Rynjin, you are on the Internet, using a computer of some sort. You probably drive a car. No doubt you own bicycles or other assets.
If you aren't willing to give up your personal property to make other people's lives better, maybe someone needs to come and take it from you forcibly. After all, there are starving people in Somalia who would benefit from the cash that could be generated by selling off your assets.
Or when you say Robin Hood is a "hero" you meant when he was going after someone other than you, didn't you?
And when you say it's "good" to be forced to sacrifice for others, you meant if the sacrifice was from someone else, right?
Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Acts should be evil because of what they're used to accomplish, not because "They just are, okay?"
Rynjin, you are on the Internet, using a computer of some sort. You probably drive a car. No doubt you own bicycles or other assets.
If you aren't willing to give up your personal property to make other people's lives better, maybe someone needs to come and take it from you forcibly. After all, there are starving people in Somalia who would benefit from the cash that could be generated by selling off your assets.
Or when you say Robin Hood is a "hero" you meant when he was going after someone other than you, didn't you?
He was stealing from people who were actually WEALTHY to give to people who were being taxed to death.
I didn't figure I had to explain the EXACT CONTEXT to you since it's a pretty well known tale.
And I never claimed I was a saint either, I'm a selfish bastard just like everyone else, including you (as you say, you're here, on a computer, using the internet...), but I also don't see anything wrong with stealing to live (or, in this case, stealing so others can live).
If somebody jacked my bike, sold it, and used the money to pay for some kid's meals for the next few months I might be pissed (it WAS mine, wasn't it?), but I can also see where the other guy's coming from.
Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Acts should be evil because of what they're used to accomplish, not because "They just are, okay?"
Not seeing the contradiction.
It doesn't matter how you kill someone (in combat, being the context which you left out). They're dead in any case.
Rynjin, "wealthy" is not an absolute state, it's a comparative state. Believe me, in Robin Hood's eyes, you live like a Lord and are "wealthy" in every meaningful way.
So, yeah, you have enough to give some up dude. You really do. You just don't want to do it, do you? Funny how it works that way.
It was all OK to talk about how great it is to steal from someone to give to less fortunates, but when you are the fortunate one, not so much, eh? I mean it's not like the "wealthy lord" thinks he has enough to be happy that someone is stealing what he worked for either. Heck that sack of gold is probably paying his mortgage on the castle, you know? You know, the castle that employs about 1/3 of the townsfolk or buys their goods and services? Yeah, that castle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not seeing the contradiction.
I know you don't.
Unfortunately, Rynjin's attitude towards the good evil thing seems to be popular within a subset of the message boards. Though, I have never encountered anyone expressing similar views in a Rl game.
Ive come to the conclusion honestly that some players may simply approach the game like either a computer game or simply from a numbers point of view. Nothing seems to sway them away from this and they seem to view every act in the game in a grey area.
I have found a good rule of thumb is that, If you can picture somone in a movie or stor yelling "by the power of the gods of evil and darkness" Doing and act and cant picture some yelling "by all that is pure and good in the world I invoke thee" before doing the act. There is probly a good chance the act is evil.
If you can easily picture Voldemorte, Thulsa doom or Thoth amon doing it just as the hero kicks in the door to try and save the damsel it is also probably evil.
In most fantasy settings good and evil are tangible things you can touch taste and feel and often shape taint or bless magic. If you want an idea just how awful Demons are (at least in golarion) read thorough he world wound stuff or demons revisted.
It really is at least in PF black and white.
Rynjin, "wealthy" is not an absolute state, it's a comparative state.
Yes, and in a comparative way, I'm poorer than many in my country (note that Robin Hood did not steal from the rich nobles in England to give to the poor starving Somalians either).
Believe me, in Robin Hood's eyes, you live like a Lord and are "wealthy" in every meaningful way.
Compared to previous centuries? Yes.
Now? No.
You can't "compare" things so dissimilar. Really, by that same token, people living on the streets here should give away everything THEY have because they're rich compared to your average 14th century peasant.
You just don't want to do it, do you?
No, I don't. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my previous post.
It was all OK to talk about how great it is to steal from someone to give to less fortunates, but when you are the fortunate one, not so much, eh? I mean it's not like the "wealthy lord" thinks he has enough to be happy that someone is stealing what he worked for either. Heck that sack of gold is probably paying his mortgage on the castle, you know?
Note also that Lords did not work for their money, and they are not just "Technically wealthy kinda compared to some of the poorest nations in the world" either. They were wealthy (and before the "comparative" nonsense comes up again: "Wealthy: having a great deal of money, resources, or assets; rich.", not simpky "As compared to..."), and all of their money came from taxation.
Overtaxation in the case of Robin Hood, which is again explaining to you an analogy you SHOULD already be perfectly familiar with, but willfully choose to ignore in order to try to make a point so you can sit smugly in your chair and feel that you've "won".
It's when you have to stretch your question so far to make a point that you have to ask yourself if perhaps the problem is not on MY end.
Then maybe this is the point where we need to recognise that there are areas that we have reached the limit of discussion. That we have to acknowledge differences that are irreconcilable.
As I do believe that there are acts which are inherently evil, even if they may be necessary, even if the alternative to doing them is unspeakably horrible.
Classic example: The decision Jack Harkness makes at the climax of "Children of Earth".
Spoiler:
He sacrifices his own grandchild to save the children of the planet.
Was it necessary, probably yes. Was it evil, no one involved not even Harkness himself would question otherwise, the moral and spiritual costs of his act pretty much break him.
And what I'm saying is that if it is "necessary" and would otherwise lead to "unspeakably horrible" things happening, it's not evil. Or at the very LEAST, it's not as evil as NOT doing it.
Emotionally traumatizing? Certainly.
Difficult and heartwrenching to even think about? Yes.
Evil? No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, Rynjin, you can justify your lack of willingness to sacrifice your wealth however it makes you happy dude. You sure as hell aren't convincing me of anything except that you think it's OK to steal from people richer than you, and you'll probably think the same thing no matter how rich you actually get. LOL, attitudes like yours just crack me up. You literally cannot see the hypocrisy. I love it.
LOL, Rynjin, you can justify your lack of willingness to sacrifice your wealth however it makes you happy dude. You sure as hell aren't convincing me of anything except that you think it's OK to steal from people richer than you, and you'll probably thing the same thing no matter how rich you actually get.
I honestly don't understand why it's so hard for you and Ciretose to even ATTEMPT to read and understand someone's argument besides your own.
I did not say it was okay for me to steal. Because while I am comparatively poor, I am not destitute and will not DIE without stealing said money (which is the F*$#ING SCENARIO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH THE ROBIN HOOD ANALOGY).
But you can keep on your high horse, just like you always do, in any argument you enter into.
You "know" you are correct and refuse to see any possible merits in an argument that goes against the thoughts of the almighty Adamantine. You've done this before, and you'll do it again.
You may notice that I do not belittle what you believe, simply the rules in the game that enforce it on everyone, yet you do not give me the same courtesy (and never have, nor likely ever will). I'm frankly tired of it.
Rynjin, I only exposed the hypocrisy in your stated beliefs.
I doubt you actually believe it's ok to steal from rich people, in spite of your comments here.
All I've done is demonstrated that while you claim that it isn't evil to steal from one person to give to other people, somehow it still is evil if it is done to you.
That's actually WHY it's easier for most people to say it's OK for #1 but not so easy for #2. Because MOST people realize how easy it is to expose their hypocrisy if they say #2 is OK. Since it's "only money" it's something people grasp intuitively.
When it's life we're talking about, even though the exact same argument applies it's harder for most people to realize it. Because they really can't see it happening to them, but they CAN see someone stealing their money.
Anyway, thanks for taking the bait and playing along. It was great fun.
Rynjin, I only exposed the hypocrisy in your stated beliefs.
I doubt you actually believe it's ok to steal from rich people, in spite of your comments here.
All I've done is demonstrated that while you claim that it isn't evil to steal from one person to give to other people, somehow it still is evil if it is done to you.
But here's the thing, I never made a blanket statement saying "Stealing is not evil" or the vice versa.
This is why I kinda lost my cool in the above post.
EVERYTHING depends on circumstances (my original point, which may have been lost in the shuffle), hence the Robin Hood analogy. I'll try and split it into three different analogies again, like I did for the Undead one, see if it makes my point more clear (assuming it wasn't before, which maybe it wasn't).
Stealing is an act. I don't think stealing (or any other act) is inherently good or evil. Depending on circumstances, it can be one, the other, or neither. I will admit in advance, I may be hard pressed to come up with a "neutral" example of thievery.
1.) The "Robin Hood" example. Stealing from someone who has enough, especially in gains earned at the expense of others, to give back to your friends who would suffer and probably starve without it. Good.
2.) Stealing from someone who has enough, to give to your friends (who are, I suppose, poorer than this person), even though taht person's gains were earned, and not at the expense of anyone (and especially not your friends). Evil.
3.)Stealing, I dunno, a paper clip from your friend's desk. Overall pretty innocuous, benefits you but doesn't really inconvenience him overly.
Does that make ANY more sense to you?
Isn't it the case that desecrating the dead, and especially things like creating undead, are usually seen as messing with the soul of the dead?
Not in this game, as far as I know. Unintelligent undead are just the bodies, animated by negative energy.
Incidentally, what a horrible thread jack.
LOL, and here I thought it was a brilliantly conceived and executed one.
Tomayto, Tomahto I suppose....
Rynjin, the difficulty of drawing a line between stealing a paper clip from Microsoft, stealing a bag of dirty money from a drug lord and stealing the mortgage payment from a family is why things like "mortal" and "venal" sins were created.
It's tough to live by moral codes, because eventually you actually have to, you know, codify it. And that's when the lines have to be drawn.
So it's EASIER to be a moral relativist.
Which is why it's so common.
|
Incidentally, what a horrible thread jack.
LOL, and here I thought it was a brilliantly conceived and executed one.
Tomayto, Tomahto I suppose....
I just don't see how all of this is giving advice to the OP for his game.
It seems like someone crashed in with their evil=/=evil hobbyhorse and decided the OP doesn't deserve to have helpful, supportive advice.
Incidentally, what a horrible thread jack.
LOL, and here I thought it was a brilliantly conceived and executed one.
Tomayto, Tomahto I suppose....
I just don't see how all of this is giving advice to the OP for his game.
It seems like someone crashed in with their evil=/=evil hobbyhorse and decided the OP doesn't deserve to have helpful, supportive advice.
Sigh, it's almost as if conversations shift and change as the subject evolves and different interests are explored.
By the way, I don't remember deleting any of the sorts of messages you refer to. I'm pretty sure anyone who wanted to post anything like that was able to do so. And no doubt did. Probably multiple times.
Oh, and I've never managed to figure out how whining about "off topic" comments is anything but, you know, "off topic."
Incidentally, what a horrible thread jack.
LOL, and here I thought it was a brilliantly conceived and executed one.
Tomayto, Tomahto I suppose....
Rynjin, the difficulty of drawing a line between stealing a paper clip from Microsoft, stealing a bag of dirty money from a drug lord and stealing the mortgage payment from a family is why things like "mortal" and "venal" sins were created.
It's tough to live by moral codes, because eventually you actually have to, you know, codify it. And that's when the lines have to be drawn.
So it's EASIER to be a moral relativist.
Which is why it's so common.
So your an advocate of moral absolutism?
"Brought to you by the people who burned people at the stake!"
yay.... morality.
So it's EASIER to be a moral relativist.Which is why it's so common.
So your an advocate of moral absolutism?
"Brought to you by the people who burned people at the stake!"
yay.... morality.
As I said, easier. But even moral relativists find ways to be judgmental don't they?
My own personal concept of morality is not something that could be presented on a messageboard. Let's just say that there are more options than "moral relativist" or "moral absolutist".
Also, the idea that moral relativism is innocent of things like, oh, genocide, is quite laughable.
Difference is the relativists don't kill you.
Difference is the relativists don't kill you.
Tell that to Stalin's 20 million victims.
Difference is the relativists don't kill you.Tell that to Stalin's 20 million victims.
Of course, one of the most celebrated sociopaths. Surely moral relativism could only lead humanity to having brain damage.
Difference is the relativists don't kill you.Tell that to Stalin's 20 million victims.
How would Stalin be a relativist? He was a deontologist who justified his actions with the idea that history would absolve him; i.e. that he was merely acting according to historical necessity. He didn't believe in relative morality at all; he was absolute. Liberals believe in relative morality.
There is a lot of confused terminology being thrown around this thread.
The bottom line is that morality in D&D (and Pathfinder) has always been deonotological. Certain acts are evil, certain acts are good, and certain acts are neutral. Consequentialism doesn't hold, although it is possible to do a little evil to do a great good (which is why things like the malconvoker have existed).
If you want a more troubled, unclear, or relative moral systems you should look into the book (I believe) Heroes of Horror from 3.5 that gave some guidelines on dropping alignment or consider another game system.
Vestigia, you have completely and utterly misinterpreted what I have been saying if that's what you think.
If you go back through my comments, I never stated my own morality at all. All I did is point out the logical fallacies in others.
And when it comes to playing games, I can play pretty much any morality I want to. In fact I enjoy playing with moral options as a way to visit consequences in a hypothetical universe.
Difference is the relativists don't kill you.Tell that to Stalin's 20 million victims.How would Stalin be a relativist? He was a deontologist who justified his actions with the idea that history would absolve him; i.e. that he was merely acting according to historical necessity. He didn't believe in relative morality at all; he was absolute. Liberals believe in relative morality.
There is a lot of confused terminology being thrown around this thread.
The bottom line is that morality in D&D (and Pathfinder) has always been deonotological. Certain acts are evil, certain acts are good, and certain acts are neutral. Consequentialism doesn't hold, although it is possible to do a little evil to do a great good (which is why things like the malconvoker have existed).
If you want a more troubled, unclear, or relative moral systems you should look into the book (I believe) Heroes of Horror from 3.5 that gave some guidelines on dropping alignment or consider another game system.
Interesting, most people I know who study this sort of thing consider moral absolutism to REQUIRE a theological basis. After all, where does the absolutism come from if not from God? Pretty sure Stalin was an atheist. Pretty sure. Deontological moral systems are "rules based" morality, which means someone makes the rules. They are only absolute in the sense that once the rules are written, they must be followed, and the rules can be changed. Which is, in my opinion, anything but moral absolutism.
Interesting, most people I know who study this sort of thing consider moral absolutism to REQUIRE a theological basis. After all, where does the absolutism come from if not from God? Pretty sure Stalin was an atheist. Pretty sure.Difference is the relativists don't kill you.Tell that to Stalin's 20 million victims.How would Stalin be a relativist? He was a deontologist who justified his actions with the idea that history would absolve him; i.e. that he was merely acting according to historical necessity. He didn't believe in relative morality at all; he was absolute. Liberals believe in relative morality.
There is a lot of confused terminology being thrown around this thread.
The bottom line is that morality in D&D (and Pathfinder) has always been deonotological. Certain acts are evil, certain acts are good, and certain acts are neutral. Consequentialism doesn't hold, although it is possible to do a little evil to do a great good (which is why things like the malconvoker have existed).
If you want a more troubled, unclear, or relative moral systems you should look into the book (I believe) Heroes of Horror from 3.5 that gave some guidelines on dropping alignment or consider another game system.
And most people consider misguided Marxists to treat Marxism with an essentially religious fervor. They take Marx's words as gospel truth. This is not uncommon with teleological moral systems.
I do study this stuff, so some friends of yours who think you need to be religious (in the classical sense) to believe in metaphysics or deontology don't impress me.
1.) The "Robin Hood" example. Stealing from someone who has enough, especially in gains earned at the expense of others, to give back to your friends who would suffer and probably starve without it. Good.2.) Stealing from someone who has enough, to give to your friends (who are, I suppose, poorer than this person), even though taht person's gains were earned, and not at the expense of anyone (and especially not your friends). Evil.
So it is the opinion of the person commiting the act that makes the act good or evil? Or do you (or someone else) get to decide who "has enough" and who has "more than enough" and whether they were earned at "the expense of anyone" or not.
If someone steals bread to feed their starving family but thinks that stealing is evil, are they evil? If someone steals your laptop and doesn't feel guilt because they needed that laptop (or the money they got from it), are they evil?In the game Pathfinder, how close to starving do you have to be before you get a free moral pass?
Side note:
Didn't you once say you don't like good characters? Why do you want to remove evil from the game?
Interesting, most people I know who study this sort of thing consider moral absolutism to REQUIRE a theological basis. After all, where does the absolutism come from if not from God? Pretty sure Stalin was an atheist. Pretty sure.
Pretty sure he was too, but you have to consider a few factors as well, not least of which that even as an Atheist, he was still raised under religious values, and that stuff gets very ingrained.
As well, while he had no religion, he did have a philosophy. He felt his actions were good in light of this philosophy, much as Hitler did as well (he thought it was necessary, and therefore good).
At least that's how I figure it anyway.
And most people consider misguided Marxists to treat Marxism with an essentially religious fervor. They take Marx's words as gospel truth. This is not uncommon with teleological moral systems.
I do study this stuff, so some friends of yours who think you need to be religious (in the classical sense) to believe in metaphysics or deontology don't impress me.
There are ideological zealots and religious zealots. Their victims generally don't appreciate the distinction.
As I updated above, deontological systems are "rules based" and only morally absolute in the sense that once the rules are written, they must be followed. That's quite different from moral systems that believe man cannot create morality. I personally consider any system where man creates the rules to be a relativistic system since the rules can be changed.
And most people consider misguided Marxists to treat Marxism with an essentially religious fervor. They take Marx's words as gospel truth. This is not uncommon with teleological moral systems.
I do study this stuff, so some friends of yours who think you need to be religious (in the classical sense) to believe in metaphysics or deontology don't impress me.
There are ideological zealots and religious zealots. Their victims generally don't appreciate the distinction.
As I updated above, deontological systems are "rules based" and only morally absolute in the sense that once the rules are written, they must be followed. That's quite different from moral systems that believe man cannot create morality. I personally consider any system where man creates the rules to be a relativistic system since the rules can be changed.
Considering all moral systems are man made and all are subject to change, your statement is incoherent.
Non-deonological moral systems can have rules. Rules-based utilitarianism is a good example (and utilitarianism or consequentialism themselves are, in the end, still 'rules based' insofar as the prescribe certain types of actions to be moral).
Vestigia, you have completely and utterly misinterpreted what I have been saying if that's what you think.
If you go back through my comments, I never stated my own morality at all. All I did is point out the logical fallacies in others.
And when it comes to playing games, I can play pretty much any morality I want to. In fact I enjoy playing with moral options as a way to visit consequences in a hypothetical universe.
I offer my apologies then. I read through the thread in a bit of a hurry, and too carelessly it seems.
I just happened to see your statement about Rynjin's views being in the very small minority, and had to comment, since the idea seemed so strange to me, and so different from my own experience.
I was referring to a very specific view Rynjin offered, which was that there is no such thing as an evil act. That is not a commonly held view, even by moral relativists.
|
The fact of the matter is that moral relativism and alignment systems simply don't work together. The development of such a system requires moral cutoff points which can not be defined under relativism.
Out of curiosity, for Rynjin or others in his camp, what does constitute an evil act? So far you've been saying what is not evil and that the ends just the means. Is something only evil when the ends are not worthwhile? Are there any means that are evil on their own without consideration of the ends?
So it is the opinion of the person commiting the act that makes the act good or evil? Or do you (or someone else) get to decide who "has enough" and who has "more than enough" and whether they were earned at "the expense of anyone" or not.
If someone steals bread to feed their starving family but thinks that stealing is evil, are they evil? If someone steals your laptop and doesn't feel guilt because they needed that laptop (or the money they got from it), are they evil?
In the game Pathfinder, how close to starving do you have to be before you get a free moral pass?
Err, no, there was no "opinion based morality" thing in there.
It all has to do with how much harm you're causing in the long run.
Stealing bread to feed yourself and your family when they would literally die otherwise is not evil.
The "harm" is far outweighed by the good the theft did (the loss of a few dollars in inventory vs saving one or more lives).
Stealing a laptop just because you want one is bad.
The harm far outweighs the good (someone is out a significant chunk of money, and you do not gain some sort of life saving benefit from it).
Side note:
Didn't you once say you don't like good characters? Why do you want to remove evil from the game?
I don't like LAWFUL Good characters.
I like CG and NG just fine.
I was referring to a very specific view Rynjin offered, which was that there is no such thing as an evil act. That is not a commonly held view, even by moral relativists.
INHERENTLY evil acts, I think is what you may keep missing.
Whereas some say "Oh he told a lie that's evil", I say "He told a lie that harmed someone, that's evil".
Intent and outcome, along with a few other factors I can't adequately explain determine whether something is evil in my book.
And most people consider misguided Marxists to treat Marxism with an essentially religious fervor. They take Marx's words as gospel truth. This is not uncommon with teleological moral systems.
I do study this stuff, so some friends of yours who think you need to be religious (in the classical sense) to believe in metaphysics or deontology don't impress me.
There are ideological zealots and religious zealots. Their victims generally don't appreciate the distinction.
As I updated above, deontological systems are "rules based" and only morally absolute in the sense that once the rules are written, they must be followed. That's quite different from moral systems that believe man cannot create morality. I personally consider any system where man creates the rules to be a relativistic system since the rules can be changed.
Considering all moral systems are man made and all are subject to change, your statement is incoherent. Certainly they are just as certain of god's existence as you are of his absence.
Non-deonological moral systems can have rules. Rules-based utilitarianism is a good example (and utilitarianism or consequentialism themselves are, in the end, still 'rules based' insofar as the prescribe certain types of actions to be moral).
Your statement makes an assumption that there are no moral systems which supersede man's rules. That would include every single religious moral system.
Sure, you may be right, but the majority of people on this planet still believe in god. Maybe one of them is right. Certainly they are just as certain they are right as you are.
... and to return slightly on topic, CERTAINLY in the PF universe, there are gods.
Your statement makes an assumption that there are no moral systems which supersede man's rules. That would include every single religious moral system.
No shit.
. Rynjin has his views which (while I find some of them mildly repulsive) are perfectly valid at his table.Yes. But he wants us to have to allow them at our tables as well.
Which is where the disagreement lay.
I think it's fair to say that what I read from Rynjin is not that he wants HIS rules enforced at our table, he resents that the rules as written are given greater weight at most tables and so he has to accept them to play. He would prefer that the rule not exist so that there was no bias against his preferred style.
I think that even if that were the case, Rynjin would find that the vast, vast majority of games would be played pretty much the same way because his preferred in-game moral code does not match the huge majority of people's view.
I must admit that I find your latter statement to be quite surprising. Practically all the people I have ever played with over the many years have been keen supporters of morally complex settings and characters, and have held views much closer to those of Rynjin than those of yourself or Ciretose. I remember only one player who wanted to play in very black & white settings, where the characters were all noble shining heroes and the enemies always chaotic evil orcs, demons and necromancers, but he was a devoutedly religious person, which always seemed to greatly influence his views.
I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing? At least in these parts of the world the majority of players (in my experience) seem to want games with very grey morality.
I just see "grey morality" (although I would say gray because, 'Merica!) as everything is meaningless. How do you play the anti-hero who achieves the "greater good" by performing "evil deeds," if nothing is evil?
Your statement makes an assumption that there are no moral systems which supersede man's rules. That would include every single religious moral system.No s@*+.
Being certain you are right is no way to determine the accuracy of your beliefs Whale. No more than theirs.
Out of curiosity, for Rynjin or others in his camp, what does constitute an evil act? So far you've been saying what is not evil and that the ends just the means. Is something only evil when the ends are not worthwhile? Are there any means that are evil on their own without consideration of the ends?
Does the end justifies the means? SOMETIMES, I say, not no.
Does the good brought about by the act outweigh the harm by a significant amount?
If yes, then it's good (or at least "not evil").
If not, it is bad (or "evil").
Rynjin, there are moral writings that explore the concept of ends justifying the means. As I said far above, this is an ancient, ANCIENT debate. The problem with the ends justifying the means is that it is usually impossible to accurately predict the ends, but the means are right in front of you.
Being certain you are right is no way to determine the accuracy of your beliefs Whale. No more than theirs.Your statement makes an assumption that there are no moral systems which supersede man's rules. That would include every single religious moral system.No s@*+.
I am certain that I understand how to discuss ethics properly. Pointing to a religious system of ethics is absolutely pointless in the discussion of how to discuss ethics properly and what kind of ethics operate in Pathfinder.
Also, your earlier argument that a lot of people have religious beliefs is an argumentum ad populum and is a logical fallacy.
Also. Re-flavor a wolf animal companion or have the player use leadership to get a worg. Alternatively, perhaps a custom version of the 'squire' feat might be appropriate to allow earlier access to a worg.
:-)
|
|
Out of curiosity, for Rynjin or others in his camp, what does constitute an evil act? So far you've been saying what is not evil and that the ends just the means. Is something only evil when the ends are not worthwhile? Are there any means that are evil on their own without consideration of the ends?Does the end justifies the means? SOMETIMES, I say, not no.
Does the good brought about by the act outweigh the harm by a significant amount?
If yes, then it's good (or at least "not evil").
If not, it is bad (or "evil").
Ok. That seems like consequentialism. I get that.
Of course the rub is that everyone values the good and harm of an act differently. It is entirely possible for two consequentialists to view the net good of an act in very different terms.
Out of curiosity, for Rynjin or others in his camp, what does constitute an evil act? So far you've been saying what is not evil and that the ends just the means. Is something only evil when the ends are not worthwhile? Are there any means that are evil on their own without consideration of the ends?Does the end justifies the means? SOMETIMES, I say, not no.
Does the good brought about by the act outweigh the harm by a significant amount?
If yes, then it's good (or at least "not evil").
If not, it is bad (or "evil").
Ok. That seems like consequentialism. I get that.
Of course the rub is that everyone values the good and harm of an act differently. It is entirely possible for two consequentialists to view the net good of an act in very different terms.
Yup. Consequentialism spans a rather large variety of moral systems.
Whale, you misunderstood my argument. My argument was not "more people believe A". My argument was "Certainty of A is not convincing when there are equal or more people certain of B".
I am quite certain that in academic circles arguments which appeal to theology are discounted.
I'm just telling you that just because you believe that such arguments are "pointless" that is not a convincing argument that they are. There is no more proof that there ISN'T a god than there is that there IS one.
Whale, you misunderstood my argument. My argument was not "more people believe A". My argument was "Certainty of A is not convincing when there are equal or more people certain of B".
I am quite certain that in academic circles arguments which appeal to theology are discounted.
I'm just telling you that just because you believe that such arguments are "pointless" that is not a convincing argument that they are. There is no more proof that there ISN'T a god than there is that there IS one.
My point is that the existence or non-existence of god, gods, or divine forces is irrelevant to a discussion of how ethics works out in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whale, just because I'm bored I suppose, and I find this sort of discussion entertaining, I will let you know that I personally find the idea that moral systems can be created by "God" to be just as morally relativistic as the idea that moral systems can be created by man.
If god isn't subject to moral judgment himself, then he can't be "good". In the final analysis if there is a true morality, then even God is subject to it.
Which begs the question of where it comes from if it's bigger than god.
I love this stuff.
My point is that the existence or non-existence of god, gods, or divine forces is irrelevant to a discussion of how ethics works out in Pathfinder.
Well, except for Pathfinder's gods, right?