So, this thread is basically "Do the rules mean what they say even if I haven't read them, and don't you think we could use another alignment thread this week?"
Pretty much.
Detect Evil does not detect non-aura targets of less than 4 HD. The change was made due to (among other reasons) the feature's ability to too easily derail threads - even without the Paladin resorting to force.
Whether or not killing an Evil-aligned character (who is not known to have committed heinously evil acts) is justified by the alignment system isn't wholly relevant to the question, and doesn't really change what the rules say.
Xaratherus what change are you referring to?
|
So, this thread is basically "Do the rules mean what they say even if I haven't read them, and don't you think we could use another alignment thread this week?"
This thread is actually "A simple rules clarification I was surprised at, and then the mother of all thread derailing - like every other alignment thread ever." :P
Xaratherus what change are you referring to?
In 3.5, a creature with a particular alignment was detectable by the appropriate Detect spell regardless of its hit dice. Its aura was fainter if it had less than 10 HD, but it was still detectable.
Pathfinder added text that if a creature has less than 5HD, it isn't detected at all by the spell.
Another point in favor of keeping the 5HD-minimum is because it's good for the paladin. When most minor evildoers don't ping on the radar, it means that when someone does ping, the paladin should probably investigate that person. Plus, without needing to sift through all the low-level pinging, the paladin actually has the time to investigate those who ping :)
Another point in favor of keeping the 5HD-minimum is because it's good for the paladin. When most minor evildoers don't ping on the radar, it means that when someone does ping, the paladin should probably investigate that person. Plus, without needing to sift through all the low-level pinging, the paladin actually has the time to investigate those who ping :)
Very true, especially considering probably 90% of the population never rises above level 3. (Actually I'm not certain on the percentage, but only a very small amount of people ever actually hit level 5 or above). Levels 12 and 13 were equivalent to heros of myth (at least before the mythic rule book was released).
This is where I'd disagree with both of you. Thinking evil thoughts does not make one evil. Acting on them does.
This is false in the context of Pathfinder's alignment rules. A person who has never committed an evil act can still be evil.
A noncontrived example would be the politician rising through the ranks of power keeping a squeaky clean reputation, donating to charity, never lying or cheating, and working for the good of his constituents, merely biding his time until he reaches the top and unveils his true agenda--bending the world to his will and slaughtering millions of people who disagree with his true ideals.
He doesn't start out good and convert to evil if his intention all along was to conquer the world through legitimate channels. He was evil the whole time. A paladin would detect this--if the politician had 5 HD, or if the paladin used some less restricted method of alignment detection.
My lawyer friend, and I both find this statement offensive.
Protecting those who do evil (Scumbag defense lawyers)
Im not sure why. I didn't say all defense lawyers. I said "Scumbag" defense lawyers... its a common character type seen in movies, books, TV shows, ect. I fully understand that most lawyers are in fact not bad people and just have a stereotype attached to their proffession. However that stereotype is seen in most forms of fiction including Pen and Paper adventures. There are quite a few FICTIONAL Lawyers that would be considered evil.
This is where I'd disagree with both of you. Thinking evil thoughts does not make one evil. Acting on them does.This is false in the context of Pathfinder's alignment rules. A person who has never committed an evil act can still be evil.
A noncontrived example would be the politician rising through the ranks of power keeping a squeaky clean reputation, donating to charity, never lying or cheating, and working for the good of his constituents, merely biding his time until he reaches the top and unveils his true agenda--bending the world to his will and slaughtering millions of people who disagree with his true ideals.
He doesn't start out good and convert to evil if his intention all along was to conquer the world through legitimate channels. He was evil the whole time. A paladin would detect this--if the politician had 5 HD, or if the paladin used some less restricted method of alignment detection.
Your example is of someone taking actions to conceal their true intentions. Intentionally deceiving others (especially on that kind of scale) is exactly an evil action.
Circumstance is important in relation to actions.
I killed him because I felt like it is a whole lot different than I killed him because it was the only way I could stop him from burning down the orphanage.
Or using your specific example, I donated to charity to look good to the public so I could achieve greater power for myself is different than I donated to charity because they needed it more than I did.
But in all these cases there are actions taking place with a motive behind them.
As for the RAW on alignment link, this all comes back to the comment I made to seebs. The character traits (or personality) of someone doesn't really exist if such trait doesn't influence the way they act.
But a couple of quotes from the RAW
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life"
Not think about protecting life, but actually doing it.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word"
Not think about being honest or keeping their word, but actually doing it.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others"
Again not thinking about these things, but actually doing these things.
Regardless of your alignment, actively thinking evil thoughts is enough to set off the evildar.
"Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Regardless of your alignment, actively thinking evil thoughts is enough to set off the evildar.
"Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
That would be a pretty big coincidence, though. In that instance, it would have to be a creature with at least 5 HD, and you'd have to 'scan' it at the exact moment it was having that thought or perpetuating the evil action.
Your example is of someone taking actions to conceal their true intentions. Intentionally deceiving others (especially on that kind of scale) is exactly an evil action.This is where I'd disagree with both of you. Thinking evil thoughts does not make one evil. Acting on them does.This is false in the context of Pathfinder's alignment rules. A person who has never committed an evil act can still be evil.
A noncontrived example would be the politician rising through the ranks of power keeping a squeaky clean reputation, donating to charity, never lying or cheating, and working for the good of his constituents, merely biding his time until he reaches the top and unveils his true agenda--bending the world to his will and slaughtering millions of people who disagree with his true ideals.
He doesn't start out good and convert to evil if his intention all along was to conquer the world through legitimate channels. He was evil the whole time. A paladin would detect this--if the politician had 5 HD, or if the paladin used some less restricted method of alignment detection.
No action is required to conceal one's intentions for this example. The politician's actions are exactly the same as Mr. Lawful Good, the parallel universe politician who does all of the same things but, at the moment of reaching the top, continues to behave in a manner appropriate to that alignment.
You are reasoning about what you think Pathfinder alignment ought to be, not what Pathfinder alignment is. The very fact that you can do this with a character property that has, in some cases, far-reaching consequences based on interpretation is the best argument against having a universal alignment exist at all.
That would be a pretty big coincidence, though. In that instance, it would have to be a creature with at least 5 HD, and you'd have to 'scan' it at the exact moment it was having that thought or perpetuating the evil action.Regardless of your alignment, actively thinking evil thoughts is enough to set off the evildar.
"Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Imagine how many coincidences a paladin could pick up though in a town. Or in a dinghy tavern. Or a dockside bar.
This is assuming the paladin who uses it all the bloody time.
I think a lot of people have forgotten about Neutral alignment and that alignments can change over time.
How so? (Unless this is just a drive-by threadbomb, in which case never mind.)
|
I really hate the thought-police murder hobo of self-righteousness that has become the expected Paladin.
In fact, some players and DMs are convinced you simply cannot play it any other way, and are also convinced the rules are support this idea.
I am dead serious.
I have seen faces that look like their brain is being electrocuted, when I explain that there is more than one way to play a Paladin.
I have to also explain, that I will not even play in any game with a Paladin, if this is the standard.
No, I would rather just walk away.
"Well, you could kill that evil person over there, but that would be against the Law..."
*watch their brain short circuit*
The joy of watching a well played Paladin comes from that inherent conflict that they will struggle with. Sometimes, just because something is evil, does not make it illegal... and sometimes a good act can be against the law.
The classic example is slavery. The Paladin of Sarenrae in my game set in Katapesh chafes at the rampant LEGAL wickedness he witnesses. It was fun watching him BUY a slave to keep them from being beaten, and then release them from slavery after also paying a citizenship tax for them.
Yes, it would have been easier to just strike down the cruel slavemaster... but then he would have been guilty of murder. They're Paladins, not Dogs in the Vineyard... they are not the absolute moral nor legal authority... at least, not in my particular example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good people don't have evil intent.
Vengeance is the mask justice wears when the law is unjust or absent.
Following orders is no excuse.
The tax collector is responsible for the evils he commits in the name of his prince and a legitimate target for revolutionary justice. If the peasant he has ruined longs for vengeance, plots vengeance, pursues vengeance, or even achieves vengeance it is not evil. It may be chaotic, but arguably even that would only be true if lawful recourse were available.
Self defense, including the defense of one's livelihood, is always itself neutral whether it takes the form of flight or revolution. The steps along the way may be good or evil, but the goal is always neutral.
That's a nice diversion, but I don't really see how it applies apart from your first line, which is almost cartoonishly naive. Good people can most definitely have evil intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so? (Unless this is just a drive-by threadbomb, in which case never mind.)
Just because something is not nice or unpleasant, doesn't mean it's evil. Foreclosing on someone who never paid their mortgage is not an evil act. Neither is collecting taxes.
On a personal note, I find the concept of the Evil alignment guy who never does anything evil and actually does multiple good acts to disguise his Evil as kind of hacky. I would say just do away with alignment than run something as contrived as that.
Overall I just think Neutral doesn't get used enough. I think the average NPC should be True Neutral. Not in the "must maintain the balance" neutral, but more "not having strong feelings one way or the other."
Good and Evil, as well as Lawful and Chaotic, should be reserved for people who actively work to achieve their alignment or people who worship the concept.
|
Im not sure why. I didn't say all defense lawyers. I said "Scumbag" defense lawyers... its a common character type seen in movies, books, TV shows, ect. I fully understand that most lawyers are in fact not bad people and just have a stereotype attached to their proffession. However that stereotype is seen in most forms of fiction including Pen and Paper adventures. There are quite a few FICTIONAL Lawyers that would be considered evil.My lawyer friend, and I both find this statement offensive.
Protecting those who do evil (Scumbag defense lawyers)
I was not really offended. It was said in jest. Text sucks at this.
My friend and I actually joke about this common trope often.
It is only really offensive when someone not only states it as fact, but then uses this as an excuse to do something terrible.
I was not really offended. It was said in jest. Text sucks at this.
My friend and I actually joke about this common trope often.
It is only really offensive when someone not only states it as fact, but then uses this as an excuse to do something terrible.
What's sad is that I actually had (emphasis on had) a friend who was a lawyer, and who had a lot of the bad qualities of the "villain lawyer" from fiction. Took me probably two years to find it out. :-/
On the flipside, I think I've met more lawyers who were either good people or just normal folks.
|
|
I was not really offended. It was said in jest. Text sucks at this.
My friend and I actually joke about this common trope often.
It is only really offensive when someone not only states it as fact, but then uses this as an excuse to do something terrible.
What's sad is that I actually had (emphasis on had) a friend who was a lawyer, and who had a lot of the bad qualities of the "villain lawyer" from fiction. Took me probably two years to find it out. :-/
On the flipside, I think I've met more lawyers who were either good people or just normal folks.
Actually, he is one of those guys that does so much charity/volunteer work, that some people don't like him, because they feel bad.
Never really asks anyone to do the same either, and that really irks some.
I will stay home on Sunday, not volunteer at a soup kitchen, and not feel bad, so we work out fine.
Still, he is adamant about noting he would defend anyone, to the best of his ability, no matter who they are.
How so? (Unless this is just a drive-by threadbomb, in which case never mind.)Just because something is not nice or unpleasant, doesn't mean it's evil. Foreclosing on someone who never paid their mortgage is not an evil act. Neither is collecting taxes.
On a personal note, I find the concept of the Evil alignment guy who never does anything evil and actually does multiple good acts to disguise his Evil as kind of hacky. I would say just do away with alignment than run something as contrived as that.
Overall I just think Neutral doesn't get used enough. I think the average NPC should be True Neutral. Not in the "must maintain the balance" neutral, but more "not having strong feelings one way or the other."
Good and Evil, as well as Lawful and Chaotic, should be reserved for people who actively work to achieve their alignment or people who worship the concept.
I don't think many of us would rule those as evil, though doing so with malice might be. A few, maybe, but some folks have weird ideas about good and evil, which is why I despise the alignment system of D&D and its extended family.
As for the example, I don't find it contrived; in fact, it's a pretty smart way for evil to actually win. Evil people are not always easily identified by their actions. Evil can be insidious and patient. It needs not indulge in kicking puppies when its interests are best served in playing the part of good.
By and large, Paizo does a good job casting their characters' alignments. Neutral is used quite often, and it isn't the Neutral Stupid that old-school Druids were supposed to abide by. Players seem to do a food job of it as well. But non-neutral alignments do not have to be limited to saints and villains, lawyers and vigilantes. That said, complex (read: realistic) personalities will never fit any of the nine neat alignment boxes. At best, alignment is best used as a guidepost, never as a definite characteristic. Unfortunately, many effects in the game require it to be treated as absolute, which is just silly, possibly excluding the contexts of certain outsiders that supposedly embody those concepts. Better to do away with it and let the players and GM decide what good and evil, law and chaos mean to each character.
But this is all way off topic--sorry about that.
Atarlost, one important thing: We're not discussing real-life morality. We're discussing Pathfinder morality. In Golarion, good and evil aren't ideas. They're objective metaphysical forces. There are a few acts that are always good or evil by definition in Golarion. Intent to commit an objectively evil act is evil intent.
Edit: Oh crap, I made a post in an alignment thread. I'd better go to sleep for the night before I get drawn in.
I agree that alignment is determined at least as much by philosophy and outlook as by action.
Take the person who simply doesn't have the opportunity to act out his evil impulses. A person who wants to kill, steal, or rape but doesn't due to his fear of apprehension and punishment. The thug who would use violence to get his way, but his victims cooperate before he needs to actually use force. A prisoner whose captivity prevents him from acting on his desires.
These people are evil. They would kill you without thought, mercy, or remorse. But they don't act upon those feelings because of a variety of reasons.
Every example of evil intent by a non-evil person in this thread is not evil. If a good person can actually seriously intend on doing something it's not evil by the standard that puts the median person at true neutral. Even 1 sigma evil is pretty darned repulsive to the average neutral person and engaging in such actions with intent rather than in the passion of the moment is unthinkable to anyone that can be described as good.
We are not saying one evil thought or even deed makes the good person evil. Rather, the Detect Evil spell states anyone acting under evil intent detects as evil. These are different things.
And the idea that a Good person couldn't engage in an evil act with intent is ridiculous. There are more examples of this in source material than can be imagined. Good doesn't mean perfect. Good people can do evil (intentionally). But as you yourself point out above, a stray action wouldn't necessarily change their alignment.
No action is required to conceal one's intentions for this example.
...would be the politician rising through the ranks of power keeping a squeaky clean reputation, donating to charity, never lying or cheating, and working for the good of his constituents, merely biding his time until he reaches the top and unveils his true agenda
Emphasis mine. This isn't the type of guy who is just cruising through life and if he happens to get into the top position of power suddenly gives his evil BBEG laugh "And now I will take over the world". What you described is a guy who is plotting to take over the world from the beginning and is working to that end while concealing his true intentions while he builds up his power.
You are reasoning about what you think Pathfinder alignment ought to be, not what Pathfinder alignment is.
I gave you several quotes from the very link you provided showing some examples of what various alignments DO, yet I'm the one who is declaring what I think the alignments ought to be and not what they are? You want to quote some parts of that page (in full context) that show that thinking good or evil without actions is sufficient to make a person good or evil in the pathfinder system? ;) Cause my reading of it is that these people would fall into the neutral category.
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.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.
Emphasis mine. The neutral guy may think the taxes are unfair, but takes no actions to change them. Or that slavery is a bad, but again takes no action to change things.
A person of good alignment will DO good acts. A person of evil alignment will DO evil acts. Note that in both cases the person is not required to DO these acts in the public purview. Good can be humble about it. Evil can be deceptive about it. Appearances on the surface may be deceiving in either case, whether intentionally or incidentally.
Regardless of your alignment, actively thinking evil thoughts is enough to set off the evildar."Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
I'll repeat a third time. "actively evil intent" is something completely different than passively thinking about something. The definition of 'intent' strongly implies a decision to take action. I can think about robbing a bank with no intent of actually carrying it out. My thinking in such a case is not active intent.
Take the person who simply doesn't have the opportunity to act out his evil impulses. A person who wants to kill, steal, or rape but doesn't due to his fear of apprehension and punishment.
This is a possibility, but it would be a rare exception, not the rule.
The thug who would use violence to get his way, but his victims cooperate before he needs to actually use force.
Doesn't the fact he is robbing, extorting, threatening people already place him into the evil category? If people are succumbing to him couldn't he still act out violence on them if that is what he really wants to do? I can't imagine such an individual saying, "Well I was going to smash in your brains, but since you've given me your money I've had a change of heart."
A prisoner whose captivity prevents him from acting on his desires.
How did this person end up in prison in the first place? I could see it as a possibility that someones parents were inprisoned and their children with them before the children were old enough to be good or evil, and as they grew they have dark and evil thoughts and intents should they ever be let out, but again this is really an exception, not a general case.
You really cannot imagine someone being evil in intent without acting on it, either through lack of opportunity or simple calculation? Then I doubt we'll make any headway in convincing you. And there is plenty of text on the provided link supporting evil as an aspect of character and philosophy, but you seem to have overlooked it in your zeal to promote your position. Again, that's the kind of stance that brooks no argument.
This is where I'd disagree with both of you. Thinking evil thoughts does not make one evil. Acting on them does.The tax collector just left the house. The peasant, who just lost 95% of his meager possessions, stands in the doorway, thinking "I kill that bastard... I'm going to take a knife and <insert gory image here> very slowly..." and many more similar thoughts. And yes, he would really do it if he weren't such a coward.
Along comes the paladin, uses detect evil on the peasant with the grim face, and notices an active evil intent. Takes out his holy sword and strikes him down.
Of course, his action is justified, because there is no such thing as "innocent evil"...
Sorry, you're a victim of Poe's law. I should have put a smiley next to my post.
You really cannot imagine someone being evil in intent without acting on it, either through lack of opportunity or simple calculation? Then I doubt we'll make any headway in convincing you. And there is plenty of text on the provided link supporting evil as an aspect of character and philosophy, but you seem to have overlooked it in your zeal to promote your position. Again, that's the kind of stance that brooks no argument.
Are you actually reading my posts? The one just above yours answers your question, but I'll elaborate.
I think lack of opportunity is a weak facade to hide behind. There are plenty of opportunities to commit good or evil for those willing to act on those opportunities - they are in an abundance.
But that said, I can imagine a possibility that a person could have good/evil intent without opportunity to carry it out, but that would be a very rare exception not a norm. And that still doesn't make thinking about an evil act an intent to commit such an evil act.
If there is plenty of support for what you are stating it should be easy for you to quote the relevant bits, cause I'm really not seeing it. I can see that their are elements of attitude/thought listed in the alignment descriptions, but that is the lesser part of those descriptions, not the whole of them. Almost every sentence in there talks about how a character of a given alignment acts.
Taking just one more quote from it
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
So, lots of action verbs there. One thinking/attitude piece.
Oddly enough, the true neutral one is the one that has the most attitude/thought descriptions. While the extremes LG/CG/LE/CE have the most action type descriptions.
You'll note that not a single entry describes only how a alignment thinks. All of them start off telling you how a alignment acts. Then elaborate on that with what is important to them and why they might act that way. What that tells me is that the two are pretty much inseparable in the PF rulesverse. A person who is evil will consistently ACT and THINK in an evil manner - they may be devious (or not) and they may seek to hide their true actions (or not) from the public. They may try to put on a good face to fool others. But they cannot commit good actions with good intentions - doing that results in an alignment shift. And if their intentions are not good, are they doing good actions to be good, or doing good actions to cover up evil, gain wealth, power, etc - all generally evil things.
Conversely a person who is consistently good will ACT and THINK in a good manner. (Kind of like an extremely simplified version of real life personalities).
Do you not see that removing the action part of the alignment equation is a selective and piecemeal application of the whole?
bbangerter, You fail to see blaphers point.
The politician has literally done absolutely no wrong. He has planned this from the very beginning. He isn't neutral then hits evil when he finally carries it out. He was always evil. Blaphers is merely pointing out that people can very well be evil without actually committing acts of evil. Sure, the moment he embarks on his quest for world domination he has become evil, but he has yet to commit any actual evil till the point with which he has gained enough power. Here his very intent to do harm has made him evil.
Now good is an entirely different story. You have to DO good to be good.
This is a possibility, but it would be a rare exception, not the rule.
I disagree. I believe the majority of people restrain their actions due to outside influences. Disapproval of family/peers, desire not to get in legal trouble, etc. Plenty of people are too cowardly to push against society even for what they really want.
Doesn't the fact he is robbing, extorting, threatening people already place him into the evil category? If people are succumbing to him couldn't he still act out violence on them if that is what he really wants to do? I can't imagine such an individual saying, "Well I was going to smash in your brains, but since you've given me your money I've had a change of heart."
Yes, I think he is already evil. But simple robbery isn't enough in PF to make him so. An attitude that violence to gain what he wants, even if he doesn't have to be violent in practice, is enough.
How did this person end up in prison in the first place? I could see it as a possibility that someones parents were inprisoned and their children with them before the children were old enough to be good or evil, and as they grew they have dark and evil thoughts and intents should they ever be let out, but again this is really an exception, not a general case.
Doesn't matter. Maybe he got drunk. Slept with the wrong person's wife. Insulted a nobleman. Didn't pay his taxes.
Regardless of why he is imprisoned (could be for evil or non-evil reasons), his mind set makes him evil despite his current inability to do anything about it.
I will repeat. Societal pressures in a variety of forms are a perfectly valid reason someone will not act. It is true in real life. You want to be an artist but your father wants you to go to business school. You have a wife and kids, despise your marriage, but feel you must keep up your responsibilities. And a hundred more.
The same societal pressures restrain evil actions, but not evil thoughts/intent. A person could be entirely okay with the idea that evil actions are correct, but feel he could not perform them himself do to any number of circumstances.
Your view isn't even self consistent when evaluating blapher's example. You said thinking evil things isn't evil, actions are. But then state that someone who intends to achieve power for evil purposes, but only does entirely non-evil acts to do so must be doing something evil. Why? Donating to charity, giving constituents what they want, lowering taxes are all great ways to increase popular approval for the purposes of gaining political power. None are evil.
Take murder out of the picture, then:
If you remove the HD limitation on detecting evil, then the fact is that your Paladin can immediately notice that the king's advisor (who is in fact the BBEG) lights up as 'evil'; the Paladin is immediately obligated to reveal this information to his sovereign - and before your plot is off the ground, the king has had his agents follow the advisor, discovered his plot, and thrown him in prison.
There are a number of reasons that I disagree with this - off the top of my head, suppose the adviser is a Thomas Cromwell type: loyal to the king to the point of ruthlessly crushing all enemies (or potential enemies)?
I appreciate that in your scenario he is the BBEG, but even then, the fact that he 'pings' as evil doesn't permit any such shortcut conclusions to be drawn.
Any PC who uses detect evil as a substitute for actual thought is begging for a swift object lesson: you've just killed the king's most trusted advisor because you disagreed with her methods. As a result the country is in turmoil as the nobility fight to claim her role. The goblin invasion plans have been brought forward by months.
Take murder out of the picture, then:
If you remove the HD limitation on detecting evil, then the fact is that your Paladin can immediately notice that the king's advisor (who is in fact the BBEG) lights up as 'evil'; the Paladin is immediately obligated to reveal this information to his sovereign - and before your plot is off the ground, the king has had his agents follow the advisor, discovered his plot, and thrown him in prison.
There are a number of reasons that I disagree with this - off the top of my head, suppose the adviser is a Thomas Cromwell type: loyal to the king to the point of ruthlessly crushing all enemies (or potential enemies)?
I appreciate that in your scenario he is the BBEG, but even then, the fact that he 'pings' as evil doesn't permit any such shortcut conclusions to be drawn.
Any PC who uses detect evil as a substitute for actual thought is begging for a swift object lesson: you've just killed the king's most trusted advisor because you disagreed with her methods. As a result the country is in turmoil as the nobility fight to claim her role. The goblin invasion plans have been brought forward by months.
I guess I'm not following. I specifically stated that the paladin acting properly wouldn't be killing anyone. However, under what circumstances would he not tell his sovereign? The fact that the adviser's evil has an end goal that is positive to the kingdom would (should) be irrelevant to a good-aligned character, because the fact is that in the objective alignment system in Pathfinder, the ends don't justify the means; an evil act that achieves a beneficial outcome is still evil.
I don't see that in the example the paladin is foregoing rational though in favor of a quick magical solution; he's using the tools at his disposal to do his job - which, first and foremost, is to root out evil.
All these posts make me realize I forgot that alignment is objective, and there's no way that GMs, players, developers, writers, and observers will ever disagree on such a clear-cut and opinion-free topic.
...it is objective, if you're playing by strict RAW. That's the reason why I tend to toss out the concept of objective alignments - but that's purely a house rule; the designers have made numerous statements that the alignment system is not intended to be a realistic, subjective system or morality, but that there really is just good and evil - and that evil means leading to good outcomes is still absolutely evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All these posts make me realize I forgot that alignment is objective, and there's no way that GMs, players, developers, writers, and observers will ever disagree on such a clear-cut and opinion-free topic.
Popcorn, anyone? *nom nom nom*
Exactly. Which is why the concept of a universally-defined alignment is ridiculous and ought to have been removed from the game decades ago.
I already did that, and have never regretted it. Neither have any my players over the last couple alignment-free decades.
*respek knuckles*
My GM, loves to work on the idea of Evil being subjective. He ends up constantly bringing this up and it is a consistent theme in our campaign of RotRL. We have a pally of Iomedea and his sword gets moist when he detects evil. (That is a pun to say he wants to swing his sword at anything that detects as evil). Because of this it has become a theme, A very good theme based in complex phsycology. But now I am about to play a LE character, and my GM is excited at the possibilities of "Evil but not Evil"
This is not something that has a rule that can just fix your problem, you have to sorta play it by year based on every player. And come up with your own opinion.
I tend to support a more grey area with my current players, but before I had a player that could word sling anything in his favor. So I was a little more draw the line and never cross it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have an evil alignment and never have committed an evil act. It just means you wouldn't be morally opposed to committing one. The paladin might want to try to convert you, or teach you the ways of good, but if he gets a "ping!" on his detect evil-o-meter and rolls initiative, he's a thug and a murderer, and would lose his gods-given righteous superpowers faster than you can say "Alignment is misunderstood by the vast majority of this playerbase."
There are people in this thread, I can tell, who would cry foul at the way my tiefling paladin is played. I have a close friend and a good RPer who feels personally offended that a demon-spawn can even be a paladin, worshipper of the goddess of forgiveness or not. Others remark "You know, you don't really act like most paladins" at nearly every table he's at - because sometimes, the cause of lawful good isn't a balancing act between wanton slaughter of everything "monstrous" and wanton preaching against everything "sinful" the other players do.
Well I for one think you're doing it swimmingly. :)
|
|
All these posts make me realize I forgot that alignment is objective, and there's no way that GMs, players, developers, writers, and observers will ever disagree on such a clear-cut and opinion-free topic....it is objective, if you're playing by strict RAW. That's the reason why I tend to toss out the concept of objective alignments - but that's purely a house rule; the designers have made numerous statements that the alignment system is not intended to be a realistic, subjective system or morality, but that there really is just good and evil - and that evil means leading to good outcomes is still absolutely evil.
Alignment is objective?
Objective means no gray area and no opinions. You've done it! The debate over what equates to "good" and what equates to "evil," a debate which has raged for thousands upon thousands of years, a debate which possibly predates civilized human society as we know it... is over.
Xaratherus has solved it all. There's no subjective interpretation of alignment anymore - he's figured it out. "Good" and "evil" are now perfectly clearly defined, and debate is impossible. After all, it's objective now.
Heh. Comedy aside, alignment will always come down to the province of the GM. No rulebook will ever be able to change that.
Well I for one think you're doing it swimmingly. :)
Why thank you. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I once had my character pour Holy water on a demon to interrogate it. And the gm at the table started squealing "That is torture and a decidedly evil act!"
My character was lawful neutral and did not see any reason why it would change his alignment. We were KILLING demons left and right and you tell me this Holy water act is going to make my character less Good? Really. Sometimes it's really how much a (insert degradatory word here) the host wants to be.
But in essence, no a level 1 would not detect outright. It is stated in the books. However this is where roleplay is intended, if it were up to me I would not have the creature be absolutely clean either. Maybe an uncomfortable feeling that could very well just be the smell the creature was giving off.
-Square