The objectivist system dislikes theft beause its viewed as 'parasitism.'They dislike altruism even more for the exact same reason. Altruist is essentially the name for "bad guy" in an Ayn Rand novel.
Oh, I am perfectly fine with stealing for a plot purpose. The argument of, "hey! Let's rob those merchants because they're there and they have more money than us!" It doesn't really jive with me. It isn't good RP. It generally doesn't move the plot along.
If the GM puts up wanted posters of the characters in towns and they suddenly have bounty hunters after them, then it adds some good RP. If the GM let's it slide, then it's really kind of crap.
However, I do like that quote. I pull it out when elections come along and people complain about Congress.
|
The objectivist system dislikes theft beause its viewed as 'parasitism.'They dislike altruism even more for the exact same reason. Altruist is essentially the name for "bad guy" in an Ayn Rand novel.Oh, I am perfectly fine with stealing for a plot purpose. The argument of, "hey! Let's rob those merchants because they're there and they have more money than us!" It doesn't really jive with me. It isn't good RP. It generally doesn't move the plot along.
If the GM puts up wanted posters of the characters in towns and they suddenly have bounty hunters after them, then it adds some good RP. If the GM let's it slide, then it's really kind of crap.
However, I do like that quote. I pull it out when elections come along and people complain about Congress.
The part I find funny is if you assume the Marxist system is correct, just by having more money then someone they /are/ intrinsically oppressing you based on his assinine class-warefare stuff where the rich are rich by 'stealing' production from the poor disenfranchised proles instead of generating it through things like commerce, management or the like.
Maybe OP's party are proto-bolsheviks. It even fits their half-assed 'give to occasional poor person' plan.
Frankly, I'd be a smacked ass about dealing with these guys if I was in the party. I'd have us give a lot of money to a poor person and then rob him (since now he's rich and obviously the 'rich don't mind' having their property stolen), just to make a point.
I'd also ask them to continually classify just how much money a person had to possess in order to be 'rich' in their estimations.
Maybe suggest they set up a weigh in station 'You must be exactly this heavy for us to rob you.'
I'd have us give a lot of money to a poor person and then rob him (since now he's rich and obviously the 'rich don't mind' having their property stolen), just to make a point.
I'd also ask them to continually classify just how much money a person had to possess in order to be 'rich' in their estimations.
Maybe suggest they set up a weigh in station 'You must be exactly this heavy for us to rob you.'
Monte Python, to the point!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w
The title of this threads makes me think about this line in Boondock Saints (I had to look it up): "But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm dealing with this as the one good party member in a campaign right now.
The OOC lecture I get is basically "that's great that YOU want your character to be lawful good. I don't want MY character to be good, so don't interfere with my right to play."
The obvious response is that while you have every right to play a childkiller, I have every right to play a character who actively works to prevent childkilling. It does not matter if you have a PC or an NPC flag above you- and I'm under no obligation to not interfere just because YOU want to play a psychopath.
Party tension is not always a bad thing. It's a good roleplay opportunity. PVP should be avoided, but not at all costs.
Oh hell, condolences. That @#$% is the worst.
Especially since you're left with the options of either go into PvP territory or have your good character act like an impotent bystander while Captain Atrocity is doing his thing. That or just leave the group.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Christian system that poor person actually has a deeper claim on that material then you the owner do, to the point that the moral activity is to provide it (Cardinal works of mercy come into play here: feed the hungry, heal the sick, bury the dead, etc).You have an incomplete understanding of Christianity.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”The land belonged to Ananias and the needy had no claim on it. He was under no obligation to sell it. He was under no obligation to give the whole amount to the church. His only obligation was to be honest. Charity would be no virtue if what you gave was not rightfully yours.
Speaking more from the obligation standpoint as opposed to the 'property ownership' stage. I do admit to being mildly distributist (which I also admit is a more utopian and imposible system then even socialism would claim to be).
Essentially a moral requirement to provide people with what they need.
I need to prove that we Catholics can quote chapter and verse occasionally too so, its from Matthew 24:44-46, "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." Its kind of a high standard.
Also the cloaks thing from John 3 (I think), the bit about 'let he who has two cloaks give one to..'
The supposition is not that you lack ownership, but that you have a passive obligation to provide for those with less then you. Its also where that 'what I have failed to do' thing from the confeitor, stings the most in my opinion. Being good isn't easy.
Also charity is indeed a moral obligation, and that it is voluntarilly taken on is what makes it a worthwhile enterprise. We try to do what is right and obey the commands because we love the one giving them, like obedient children obey their parent (and have a similar obligation to do things like the laundry or cleaning their room).
We're getting off topic though, and I concern myself that we might be making people who don't share our faith uncomfortable with this talk.
I was just using it to demonstrate that there are factors that apply to this situation, but that one must examine what the objective standards are. People look at 'well I'm starving, so stealing is ok' as a demonstration of situational ethics and thus presuppose no objective standard. I'm instead indicating that its objectively already 'writ' into the moral coding of the universe in an objective view. Like a subclause written into a contract.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's gettin' scriptural up in here.
It's gettin' scriptural up in here.
WORD, yo!
()
It's gettin' scriptural up in here.WORD, yo!
()
Took me about twenty seconds. > < Still that was clever, I indeed c wat ewe did thar!
I too, Spook, am Catholic. Nice to meet a fellow believer!
Session tomorrow was cancelled, so there is another week to discuss this, amigos! ;D
You argue this because Western society and religion have adjusted our world view as such. But other societies and religions can view these things in a completely different light.
Even the act of killing in some societies was not necessarily considered an evil act. Just look at ritual sacrifices as an example.
The lawfulness of stealing is another story. A poor kid starving on the street stealing an apple from a merchant to survive is not committing an evil act, even if it wasn't lawful.
Actually, Western culture and Christianity in particular both have a very solid concept of Justified Killing and Justified War. So killing alone is not considered an evil act. Murder(IE killing without justification) is considered an evil act.
Also, just about every moral belief system, including Secular Humanism, has some for of the idea of "Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you". That concept is a fairly universal one.
There is a difference between objective morality and subjective circumstances.
For example, lets assume for a second that the Aztecs were making sacrifices to appease the gods. Without these sacrifices, the gods would destroy the world and kill everyone in the process. Disclaimer: I have not studied Aztec culture enough to know the real easons they did what they did.
Their actions are objectively neutral leaning toward good. The are making a small sacrifice to save others. This is not that different from someone shooting a crazed gunman to stop him from killing a lot of children. If they were willingly sacrificing themselves to save the world, that would be objectively good.
Subjectively, their gods were found to be false. When the sacrifices stopped, the world did not end. Their beliefs were found to be in error.
Just because someone is accused of murder and found to be innocent doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong.
Took me about twenty seconds. > < Still that was clever, I indeed c wat ewe did thar!
I too, Spook, am Catholic. Nice to meet a fellow believer!
Session tomorrow was cancelled, so there is another week to discuss this, amigos! ;D
Hahah! (I wouldn't have called it clever, so much as "corny", but thanks for being polite!)
Hey, I'm not Catholic, but, er, my wife is! And... um... I'm Christian! So, uh, can I hang out with the cool kids too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's discussions like these that convince me that alignment is something that should be confined to it's intended role as a game mechanic and not used to make simplistic statements about history, religion, or culture, especially cultures in which you have no experience or contact with.
Meh, I was just trying to create an example where ritual sacrifice COULD be considered objectively not evil by western standards. My disclaimer makes it pretty obvious that this is not really what the Aztecs were about...
But if you want me to put the logic together without the cultural baggage...
Assertion 1. Make a sacrifice, everyone gets to live for another week.
Assertion 2. Don't make a sacrifice, everyone dies within the hour.
If 2 happens, then the potential sacrifice dies along with everyone else.
So, the choice is sacrifice dies, and everyone else lives.
or
The potential sacrifice dies along with everyone else.
Either way, the person being sacrificed is going to die. The question is whether everyone else dies along with them. Logic and ethics dictate that given those 2 assertions, you should make a sacrifice.
The rest of the moral problem comes down to how you choose who to sacrifice, and whether or not assertion 2 is in fact true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say yes. My group is basically me (NG) then the other four TN and CN. They have no qualms about hijacking wagons owned by merchants coming into the city, and they say "it's purely self-interest, so it's neutral, not evil."
It appears they're confusing ethics with morals. It's true, pure self-interest is Neutral--Neutral Evil. Ethics often relate to the motivations behind the morals, and this is one of those cases.
Now, whether stealing is evil is a whole other shebang. Letting your friends get away with ordinary theft is pretty much Neutral, but if they start committing legitimately evil acts (like robbing those who need the money, or killing the merchants/their guards) and you continue to stand by, you're crossing a line.
I think that in a session or two she's going to have converted the entire party to 'relatively good', all through the inaction of NOT healing.
All it takes for good to triumph is for skilled healbots to do nothing.
Too bad he's dead, because the US needs him now - but I digress.
Yes. Yes you do. Don't.
I'd say yes. My group is basically me (NG) then the other four TN and CN. They have no qualms about hijacking wagons owned by merchants coming into the city, and they say "it's purely self-interest, so it's neutral, not evil."It appears they're confusing ethics with morals. It's true, pure self-interest is Neutral--Neutral Evil. Ethics often relate to the motivations behind the morals, and this is one of those cases.
Now, whether stealing is evil is a whole other shebang. Letting your friends get away with ordinary theft is pretty much Neutral, but if they start committing legitimately evil acts (like robbing those who need the money, or killing the merchants/their guards) and you continue to stand by, you're crossing a line.
I think that in a session or two she's going to have converted the entire party to 'relatively good', all through the inaction of NOT healing.All it takes for good to triumph is for skilled healbots to do nothing.
Yes. Yes you do. Don't.
Too bad he's dead, because the US needs him now - but I digress.
Presuming that you should personally decide who does or doesn't "need" it is kinda evil.
Eh, that's pushing it. If I see a guy in rags toting a heavy pack full of metal scrap, I'm going to assume he needs his money a lot more than some rich a&!*@!% with a whole retinue of guards needs his. That's not presumption, it's common sense.
And since when is presumption in itself an evil act, anyways?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that in a session or two she's going to have converted the entire party to 'relatively good', all through the inaction of NOT healing.All it takes for good to triumph is for skilled healbots to do nothing.
I am SOOOOOO stealing that for her mantra! :P
Eh, that's pushing it. If I see a guy in rags toting a heavy pack full of metal scrap, I'm going to assume he needs his money a lot more than some rich a#&+@$# with a whole retinue of guards needs his. That's not presumption, it's common sense.
And since when is presumption in itself an evil act, anyways?
...
It isn't your decision to make.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, that's pushing it. If I see a guy in rags toting a heavy pack full of metal scrap, I'm going to assume he needs his money a lot more than some rich a#&+@$# with a whole retinue of guards needs his. That's not presumption, it's common sense.
And since when is presumption in itself an evil act, anyways?
...
It isn't your decision to make.
That's just the point. It is your decision to make.
If it wasn't then you would never be able to be evil or good. You would just be an animal: True Neutral due to lack of moral comprehension.
The decisions you make add up to what you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Took me about twenty seconds. > < Still that was clever, I indeed c wat ewe did thar!
I too, Spook, am Catholic. Nice to meet a fellow believer!
Session tomorrow was cancelled, so there is another week to discuss this, amigos! ;DHahah! (I wouldn't have called it clever, so much as "corny", but thanks for being polite!)
Hey, I'm not Catholic, but, er, my wife is! And... um... I'm Christian! So, uh, can I hang out with the cool kids too?
Hahaha!
Of course you can! It's the fabulous United Christian Believers Paizo Pathfinder Forum Crew! We have jackets and sell cookies.
Eh, that's pushing it. If I see a guy in rags toting a heavy pack full of metal scrap, I'm going to assume he needs his money a lot more than some rich a#&+@$# with a whole retinue of guards needs his. That's not presumption, it's common sense.
And since when is presumption in itself an evil act, anyways?
...
It isn't your decision to make.
A very lawful answer. Let me be a bit self-indulgent here and talk about the presumption of Chaos.
Now, I'll compare Law to communism--in an ideal system, everything would run properly and everyone would get exactly what they need. This is what a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good person often wishes could exist, though most despair of it ever being feasible.
I'll compare Chaos to the idea of smaller government. In the opinion of the Chaotic Good character, the law is too rigid to distinguish between someone who deserves to go to jail and someone who could honestly stand to be pardoned.
For an example, look to Firefly. The sheriff of the mining town in "Train Job" lets Mal go free because he realizes that the law would not be fair to a thief who didn't know what he was stealing--and who only got caught when he decided to bring it back.
The whole reason judges have the power to pardon is so they can presume. So they can presume that someone who did something very very bad might deserve to be forgiven.
Now, the law gives them that power. In other words, the law itself accounts for people whose decision it is to make. The law itself accounts for its failings.
I guess what I'm getting at is, if nobody was able to presume, nothing would ever get done.
Hahaha!
Of course you can! It's the fabulous United Christian Believers Paizo Pathfinder Forum Crew! We have jackets and sell cookies.
Sweet! I'm a big fan of cookies! :D
EDIT: and are the jackets leather? I'm a big fan of leather!
Pleather.
Pleather.
Boo! Hiss!
Pleather.
... meh. Are they bomber-style pleather jackets? This isn't really as important, but it's kind of interesting.
EDIT: I'm probably mostly sticking with my ratty old ones that are literally falling apart anyway. But I like the idea of new ones for club use!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pleather.... meh. Are they bomber-style pleather jackets? This isn't really as important, but it's kind of interesting.
EDIT: I'm probably mostly sticking with my ratty old ones that are literally falling apart anyway. But I like the idea of new ones for club use!
They're bomber-style... LEATHER jackets. Awh yeah, authentic American leather. Only the best for the United Christian Believers Paizo Pathfinder Forum Crew!
Official club ones just for official ceremonies. You can use the old ones for normal meetings, they sound awesome. :3
Pleather.... meh. Are they bomber-style pleather jackets? This isn't really as important, but it's kind of interesting.
EDIT: I'm probably mostly sticking with my ratty old ones that are literally falling apart anyway. But I like the idea of new ones for club use!
They're bomber-style... LEATHER jackets. Awh yeah, authentic American leather. Only the best for the United Christian Believers Paizo Pathfinder Forum Crew!
Official club ones just for official ceremonies. You can use the old ones for normal meetings, they sound awesome. :3
HUZZAH! I love 'em already! I will hug them and take extra special care of them!
And my old ones are a) my rain jacket (that's my brown basic leather jacket) or b) my snow jacket (that's my black, puffier basic leather jacket). Neither have held up well over the years (probably because I keep subjecting them to various states of moisture and harsh weather) and I'm not certain if I could zip either of them up anymore even if I had my zippers left.
ANYway, I should probably stop jacking this thread with jackets and club-talk. Sorry. Sort of. :)
So... about that "good turning a blind eye" debate. Yep. Um... about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As shall we all! They will be hung on special coat racks through all corners of the land!
Sweet! I know right?! xD
Hahahaha, no worries man! xD
:)
|
I'd say yes. My group is basically me (NG) then the other four TN and CN. They have no qualms about hijacking wagons owned by merchants coming into the city, and they say "it's purely self-interest, so it's neutral, not evil." Whether this is correct or not, what would the answer to my first question be.
My character has extreme moral crises everytime we plan anything.
I would describe the robbing of merchants as arguably neutral.
But I would require the players to explain the justification.
I would accept something like "We only rob rich merchants and we sell at more reasonable prices than they would." for example.
But they would have to earn it.
Can't see theft of anything which was not itself misappropriated as anything other than a minor evil at best. Now, sometimes in cases of need it could possibly be justified - but I would hesitate to ever raise it all the way to being neutral.
Oh Hell. Now there's an air of, "help with the heist or we're not with you on your quest." D:
Robin Hood was a thief and is an example of Chaotic Good.
Of course, while i don't think it was ever explicitly stated, I'm sure his merry men kept a portion of the merchandise for themselves for "living costs".
Not quite steal from the rich and give to the poor though. It was more "steal from the tax collector and give back to the people"
Robin Hood was a thief and is an example of Chaotic Good.
Of course, while i don't think it was ever explicitly stated, I'm sure his merry men kept a portion of the merchandise for themselves for "living costs".
There are multiple versions of Robin Hood. Some would qualify as chaotic good, some would not. Killing tax collectors is murdering people just doing their job after all. The tax collector is not the one who sets policy. They are just trying to put food on their own tables.
I still move with 'stealing is inherently evil to start with and to be something else, other factors have to overcome and outweigh the evil.
Robin Hood was a thief and is an example of Chaotic Good.
Of course, while i don't think it was ever explicitly stated, I'm sure his merry men kept a portion of the merchandise for themselves for "living costs".
I don't know. That's not really the point. The major difference is the context in which they are acting, and their follow-up actions:
1) Robin Hood et. al. fought an oppressive regime against people who were already doing evil things for people who were already being oppressed. They gave predominantly to those who were oppressed, and, if they kept anything (and weren't farmers, woodsman, or the like), they gave the majority to the oppressed.
2) This group is (from the evidence we've seen) robbing arbitrarily rich (who may or may not be evil) to keep the majority themselves, but occasionally to the poor (who may or may not be oppressed).
The non-targeted acquisition of wealth by harming others (robbing them) with no reason other than "we need the money" isn't a good act. It's certainly chaotic, and leans heavily towards the evil side.
If, on the other hand, they carefully used their skill to locate wealthy but corrupt and oppressive individuals who had harmed others, assaulted and robbed these people's business stuff (retribution, as it were, for crimes committed) it could be morally neutral. Their targets are wicked already. Giving to the poor is a moderately good act, but doing it "just so the healer does" isn't at all - it's selfishness that just happens to be functionally similar to a good act.
Oh, a murdering evil dudes "just because they're evil" isn't a good act, either. If it's in response to a specific injustice and seeking to right that wrong... then it could be.
|
|
The Robin Hood thing is actually arguably Lawful Good if you want to push it that far.
If you go with the Robin of Locksley situation where he's the beholden liege lord of the area himself with his property unduly taken, then his outlawry is actually justifiable as opposed to the act of rebellion it seems.
It also goes hand and hand with the 'give to the poor' thing as the local liege authority, he has a responsibility towards the well being of his charges (IE those poor guys).
Keep in mind too that the 'tax collectors' in this case could also be seen as collaborators of an invader.
Tax collectors, by their very function are close customers with the ruling body. If that ruling body is viewed as illegitimate the tax collectors are viewed less like government servants and more like extortionsits.
The Robin Hood thing is actually arguably Lawful Good if you want to push it that far.
If you go with the Robin of Locksley situation where he's the beholden liege lord of the area himself with his property unduly taken, then his outlawry is actually justifiable as opposed to the act of rebellion it seems.
It also goes hand and hand with the 'give to the poor' thing as the local liege authority, he has a responsibility towards the well being of his charges (IE those poor guys).
Keep in mind too that the 'tax collectors' in this case could also be seen as collaborators of an invader.
Tax collectors, by their very function are close customers with the ruling body. If that ruling body is viewed as illegitimate the tax collectors are viewed less like government servants and more like extortionsits.
... to a point. It does, probably, have a great deal of leeway for interpretation, depending on how you want to go with it.
However, the "bad guys" are usually depicted as the legal authority. They might have done things that were illegal according to a law, but they had the power to change it. Because the law was unjust, the characters who didn't care what the law said fought back against the legal authority in order to free the oppressed. Fighting the government, upholding the rights of the individual over the community, that sort of thing. Gives it a chaotic good flair.
(To be clear, the above is more the common conception of Robin Hood and the events, rather than any sort of "this is the way it is" type thing. Like the Errol Flynn movies.)
While a lawful good person could certainly be seen in the role, doing similar things for related reasons, the lawful aspect comes down differently.
EDIT: I'm not actually disagreeing, Spook, just pointing out why Chaotic Good is the most widely accepted interpretation.
Since this has turned into an alignment thread, which I am bound and determined to avoid, I thought I'd post again.
In my twisted little mind, Good, Neutral, and Evil can be cordoned off into three points of view about the well-being (physical, mental, and economic) of others:
(1) Good: I am so concerned about the well-being of others that I am willing to do things that do not necessarily maximize my personal well-being, but that improve or maximize the well-being of others.
Examples: Donations to a temple, free healing to those in need, removing an oppressive ruler so that those under him or her can have an improved life. (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.)
(2) Neutral: My personal well-being trumps all. I will maximize my personal well-being even if it harms others. I take no joy in harming others, but I'm perfectly willing to do it if it helps me personally.
(3) Evil: I will go out of my way to negatively impact others' well-being, even if it does not maximize my personal well-being.
So Neutral and Evil are very, very closely related, because both involve not caring one whit about the well-being of others. You are perfectly happy harming others; the only difference is whether or not you enjoy doing so, and/or go out of your way to do so.
With this mindset, robbing carriages for personal profit is definitely neutral, unless you go out of your way to harm particular people. But a good character must oppose both. Just because it isn't "evil" doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt people. Most global corporations are neutral; they're not going out of their way to do harm, they're just maximizing profits, and if that happens to hurt people, too bad. But good-aligned characters would abhor this behavior, and would work against it.
The problem with saying that Good must fight Evil is that Good usually fights Neutral as well. Selfishness is necessarily destructive to the greater good, so Good characters must fight it whether it be neutral or evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nobodyishome:
I think that maximizing your well-being to the point you are aware it hurts others is more evil than neutral, especially if you are "perfectly okay" with it (that is, feel no scruples). That alignment describes fairly well many organized criminals or ruthless dictators. They don't necessarily enjoy inflicting pain, it is just that they are more or less okay with doing it.
This definition of evil limits the alignment to sadists and psychopaths, and I think this is narrowing it down too much. I think the neutral alingment is instead more of a grey zone - these are people who are neither particularly altruistic nor particularly self-absorbed. They will likely be uncomfortable with inflicting injury or otherwise hurting someone face to face, but they may be too worried about doing something that indirectly hurts another (i.e. stealing), especially if they are in a bad spot. They can also veer off in either direction depending on who it concerns, their current mood, etc. To paraphrase the wise words of Julia Greenhilt - true neutrals go either way.
I think it is often a matter of motivation as well. A thief who picks your pockets because he is hungry or because his boss will beat him if he does not come with something may well be neutral, one who robs you because he wants more stuff is likely evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the round table is broken, all knights must choose Modred or Galahad, middle things are gone. To paraphrase Lewis.
And yeah Tactics, I get that. I was just playing devil's advocate myself. :)
The tautology is when you're acting neutral, you're not acting good, and you should (from a moral sense) be acting good.
The Christian bible contains a notable verse about being hot or cold, but not lukewarm, else you be 'spewed out.'
There's a reason the Rilmani are a reoccuring villain in my campaigns. Even if it results in people joking about 'damn neutrals,' they're ultimately working towards a great evil by attempting to literally propogate evil by trying to maintain their 'balance.'
@ Nobodyishome:
I think that maximizing your well-being to the point you are aware it hurts others is more evil than neutral, especially if you are "perfectly okay" with it (that is, feel no scruples). That alignment describes fairly well many organized criminals or ruthless dictators. They don't necessarily enjoy inflicting pain, it is just that they are more or less okay with doing it.
This definition of evil limits the alignment to sadists and psychopaths, and I think this is narrowing it down too much. I think the neutral alingment is instead more of a grey zone - these are people who are neither particularly altruistic nor particularly self-absorbed. They will likely be uncomfortable with inflicting injury or otherwise hurting someone face to face, but they may be too worried about doing something that indirectly hurts another (i.e. stealing), especially if they are in a bad spot. They can also veer off in either direction depending on who it concerns, their current mood, etc. To paraphrase the wise words of Julia Greenhilt - true neutrals go either way.
I think it is often a matter of motivation as well. A thief who picks your pockets because he is hungry or because his boss will beat him if he does not come with something may well be neutral, one who robs you because he wants more stuff is likely evil.
Absolutely acceptable in my book. I just keep my "evil" definition fairly narrow, because otherwise paladins obliterate all your BBNG/BBEGs. I certainly can accept that my line is probably at the extreme end, and yours is perfectly acceptable to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tailoring the alignment definitions to fit the power level of a class feature? Heh, now that was strangely amusing :) .
(Personally, I'd probably throw in a few hirelings, summoned monsters and the like. Don't have to be evil to work for an evil boss, after all).
Tailoring the alignment definitions to fit the power level of a class feature? Heh, now that was strangely amusing :) .
(Personally, I'd probably throw in a few hirelings, summoned monsters and the like. Don't have to be evil to work for an evil boss, after all).
Well, the fact is, virtually ALL AP BBEGs are servants of evil gods, hence are evil. Most hirelings in the AP are evil. So in the APs, you end up with oodles and oodles of evil, making paladins shine above and beyond the other classes.
So exactly what you said: I like most of the hirelings to be neutral. My entire angel/PC conflict arose because one of the PCs coup de graced the leader of a pack of thugs hired to steal some of our stuff. My angel's argument is that he could easily have been neutral; just doing a job to make ends meet. If stealing from others is always evil, then he was evil, and I have a much weaker case. If he's just "doing a job" and that job happens to hurt other people (by stealing their stuff), and that falls into "neutral", then my angel has a much stronger case.
So I like a much broader brush stroke of "neutral" from "benevolent neutral" to "borderline psychopath" neutral, but it takes some true self-sacrifice to be good (returning the stolen items to their rightful owners instead of selling them for a much heftier profit), and it takes some true malice to be evil (stealing from an orphanage).
Just my $0.02. As we all know, once we start delving into alignment issues, this thread'll hit 1000 posts in less than a week...
Darn it! Too late to edit!
I should add that I have a personal bias: In the 3 campaigns I GM, the players are definitely the, "Let's see how this person behaves before we judge them," type. I *loved* watching the paladin's internal turmoil deciding whether or not the 10,000-year-old demon had to be eradicated, when she really wasn't hurting anyone and was trapped somewhere where she would never be a threat to anyone. (Paladin of Sarenrae, not Iomedae, so it really was a question.)
Unfortunately, in the 2 campaigns I get to play in, the players are mostly of the, "It has an (E) by its name, so we get to kill it by any means we can think up," mindset. It's *much* less fun for me as a player because it eliminates a huge amount of roleplaying and PC/NPC interaction.
So I just hate seeing that little (E) show up so often...
EDIT: LOL! I was about to add, "And darn it if I'm not personally creating an alignment thread! I'll be quiet now," and then I saw Kirth's post and thought, "D'Oh!" I'll shut up except to address the OP now...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP, allow me to direct your attention HERE.