And Xaratherus' post pretty much proved you wrong. Those are real moral dilemmas people really have different opinions about and they're pretty huge differences in morality.
I'd say a large number of fundamental differences in morality that are widespread enough to get constant news coverage and are often on the list of topics for anyone talking politics, religion, or morality is far from something that is "atypical".
The discussion about subjectivity in morality is largely irrelevant to games like D&D and Pathfinder where good and evil have definition. They are no longer subjective because the game has defined them so that we can consistently adjudicate spells like detect evil. Those definitions may not be comprehensive but they're enough to recognize that torture is evil, murder is evil, and good takes pains to avoid being that way, even to it's own disadvantage.
So, yes, the inquisitor was engaging in evil behavior. That doesn't necessarily make the inquisitor evil right now, the whole of his behavior has to be considered. But you should assume that, in the overall scheme of things, these actions should be dragging the estimate of the PC's alignment away from NG.
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?
Firstly he is an unrelenting defender of the good: he fights to protect the good, the weak and the innocent.
Secondly he is absolutely ruthless in dealing with the evil people who prey on them: resorting to harsh punishment, mutilation, torture and merciless killing.Real world history and myth is littered with characters like this. Especially since the world hundreds of years ago was a much more ruthless place than it is today.
Most of them wouldn't pass muster as good characters in D&D morality. But that's OK. There's no saying neutral characters can't actually take political sides even if they aren't morally pure in any direction.
And even in historical stories (true or not), Emperor Constantine, after converting to Christianity, delayed baptism until his deathbed because committing sin was part of his job as Emperor. So it's not like there isn't some history of knowingly wicked men doing knowingly wicked things for a greater good.
I'd say a large number of fundamental differences in morality that are widespread enough to get constant news coverage and are often on the list of topics for anyone talking politics, religion, or morality is far from something that is "atypical".When you stop and think about it, there really isn't a widespread amount of moral controversy.
Republican vs. Democrat isn't a moral argument. If they share the same values (e.g. reduce hunger), but disagree as to how to get there, that's a economic argument, not a moral one.
And when one side believes that abortion is equivalent to murder, and the other side believes that it is a woman's choice? When one side believes the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, and the other believes it is murder? When a group believes that government-subsidized charity is weakening to society, while another believes it is integral? When a large group believes that being anything other than heterosexual\white\male should be subservient and second-class, while another believes that "all [men] are created equal" means equality regardless of sex, orientation, race, or creed?
The experiences of one day in my life is enough for me to call shenanigans on the idea that "there really isn't a widespread amount of moral controversy".
I literally see a hundred moral disagreements between friends each day who identify with a particular political party. Is that anecdotal? Yes. Is it strong enough experience to utterly disagree with your belief that the world agrees on "all those moral questions"? Yup.
"Should we as a society work to preserve lives?" is a moral question. How to achieve it is not.
I disagree. Some people believe that to preserve lives, war is a necessity to protect ourselves. The method of achievement is often irremovable from the actual moral issue.
And for all those moral questions, we, as a society, have pretty much agreed on the answer.
I'm surprised that I missed the announcement of world peace!
I mean, if we've "pretty much agreed on the answer" of all the major moral questions, then we're nearing utopia!
Sarcasm aside, you are brushing away the very real examples that we've offered as 'black swans' and 'media bias'. I don't think we have anything else to discuss, because to me, your outlook is willfully ignoring the hundreds of important and moral disagreements that exist throughout the world simply to try and make your argument persuasive.
The discussion about subjectivity in morality is largely irrelevant to games like D&D and Pathfinder where good and evil have definition. They are no longer subjective because the game has defined them so that we can consistently adjudicate spells like detect evil. Those definitions may not be comprehensive but they're enough to recognize that torture is evil, murder is evil, and good takes pains to avoid being that way, even to it's own disadvantage.
Okay, but murdering evil is... Torture to find vital information to saving lives is... Good takes avoidable pain is...
Sometimes things are weird like that. Your kill a lot of orcs when your good. Does that mean no good guy is really good? Its defined, but its also stupid. Stupid beyond reason. People who think they've got it totally down in my entirely anecdotal experience are jerks who think they know actual morality better than you and don't really know it, but enforce their idea.
Last question, Letting a bandit who told you they'd go on to do evil go scott free is? Stupid? Sane? Good? Being punished for an instance like this kinda sucks. Especially for someone playing a paladin. Obviously letting evil go into the world is a bad idea, but killing them is apparently frowned upon. Not everyone wants to be forced to play stupid.
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.
This comes off as profoundly ignorant, or worse, willfully obtuse.
I'd say a large number of fundamental differences in morality that are widespread enough to get constant news coverage and are often on the list of topics for anyone talking politics, religion, or morality is far from something that is "atypical".When you stop and think about it, there really isn't a widespread amount of moral controversy.
Republican vs. Democrat isn't a moral argument. If they share the same values (e.g. reduce hunger), but disagree as to how to get there, that's a economic argument, not a moral one.
"Should we as a society work to preserve lives?" is a moral question. How to achieve it is not.
"Is peace a moral good" is a moral question, how to achieve peace is not.
"Should we protect/preserve our environment?" is a moral question. How to achieve it is not.
God vs. Allah vs. Vishnu vs. Jehovah vs. Satan vs. Atheism is a religious argument, not a moral one.
And for all those moral questions, we, as a society, have pretty much agreed on the answer.
Sweet bippity Christ, do you actually believe that?
You know how Kantians are.
I'd say a large number of fundamental differences in morality that are widespread enough to get constant news coverage and are often on the list of topics for anyone talking politics, religion, or morality is far from something that is "atypical".When you stop and think about it, there really isn't a widespread amount of moral controversy.
Republican vs. Democrat isn't a moral argument. If they share the same values (e.g. reduce hunger), but disagree as to how to get there, that's a economic argument, not a moral one.
And when one side believes that abortion is equivalent to murder, and the other side believes that it is a woman's choice? When one side believes the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, and the other believes it is murder? When a group believes that government-subsidized charity is weakening to society, while another believes it is integral? When a large group believes that being anything other than heterosexual\white\male should be subservient and second-class, while another believes that "all [men] are created equal" means equality regardless of sex, orientation, race, or creed?
The experiences of one day in my life is enough for me to call shenanigans on the idea that "there really isn't a widespread amount of moral controversy".
I literally see a hundred moral disagreements between friends each day who identify with a particular political party. Is that anecdotal? Yes. Is it strong enough experience to utterly disagree with your belief that the world agrees on "all those moral questions"? Yup.
Gahhh... how did this turn into a political debate?? I HATE political debates... and politics in general
I will just say that you have a very narrow an all encompassing 'cookie cutter' view of political parties...
There may be a few similiarites on a few major issues, but by no means do ALL people who vote Democrat or ALL people who vote Republican abject believers in EXACTLY what the overall 'party line' is.... Many, many MANY Republicans are against war... and many Democrats are against Abortions...
Its really no better generalization that lumping 'gamers' into a specific pigeon-hole.
Political parties are really a case of 'who do i disagree with... less?' Never who do I actaully AGREE with ;)
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?"
When you say babies: what age are we talking here?
Remember in the past you married 7 year olds.The Prophet Muhammad married a 6 year old (is that marry a baby?).
I don't know were the kids bad kids or good ones?
Rape of the Senior citizens is no more evil than any other rape.
And for all those moral questions, we, as a society, have pretty much agreed on the answer.
Exactly, the Democrats are right currently.
Heck, the Republicans know they wrong about the 2nd amendment: if gun ownership right is absolute; You can't talk felons guns away. Taking them away is a slippery slope.
|
Well, you want to prevent her from ever doing evil again. I'm sure her next victim would consider it your responsibility as a NG do-gooder adventurer. Indeed, if you could have stopped her, but you didn't, aren't you responsible for her next act of evil?
Therefore, you must do something. Failure to act would be an act of evil.
So, you'll have to somehow convince her to turn good. Perhaps she'll repent. But it's not likely, and she even told you so.
This leaves only two choices: Eliminate the threat permanently (either by life-long incarceration, or by a death sentence), or intimidate the heck out of her as a deterrent to future crimes.
Locking her up didn't seem to be an option, as she was working for the authorities. So at this point, the only good actions left are to kill her, or scare her so much she'll never do an evil act again. You chose the latter, which was no more evil than the former.
If you went back in time and found yourself face to face with baby Hitler would you be morally obligated to smother him??
If you went back in time and found yourself face to face with baby Hitler would you be morally obligated to smother him??
No
The baby is innocent and has committed no crimes that demand justice.
@phantom1592: Oh, trust me - I know that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' won't universally tell you what the person believes. :)
I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative who believes in legalized marijuana, marriage for any number and combination of consenting adults regardless of gender, and freedom of (and from) religion - but I also believe in personal fiscal responsibility (including proof of solvency before starting a family), responsible gun ownership, and limited government (both federal and state)
I'm a registered independent though (also known as "destined to lose until people get tired enough of the status quo"). :P
I've met registered Republicans who are pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, and Democrats who would do away with public assistance and put snipers on the border if they could.
"What constitutes a life worthy of being protected?" is a moral question. "Republican vs. Democrat" is not. Incidentally, there are Republicans who are pro-choice and pro-equality.
And when one side believes that abortion is equivalent to murder, and the other side believes that it is a woman's choice? When one side believes the death penalty is perfectly acceptable, and the other believes it is murder? .. When a large group believes that being anything other than heterosexual\white\male should be subservient and second-class, while another believes that "all [men] are created equal" means equality regardless of sex, orientation, race, or creed?
Political affiliation is, at least in the United States and for better or worse, directly associated with moral stance. Are those labels universal as to what the person believes? No. But even if you disagree with one or more of their platform points, your vote still elects someone who holds those moral stances.
When a group believes that government-subsidized charity is weakening to society, while another believes it is integral?Not a moral question.
Absolutely a moral question. Government is representation of the citizenry as a whole; whether or not it embodies the concept of charity and aiding the needy is indicative of the greater views of that society.
Is it strong enough experience to utterly disagree with your belief that the world agrees on "all those moral questions"?That's not what I said.
And for all those moral questions, we, as a society, have pretty much agreed on the answer.
Sure looks like it. Oh, you wiffled a bit and qualified with a "pretty much agreed", but your overall stance throughout has been that the majority of the world agrees on the basic concepts of morality.
"When (if ever) is war moral?" Is a moral question. "How should we go about preserving lives?" is not.
I disagree. Some people believe that to preserve lives, war is a necessity to protect ourselves. The method of achievement is often irremovable from the actual moral issue.
If your method of preserving lives (or at least the lives of your own nation) is to slaughter anyone who disagrees with you? It sure as heck is a moral question. Method is inseparable from goal.
As I said, we disagree on a number of basic points - first and foremost it seems on what is a moral question and what is not. I don't think there's really anything further worthwhile to discuss; good luck with your outlooks on life (and I mean that sincerely).
So... Modern day politics. In a forum about pathfinder. About whether a specific act relating to banditry is evil. How'd that happen?
Anyways... So breaking a bandits leg. I don't think its that evil. I've seen players do much worse though, so maybe I have a bit of a bias. I think its an okay compromise and I wouldn't punish a player for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways... So breaking a bandits leg. I don't think its that evil. I've seen players do much worse though, so maybe I have a bit of a bias. I think its an okay compromise and I wouldn't punish a player for it.
Totally an evil action. Anything less than talking the bandits into changing their lives and getting them to willingly go back (without magic) to civilization to face judgement is evil. Even fighting them (causing harm) makes you a monster.
We're playing this game in a very comfortable and peaceful society. We have policemen and soldiers to make sure we never have to get our hands dirty protecting people and society. We don't understand having to make hard decisions for the greater good because we have never been called on to make one. That said, a life full of hard decisions can turn someone sour. That's why it's important for those characters do be merciful and kind whenever possible in order to keep perspective, and be quick and just when they can't.
We also have prisons large enough to hold everyone dangerous to society. Seriously, we have a silly number of people in prison. In almost no part of the Golarion setting is any organization or government equipped to handle permanently imprisoning and caring for criminals in a society where crime is far more rampant than our own.
Saying good people cannot kill dangerous criminals to protect innocent lives without eventually turning evil is giving Team Evil a license to do whatever they like. I can't imagine the contortions it would take to play a paladin who can make a difference at many of your tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my Second Darkness campaign I allowed my players to conduct a public trial of two of Riddleport's crimelords, give a "this cruelty, lawful or not, ends here" speech, and execute them on the spot. I didn't even consider an alignment shift. Due to their efforts, Riddleport is starting to clean up.
Later in the campaign they were tasked with hunting down some creatures and realized mid-battle with them that the creatures just wanted to get away from a life of violence and slavery. They ended hostilities and asked me to let them use Hero Points (1/level so quite precious) to bring back the one they killed. They then lied to their very dangerous employer in order to let them escape. They're making meaningful moral decisions and sacrificing personal resources to do so, and I could not be more proud. That would not be possible if I followed the alignment system to the letter. They execute evil to protect the innocent while going to extreme lengths to be merciful when they can. That is good.
OP, I think if you make a strong effort to showcase the other side of your good alignment that your GM will be far more understanding when it comes time to avenge the innocent.
I think, at its best, it is chaotic neutral. I think a very interesting plot point to use later in the campaign would be for the party to find out their action made some kid an orphan. Perhaps that kid would have received help by the nearby city if his father/bandit had been tried in court and found guilty.
I can imagine that conversation.
Orphan with teary eyes: Why'd you kill daddy!?
Player: Because your dad was a jerk and he stabbed me!
Then, if the PCs are good aligned, how do they handle the consequences of their actions (regardless of how justified they feel those actions were)?I think, at its best, it is chaotic neutral. I think a very interesting plot point to use later in the campaign would be for the party to find out their action made some kid an orphan. Perhaps that kid would have received help by the nearby city if his father/bandit had been tried in court and found guilty.I can imagine that conversation.
Orphan with teary eyes: Why'd you kill daddy!?
Player: Because your dad was a jerk and he stabbed me!
I think this is directed at my example? If not, I apologize.
You are right that doing good does not remove the possibility of unfortunate circumstance. Unfortunate circumstance doesn't cause that act to be anything less than good either. That particular city is an independent city-state currently run by NE crimelords whose business model is take what I can because I can, so if the PCs wanted anything to happen they had to do it themselves. There was no higher court available, and had there been its use would have been encouraged.
My PCs, especially the cleric, would bend over backwards to make that orphan's life as good as possible. I could easily see them putting up 10,000gp without hesitation to take care of the kid, and possibly even trying to taking him in themselves. They would do that even if they weren't responsible for the (evil) father's death. They are, after all, good people ;)
