seriously.
If a creature doesn't have a soul, or a mind, it can't choose between Good and Evil, flat out. It just is.
I recall the old debates where poison was thought to be Evil, and shook my head in pain. It's a substance, one that can be used to heal as well as kill (that's the nature of many poisons, interestingly enough). Plus, it's not the apple seed's fault that humans find it poisonous, it just is what it is. A substance has no mind, and therefore no alignment.
Now, a mindless undead that compulsively went about on its own destroying things and people, yeah I would consider its creation to be pure Evil. The creature itself? Probably not, as it has no choice in what it does.
In any campaign I run, I don't have mindless undead register as Evil. Doesn't make sense to do so, and that means Necromancers are neither inherently Good or Evil. Moreover, in my games it is the choices that we make that define us as our alignment, therefore all characters start out as TN, with gradual changes over time (with the exception of Paladins or Clerics etc who have alignment restrictions). Those exceptions start out as having made a few choices already, big whoop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mindless undead being evil holds if you equate evil with negative energy (since they are powered by it).
Amusing scenario: Paladin smites BBEG. Wizard casts Feeblemind on BBEG. BBEG no longer capable of making moral choices... smite fails?
No problem MDT. Glad I could help. (^-^)
<snip>
From a rules standpoint, I actually agree, I think undead should be looked at again. However, I think it should be based on what is used to animate them. I think it would be better if Undead were aligned based on the energy animating them. Negative Energy could still be used for the classic skeleton, specifically necromantic energy that 'absorbs' life force from killed victims, thus keeping the idea of undead that 'thirst' for life force. Other undead, like crypt guardians, might be animated with Positive Energy, and they only guard and don't thirst for life, they only kill to protect the crypt. And finally, for your favorite thing of skeletons doing grunt work like turning grinding wheels, Force energy holding the skeleton together, turning it into basically a neutral Bone Golem.
However, when discussing the system as how it is, rather than what would be more logical, things are different... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why would any Paladin waste Smite Evil on a crappy mindless undead?! Logically, why not save that for whatever made them?
I never suggested it was a good idea. Just that was one of the reasons that was floating around during the 3E->3.5 movement. Paladins really shouldn't be smiting mindless undead. Better to just play whack-a-mole with 'em instead. Save the smites for the big baddies, like Countess Claudia Von Kickassery who has fast healing and loves bathing in a red pool with white rose petals. :P
Seriously, if a NPC doesn't have mental attributes, how could it possibly have an alignment of any kind? That's like saying "I have an Evil boot, it's possessed!" and expecting people to take you seriously.
If a creature doesn't have a soul, or a mind, it can't choose between Good and Evil, flat out. It just is.
This is pretty much exactly how the pre-3.5 game viewed it. Alignment is a morality choice. While there are energies composed of raw evil (profane) and raw good (sacred), a creature has to have choice for it to have morality. This is one of the reasons outsiders have a real alignment in addition to their subtypes. Their subtype (such as an Angel having the Good subtype) shows they are from a plane of that alignment, but their actual morality is based on their choices (though naturally they gravitate heavily towards the alignment of their plane, it still allows for fallen angels or repentant fiends).
Now, a mindless undead that compulsively went about on its own destroying things and people, yeah I would consider its creation to be pure Evil. The creature itself? Probably not, as it has no choice in what it does.
Agreed. It's morally similar to fire. Handled poorly can harm, handled properly can help, but fire is not morally aligned. :)
In any campaign I run, I don't have mindless undead register as Evil. Doesn't make sense to do so, and that means Necromancers are neither inherently Good or Evil. Moreover, in my games it is the choices that we make that define us as our alignment, therefore all characters start out as TN, with gradual changes over time (with the exception of Paladins or Clerics etc who have alignment restrictions). Those exceptions start out as having made a few choices already, big whoop.
Same here actually. I don't have Evil mindless undead simply because it's both illogical and against the rules (while the statblock says evil, the rules say Neutral, and I'm always going to take the core alignment rules over a nonsensical statblock entry every day of the week). None of my players have ever been bothered by it (and I use undead pretty frequently as tomb guardians or infantry for necromancers).
Mindless undead being evil holds if you equate evil with negative energy (since they are powered by it).
Well, kind of like Piccolo mentions, even if negative energy is evil (and positive energy good) it doesn't have anything to do with your alignment. Living creatures (including demons and devils) are powered by positive energy. It is the energy of living, while negative energy is the energy of unliving. The justify undead being evil because of positive energy, one would have to make every living thing innately good as a result. And even then it more or less destroys any point in having alignments at all, because it's no longer about morality but about red vs blue.
There's also the fact that - without house ruling - negative energy and positive energy aren't aligned (and clearly demonstrable within the rules). They are more like matter and antimatter. Similar, but opposed. In D&D, "dead" is kind of like the state of being between living and unliving. If living is +1, and undead is -1, dead is 0. Applying negative energy to the living pushes it closer to dead. The reverse is true for the undead. One would be 100% correct to say that applying life-energy to an undead will kill it.
Amusing scenario: Paladin smites BBEG. Wizard casts Feeblemind on BBEG. BBEG no longer capable of making moral choices... smite fails?
That is an amusing scenario. :P
From a rules standpoint, I actually agree, I think undead should be looked at again. However, I think it should be based on what is used to animate them. I think it would be better if Undead were aligned based on the energy animating them. Negative Energy could still be used for the classic skeleton, specifically necromantic energy that 'absorbs' life force from killed victims, thus keeping the idea of undead that 'thirst' for life force. Other undead, like crypt guardians, might be animated with Positive Energy, and they only guard and don't thirst for life, they only kill to protect the crypt. And finally, for your favorite thing of skeletons doing grunt work like turning grinding wheels, Force energy holding the skeleton together, turning it into basically a neutral Bone Golem.
I did something like this a while back in one of my campaigns. Seeing as positive and negative energy are Neutral aligned, but Sacred and Profane are not, I created variant undead that could be created. Much the same as how Paizo lists variant skeletons (such as burning skeletons) and zombies (such as plague zombies). These sacred or profane undead were animated not only with negative energy (which turns the unlife switch to "on") but infused with an aligned energy. This gave them an aligned subtype (Good for sacred and Evil for profane, though their morality remained Neutral). The result was an undead whose DR required aligned weapons to overcome, and their own attacks were aligned (so a sacred zombie can penetrate DR 5/good).
Naturally, sacred undead would be used as long-standing guardians of tombs or burial sites for honored individuals like saints. Profane undead were unfortunately far more prominent, as evil necromancers would often create them due to their slightly superior nature compared to normal undead (a profane skeleton would have DR 5/bludgeoning and good, so harming them without blessed weapons was difficult, though Holy Water or Fire was pretty darn effective).
'Cause I like to share with you guys, here's a writeup for them.
A sacred skeleton is a mindless undead shell that has been blessed by the essence of good. Creating a sacred skeleton requires a vial of holy water for every HD of the skeleton to be created instead of the normal onyx gemstones used with the animate dead spell.
Type: A sacred skeleton has the Good subtype.
Damage Reduction: A sacred skeleton has DR 5/bludgeoning and evil.
Sacred Zombies
A sacred zombie is a mindless undead shell that has been blessed by the essence of good. Creating a sacred zombie requires a vial of holy water for every HD of the zombie to be created instead of the normal onyx gemstones used with the animate dead spell.
Type: A sacred zombie has the Good subtype.
Damage Reduction: A sacred zombie has DR 5/slashing and evil.
Profane Skeletons
A profane skeleton is a mindless undead shell that has been cursed by the essence of evil. Creating a profane skeleton requires a vial of unholy water for every HD of the skeleton to be created instead of the normal onyx gemstones used with the animate dead spell.
Type: A profane skeleton has the Evil subtype.
Damage Reduction: A profane skeleton has DR 5/bludgeoning and good.
Profane Zombies
A profane zombie is a mindless undead shell that has been cursed by the essence of evil. Creating a profane zombie requires a vial of unholy water for every HD of the zombie to be created instead of the normal onyx gemstones used with the animate dead spell.
Type: A profane zombie has the Evil subtype.
Damage Reduction: A profane zombie has DR 5/slashing and good.
Sacred and Profane Undead in the World
The blessed or cursed bodies of the dead have many uses throughout the world, especially to the clergy of certain gods, or by those of arcane schooling that have need of their specific traits. Sacred undead typically are used as sentries and guardians in the tombs of saints, or the inner catacombs of holy churches and temples. Most are generally dressed and adorned with modest - or sometimes elaborate - clothing or wrappings, which may conceal the fact they are dead (some may even be mistaken for mummies by the uninitiated). Rarely, such creations will be called up by well meaning clerics who serve gods of death or war to act as soldiers in the fight against dark forces. Sacred undead typically have eyes that glow with a blue, green, or even golden tint instead of the traditional glow of mundane undead.
Unfortunately, for every blessed undead that one may find protecting a sarcophagus in the basement of some holy locale, there are several more undead whose existence is cursed with the taint of the utmost evil. Used as weapons against good, and pawns of the malicious, their cursed and tainted bodies are often twisted to appear more ghastly than they would normally appear. A favored tool of priests of dark gods, many are often created and ordered to spread misery and death across the land before being released from their master's control; only to go out and carry on their last order with ruthless efficiency.
Rumor has it that these blessed or cursed undead, while mindless, may rarely exhibit some semblance of emotion associated with the energies infused into them. A sacred undead, if left to its own devices may stand motionless for any amount of time, only to suddenly break its inactivity to push a child out of the way of an onrushing cart before becoming inert again. A profane undead may instead push the child into harm's way, or attack those weaker than itself, seemingly at random. Scholars have long questioned this with no clear answer. Some theorize that the process turns them into a conduit for the will of the gods. Others that the energies awaken some dormant shadows of the corpse's past life (similar to how a speak with dead spell functions), which may be very well true, as these strange actions seem to occur more frequently when the body originally belonged to a good or evil creature before its death.
...the "old" 1E paladin became a fighter when he "fell", Mechanically there was ZERO difference between a fallen paladin and a fighter in 1E. I think that was the same for 2E except he became a cavalier instead of a fighter, but mechanically again a fallen paladin didnt lose out. He lost his goodies... but didn't fall behind the non paladin version of himself.
in 3.5 This stopped being true and in PF it got even worse.
The Draw back for not being a Paladin anymore is massive comparatively than it used to be. Old paladin was just a better fighter or a better Cav. 3.5/PF Paladin is basically, what a warrior without his pallyness?
I would say if anything the pally code should be given more room, than become stricter than older versions. I think this is also evidenced by PF cannon, Seelah consorts with evil (seltyiel) without having a moral breakdown, and PFS is sorta the same. All in all the "control" of the paladin should be more on with the PC than it has been in the past (IMO).
I mean there are those players who go off on wild rampages that are wild silliness, and need to be curbed or told to play another character.
But someone on here said it best, (I cant recall who but it was real recent) Paladins are not "contained or restricted by their code" they are Lawful Good and Paladins because they WANT to be, this is the fiber of their essence.
Some players might misunderstand or interpret that rule, just like they would another rule like, AoOs and five foot steps. It's OK, IMO, for the DM to step in say: "this is the rule, this is how it works" In either case.
The DM isn't controlling the PC (or the PC hasn't lost control) in a case where the DM says you can't take two standard actions in the same round, or you can't TWF and Flurry, anymore in saying "your Paladin wouldn't do this, because it against his code"
In the case of TWF and flurrying at the same time, the rules are immobile, nada.
In the case of the Paladin being reminded of the alignment/code rule, he can
No it's not control unless the DM is prancing all over the place making ridiculous "muahahaha you fall scenarios"
The Paladin of PF doesnt have the same "problems" the earlier Paladin did (consorting with evil and only willing to travel with non good on a limited basis)So my argument is his 'controls' are actually MORE lax than in the days of yore.
If you want to play a morally ambiguous LG character dont play a Paladin.
This is a Player and Character who WANTS to act this way.
IF you have a Paladin hunter DM, play something else.
I'm largely going to skip most of this debate as I don't really have time to read it all.
That said, for a character to flip to an evil alignment, it really needs to be prolonged and constant acts of evil before they flip over unless their act is so utterly abhorent that it flips them there and then.
Not to mention that anything below 5 HD (like most NPCs) will not ping as evil. This suggests that in order for someone to detect as evil, they must have some kind of physical or magical power to back that up. Unless, of course, they happen to be Undead or an Outsider. Or a Cleric/Paladin of an evil god.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
That's not overly restrictive.
Wanting to play a paladin who lies and uses poison is like wanting to play a magus you casts divine spells. It's not what this class does.
I like the bonuses and mechanics and woo Hoo! but I dont want anything else with it.
I also want a full BAB monk and ninja....
The thing that makes the paladin special and fun IS it's code, other than that it would just be a better fighter. IVe seen plenty of the "why even PLAY a fighter threads. THIS, this is why you might want to play a fighter, because you don't want to play this kind of a character.
IF the Pally is captured by the evil demon lord, and he says "Did you come alone?" Is the Paladin forced to say "No dread lord of doom, my friends are hiding behind that rock yonder!"
No.
What as a paladin do you want to lie about anyway?
Are we discussing the bluff skill?
I suppose that depends on how one perceives bluff.
It also depends on whom the Paladin perceives as an equal or an innocent.
Should the paladin try to deceive equals, innocents or authority? No.
If asked by the Lord of the land did he find any treasure on his quest, the paladin would answer him truthfully, BECAUSE that's who the paladin is.
He's not duty or honor bound to treat truthfully with Black guards and vampires. Bluff away.
Besides, a lie or two is not knowingly committing an evil act, so isn't a single act that will lose him his status. He shouldn't make a habit of it, but what if his lie was to prevent the outbreak of chaos on the streets because he knew what the truth would do?
What if he had good reason that the king was corrupt and he had detected evil on him and got a positive reading? And that telling him the location of the holy sword of great deeds would be a really bad thing? Can he lie?
Sure.
It's not an evil act.
constantly telling mistruths and spinning wild tales is chaotic behavior, but bluff can still be a skill used by a paladin in certain situations.
I however, in cases such as this would allow the Paladin to use his/her diplomacy to determine the result, since he/she is using a skillful patronizing of a lord or noble to avoid giving them harmful information that could cause evil/chaos to spread.
What is the paladins intention and why is he doing/saying what he is? It's not a robot "I cannot do this thing"
If a DM is going to force him to tell the truth to the demon lord or the evil king, or betray his friends or the safety of innocents, or else lose his powers. Seriously, just play something else. Or dont play with that DM.
Personally, I disagree with the idea that poison is inherently dishonorable. I can easily cite examples where this is not true.
Would you stop and tell me that a battered, terrified wife is dishonorable for poisoning her abusive, violent husband, especially when she's already gone to the cops and been told they essentially can't help?
Ultimately, I just point out Superman to players wanting to run a Paladin, and tell them to act like he would. I also give help and warning shots to players who are new to the idea of LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins aren't battered, terrified wives! They're immune to fear! Plus they'd put the no-good scoundrel of a husband in his place. This is what I mean by judging things within the confines of pathfinder. WhoTF cares about real life. This is a FANTASY game.
That is how paladins have to act. Not the average house wife.
Hokey doke. How about you are surrounded by massively superior numbers and are besieged. You know that if invaded, you and all you hold dear will be raped, pillaged, and burned.
Now, you've got this guy who knows how to produce a poison of some sort, and you tell your archers to start using it on their arrowheads, because at least if SOME of the enemy is screwed up, they can't do more damage.
Now tell me, is that dishonorable? It's a common scenario in LOTS of games, as well as real life.
Hokey doke. How about you are surrounded by massively superior numbers and are besieged. You know that if invaded, you and all you hold dear will be raped, pillaged, and burned.
Now, you've got this guy who knows how to produce a poison of some sort, and you tell your archers to start using it on their arrowheads, because at least if SOME of the enemy is screwed up, they can't do more damage.
Now tell me, is that dishonorable? It's a common scenario in LOTS of games, as well as real life.
Is it justified to use biological weapons Like anthrax in war just because your sides out numbered? To defend all you hold dear? Like I said, it becomes a balancing act on the moral scales. Definitely not good in any case.
Also, PF isn't real life. Keep that in mind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dishonorable does not mean Evil. It means Chaotic (or at least Not Lawful).
Thus using poison is indeed dishonorable (after all, the RAW says so) but not necessarily Evil.
Unless you equate Chaotic with Evil.
For example. Legally, mindless undead are not evil. Their statblocks list them as having an evil morality. However, the core alignment rules specifically note them as being unable to be anything except Neutral. Skeletons, Zombies, and even Lemures have no special ability creating an exception to this rule, so they are erroneously listed with a given alignment. Even if upon creation they were X alignment, it would immediately change to Neutral by the rules of alignment.
Alignment Rules > Erroneous monster entry.
Mindless undead being Evil is NOT an erroneous monster entry. It is the RAW. It has been confirmed as such on the boards (I do not remember the specific thread though).
Creating undead is not Evil because it uses Negative Energy (Inflict Wounds does it also), nor because it involves desecrating corpses (Creating a Flesh Golem does it also). My hypothesis is that using Negative Energy to give a semblance of life to a dead body is Evil. Maybe because it is a corruption of Negative Energy, which is the energy of destroying things, not of creating things.
Hokey doke. How about you are surrounded by massively superior numbers and are besieged. You know that if invaded, you and all you hold dear will be raped, pillaged, and burned.
Now, you've got this guy who knows how to produce a poison of some sort, and you tell your archers to start using it on their arrowheads, because at least if SOME of the enemy is screwed up, they can't do more damage.
Now tell me, is that dishonorable? It's a common scenario in LOTS of games, as well as real life.
Yes, it is.
Is it justified to use biological weapons Like anthrax in war just because your sides out numbered? To defend all you hold dear? Like I said, it becomes a balancing act on the moral scales. Definitely not good in any case.
Also, PF isn't real life. Keep that in mind.Actually, using anthrax is foolish in the modern day, simply because it is uncontrollable and unpredictable. All communicable bacteria/viral diseases are, and they can be spread to areas very easily that you didn't account for.
Second, I never said nor implied that Pathfinder was reality.
Neither of those points address the one I made earlier.
Just as the hags are about to flee, Paladin player realizes his code requires that he punish those who harm innocents(hags qualify) and the charges the hags. Completely invalidating the work of another player and ended up getting someone killed.
All the Paladin had to do was keep his mouth shut, and watch. If questioned, he doesn't need to respond, or to respond in the way the questioner wants.
I recall, back in the day, when I was playing one at first level. I had him standing next to the Wizard, watching the dwarven thief climb down into a large, sandy pit. Shortly, a large djinn appeared in a cloud of smoke above the dwarf.
My response? Looked at the djinn, said "Right!" Turned around, threw the Wizard over my shoulder, and beat feet. The DM laughed hard.
One guy got all ticked, saying "You can't do that, you're a Paladin!"
I responded with, "Just because I am a Paladin, does not make me suicidal. I had ZERO chance of even wounding that thing, and if I didn't act fast, the Wizard and I would be dead (didn't know what happened to the Thief)."
The DM didn't even remotely penalize me.
That sounds well and good; yet most gamers, having not studied moral philosophy, simply lack the vocabulary to assess what good or evil means, let alone law or chaos.
Yet Pathfinder explicitly defines those axes.
@johnlock90, the paladin doesn't have to punish evil. They have to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. HUGE difference. Evil is only a strike if they partake in it. But, if you play a paladin that lies you're playing a house-ruled class because it's not what in the CRB. Hags don't have to harm innocents by the way. That's simply an excuse to go all slashy slashy.
In my looking I only found one type out of 4 or 5 that explicitly hunted things that could include children.
As for defining alignment, I feel this article is the greatest written to date.
/discuss
It's been linked to before (although not in this thread). If you want that as a topic, I'd suggest a new thread. It's not PF (the OP was about evil in PF). The Escapist has a number of good articles about D&D / PnP RPGs. The Adventurer Conqueror King RPG is Alexander Macris' baby (along with Tavis Ellison and Gregg Tito iirc). A pretty decent OSR game.
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.
The players in my games can kill and eat anything they want. Try new ways to prepare and see what results. It started as a joke and has become a mini-game.
I roll d20 for how nutritious and healthy it is, high can lead to magic effects, low, poison or disease.
They roll a d20 for how much their character likes it.
Fun all round! Turning monsters into steaks, well, it is recycling. Usually insects and fey are very high, but the differing tastes of players comes out, which seems to be enjoyable "my character hates dragon meat".
Just as the hags are about to flee, Paladin player realizes his code requires that he punish those who harm innocents(hags qualify) and the charges the hags. Completely invalidating the work of another player and ended up getting someone killed.All the Paladin had to do was keep his mouth shut, and watch. If questioned, he doesn't need to respond, or to respond in the way the questioner wants.
I recall, back in the day, when I was playing one at first level. I had him standing next to the Wizard, watching the dwarven thief climb down into a large, sandy pit. Shortly, a large djinn appeared in a cloud of smoke above the dwarf.
My response? Looked at the djinn, said "Right!" Turned around, threw the Wizard over my shoulder, and beat feet. The DM laughed hard.
One guy got all ticked, saying "You can't do that, you're a Paladin!"
I responded with, "Just because I am a Paladin, does not make me suicidal. I had ZERO chance of even wounding that thing, and if I didn't act fast, the Wizard and I would be dead (didn't know what happened to the Thief)."
The DM didn't even remotely penalize me.
In this case, it wasn't lying, it was the requirement that the Paladin "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". A paladin who lets someone who harms innocents go if there is any chance of stopping them violates the code. So he couldn't let the hags leave despite our witches great roleplaying.
Which is why I am not a fan of the code.
Fighting hags is great fun, especially when the hags throw players through walls or grapple and claw the pcs up.
|
|
murder : you mean what PCs do everyday to monsters and enemies ?
Ok, lets focus on this one, always near and dear to my heart as a soldier.
There's killing and murder, not the same thing. Most monsters are threats to communities. Go to the orc stronghold, whose orcs have been raiding, killing, raping and plundering the countryside and killing the warriors is not murder.
On this specific point of PCs and murder (which was a real question of mine BTW, though it could read like irony), I would like to quote the enlightened words of the Great (and Terrible) Erik Mona who stated "when you think about it, a DnD adventurer is at heart a murderous tomb-robber" (in Kobold Quarterly n°1)
Who am I to question the wisdom of one so High and Mighty ?