Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters are different
Monsters and NPCs are constructs of the game. Because of this, if they are evil, they are compelled to do evil things. I think that it can be argued that monsters are killed more for the evil acts they do rather than for being evil because for them being evil and doing evil is not separable. Killing them for doing evil is a good act.
Neutral Evil, not Neutral Stupid
Evil player characters are not game generated monsters and do not have to do evil actions if that is not to their advantage. If they do evil acts and get caught, then its more likely that they may be too stupid to survive in the game rather than simply being "evil". Example: A NE character goes to a tavern near a paladin controlled hex to conduct business. Being caught doing evil acts will bring the notice (and smiting) of the paladins. That would not be good for the character's business interests. I think it is entirely possible to be of an evil alignment and not do overtly evil acts. Granted that may push the character's alignment (through game mechanics) away from evil, but that is not the point. Doing evil and not getting caught seems a perfectly valid role playing strategy.
It is known that they are "X" and thus must die.
I have been really disturbed by some the arguments being given against game mechanics that (in their way of thinking) prevents paladins from attacking and killing evil creatures in the name of "protecting the innocent". Last night while listening to a podcast I finally understand what it is that is causing me a problem. Killing because someone is "X", that they deserve to be killed because they are "X", is the same rotational used to justify actions in the Serbo-Croatian war, the killing fields of Cambodia, the slaughter in Rwanda, and in a thousand other places in present day and in history. It is the excuse to commit genocide. In the real world that is an evil act. I think that it should also be an evil act in the game.
Nowhere in the threads (and I admit I may have missed it) have I found a proposal to actively change the alignment of those opposed against you. The only option I seem to hear is "Kill them all!" If we are not going to try to change what is in a character's heart, we can not take actions solely based on what is in their hearts. We treat monsters better than that because we kill them more for what they do rather than for what they are.
Killing in the name of good without proof of guilt is not lawful
I think that it is completely reasonable that a paladin killing a character just because they are evil is in itself an evil act. Guarding trade caravans and harvesting expeditions from attack is different from killing characters that "might" attack the innocent.
I will try and not let my character do actions that might make it loose its LG alignment, but if there was a company whose core belief was to kill evil characters because they "might" do evil acts, or kill good characters because they "might" oppose evil, I would become a resistance force of one (if that was my character's only option) to oppose that group. Not being able to permanently die makes it possible for a single candle to stand against the dark.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good points, I do agree with your points.
Additionally, I do think that in some cases even killing NPCs should affect players' alignments. If someone walks in a NPC village slaughtering everybody it is pure and raw evil. If a good player goes in a evil orc camp and kills the orc kids that is indeed evil (though I doubt there will be such orc kids NPCs in game, just an example).
By the way, just to coment your thread title: IMO killing someone's horse is an evil act and should affect alignment too.
+1 As someone who had hoped to be an "evil" type, just 'cause I like the spells, gear, intrigue and romance, and in no way do I condone griefing or ganking, I have been disturbed by the fact that many wanted open season for my ilk, (though we may not bear any flag) and suffer no penalty for their actions. Unless you talk to me, you do not know my motives, and should you take the time to do so, I might convince you that I am an enigma and a paragon of virtue.
If you wish to fight me, do so on the battlefield under a declaration of war against my settlement, or if you find me with a flag or bounty on my head.
I might be lying tho.
@the Devs: Please allow a counter-class to paladins and include anti-paladins in the core. Every other class has an oppositional possibility except them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had made the same observation in several threads. The loudest voices for "why can't we kill them, with no consequences" are from those who had the loudest voices for no random killing.
Even more bizzarr is the opinion that theft is punishable by death. Even the most severe punishments in RL for theft fall short of that.
Pathfinder Online is shaping up to be very much like EvE Online.....
Rule One: You are never safe
Rule Two: Never Carry What You Are Unwilling to Lose
Rule Three: It is all about the gold; or Control = Power
Before long the so called "good settlements" will begin to eat their own, when they have crushed all others under their yoke and hypocracy.
It is going to be a good day for those of us seeking to profit from the chaos these "good" settlements are going to stir up,
To me the question comes down to the act of detection, and how PFO views it. As a long time PnP DM, I always considered the act of detecting evil (or good) by a pally or cleric as an attack, if my evil toon walks into a town and "Joe pally" uses a detect evil on me, HE gets the attacker flag as the aggressor and should be flagged as such regardless of alignments or motive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me the question comes down to the act of detection, and how PFO views it. As a long time PnP DM, I always considered the act of detecting evil (or good) by a pally or cleric as an attack, if my evil toon walks into a town and "Joe pally" uses a detect evil on me, HE gets the attacker flag as the aggressor and should be flagged as such regardless of alignments or motive.
Indeed, IMO any type of "scanning" could be interpreted as an attack. Detect Evil/good/law/chaos, Know alignment, detect magic etc. Why would you scan someone unless you intend to take advantage of the info you get back? Even if you do it for defensive reasons it can be considered as an attack deppending on the point of view.
Per Ryan's post here, I think he agrees with you in theory... At least, that is how I understand it.
Paladins are not bounty hunters. They are not sheriffs. They are not enforcers of the law. They are not Delta Force commandos.
[...]
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements. They should not be taking revenge for harm caused to other characters by 3rd parties.
[...]
Paladins should serve as an example to others of the power and the glory that comes from living a righteous life, adhering to a rigorous code of honor, and placing oneself - one's very soul - at risk to protect the weak, defend the Realm, and upholding the tenants of the Faith.
To me, that says that Paladins should not be actively hunting evil, but instead serving as a bastion against it and acting defensively, rather than offensively. One could infer from how he presents the information that he believes that acting preemptively is not worthy of the Paladin, perhaps because punishing actions that have not yet transpired isn't justice, isn't Lawful... and probably isn't Good. Does that translate to a fall towards Evil? That is only for us to guess at this point, but I think it should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... As a long time PnP DM, I always considered the act of detecting evil (or good) by a pally or cleric as an attack ... HE gets the attacker flag as the aggressor and should be flagged as such regardless of alignments or motive.I agree and I also agree with @LordDaeron
..any type of "scanning" could be interpreted as an attack.
You know I think a lot of people have gotten used to playing Paladins like they are some sort of Judge Dread, taking the fight to the evildoers.
Ryan's post, to me, shows that he sees Paladins in the classic sense as per the original rules suggest.
I think the issue isn't settled. I can't blame the guys for liking the way Paladins have developed, but if GW sees them in a different sense, there's going to be points of contention as both sides try to keep their impression of the "role" in the forefront.
I can relate. The class I normally play, the Thief, has become a Rogue who's focus has changed with the more family friendly MMOs that have been made lately. I would love to see the class revert to the D&D description. So I can certainly understand how these guys feel even if our desires for the classes are reversed ie. they seek the newer interpretation where I seek the older interpretation of our respective "roles".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valandur
I think the rogue is just a class that allow more flexibility. You can play a thief, you can play an infiltrator, you can play a spy, you can play a dungeon expert etc.
They just made more options available to play a "sneaky" class. I like the way it is now. Though I understand oyur feeling about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I agree with Valandur in that I can't think of any recent MMOs that allow me to play a thief and pick pockets or steal items off other players. For some reason, over the years (decades?) this has become to be seen as a sort of player griefing and mostly removed from games. It's ironic that smashing someones head in with a hammer or cleaving it with an axe is seen as a lesser evil than losing a few coins or an unequiped item though. The harsh word of MUDs 20 years ago was exhilarating though :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I agree with Valandur in that I can't think of any recent MMOs that allow me to play a thief and pick pockets or steal items off other players. For some reason, over the years (decades?) this has become to be seen as a sort of player griefing and mostly removed from games. It's ironic that smashing someones head in with a hammer or cleaving it with an axe is seen as a lesser evil than losing a few coins or an unequiped item though. The harsh word of MUDs 20 years ago was exhilarating though :)
Pretty sure NWN perpetual worlds allowed pickpocketing - opposed by the victims spot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good points, I do agree with your points.
Additionally, I do think that in some cases even killing NPCs should affect players' alignments. If someone walks in a NPC village slaughtering everybody it is pure and raw evil. If a good player goes in a evil orc camp and kills the orc kids that is indeed evil (though I doubt there will be such orc kids NPCs in game, just an example).
By the way, just to coment your thread title: IMO killing someone's horse is an evil act and should affect alignment too.
If not an act of evil it surely is an act of stupidity and should be severly punished.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad,
I disagree with your post, obviously. Although I think it's important to seperate what makes for good game mechanics (OOG) and what makes sense from a characters perspective (IG).
From a characters perspective I don't see any logical reason why a character would view an "Evil" NPC any different from an "Evil" PC. Both are sentient beings and theoreticaly are deserving of the same rights. The good character doesn't see some being glowing Neon sign over the "Evil" PC's head saying "This is a Player". From an In Character perspective NPC's and PC's are indistinguishable.....as PC/NPC are entirely out of game constructs. (IMO) From a characters perspective there is really very little difference from an Evil Drow Sorceror then an Evil Elf Sorceror or an Evil Duragar Fighter from and Evil Dwarf Fighter.
Secondly the world of Golarion is very different, cosmologicaly, from our world. It (IMO) is very much a binary world, largely defined by the struggle of good and evil.
Finaly, the prime objective of those who fight on the side of Good is to protect the innocent. In order to be "Evil", I mean truely Evil, not just a smidge over the line...a character must have a serious inclination to do Evil things in the present/future...that means they WILL harm the innocent and very likely have done so on numerous occasions in the past. That means it's part of the Good guys core mission to take those Evil characters out to prevent said harm to innocents. "Evil" isn't a hair color, it's an indicator of how a character will ACT in the world. Many of the Pathfinder PnP modules revolve around just said dynamic.
I think folks may have some difficulty seperating the OOC (The Players of Evil Characters) from the IC (The Evil Characters themselves). I'm open to any sort of discussion about what players are due one another and what makes for a good game dynamic. However if the discussion is centered around IC concepts....any arguement that the "Good guys" are being Evil when they seek out and fight the "Evil guys" in the world just rings hollow on it's face.
If you want to drop that line of arguement and talk about what makes for a good game-play experience and a good experience for all players THEN I'm very interested in having THAT discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll also note that one of my pet peeves about the Pathfinder system is that it makes it entirely too difficult for Evil to be subtle and hide within society. When I've always played my home-brew systems/campaigns Detect Evil the spell only worked on beings that were strongly tied to Negative Energy/The Lower Planes, and even there there were ways for beings to attempt to hide themselves from such detection. Everything else was investigatory work/guesswork based upon the characters.
However, I will re-iterate that in Pathfinder, "Evil" is neither a fashion statement nor a hair color... it's a statement about how the character WILL act within the world if given the opportunity to do so. So if Evil is being obvious about it's nature, it's not really logical (from an IC sense) to expect the Good Guys to sit around passively and do nothing about it.
If an Evil character is wearing a necklace of bloody orphans skull's, it really wouldn't be logical for a Good character to hold back because the Evil character hasn't swung at them first, or they don't have a bounty-affidavit against said Evil character or the Good character showed up 5 minutes too late to witness the murder. That's not Lawful Good from an IC sense....that goes WAY beyond even Lawful Stupid...and believe me I actualy enjoy RPing Lawful Stupid characters upon occasion.
Again that's strictly from a standpoint of what makes logical sense for the characters and the cosomolgy. We can toss aside that logic and talk about what makes sense from a game-play persepective and what makes sense from a Player interaction perspective....though I'd say by being so purposefuly obvious, the Evil player is essentialy inviting PvP at that point. If you don't want PvP, I think you at least have to give people a logical out where there is a reason for thier character to doubt your Evil nature. (EG "Oh that's not a murderer of innocents... That's just Joe the butcher..his apron is always stained with chicken blood. Nothing to worry about there." YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that in most players minds a paladin's role is twofold. First they are to protect the innocent. Their second purpose is to punish the wicked. I am willing to accept that a paladin's role may deviate from this commonly held concept. However GW should realize that this will not be intuitive for most.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I truly can appreciate your point of view. I look forward to playing opposite your characters, regardless of with them or against them. Someone of your convictions will RP to the fullest level of their ability and I'm going to love it. It does look like our views of IC play differ and I accept your offer of discussion based only on in-game, in character points of view.
... From a characters perspective I don't see any logical reason why a character would view an "Evil" NPC any different from an "Evil" PC.Agreed.
... In order to be "Evil", I mean truly Evil, not just a smidge over the line...a character must have a serious inclination to do Evil things in the present/future...that means they WILL harm the innocent and very likely have done so on numerous occasions in the past.
If we ignore the distinction NPC/PC, there will be characters we encounter that will always act their alignment just as you say. If they are evil and they are offered a chance to do evil, then they will. However, this is PFO, a different set of rules. There will also be characters that we will encounter that will not always act their alignment. I do not believe that we should call those characters duplicitous. They simply have the ability to choose and exercise that ability.
I think folks may have some difficulty separating the OOC (The Players of Evil Characters) from the IC (The Evil Characters themselves).
Very true. I think we have seen that in the various threads.
...any arguement that the "Good guys" are being Evil when they seek out and fight the "Evil guys" in the world just rings hollow on it's face....
OK, let's drop the Good/Evil alignment axis and talk Lawful/Choatic. Playing devil's advocate for a moment (slaps own wrist, "Bad Pun!") let's say I'm an evil leader and a group of paladins have just jumped and killed my subordinates while they are on a harvesting mission in an area that the paladins control. If there are no laws against harvesting in that area, I hope you can believe that I will bring that group up on charges to the local magistrate for killing my people without legal proof that they had broken any laws. I can see that you might think it a valid argument that a detect alignment power might be considered proof. However, what assurance does the magistrate have that it is not actually you being duplicitous about being truthful? And, I have doubts that a paladin controlled area will be able to enforce a law like "no evil allowed".
When it comes to detecting alignment, especially with a paladin archetype, the only reason I would attribute to a paladin doing so would be to justify bodily harm. To me that would require that the paladin get the attacker flag, because, if you always play your alignment then the paladin will always attack someone detected as evil. Anyone in that party aiding the paladin will also get the attacker flag if they help that character. And, frankly, I'm OK with that. If you want to fight, regardless of motive, then let's go, toe-to-toe.
I believe that if your approach to playing LG prevails, I may have to make my Destiny's Twin a small Tian bamboo grower who happens to always ware black pajamas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad,
Thank you for your perspective. I appreciate an enlightened philosophical discussion.
I think it would depends upon the Laws and Authority System of said Realm and how they were formulated.
One has to remember that modern concepts of jurris prudence, due process, legal burdens of proof or indeed seperation between law enforcement, judicial and correctional functions are pretty rare in Classical High Fantasy.
One of the most common meme's...perhaps THE stereotypical meme is that knights ARE both law enforcement and justice givers of the Realm. That they ride about dispensing justice and removing dangers to the Realm, answerable only to thier consciences, thier Liege and thier Diety....and the mere fact of being "Evil" (consorting with "diabolical powers", etc.) was of sufficient cause to be considered a danger to the Realm and therefor legitimately a subject for banishment or death.
Of course that's completely horrifying from a modern world view but from the standpoint of classical fantasy...not really...because such individual, particularly when divinely inspired quite litteraly have infallible judgement...as long as they are acting out of a desire to do good and not out of selfish purposes they CAN'T be mistaken or mis-judge in thier identification of those who would harm the innocent.... and again in such classic meme's there really ARE diabolical powers seeking to sow the seeds of destruction through thier minions and being Evil simply isn't about cheating at cards or being mean to puppies...it's about being an active instrument for said powers.
It might be interesting to try to get some handle on the extent that meme actualy holds true in Golarion but I think it's certainly not out of place to consider such a perspective as viable for characters or that Realms might be formulated in such a manner....although whether that's workable from a game-play perspective is another matter entirely.
However, from a RP perspective if a follower of Rovagug uttered something like "You have no proof, I want a lawyer.", I don't think it would be uncharacteristic of a Paladin to answer something along the lines of "Draw steel and we shall let the Gods decide who is in the right." or something similar.
On the other hand of the Paladins are simply a private religous order which is seperate from the Heiarchy of the State....then certainly there is some potential for them to get in trouble with whatever legal apparatus that exists.
One has to remember that modern concepts of jurris prudence, due process, legal burdens of proof or indeed seperation between law enforcement, judicial and correctional functions are pretty rare in Classical High Fantasy.
One of the most common meme's...perhaps THE stereotypical meme is that knights ARE both law enforcement and justice givers of the Realm. That they ride about dispensing justice and removing dangers to the Realm, answerable only to thier consciences, thier Liege and thier Diety....and the mere fact of being "Evil" (consorting with "diabolical powers", etc.) was of sufficient cause to be considered a danger to the Realm and therefor legitimately a subject for banishment or death.
Indeed, recall the Salem witch trials, the Crusades, etc. For an interesting perspective, watch Kingdom of Heaven in which the main character, who himself says that he has fallen from grace, defends a Holy city from a war started by the aggression of the Templars, real-life so-called paladins. Despite their purportedly good intentions, those that murdered innocents in the names of their gods were not good and the only thing lawful about their actions was the systematic fashion in which they executed their victims.
Of course, relating real-life to a video game is often so clumsy as to be useless...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for your perspective. I appreciate an enlightened philosophical discussion.Your most welcome. I look forward to the future development of this issue.
It sounds more like the Hellkights of Fort Inevitable than a company of paladins, but that may simply be my possibly biased perspective.... One of the most common meme's...perhaps THE stereotypical meme is that knights ARE both law enforcement and justice givers of the Realm. That they ride about dispensing justice and removing dangers to the Realm, answerable only to thier consciences, thier Liege and thier Diety....and the mere fact of being "Evil" (consorting with "diabolical powers", etc.) was of sufficient cause to be considered a danger to the Realm and therefor legitimately a subject for banishment or death.
...It might be interesting to try to get some handle on the extent that meme actually holds true in Golarion but I think it's certainly not out of place to consider such a perspective as viable for characters or that Realms might be formulated in such a manner....although whether that's workable from a game-play perspective is another matter entirely.
I think we all will have to wait for more information on where the devs are going with the game mechanics before we can have a more considered dialog. Time will tell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would just like to point out that my organization and I are not lawful good and have never claimed to be. That was a label slapped on us by many of the same people now complaining it doesn't fit. To me that kind of reinforces my neutral-good stance. Lawful when that does the most good, and chaotic when that does the most good.
Too much of the arguments here hinge on the lawful-chaotic axis. An axis I don't care about at all when discussing good-evil.
@Bluddwolf- The fact you keep acting like killing people for the consistent pattern of behavior that results in an evil alignment is random does not make it so. Continuing to make that statement after neutral parties like Nihimon have already pointed that fact out to you doesn't look good for you to say the least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that in most players minds a paladin's role is twofold. First they are to protect the innocent. Their second purpose is to punish the wicked. I am willing to accept that a paladin's role may deviate from this commonly held concept. However GW should realize that this will not be intuitive for most.
I'd argue it is rightly three-fold.
- Be good
- Protect the innocent
- Combat evil
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One has to remember that modern concepts of jurris prudence, due process, legal burdens of proof or indeed seperation between law enforcement, judicial and correctional functions are pretty rare in Classical High Fantasy.
One of the most common meme's...perhaps THE stereotypical meme is that knights ARE both law enforcement and justice givers of the Realm. That they ride about dispensing justice and removing dangers to the Realm, answerable only to thier consciences, thier Liege and thier Diety....and the mere fact of being "Evil" (consorting with "diabolical powers", etc.) was of sufficient cause to be considered a danger to the Realm and therefor legitimately a subject for banishment or death.
Indeed, recall the Salem witch trials, the Crusades, etc. For an interesting perspective, watch Kingdom of Heaven in which the main character, who himself says that he has fallen from grace, defends a Holy city from a war started by the aggression of the Templars, real-life so-called paladins. Despite their purportedly good intentions, those that murdered innocents in the names of their gods were not good and the only thing lawful about their actions was the systematic fashion in which they executed their victims.
Of course, relating real-life to a video game is often so clumsy as to be useless...
"Common folks were a lot more polite back then, ah, to dismember a peasant prostrate on their knees for not moving fast enough out of the way my horse."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would also invite people to read the Pathfinder Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules) and in particular the very first section that defines what Alignment is and what it's role within Pathfinder it is intended to play.
My salient take-aways from that section are:
- Alignment is a measure of a characters moral ATTITUDE
- Alignment is intended as a tool for developing a characters identity.
- Alignment is NOT intended as a straight-jacket for restricting a character.
- EACH Alignment encompassesa BROAD range of personal philosophies and personalty types. 2 Characters of the same Alignment can be quite different from one another.
I think the way some people are trying to use and NARROWLY define alignment and place a very strict set of conditions and rules around...and frankly how GW itself is seeking to use it...is in direct opposition to how it's defined and used within the Pathfinder system itself.
I think the philosophy of a character that Harad might choose to play of Alignment X and and on LordDaeron might choose to play and one I might choose to play can all be quite different from one another and in disagreement on some important points and all be perfectly valid representations of Alignment X.
Furthermore, I think people are confusing the concept of people not wanting forced alignment shifts that they think don't make sense in the Pathfinder cosmology with not wanting any sort of controls whatsoever around player behavior. An alignment shift is one very specific type of control...it is certainly not the ONLY type possible..nor (IMO) neccesarly the best or most appropriate one to use....especialy when one thinks about what Alignment is actualy supposed to be and the role it is intended to play within the Pathfinder system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the link GrumpyMel. :)
I have been puzzling over alignment (even the link is mostly curse of definion by definitions of other words!) and only come up with "it's a tool for RP". But I think I realise finally the implications of what you are saying. Perhaps the equivalent in RPG can be used:
For Eg -
Skill Progression:
1. Player Skill Progression
2. Character Skill Progression
Character Development:
1. Player defined development (eg alignment?, biography, backstory etc)
2. Game defined development (eg alignment?, attributes, lost a leg, items held)
Maybe the devs can comment on this? Even the eg above is important imo to have both and neither be OP eg x5 power range max. difference iirc Mark mentioned in the character power difference. And Ryan has mentioned some player skill with combat for another eg of mixing these. :)
Perhaps a similar discussion on "Character Development" split particularly the player defined development and how the proposed alignment system compliments or restricts that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I think the philosophy of a character that Harad might choose to play of Alignment X and and on LordDaeron might choose to play and one I might choose to play can all be quite different from one another and in disagreement on some important points and all be perfectly valid representations of Alignment X....
Harad Navar is from a family of pesh growers in western Katapesh. His monastery, the Monastery of the 36th Order, has it's Life External from the worship of Irori, but it's Life Internal comes from the worship of Sarenrae.
I can see this may be a race between the destruction of evil vs it's hope for salvation. I see me some LG vs LG smackdown coming.