Well there is nothing in the alignment system prevent, or even discouraging a character devoted to good and the concept of good, to commit acts of heinous evil. I think it's more or less mandatory in the Church of Ragathiel.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting topic. How should the alignment system handle a character who is absolutely ruthless in dealing with those who prey on the good?
And how many orcs did you kill and how did you kill them again? Please, tell me more...
This is an interesting topic. How should the alignment system handle a character who is absolutely ruthless in dealing with those who prey on the good?
The Ends do not justify the Means. Said character would be Evil. He might be motivated by good intentions. But we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem comes when we try to combine medieval morals with modern morals.
If we read the alignment system with modern morals the entire system is bound to collapse on itself. We can notice it just by this assumption: a king giving some guys with big weapons who just arrived to town the right to track down and caputer/kill those outlaws who are causing a ruckus in town. Seriously? What would you say if your mayor gave the right to track down criminals to trigger-happy, heavy armed, crazy guys you know nothing about who just showed up in town instead of the local police force, who (should be) were selected, trained and had to study the rules?
This is absolutely crazy.
What about medieval morals? According to it, the right thing to do with thief was cutting their hands off and displaying them in a square, as a warning. With murderers? Kill them and display them in a square, as a warning. With rapist? Castrate them and displaying them... i think we've got it. You tortured the bad guys? You were the good guy. You abused the bad guys? You were the good guy. You killed the bad guys? You were the good guy. Jurors and executioners who brought criminals in front of justice and cut off their heads might be not socially liked cause the might have been pretty creepy (given also the life condition they lived in) or dangerous, but in the eyes of people they were the good guys and the heroes who freed the world of scum... If a paladin cuts off the hands and the tongue and lets the evil (low-level) spellcaster go, by medieval morals he has given him a fair judgement... Or he could give him to authorities... and they would do the exactly same thing if they wouldn't sentence him to death outright...
It can be handwaved, sure, but when i read that "in D&D/PF allignment is an objective force" i have to ask "Objective according to what? Modern morals? Reinaissance morals? Medieval morals?". If you don't define that, there will always be discussions.
Edit: Even today, if you think about it, Western morals are different from eastern.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be handwaved, sure, but when i read that "in D&D/PF allignment is an objective force" i have to ask "Objective according to what? Modern morals? Reinaissance morals? Medieval morals?". If you don't define that, there will always be discussions.
Objective to my own personal opinions of course!
I think modern morals are kind'of dumb.
They tend to treat legal and good and the same thing.
Objective to my own personal opinions of course!Says Mr Sin
Glad you noticed. There's much maniacal laughter and diabolical here behind the screen!
It can be handwaved, sure, but when i read that "in D&D/PF allignment is an objective force" i have to ask "Objective according to what? Modern morals? Reinaissance morals? Medieval morals?". If you don't define that, there will always be discussions.
The core rulebook provides an outline of the objective morality of the default PF campaign setting. In a homebrew game, the objective morality would be determined by the DM, and in cases where said morality may become relevant (such as playing a pally) it's definitely a good idea for the players and the DM to be on the same page.
What would you say if your mayor gave the right to track down criminals to trigger-happy, heavy armed, crazy guys you know nothing about who just showed up in town instead of the local police force, who (should be) were selected, trained and had to study the rules?
I'd say "oh yeah, bounty hunters. That's a thing." :p
It can be handwaved, sure, but when i read that "in D&D/PF allignment is an objective force" i have to ask "Objective according to what? Modern morals? Reinaissance morals? Medieval morals?". If you don't define that, there will always be discussions.The core rulebook provides an outline of the objective morality of the default PF campaign setting. In a homebrew game, the objective morality would be determined by the DM, and in cases where said morality may become relevant (such as playing a pally) it's definitely a good idea for the players and the DM to be on the same page.
I think that's one of the great problems, because it is taken as strict rules, but it doesn't bother listing exception, mitigating circumstances, motives, etc... If those rules are to be followed strictly, 75% of (still living) adventurers should be evil by natural development.
EDIT:(however, this my opinion and only mine)
What would you say if your mayor gave the right to track down criminals to trigger-happy, heavy armed, crazy guys you know nothing about who just showed up in town instead of the local police force, who (should be) were selected, trained and had to study the rules?I'd say "oh yeah, bounty hunters. That's a thing." :p
Untill those bounty hunters start questioning you in an unilligal procedure (threat, extorted confession and the likes) cause they know too little about the laws that rule your country... Maybe that's why you don't see bounty hunters... or even bounties around anymore xP
Breaking the law is not an evil act...
Breaking the law is not an evil act...
but lawful good is the best good and Chaotic actions lead to evil![/sarc]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I like Conan and Dark Sun is there is a very implicit sense in these worlds that Chaotic Good trumps Lawful Good. This integrates better with the PCs being adventurers who are, by their nature, counter-culture.Breaking the law is not an evil act...but lawful good is the best good and Chaotic actions lead to evil![/sarc]
I just throw out alignment. If you think someones bad, that's okay. If you think someone's good, that's cool too. I also however have some generic rules for "Never do this in my game ever" to keep out nastiness instead of a "no evil PC" rule. Means questionable PCs are fine so long as they work with party cohesion and so on.
I hear Ebberon has a great alignment system...(meaning, different)
I think there's two issues herw. First rightious vengence seems to be used as an ex use to do evil acts. Here is a key way to judge if its good. If you can picture jack baur or judge dread doi git then it probably isn't good.
Second PC are poorly equiped to deal with prisoners.
I found an easy way to deal with the moral quandries is this.
When initiative is rolled if it is not a surprise round I asume everyone has read the vibe and knows a fight is here. Its kill or be killed and there is no moral issues to deal with.
Looking at it this way really solves issues unless there is some other story thing like mind controlled children going on.
However the moment PC take prisoners wether it is by surrender or intent the rules change. At this point your moral choices matter.
Basically in the ops example they took a bandit prisoner promised she would be let go didn't like her answers broke her leg then used the fact that she was evil and a bandit to justify it.
Ragathiel can't be used as a justification because he is a god and presumably perfect in his adherence to his. Alignment.
Appologies typed this out on my phone and I have fat fingers.
Good-evil alignment is about intention.
Law-chaos alignment is about method.
Your intention was basically good; to prevent more people from being hurt by her.
Your method might be classified as chaotic, at worst.
One of the reasons I like Conan and Dark Sun is there is a very implicit sense in these worlds that Chaotic Good trumps Lawful Good. This integrates better with the PCs being adventurers who are, by their nature, counter-culture.Breaking the law is not an evil act...but lawful good is the best good and Chaotic actions lead to evil![/sarc]
They do so in those settings. I personally believe all Good alignments are born equal, and have their pros and cons.
For example, in a LG party (which I've been a part of and it was actually a lot of fun), there is very little inter-party conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, in a LG party (which I've been a part of and it was actually a lot of fun), there is very little inter-party conflict.
Alternatively, two lawful good characters can have very different methods and disagree on key points in life. Talking about politics and morality and religion... oh my. Depends on the people/characters your with.
For example, in a LG party (which I've been a part of and it was actually a lot of fun), there is very little inter-party conflict.Alternatively, two lawful good characters can have very different methods and disagree on key points in life. Talking about politics and morality and religion... oh my. Depends on the people/characters your with.
Perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of "It's much less likely to come to blows and split the party apart." Can it still happen? Yup.
Good-evil alignment is about intention.
Law-chaos alignment is about method.
Absolutely false. Methods absolutely can be Evil. Torture, for instance. Getting a corrupt merchant to return stolen goods by killing his daughter and threatening to kill his son. Preventing the spread of plague by sealing up a city and burning all the inhabitants alive after a couple cases. Raping a rebellious chieftain's daughter to cow him into submission and prevent a bloody civil war etc. etc.
Intention is one of the most classic ways to become Evil--the belief that doing horrible things is justified so long as you are doing them for a good cause.
Second PC are poorly equiped to deal with prisoners.
This is very true. Combine this with the interjection of modern morals in a medieval campaign and you have a recipe for trouble.
Its kill or be killed and there is no moral issues to deal with...However the moment PC take prisoners wether it is by surrender or intent the rules change. At this point your moral choices matter.
Basically in the ops example they took a bandit prisoner promised she would be let go didn't like her answers broke her leg then used the fact that she was evil and a bandit to justify it.
Ragathiel can't be used as a justification because he is a god and presumably perfect in his adherence to his. Alignment.
Appologies typed this out on my phone and I have fat fingers.
I agree. I find it kinda wonky that good divinities have inquisitors in the first place, but I tend to spin it that the inquisitors of good gods are still zealously after the truth/rooting out heresy, etc. but that they use non-Evil methods to do so. The spells I mentioned before, perhaps some intimidation, etc. They still wouldn't really be liked, since nobody likes having their secrets ferreted out, but they wouldn't be the Spanish Inquisition.
(Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Sorry, couldn't help it...)
*ahem*
Simply because your class is named Inquisitor is no license to do Evil, unless you're the Inquisitor of an Evil god. However, you might get away with it occasionally, since a single Evil act is unlikely to cause an immediately alignment change except in extreme circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an awful lot of stuff tied to Alignment. How do you handle the Paladin's Detect Evil, Prot from X, Bane, Postive vs. Negative channeling, etc.?
Case by case. Most things become a general thing, little is outright removed. The big thing is about creating an environment for creativity and modular character building rather than a forced one. There's a lot, but not too much.
I allow clerics of the ideal and building your own deity anyway, so long as you don't make a major god who interferes with the fates of the worlds creation or other party members, and so on. It helps that I let players build the world. I do however frown upon people becoming the god of puppies and going around kicking puppies however.
Also, here's a blog post that happens to go into detail on how to remove it form your games in another way.
Good-evil alignment is about intention.
Law-chaos alignment is about method.
These statements are not necessarily true.
Say it with me
"The Spanish Inquisition was not a good act."
No matter how good the church claims to be, if its priests commit evil, its still an evil act.
Of course, the Spanish inquisition didn't take place in Golarion and to my knowledge they didn't employ spell casting inquisitors who lost their superpowers if they went against their gods whims. Real world examples don't always work, which is probably for the best in this case.
Say it with me
"The Spanish Inquisition was not a good act."
No matter how good the church claims to be, if its priests commit evil, its still an evil act.
I don't find this to be true.
Do I consider it to be an evil act? Yes.
But I also consider morality to be subjective, and so what I consider evil, another person might consider acceptable. This is because I've yet to be shown any evidence to believe that there is an external and impartial adjudicator, which is a necessity for objective morality to exist.
For example (and hopefully not to Godwin the thread), Hitler's Reich in Germany would not have considered their actions to be evil. They weren't Snidely Whiplash caricatures, twirling their mustaches and winding their hands together gleefully; they truly thought they were doing the world a good.
In order for the Reich's actions to be universally evil presumes that there is a perfect, external, and impartial judge that is the final arbitrator of 'good' and 'evil'. Some believe that such a judge exists. I don't. That doesn't stop me from judging the actions of others based on my own personal moral code, but I also recognize that there can be a huge disparity in what one person and the next calls 'good' and 'evil'.
I do not believe a perfect, external, impartial judge is required to determine what is good. Good endures. It is not cannibalistic. Ways of life that are self-destructive, then, are not good.
Alternatively, read that as "I know morality better than you!" Its not that what you say is directly saying that, its that it can become an excuse to become arbiter or inflexible.
The word Cannibalism brings up cannibalism itself. In one culture it can be a sign of respect, in another chaotic and horrifically ill mannered insult, and in another abhorrent because a CE god was the first cannibal. Not suggesting you go out and perform the act, but saying that a culture could view it entirely differently. Is it innately evil? Lets... not touch that with a 10 foot pole.
That said, I don't agree with "Their evil, I can do whatever I want to them LOLOLOL!" idealism. That's just terrifying to watch sometimes. I do however think absolutes are bad, and that things should be judge don a case by case. I also don't think this was a "He's a 'bandit', I'll do what I want!" moment that was described. It was an ill mannered jerk who insulted your god, spat in your face, and said they'd go on to do evil. Much different.
Err, no it isn't. It's quite constructive in fact. The country has to spend less money and manpower on lawfully deputized people and all that jazz and instead says "These people have committed crimes against the crown and the country's people. They have forfeited all legal rights. Any citizen may kill them on sight."
Saves money, saves manpower, and serves as a direct deterrent to committing crimes.
Much less self-destructive than spending millions of dollars housing and feeding criminals for free.
Also, attacking someone on the road is a good way to get declared a bandit yourself.
Yeah this is grossly oversimplified but still. Declaring people as bandits for the crimes of murder and theft when you simply can't spare the manpower to go after them is much less self-destructive than just letting them run loose or spreading your forces thin and running them ragged chasing these people down.
I do not believe a perfect, external, impartial judge is required to determine what is good. Good endures. It is not cannibalistic. Ways of life that are self-destructive, then, are not good.
Having a policy of allowing people to be attacked on the road by anyone as long as they are 'bandits' is self-destructive.
I would point out that by your definition - "good endures" - then so far there have been no 'good' civilizations in history. Every civilization has transformed drastically and\or fallen. If anything, the precedent of history is not that good endures, but that good will always be corrupted by evil and eventually be destroyed; it may rise again, but that makes it a phoenix, not an immortal.
As a final note before I go play with the dogs: Slavery is still an active institution. It may not be pervasive, but it has endured since the beginning of written history. Most people consider it to be 'evil' - yet unlike a lot of institutions that are judged to be good, slavery has endured yet 'good' institutions have fallen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Betcha if you sit down with a group of players and asked them if cannibalism was evil you'd get one or two guys who said yes, a third that says "Ewww that's disgusting!" and the rest that say "Under what circumstances? Is the guy already dead? Am I starving? What?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been through enough postmodern deconstructivist bullsh!t as to make the world's fattest man puke. It's all garbage. At the end of the day, everyone at the table is from the same culture. They share a common sense of morality. It may not be a carbon copy, but its close enough.
All you have to do is look at a newspaper to know that this isn't true.
Abortion is murder!
Abortion is choice!
Republican!
Democrat!
Guns kill people!
People kill people!
The death penalty keeps us safe!
The death penalty is murder!
We must have war to ensure peace!
Only peace ensures peace!
The environment is fine!
The environment is dying because of us!
God!
Allah!
Vishnu!
Jehovah!
Satan!
No gods!
Those are only a few examples.
I'm sorry, I can only go by my own experiences, and those experiences lead me to believe that anyone who believes that we all share "a common sense of morality" is overly optimistic.
Betcha if you sit down with a group of players and asked them if cannibalism was evil you'd get one or two guys who said yes, a third that says "Ewww that's disgusting!" and the rest that say "Under what circumstances? Is the guy already dead? Am I starving? What?"
Humorously, I've had this exact topic come up in relation to Pathfinder specifically, related to Blood Transcription. I house-rule that the [Evil] tag on it doesn't exist depending on the circumstances. My hypothetical situation was a school of Good mages who believed that when a member passed on, it was the duty of the youngest among them to retain his power through Blood Transcription.
So... A priest, a rabbit, and a minister all sit at a dnd table...
So... A priest, a rabbit, and a minister all sit at a dnd table...
Didn't Jack Chick put out a tract about that? ;)
So... A priest, a rabbit, and a minister all sit at a dnd table...Didn't Jack Chick put out a tract about that? ;)
Haha... Not sure if I want to know. Never know though, that might be a pretty wicked DnD game.
Jack Chick wrote about a lot of nonsense, but DnD playing rabbits?
Sounds like Justin is a Kantian.
Using pure reason to decided whether or not an act is good regardless of the circumstance by following a set of maximums.
Personally I subscribe to virtue ethics. It's far more modular. I pick virtues based on what I believe will lead to personal functional excellence.
Now if I choose 'Good' and 'Lawful' as virtues than I can proceed with them, but if I choose 'Evil' and 'Chaotic' as my virtues than I am called to pursue them. I see D&D and Pathfinder by extension to function based on a virtue ethics system where there is only 6 virtues that define your alignment. Kantian and Utilitarian notions are how the players try to define these virtues, but when it comes to a PC's actual alignment, intent and drive are the determining factors. A PC must do more than fail at striving for their virtue to change alignment. Said PC must strive for new virtues or be defined by the GM as striving for new virtues.
Jack Chick wrote about a lot of nonsense, but DnD playing rabbits?
Too busy cracking up over my own typo to make a good response. I'll get back to you later on that one. Good karma.
Newspapers look for controversy. How about "is pedophilia of babies okay?" "is harvesting organs of kidnapped 12 year olds okay?" "is rape of senior citizens in nursing homes okay?"
That is neither here nor there. You suggested that we all have a common morality about everything. Which is objectively false. No philosopher would agree with that because they knew that people disagreed with them.