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.
In an academic deployment of Judeo-Christian theology God is omnibenevolent. As a creator who stands both outside the world and everywhere in the world (omnipresent) He is as much outside of morality as he is morality (there doesn't seem to be any reason to distinguish between the two).
This is unlike pathfinder in which there is an actual Manichean struggle between positive and negative energy. With certain actions increasing or decreasing the amount of one or the other.
Well, except for Pathfinder's gods, right?
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.
Correct. Although deities conceived of by actual humans are more like positive energy in Golarion terms.
Golarion deities in the end are just really powerful creatures who themselves are subject to the vagaries of positive and negative energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the good brought about by the act outweigh the harm by a significant amount?
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. I believe the harm is still evil. Now, that does not automatically make the person evil (greater good, one time thing, etc.) but the act is still evil.
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.
In an academic deployment of Judeo-Christian theology God is omnibenevolent. As a creator who stands both outside the world and everywhere in the world (omnipresent) He is as much outside of morality as he is morality (there doesn't seem to be any reason to distinguish between the two).
This is unlike pathfinder in which there is an actual Manichean struggle between positive and negative energy. With certain actions increasing or decreasing the amount of one or the other.
True. But I doubt you'd find many outside some Jesuit enclaves who would agree with that academic rendering of Judeo-Christian morality. And that's just Catholics. I'd love to see that concept debated in your typical Baptist revival...
I am a dedicated and committed agnostic. I find it difficult to pretend I know things just because that's what I wish were true. However, that's pretty much how everyone ends up looking at the universe anyway, and so in my own preferred moral system, morality is something that arises like a natural law. And the bulk of it is based on the concept of reciprocity. And any concept of God that views him/her/it as some sort of literal self-aware being with free will and the ability to act on his desires is a concept that is subject to the fundamental morality of the universe (or multi-verse, or brane-space or whatever we can conceive of as reality).
Of course the sad truth is that we simply are too ignorant about our own universe to do anything but speculate about how its physical properties emerged, much less complex non-physical concepts like morality...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, except for Pathfinder's gods, right?
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.
I think a key point here is that in real life practically no one thinks of themselves as evil. Most people do what they think is right, even though others may think it is wrong.
In Pathfinder, however, most evil gods and their followers hold up evil as a philosophical ideal. They aren't just misguided or hold a different perspective on things. In fact, they generally hold the same views on right and wrong...however they embrace and revel in doing the wrong thing because they are frickin evil.
Well, except for Pathfinder's gods, right?
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.I think a key point here is that in real life practically no one thinks of themselves as evil. Most people do what they think is right, even though others may think it is wrong.
In Pathfinder, however, most evil gods and their followers hold up evil as a philosophical ideal. They aren't just misguided or hold a different perspective on things. In fact, they generally hold the same views on right and wrong...however they embrace and revel in doing the wrong thing because they are frickin evil.
Yep. And that is in part because the PF universe treats evil as a source of power.
Well, except for Pathfinder's gods, right?
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.I think a key point here is that in real life practically no one thinks of themselves as evil. Most people do what they think is right, even though others may think it is wrong.
In Pathfinder, however, most evil gods and their followers hold up evil as a philosophical ideal. They aren't just misguided or hold a different perspective on things. In fact, they generally hold the same views on right and wrong...however they embrace and revel in doing the wrong thing because they are frickin evil.
One exception may be found in certain Buddhist tales of people who acknowledge the cycle of birth and rebirth but use that knowledge not to attain spiritual perfection and thus escape form the cycle... but to instead gain temporal power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Adamantium Dragon
In PF, good is determined by putting the needs of others over the wants of yourself, and evil is determined by putting your wants over the needs of others. Lawful is your ability to follow a code because it exists, and chaotic is your unwillingness to follow a code simply because it exists.
Stealing a loaf of bread to save your family and yourself is a chaotic good act. You are risking your own safety to save your family's life. Stealing gold from the rich to give to the poor is a CG act, risking your own capture and death the make the lives of those you are giving the money to better. Similarly, refusing to give a starving man your loaf of bread is an evil act, as is refusing to give people so poor they will die money.
Killing a child to save the world falls is an outlier on the normal scales used in PF. In most games, the heroes will not be making that decision, but will ride in, top the priest from killing the child, and save the world themself. If you are presenting the heroes with this decision, it is hopefully because you and they agreed to have a game with moral complexity beyond the scope of PF alignment. Saving the world is definitely good. Killing an innocent being is definitely evil. Choosing an evil act for the greater good means a character who might need to seek atonement to cleanse themself of the horrible thing they had done. Any character who does something so terrible and thinks they do not need to atone is probably shifting towards evil.
Using real life examples and angry real-life name calling is not a way to get anywhere with an online debate over a game. I have tried to say similar things before, and gotten ignored, so how about addressing this now:
Evil = putting one's own comfort above other people's lives.
Good = risking one's life for other people's benefit.
Lawful = following a set code because you are supposed to.
Chaotic = refusing to do something just because a code says you must.
Finally, there are situations that force players to choose between answers that are not clear cut, but you should only do so if everyone involved enjoys moral grey-area (or does not care one way or the other).
Any thoughts?
John, I think I got quite far in this particular debate, thank you. Also I never once got angry. I almost never get angry on these boards. It's too much fun to get angry.
Now, where did you get these definitions from? Did you get them from the rule book, or is this just your own take on how you define them?
Just for the sake of reference, here's the actual PRD definitions of good, evil, law and chaos:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
@Mr. Kerpan
Minor quibble...
Stealing a loaf of bread... = evil
Saving your family... = good
The good can outweigh the evil but does not make evil good.
It seems like my definitions are not exclusive with the quotes. Is there an aspect of my definition that the quote does not cover, or is there an example that I gave that does not fit in with these definitions. You did not say very much, you just posted some definitions from the book :)
Stealing a loaf is against the law. However, it does not fall in the category of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
John, I posted the definitions from the book. That's because when it comes to what good, evil, law and chaos mean in the PRD, posting from the PRD is the best I can do.
Durngrun made a valid point.
My own campaign world does not follow Pathfinder morality or theology, and only loosely follows the alignment system.
If you are interested in my own personal twist on PF morality and alignment I can share it, but it's just my own twist on things, heavily influenced by a lot of legacy work I had done in previous versions of the game. After all, when I started my campaign world the PF gods were a mix of Norse and Egyptian mythology.
If it includes Egyptian themes, do you have the weighing of souls, where it only matters the final balance, because that could make things interesting :)
Stealing a loaf is against the law. However, it does not fall in the category of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
Taking someone's property is generally accepted as a means of "hurting" them.
If it includes Egyptian themes, do you have the weighing of souls, where it only matters the final balance, because that could make things interesting :)
My theology in my own custom campaign world does not have literal "weighing" of souls, but it does have a concept of "balancing" good vs evil during one's life, and that balance is driven by ones actions. And I have to admit that my campaign's theology is not much of an "ends" driven theology, it's more of a "means" driven one. But that's mostly because it's easier to track that way. :)
Not sure if that's a holdover from early versions or something I adopted from some fiction sources.
That is going a little bit far. "Hurting" implies malice. Hurting is torture, hurting is taking bread from someone starving, hurting is punching in the face. Taking a loaf of bread from someone who will not die/suffer without it is an inconvenience, but it is simply against the law. If you do not need the bread, then it becomes evil. If you use the same justification for stealing non-essentials, then it is evil.
John, with all due respect, you are now interpreting things to fit your own biases. "Hurting" in the rules implies nothing. You can infer what you like, but it just says "hurting." And "hurting" does include taking people's stuff. That's why there are laws against it.
If you steal from the bread maker, are you not hurting his business? Does it matter how much you steal? If I steal from the richest bread maker in town is that evil? If I still from the only bread maker in town and he goes out of business, is that evil? What is the monetary value that changes my evil act into a good act?
The rules bring up implying in their own list with "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others". If you had to play a game "which of these is not like the other" and the list was "torture, stealing bread, imprisonment without trial, and murder" which one would not fit? If anything the act of hunting down and prosecuting someone who stole a bread to feed his family is more evil than the theft itself.
In addition, I would say that breaking a law to save lives qualifies as "making personal sacrifices to help others". The personal sacrifice is the potential danger you get for breaking a law, but the helping others is clear. That makes the act of theft a good act here. It cannot be a goevodil act (both good and evil at the same time), as that would render the whole alignment system moot.
What think you of this?
John, the rules are deliberately loose on these items, as the developers have stated many times, specifically to allow a wide range of interpretations for GMs.
What I think people have a problem with in this overall discussion of good vs evil is what Durngren is trying to highlight, and that is the concept that doing something evil for a presumed greater good is still doing something evil.
Stealing bread to feed your children is only a "sacrifice" if the act itself has a consequence. If stealing bread to feed your children is just fine from a moral code, and you don't get caught, then you've not sacrificed anything, and so the act is meaningless morally. For the act t have any meaning, it has to be judged as "wrong" at some level.
You say an act cannot be good and evil at the same time. I (and I think Durngrun) are saying, yes, it can.
And to go further, I am saying that it is very hard to come up with a situation where there was no OTHER option available to obtain that loaf of bread than simply to steal it. Unless every other possible option has been explored, being willing to steal it instead of exhausting non-theft options is also morally wrong. In fact the moral wrongness of the act of stealing is what should lead one to pursuing other avenues besides stealing. How thoroughly those other avenues have been pursued has a lot to do with how morally wrong the act of stealing the bread is.
I think you are ignoring the fact that stealing from someone hurts them and judge on a scale (which is fine).
Which one of these doesn't belong?
12 million, 800 thousand, 4, and 1 billion
Which one isn't a number?
If you are trying to say that anytime you hurt someone, oppress someone or kill someone is evil, then are all adventurer's evil? Sounds like a strawman, but I am serious. The reason that killing someone or hurting someone is evil is because of the intent behind the action. Otherwise killing the goblins is evil, simply because it is killing.
If killing for the greater good is not considered evil, if overthrowing tyrants for the greater good is not evil, then how can stealing for the greater good be evil? If these things are evil, then how can adventurer's ever be "good". While an RPG designed to see how long you preserve your goodness in a world where every heroic action is evil would be interesting, it is certainly not what pathfinder has in mind :)
Okay I saw something that set off my "What the heck" Alarm...
On that case of paladins given a greater good scenario, I REALLY don't think he should fall. We're talking divine champions empowered by their deity to do what they believe is best. In the do or die moment where the paladin must decide between the fate of hundreds, I don't believe he should lose his powers for sacrificing the few for the many. That's what being Lawful Good is all about. He has no time to think about the needs of the few when he serves in the war between GOOD AND EVIL. All he can do is what he believes is the right thing to do, and so long as he does, his deity would know that he tried his best in an impossible to resolve easily situation.
If he simply stood by, only then would he fall. Inaction would be the greatest sin in this situation which he could have swayed towards good.
So if we are looking for resolution, what if we say there is a "behavior" aspect to each moral decision, and a "motivation" aspect to each decision. The motivation aspect outweighs the behavior aspect, so in cases where the behavior is bad (ie against a moral code), but the result is good, you move them closer to CG, and in cases where the behavior is "good", but the motivation is bad, you get shifted closer to LE?
What would the downsides to this practice be?
I will check in in the morning (2:20 am here), but I am enjoying this discussion :) I also enjoy hearing about other people's ways of doing things, as well as their critiques of my suggestions. Good morning/day/evening/night everyone ^_^
John, adventurers are routinely described on these boards as "murder hobos" for a very good reason.
"Killing" is not a definitively evil act. There are circumstances recognized in virtually every moral code where killing is justified, and in some moral codes it is required. Murder is not the same as self-defense which is also not the same as execution.
While it is possible for an adventuring team to adventure without committing a wide range of evil acts, in all honesty in the large majority of actual games I've played in, GM'd or watched, most adventuring parties commit enough criminal acts that they should probably be arrested. But while playing I accept that it's a game and while I play my lawful and good characters as characters who truly seek lawful and good acts, I don't expect all the other players to be as concerned with the details as I am.
For example, we had a campaign where my lawful NEUTRAL druid ended up being the leader of the party. We found an absolute treasure trove in the caves of the BBEG we finally conquered. There were riches galore, including fine art, gold, jewels, magic items, etc.
My druid had the party load up all that loot and take it to the sheriff of the town to dispose of properly, since the vast majority of the loot was stolen from members of that town.
Yes, when I first told the players that's what we were going to do, some, even some LAWFUL GOOD characters' players, objected saying that they had "earned" the loot. I explained to them, out of character, that my druid did not view this as a game with a pile of goodies to loot. She viewed it as a situation where families had lost not only their valuables, but in many cases family members who were killed to steal the stuff. In the end they all agreed that the right thing to do was to return the stolen goods.
How many parties would end up doing that? 40%? 20%? 5%? I dunno, I just know that my characters take this sort of stuff pretty seriously.
John, one final post and I'm going to bed too. When you assert that the "motivation outweighs the behavior" that is essentially saying that the ends justifies the means. In other words, the motivation is to seek a good end, so the means can be justified.
Some people find that to be a morally wrong approach to ethics and morality. Some do not. Since I tend to not claim to be the final arbiter of truth in all things, I simply point out that there is debate about whether the ends justifies the means is a proper moral code, and furthermore, within the parameters of Pathfinder morality and theology, the ends do NOT justify the means. Evil acts are evil acts and have consequences. Those consequences include the possibility of paladins falling.
Whether the act or the motivation is more important to the final moral evaluation is probably the most hotly debated area in ethical studies. There are heavyweight thinkers on both sides and many who can't decide if either one of them is the "right" way to approach morality.
Sticking to Pathfinder though, and the Pathfinder theology as described in the rules, that is definitely more of a behavior based system, not a motivation based system. Although motivation might mitigate things a bit, evil is still evil.
Ahh, went to check another post, and saw this had updated. Really the last one.
- If all stealing is an evil act being stealing could be seen as hurting someone through their business, and the rules say "hurting" in the general list of evil acts, then killing, which appears on the same list, should not be any less evil.
- Stealing to survive is different from stealing for profit, is different than stealing to harm. By making distinctions for why to kill, you make it clear that in fact the action is not the problem (in all killing situations you have ended someone's life), but rather the motivation for killing that makes it evil or good.
- If the motivational distinction can be made for killing (explicitly stated as evil), then why can the distinction not be made for theft (loosely tied to the explicitly stated point of 'hurting')?
- I would act just as your Druid, because otherwise the motivation for doing good deeds is personal enrichment, which is certainly not good :)
Sooo, everyone in pathfinder is evil?
Cannibalism is an inherently evil actAnd why do you think this?
Who does it hurt?
What bad thing does it lead to?
Give me an actual REASON besides "I was told this".
I have no desire to catch up on 150 posts in a thread I was only marginally interested in. I also have little desire to participate in a philosophical conversation with someone who dismissively assumes the bases for my positions can be boiled down to "because somebody said so".
Cheers.
|
|
Oh, so you do think that murder is not evil? 'Cause if that's not what you meant, then your response to my quote makes literally no sense whatsoever.
Slay living just straight-out murders someone. Nothing good could possibly come from it.I find at times like this, simply showing what someone wrote is more effective than any rebuttal I could make.
So every time a spell kills anything it is an evil act...
Keep going. You are doing a wonderful job!
|
|
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.
I love when this happens. It is so much more effective when someone demonstrate themselves the holes in the argument they are making.
|
|
I think a key point here is that in real life practically no one thinks of themselves as evil. Most people do what they think is right, even though others may think it is wrong.
And if Rynjin came to the table and said I want to play a character that does evil things but does not believe he is evil, that is fine.
But when he asks for evil acts to not actually be evil...not so much.
If these things are evil, then how can adventurer's ever be "good".
Because good people can do bad things.
Let me stress this again, the act is evil. The reason could be good (starving family), evil (let's make some money), or neutral (klepto, didn't know I took it).You want to lump everything together, see the end result, and then label everything one way. (Again, which is fine. Not judging, just explaining) I prefer to see all the individual parts that make up the whole.
Let me try this...
Say you're playing an evil character (go on, say it). You're an anti-paladin/necromancer who blackmails people by animating their dead loved ones and making them do unspeakable acts. Now, at some point during the campaign, you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. (You don't want them to die. It's not like you can blackmail yourself!) Would you say your character is now good? I would hope not.
Ciretose and Adamantine Dragon, can we get this straight? You are saying that Robin Hood would be evil in Pathfinder, rather than chaotic good?
Durngrun, what do you think about my post where I break down any act into a behavior and a motivation?
The Robin Hood example isn't a very good one because the wealthy did nothing to earn their money and the people were literally being taxed to death.
The Robin Hood example isn't a very good one because the wealthy did nothing to earn their money and the people were literally being taxed to death.
And yet, if the act of stealing is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence and if the act of distributing stolen property is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence, that doesn't matter.
|
|
The Robin Hood example isn't a very good one because the wealthy did nothing to earn their money and the people were literally being taxed to death.And yet, if the act of stealing is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence and if the act of distributing stolen property is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence, that doesn't matter.
Said the strawman argument.
Or, what actually started this is the question of if using an evil spell is evil.
Which it is.
Ciretose, you cannot call strawman when you miss several pages of discussion. I was talking about whether motivation or behavior is what made something "evil" as opposed to "illegal", and used stealing to save your family's life as an example. I was told that stealing was not just against the law, but evil. The good might outweigh the evil, but it is still evil. The basis for it being evil in game terms was because the CRB describes that "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing.", and stealing hurts the person you steal from.
If this is the case, then Robin Hood, who steals habitually, would be considered evil. It is not a strawman, you just missed about two pages of posts.
That was precisely my point. It was shot down by Adamantine Dragon, and by pointing out the Ryujin saying that theft (a la Robin Hood) was a sign that he probably thinks stealing is ok, no matter how wealthy he gets showed that you either agreed, or had missed a lot.
In a game where good and evil is different than law and chaos, I think the distinction should be your motivation. Good risks oneself for others, evils risks others for oneself. If you risk others legally, you are LE, if you help others illegally, you are CG. Nobody has yet agreed, instead saying that it is still "evil", not illegal, to commit crimes.
|
|
The distinction isn't motivation. If I worship a lawful evil god because I think that is how you get law and order, I am still serving evil.
If I raise undead, I am committing an evil act. That is defined as evil in the same way that stealing is defined as unlawful.
If your motivations are to restore hell on earth because you think Devils are more deserving than people, you have good intentions toward devils.
And you are very, very evil
Right, this is why aligned outsiders exist, to make the partisan side of good/evil very clear. The idea is that wanting to do anything defined by the game mechanisms as "evil" is in fact evil. So spells with evil are in fact evil. But the questions becomes: what is the effect of using actual evil to accomplish good. And that answer is not found in the rules, but depends on each person's table and GM. So the original poster needs to decide what his own stance is on using evil to accomplish good, run it by his table, and see of the person playing necromancer agrees to abide by the table's ruling.
Right, but how that happens is the purview of a GM. It does not say using an evil spell makes the devils stronger, shifts the balance a little, draws on power granted by an evil patron etc. So is using evil spells for good going to lead to the eventual run in with a demon lord, or will it just make more evil appear in the world, but by bit? Is the evil a taint on the caster than can be cleansed? The rules do not cover it :)
|
|
Right, but how that happens is the purview of a GM. It does not say using an evil spell makes the devils stronger, shifts the balance a little, draws on power granted by an evil patron etc. So is using evil spells for good going to lead to the eventual run in with a demon lord, or will it just make more evil appear in the world, but by bit? Is the evil a taint on the caster than can be cleansed? The rules do not cover it :)
It means they committed an evil act. If you base your character around committing evil acts that anger Gods and don't have that impact the player...
Have fun with the spreadsheet setting. Sounds awesome...