It's Good-ish. Not very Lawful though. I'd let it slide, or at most "threaten" to shift the character towards NG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's totally lawful, it's ignoring the implications of using Evil.
It's ends justify the means.
You'd shift the guy towards LN. Using Evil Means to fight evil is not a good action, it's the easily justified and expeditious way out.
===Aelryinth
|
It's an NPC, so it is unlikely to respond to threats of alignment change ;)
It is a common trope that Good comes together against Evil when needed, and Evil can only become so strong before internal conflict tears it apart.
Good has no obligation to keep Evil from consuming itself, and unless the methods of Good include overt evil, i.e. exterminating children, slaughtering captives, etc., then I would not say they are not being Good enough by instigating conflict between Evil factions.
Official Pathfinder Society materials feature paladins bending rules, and using deception to maintain discipline. If a paladin can do it against his own organization, then a regular Lawful Good PC can do it against Evil.
|
Can you support this? Why is it not "Good"? It is good tactics, divide your enemy. See this is my problem, Lawful Good doesn't mean stupid. The NPC knows that the players are powerful, and that combine they have the ability to defeat him.
What's hard for me is that I am used to GM the bad guys, so this is a differnt situation for me.
While a lawful good character wouldn't stoop to things outside his moral code to defeat evil, he would seek every last bit of help to defeat that evil if it were imminent.
can you have him:
Hire a bodyguard?
Gain more magic items?
Gain an intelligent good magic item?
Find an ally or three?
Seek religious help? (there are always champions of good out there looking for evil to fight)
Reminds me of a quote: "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
Best lawful good quote ever.
|
|
I think it can be LG, but only as long as it doesn't get out of hand;
It may drift away from Lawful if part of the intrigue involves inciting the PCs or the evil empire to cause large-scale disruptions, disturbances of the peace, or breaches of the law. Kind of how undercover agents shouldn't be inciting people to break the law more than they would have without the undercover. Pushing other people to break the law/order isn't very lawful.
It can drift away from good if the PCs or evil empire is being pushed to commit atrocities; inciting someone to evil is evil-ish itself.
So there's an outer bound on what can still be done within LG, but that doesn't mean it's entirely impossible; just limited.
Trying to focus these people more on each other than the LG kingdom is certainly permissible; for example by encouraging paranoia and fear that the other group has it in for them.
However, a LG person should be wary of causing escalation that may cause collateral damage or worse evil. Dangerous game.
A true lawful character would never compromise his morals/rules or those of any authority over him.
Reminds me of a quote: "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
Haha! When I read your quote, I was immediately reminded of another:
"The minute God crapped out the third caveman, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them!"
But, seriously... I have zero problem with this scenario. The Lawful Stoopid thing to do, I suppose, would be to march your armies of good, loyal, innocent people into the teeth of your two enemies, and let them die in "Honorable Combat". Even if he were a Paladin, I would say this is probably ok (though, an atonement spell wouldn't be a bad idea). This is the difference between being an adventurer/group leader and a head of state.
To break it down even farther... If you walked into a room with an evil dragon and a lich, would you have a problem inciting them to fight each other, instead of both focusing solely on you?
|
|
A true lawful character would never compromise his morals/rules or those of any authority over him.
Reminds me of a quote: "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
So your arguement is basicly, "Might makes right"? If the LG NPC cannot defeat the players on his own, then justice won't be served?
How did you come to the conclusion that's my "argument"?
... because it's not.
I'm merely pointing out that a true lawful character will not, under any circumstances, compromise his values/laws/morals/credo/etc. If he does it would be, for him, a horrible act requiring atonement. If said character can't possibly defeat evil under his current set of laws, then he would bide his time or accept defeat. However, as I pointed out, said character could seek help from others, including evil others, if it fell within his code.
|
|
If and when his morals and ethics are put to the test, he employs deception and manipulation tactics to serve his ends (or, in this case, the ends of "justice"), is lawful good truly his alignment? Such things are really only revealed when it becomes expedient, convenient or profitable to act otherwise.
Alignment represents a tendency.
If we are all judged neutral against the most extreme alignments, then the alignment serves no real function.
I would not say that an otherwise lawful person committing a crime under extraordinary conditions is actually chaotic. The idea that it is considered unusual or out of character should prove his general lawfulness.
A true lawful character would never compromise his morals/rules or those of any authority over him.
Reminds me of a quote: "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
I disagree, although this appears to be one of those questions that can be repeated endlessly with no minds changing. One of the reasons is that in the first few posts alone, I've heard arguments that this action is fully Lawful Good, Lawful-but-not-Good, and now you're arguing Good-but-not-Lawful. Another is that neither Good nor Lawful are stupid.
Given that evil must be defeated, it's still better (in the sense of Good) not to waste lives senselessly, hence using expendable puppets (other people who "must be defeated") is better than the alternative. The best possible outcome is that they both lose....
Given that evil must be defeated, sowing Chaos among your enemies by itself violates no moral or rule. There may be specific actions that are out of bounds, but that's different.
Case in point: In a campaign in Northern Africa during World War II, the Germans were upset to find a particular branch of Salt the Earth strategy: every oasis they came to had a sign in English stating that the oasis had been poisoned by the British army. When they complained that poisoning water constitutes a war crime, the British pointed out that there was absolutely nothing forbidding putting up false signs.
If in your world lying to an enemy is a Chaotic action, there are still plenty of Lawful ways to go about setting two groups at each other, starting with simply telling the truth. Simply tell the PC's enemies where the PC's base is, and sit back and watch the fireworks start.
The Lawful Stoopid thing to do, I suppose, would be to march your armies of good, loyal, innocent people into the teeth of your two enemies, and let them die in "Honorable Combat". Even if he were a Paladin, I would say this is probably ok (though, an atonement spell wouldn't be a bad idea). This is the difference between being an adventurer/group leader and a head of state.
Wait, what? Marching innocent people into the teeth of your eneimes IS lawful good but manipluating your two enemies to fight each other, saving countless innocent lives is not lawful good?
Ummm, no. If you read what you've actually quoted, it says it's the "Lawful Stoopid" thing to do. I even misspelled stupid to underline its stupidity.
I don't understand where is the problem... So fighting metodically and strategically an enemy (instead of nuking him and his house at the first occasion) isn't lawful and avoid hurting people by making bad guys hurt bad guys isn't good?
You are not sacrificing 1000 babies to defeat your enemies, or sacrifice your most loved ones. You're not compromising you morals and ethics. You can even take efforts to avoid those bad guys from making evil actions to people around them, rewarding them for good actions, instead of letting them roam free and do what the hell they want. They would be good for egoistic reasons (maintaining their evil alignment) and you would be good for finding a way to make evil people behave. How is that not good? And in the meantime the LG character would use this reward sistem to build a way to defeat the evil PCs once they end their work. What makes him good is that he won't torture them, or make them suffer without reasons, or kill them if he has other choices, not certainly because he use strategy (LG) instead of direct approach without the power to do anything useful (LStupid).
Ask yourself if the NPC is doing more good by moving the evil PCs to fight for a good cause (taking efforts so they do less evil on their way) or... what is the other option? Let them go away and do what they want since he can't defeat them? Or letting good people die in a war? The answer, IMHO, is pretty simple...
Simply tell the PC's enemies where the PC's base is, and sit back and watch the fireworks start.This is kinda where I was going with this. LG NPC knows parties weakness and where PC's base is and how to overcome PCs defenses and tells the other evil party.
Thats pretty underhanded and mean. Pragmatic things I think tend to fall into neutral territory instead of evil though. Mind you there is that whole thing about how the road to evil is filled with good intentions.
|
|
You could also take this a slightly different way. I'm reminded of the whole bit of Arthas from Warcraft - he said he would do anything to save his people from evil, and became even more evil in doing so.
Said Lawful Good guy, if he does compromise his lawful goodness to save his people could come back as the ultimate nightmare for the party.
You could also take this a slightly different way. I'm reminded of the whole bit of Arthas from Warcraft - he said he would do anything to save his people from evil, and became even more evil in doing so.
Said Lawful Good guy, if he does compromise his lawful goodness to save his people could come back as the ultimate nightmare for the party.
Well, as I said earlier, he's not (IMHO) compromising anything by setting his enemies to fight each other.
Second, there's a big difference between "I would do anything to ...," which I admit is a a classic heroic flaw that drives innumerable tragedies, and "I would indulge in out-of-the-box thinking to...," which is a classic heroic attribute that drives innumerable action/adventure films as well as comedies.
There's a rule against using poison in warfare. There's no rule against using signs about poison in warfare.
I don't see the problem here.
Divide and Conquer (Or in this case Keep Divided and have them Conquer each other then walk in and mop up the survivors) has been around since ancient times, and it has been for a reason! It's the best way to stay alive.
Were I in the position of your NPC I wouldn't hesitate to use such a tactic, and I'd sleep well at night knowing that it saved a lot of my own allies lives.
Think of it like this. You have two different dragons ripping up the countryside. One black, one red. They happen to hate each other as well as you. What exactly is the issue inciting them to fight each other instead of chewing on your villagers?
The problem is the phrasing of the original question vs the examples people are providing.
Sure, you want the red and black dragons, monstrous evil things that they are, to tear into one another, and THEN you fall upon the survivor and kill it off.
However, the original example is about continually employing Evil characters to fight other evil characters, which means you are endorsing using the methods of evil in fighting evil.
yes, that's the difference. You are Endorsing evil by continually using it over and over against evil, you are specifically telling every one and sundry that Good cannot do what needs to be done, you must stoop to evil methods, that Good is weak, and if you want to win, you have to stoop to using the methods of your foes.
Using cunning to send one foe against another has nothing to do with Evil. But instead of fighting him at the resolution, paying him to keep on killing other Evil creatures is supporting evil in doing the work of evil.
That's not Good in the slightest. That's pure Neutral Pragmatism, and as long as you've a contract and terms and abide by them, perfectly acceptable to LN.
The Andoran example is again a false example. Ignoring invalid Laws that support evil doings is part and parcel of the Andoran mindset. They obey their OWN codes and morals, and are perfectly willing to think outside the social codes of other societies in order to acheive their highest aims. Getting their enemies to fight one another while THEY make off with the prize (as opposed to helping one of the bad guys get it) is highest order Good at work.
==Aelryinth
So my players have ticked off a powerful Lawful Good NPC (Not a paladin) in my game. The players are evil and have also made a few powerful evil enemies as well.
The NPC isn't Lawful Good Stupid, so is playing off the players against their enemies out of character? Deception and manipulation tactics are not exactly strong LG behavior, however no innocents are being harmed, justice is being dealt.
My hang up is the statement: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
On the other hand, it serves the overall greater good to use the two evils to destroy each other, protecting innocent lives.
Thoughts?
IMHO it's in keeping with the Neutral alignment. People do neutral things all the time. Is it lawful or good to drink a cup of coffee? No. It's not chaotic, or evil either. There is a huge, huge area of thick goopy gray in the middle of all of the alignment stuff. There has to be for alignment to function.
Alignment measures how characters act more often than not. If a character typically acts in accordance with both the lawful and good alignments then the character is lawful good. This is true even if he goes and steals a key to the badguy's doomsday weapon to sabotage it. Stealing isn't good (it's taking from others) and most would argue not lawful (but nobody can really pin down lawful and chaotic half the time anyway).
On a side note, using evil against evil is a very old trope. They did it in the D&D cartoon show (the heroes get the help of Venger their archnemesis to help defeat another evil guy whose interest conflict with both of theirs), and in the Complete Scoundrel from 3.5 their is a class whose entire shtick revolves around being a good guy who conjures or binds fiends 24/7 to turn evil against evil and made evil do good things (has a very King Solomon feel to it).
I'm merely pointing out that a true lawful character will not, under any circumstances, compromise his values/laws/morals/credo/etc. If he does it would be, for him, a horrible act requiring atonement. If said character can't possibly defeat evil under his current set of laws, then he would bide his time or accept defeat. However, as I pointed out, said character could seek help from others, including evil others, if it fell within his code.
What is HIS values? I have always disliked the tendency to labels things on the good/evil and order/chaos on a single, unalterable moral and ethical standpoint (which specifically takes a European romantic perspective...which is worse in a postcolonial perspective). What is the rules of the character's organization and philosophical doctrine? What are the practices and beliefs of the region he grew up in?
If he is from a culture that prizes wit and cunning, as seen in Greek myths, then defeating the enemy through deception is a reaffirmation of his culture's values, and thus lawful. A paladin would not be able to do this since paladins are based on Medieval chivalry, which placed heavy emphasis on martial prowess and religious devotion to Christian ideals. Deception would go against these values, and thus be unlawful behavior.
For a pragmatic concern for the original situation: Deceiving your enemies is fine, as long as there is enough room in the character's original background to justify it. Deceiving allies, potential allies, or uninvolved third parties (examples include scare tactics to encourage them to fight the enemy, giving them false information in case of espionage, or just tricking them out of resources you need for your war effort) gets very iffy.
Seems perfectly acceptable. Rather than take the chance in losing some of your subjects to take out or punish a powerful PC party, turn that threat against another threat. Not only does it save your subjects from the risk of battling the PC's, but it keeps the PC's occuppied in something other than disrupting your kingdom. Eventually you may have to deal with the "winner" of the PC vs other Evil conflict, but hopefully they are weakened or decide to go elsewhere.
One simply must accept that actions can be Neutral in their nature. This is the reason the Paladin that was referenced earlier (the one who uses deception to investigate underlings in his order who are suspected of being lax in their Paladin duties) can even exist doing as he does.
By the rules there is no such thing as an evil act. No seriously. I can't find one. The closest thing I can find is an action that is in keeping with the evil alignment. Rinse and repeat for good, law, chaos, and of course Neutrality. Ergo, it seems that the Paladin code referring to an evil act must be talking about actions that are in keeping with the Evil alignment since acts themselves are not aligned.
The rules are clear that hurting, oppressing, and killing others is in keeping with the Evil alignment. Paladins do these things all the time. It's pretty much expected that Paladins will hurt, kill, and oppress evil creatures and traditions wherever present. But the Paladin does this in an altruistic defense of the dignity and lives of other creatures whom the evil ones are hurting. All of those things are good. So why does the Paladin not fall when he's spilling the blood of orcs in countless numbers? Because he's basically acting in a Neutral manner.
Obviously the referenced Paladin realizes that Neutrality can be a slippery slope. See, unlike just going balls to the walls evil all of a sudden, Paladins can act with Neutrality much more freely. But Neutrality can lead to evil, since if you're being Neutral more than Good then you're going to end up becoming Neutral and losing your Paladin powers. Then after that, you either seek atonement or may slide further down the slope to Evil (especially if you don't feel like you were doing anything wrong, and it's true that you might not have been, but you weren't doing enough right either!).
He's a paladin, right? He might not be able to commit certain actions without breaking his code, but nothing in his code prevents him from working with people who aren't under the same restrictions. We see this in every adventuring party with a paladin that has ever existed. At some point, the paladin just has to roll his eyes and leave the room while his pals do something a little disreputable.
If Mr. Pally is up the church ranks a ways, that means all he really needs to do is call his buddy, the Lord Inquisitor, and tell the story over lunch.
Then all of a sudden, the PC's have the Golden God of Justice's own personal Black-Ops team hounding them everywhere they go. Inquisitors aren't known for their restraint or their sense of fairness.
I'm merely pointing out that a true lawful character will not, under any circumstances, compromise his values/laws/morals/credo/etc. If he does it would be, for him, a horrible act requiring atonement. If said character can't possibly defeat evil under his current set of laws, then he would bide his time or accept defeat. However, as I pointed out, said character could seek help from others, including evil others, if it fell within his code.
Lawful in no way has a relationship with moral. Corperate CEOs are very lawful, albeit often immoral people. A 'Lawful' government uses subterfuge, espionage, and other considerably controversial acts to maintain law and order from acts of aggression both domestic and foreign, not that these actions are always good.
I have some quick questions.
Do the PCs know he is LG? If not, then you could easily switch to LN or not even worry about it too much.
Are the players the type to call foul if a LG does something neutral?
Anyways, personally I think it would be within LG boundaries to just send some letters to both parties that lead them to meet and battle each other for some reason.