It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.
This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.
This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.
It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.
It's in Champions of Purity.
While I do agree there was some false imagery (on both sides) I think it's important to note that the _paladin_ did not know they where scripted to attack them, nor did it know they where conscious and willing guardians of the evil lich necromancer.It's been a while, so I cannot be certain, but I have played this AP, and it is possible that he does not know about the lich and such, but it is very unlikely. The scripted way to find the lair is by tracking the doomed villagers to his tomb. And the lair is nestled deep in the mountains, far off the beaten path. To randomly stumble upon it requires some serious Roronoa Zoro tier getting lost.
So, while it is possible, I doubt it. Unless the GM has altered the AP, of course.
Knowing about the lich is one thing, knowing that some random sleeping beasts in the wilderness are servants to it is a whole different matter.
I argued that the fall was justified if the DM pre-warned the paladin, and still think it is. I wouldn't disagree with NOT having the paladin fall either. I really think it is right on the edge of what's acceptible or not. I'd probably think different if the wyverns where, say, a human barbarian tribe, so there's some cultural bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.
It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.
He got it from Paizo:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rulesOne of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
Read last sentence again: Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
So, you can kill the babies and the game regards this as a neutral act.
I think a lot of people have trouble leaving real world ethics at the door when they come to game.
We have to use real-world ethics when we play because the definitions of good and evil are so vague in the game.
Also, to many people, using fantasy and roleplaying to explore issues of ethics and morality is a large part of the experience. I don't think there's any reason to exclude those from our hobby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Destroying a fiend is a good act. I cannot cite the source, but I am pretty certain I am right. And there is a huge difference between culling the creatures born evil without a say in the matter, and creatures that have a cultural disposition towards evil. I would consult the bestiary entry, see what it says about them, and decide on a case to case basis.
And regarding redemption: Only Sarenrae demands this practice. And even she is adamant that it shall be treated like the precious gift it is. You get ONE shot, and your life is in the balance. For if you do NOT repent, your sins are on the head of the paladin who did not stop your evil.
There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.
Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starbuck: Yeah, that I can buy. It was the "it's GOOD to kill evil babies" I was wondering about. I think there's quite a large gap between paizo saying "a good character might do this and think it good" and paizo saying "this is a good action".
This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.
It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.He got it from Paizo:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rulesOne of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
Read last sentence again: Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
The outcome depends on the level of grittiness the GM attributes to the world. Who in their right mind would raise goblins? Most people have some reason to loathe the vermin. Would the people of the town accept having goblins among them? Is their sense of safety worth less in this equation? And if the goblins grow up to follow their nature still, the paladin will carry that burden, as he has given aid that has been used for evil means.
The book gives you options to make the world more lighthearted or grim, allowing you to use the system to play both My Little Pathfinder, and grittier stuff like Game of Thrones. However, the default game assumes that evil is truly evil, and applying modern idealism to the darkest denizens of the world will simply be naive and get innocents killed.
Ilja: I disagree that the alignments are too vague. There is a host of interpretations that can be attributed in order to give quite a bit of leeway so that many concepts can work, but actions speak louder than words or thoughts. The nature of alignments is quite easy from a morality and ethical perspective imho; if you are a playable race (which all invariably have free will), your actions define you, while if you are something unnatural, you are mostly chained to a predetermined disposition.
And I believe the act of setting them in stone is probably quite intentional, in order to make sense of the supernatural elements that permeate the setting, as well as make it so that killing an evil enemy is ACTUALLY a good thing. Because the real world is bogged down enough with crappy justification and dehumanization of humans as it is.
Wait, so when the game says "there's loads of different approaches", you mean that the darkest path is the "default"? How does that work?
EDIT: And to me, the game feels much more gritty if everything's a shade of gray rather than the evil being so super-evil whatever you do to it will be good.
Fallout feels gritty. Zelda doesn't.
|
There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.
Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.
The book gives you options to make the world more lighthearted or grim, allowing you to use the system to play both My Little Pathfinder, and grittier stuff like Game of Thrones. However, the default game assumes that evil is truly evil, and applying modern idealism to the darkest denizens of the world will simply be naive and get innocents killed.
Wow, weren't you the one that denounced Strawmen posts in the Wyverns' thread ?
You might want to ease a little on them here ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.
It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.He got it from Paizo:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rulesOne of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
Read last sentence again: Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
So, you can kill the babies and the game regards this as a neutral act.
Actually, no.
Champions of Purity tells us that a good character can do anything he want with the babies, and still consider himself Good (not a Neutral action : "good, just, and the most merciful option").
It does not tell us how "the game" regards it.
That is the sole province of the GM and what his take on Evil is.
There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.
Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.
The book gives you options to make the world more lighthearted or grim, allowing you to use the system to play both My Little Pathfinder, and grittier stuff like Game of Thrones. However, the default game assumes that evil is truly evil, and applying modern idealism to the darkest denizens of the world will simply be naive and get innocents killed.Wow, weren't you the one that denounced Strawmen posts in the Wyverns' thread ?
You might want to ease a little on them here ;-)
Alter to "However, it is my personal conclusion that the default game assumes evil is truly evil, and applying the notion of free will to something that a rulebook says is an incarnation of pure evil is simply naive and going to get innocents killed." then.
My argument is: "If the paladin gets twice the damage output against it, then you are dealing with something that falls outside the assumption of human mindset with the capacity for good. I believe this is a design choice that is consciously made to make such villains larger than life, and disturbing enough to inspire horror."
And please note that I am saying Evil, with a capital E, and the [evil] tag in their descriptor, or evil by nature. Again, a monster without free will =/= a person that has done bad things.
Kamelguru, I would argue (and have at length) that free will does not preclude an inherent alignment (good or evil), nor does an inherent alignment preclude free will.
The fact that a creature could be made out of evil, yet would choose good is possible in Golarion canon (and thus presumed possible by Pathfinder at large, although several wordings of things preclude this interpretation).
Paizo said killing evil babies was Good, except when it is Evil.
Forcing people (even demons) to act good does not make them good and is usually considered very close to evil by many Good people.
Protagonists facing monsters in movies may be good, but I would not say that they qualify as Paladins. Also these movies do not represent all the kind of movies that can be done with people facing monsters. Obviously, monsters in these movies are irredeemably evil. Such is not necessarily the case in PFRPG, even for Evil outsiders, who can be redeemed, at least according to Champions of Purity.
In the Worldwound AP there is a bonafide good aligned demon. Anything can be of any alignment should they actually do what the alignment does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kamelguru, I would argue (and have at length) that free will does not preclude an inherent alignment (good or evil), nor does an inherent alignment preclude free will.
The fact that a creature could be made out of evil, yet would choose good is possible in Golarion canon (and thus presumed possible by Pathfinder at large, although several wordings of things preclude this interpretation).
I know. But evil things turning good is a very rare exception to the rule, and if such a creature were to exist, it would very likely be outcast from its kind, and thus not a problem when the heroes come a-knocking.
And yes, it is a simplification. Self-awareness is earned at Int 3, and most evil humanoids have twice that. So they are self-aware, but they are also monsters. If we return to the Morlock: Their instinct is to devour their own kind. They require oversight so they do not eat their own siblings. This is not learned behavior. They are naturally predisposed towards traits that the game attributes as evil.
So, do they have free will in the same sense? Are they even meant to? An interesting argument, but if we are to entertain that notion, the alignment given the monsters in the bestiary becomes almost moot, as the very notion of innate alignments defies the principles of free will.
I argue for the simplification because it allows the game to stand as is. And makes the heroes (especially the paladin) that much more valid and heroic, standing against the darkness, and it dehumanizes the darkness so that we can have a jolly good time without waxing Nietzsche all night :P
The nature of alignments is quite easy from a morality and ethical perspective imho; if you are a playable race (which all invariably have free will), your actions define you, while if you are something unnatural, you are mostly chained to a predetermined disposition.
I do think the alignment rules are extremely fuzzy in themselves if seen without the lense of RL ethics. For example, good vs. evil relies heavily on the definition of "innocent", something that isn't in the book but rather you have to refer to real life ethics. It's easy to say "no-one's innocent" and then be able to kill anyone without turning evil - but as we understand the concept of innocence through RL ethics and the specific circumstances, it's (kinda) obvious what it means (or at least, which ballpark it is in).
Pathfinder often simplifies ethics by quite a bit, and in that changes it from how it's RL counterpart, but I wouldn't say you should leave RL ethics at the door - rather you should keep them close by and use them as reference when interpreting how alignment works in the game.
To be clear, I do think that [evil] creatures and those defined as always evil are, in fact, always evil and not free-willed.
I think the area where the ethic issues take place is with creatures such as kobolds, goblins, and human tribes known to be generally evil; these creatures are not a living manifestation of evil, they are living creatures that have a strong tendency towards evil. Also with creatures that aren't defined as evil but that can often be aggressive and a threat to outsiders, such as wyverns and territorial elven tribes.
However, I don't get your distinguishing between playable race and unnatural; it sounds like a really strange dichotomy. Animals are clearly natural yet not playable, and gnomes are at least as unnatural as goblins and kobolds yet are still playable. Also, with the ARG, many races are playable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
