| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he means he doesn't play with an Objective System, but still Objective Alignment. Many people confuse the two. It's easy to do.Okay. I'm confused. What's the difference?
One is an objective in-game system that a creature - regardless of who or what they are - can, in character, appeal to. This is a System. This has mechanical effects.
So, for instance, Smite Evil works on such a System. Detect Evil functions this way. If it exists as evil, it can, then, be detected.
Such a System necessarily includes elements of Cosmic Morality, i.e. there is a "higher standard" than the individual, but that Cosmic Morality doesn't necessarily need the system.
In an Objective Morality without the System, the Morality is still absolute, but the mechanics become necessarily murkier.
That is, Detect Evil doesn't function as Detect Evil, as, necessarily, you're doing without the System that tells you what Evil is Cosmically, despite the fact that such an Objective Truth exists.
In such presumptions, Alignment still exists and things like Paladins can still be beholden to it, but Smite Evil does not necessarily function in the way we expect - instead it becomes more akin to Smite Heretic or similar, as there is no Objective System to appeal-to in-character. Detect Evil would automatically go out the window under such a set of presumptions, though, again, Detect Heretic or something similar might function well enough. Technically Smite Evil should automatically go, but many people still like it, so it's often "grandfathered in".
These presumptions create a world with an Unknowable (in-character) Objective Standard that insists that there is Right and Wrong, but the character cannot, in-character, See it or otherwise confirm.
The characters might believe something to be true or false, but whether they are right or wrong is known by the players (or, at least, the GM, though I'll talk a bit more about that under Subjective Morality below).
In other words, this functions substantially more similar to most peoples' views on Real Life - that there is an Objective Standard, but the Individual cannot Know or Measure it in the manner one Knows or Measures mass, velocity and so on. Instead, it is Presumed by all with a reasonable degree of certainty. Most people would agree that Murder is wrong in Real Life, and deem anyone who suggests that, "Murder is Generally a Good Thing" either psychologically unhinged or evil (with a non-moral use of the word "good"). Thus most of us believe in an Objective Morality on some level, though the strength, importance, and purpose of that Objective Morality is... variable.
The actual implementation of these worlds is Subjective - i.e. the Objective System that the world uses is Subjective to the GM's own moral and ethical code - the world remains Objective (as the poster's comment above indicates) but the standard it uses is Subjective to our experiences (as disagreement with it can show).
Thus, what the GM deems morally reprehensible on an individual level (forcibly turning evil people good against their will because the evil person would hate it in this instance) becomes Objectively evil, in part (whether recognized or not) because the people who are utilizing the helm in this fashion can't automatically and fundamentally know that they are "in the right" by appealing to a Higher Power. This is one (of several) reasons that you so often see in the (comprehensible) anti-helm arguments the conflation of "Law-Breaker" and "Subject to the Helm". It's one of the few Higher Authorities that can be appealed to, and yet we all know that the Law can be abused...
Then there are the worlds without Alignment at all. These are utilized by people who do not wish a Cosmic Good or a Cosmic Evil beyond the individual. This is utilized in order to create a much Grittier system that more accurately models in the players that morality is either Subjective or Unknowable. We have certain presumptions and beliefs, but in situations like this, ultimately, that's all they are. In a world without an Alignment System at all, the Helm simply wouldn't function, or it would function in a manner that is reprehensible, as it would just make a "nega-you", as there is no other criteria to be used (as Alignment doesn't exist) or the GM just arbitrates what is reversed (which can get very comprehensibly creepy).
EDIT: ninja'd
If you don't play with objective good and evil, how is using the helm always evil?When I say I don't play with objective good and evil, what I mean is that good and evil are not quantifiable things. Having 5 evil guys in the world doesn't mean that there is more evil in the world (evil as a force or something that can be measured.)
As such, killing an evil creature is not a good act because you're reducing the amount of evil in the world. Killing an opponent in combat is usually a neutral act.
The common idea of putting the helm on an evil person and turning them good is a good act because it removed evil from the world and added good is not how I view the alignment system.
The reason that using the helm is always evil is that it, in a fashion, destroys a part of a character's personality, the fabric that makes them them self. In my mind, that is worse than simply killing someone.
... which is yet another interpretation that I hadn't thought of. You're using an Objective Morality system, but changing the parameters of Cosmic Morality.
I am curious, however, "Why?" or, if you prefer, "How?"
Is the personality objectively Evil? If so, why is destroying it Evil instead of, say, Neutral? In your mind it is better to end a life (ensuring that they never get to make a choice again) than to allow it to live under new parameters (in which they now know their old choices were awful)?
I can accept that killing is a Neutral act. I can accept that Morality and Ethics is not Quantifiable (as such). But in this case, why the difference? Is it because it's creepy, or is there something deeper?
Unless you're using a variant Cosmology (which is fine, but worth noting in this case) you're consigning the Soul to a kind of Personality Death anyway, eventually.
Again, let me apply this to myself: Evil is, by definition, you know, Evil; thus, if I'm know-ably Evil, it stands to reason that I am not Good; thus to be Good it is necessary to change; if there is a Guaranteed Method, I desire (and, in fact, require) that.
In all cases where there is an Objective Morality, there is some fundamental Truth that creates this. This falls under the Subjective View of Objective Morality I noted above. It may just be an inherent Ethical difference.
What would the alignment of capital punishment be in your setting then, assuming it could be done in a "fair" way (use of divination magic to ensure no false positives)? It would seem that it would also have to be chaotic evil as well.Well, the way I view it, positions don't have alignments, only actions. So, are we referring to the person that determines that the criminal should receive capital punishment (judge), the executioner that actually carries out the deed, or what?
Why is the one who decrees the death more (or less) culpable than the one who executes (hah! a pun) it? The one who facilitates it (the jail-keeper and other guards)? Where does the buck stop for responsibility?
It's not actually pres man's question to answer, in this case, it's yours. Either it's evil (on behalf of one of the parties) or it's not. Where does the culpability (if any) lie?
By the way, while I may seem set against you, in this case I'm mostly curious in building a base of common ground to begin discussion.
One of the most difficult aspects of talking about this sort of thing is the Common Ground. In other words, if I say something is Good, do I mean Cosmically, Personally, Morally, or just in a "I like this" sort of way? Or something else? And what do any of those words mean?!
In this case, I think we're agreeing on the Scope of the Good (Cosmically, thus you have Inherently Aligned Actions in your game), but not the Nature of it (thus it's unquantifiable).
Such a disagreement is fine, but it needs to be clarified before continued discussion, which is what I'm seeking to do.
What would the alignment of capital punishment be in your setting then, assuming it could be done in a "fair" way (use of divination magic to ensure no false positives)? It would seem that it would also have to be chaotic evil as well.Well, the way I view it, positions don't have alignments, only actions. So, are we referring to the person that determines that the criminal should receive capital punishment (judge), the executioner that actually carries out the deed, or what?
In whatever sense you meant when you said, "In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hermea ?
Yeah, look at peoples reaction to that, and eugenics isn't nearly as invasive as the helm of mind-wipe.
Is the personality objectively Evil? If so, why is destroying it Evil instead of, say, Neutral? In your mind it is better to end a life (ensuring that they never get to make a choice again) than to allow it to live under new parameters (in which they now know their old choices were awful)?
The way I view alignments is based on actions, not the long-term result or some such. Killing a defenseless person is evil. Even if that person is the most vile evil person in the world. Its worth noting (as other people have) that 1 single evil action doesn't move a person from good to neutral. I fully expect most good people to actually commit some evil acts, but its just that they do far more good acts.
I can accept that killing is a Neutral act. I can accept that Morality and Ethics is not Quantifiable (as such). But in this case, why the difference? Is it because it's creepy, or is there something deeper?
I really dislike the idea of good and evil as measurable things. It results in really silly (IMO) concepts and characters.
Unless you're using a variant Cosmology (which is fine, but worth noting in this case) you're consigning the Soul to a kind of Personality Death anyway, eventually.
Yeah, I don't use the Pathfinder cosmology at all.
In whatever sense you meant when you said, "In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act."
The person that is forcing the helmet on another is performing a chaotic and evil act. They're choosing to inflict pain on the person, choosing to try to destroy the person's very self.
As far as capital punishment, I would say the vast majority of executioners are evil. They kill defenseless people simply because they are told to. The fact that the person they're killing is evil doesn't enter the fold.
As far as a judge is concerned, passing judgment on a criminal is more of a neutral act.
Its worth repeating that all of this is predicated on intent. If a character is unaware of what they're doing, then the action doesn't affect their alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing a defenseless person is evil. Even if that person is the most vile evil person in the world
I don't think D&D morality agrees here. The death penalty is still in the toolbox for even good countries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing a defenseless person is evil. Even if that person is the most vile evil person in the worldI don't think D&D morality agrees here. The death penalty is still in the toolbox for even good countries.
Indeed, coup-de-grace is not a fall worthy act in and of itself for a paladin typically, which would be the case if it were always considered evil.
I don't think D&D morality agrees here.
I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I specifically said I don't use objective good and evil. My further explanations were based on other posters asking me how I view it.
Indeed, coup-de-grace is not a fall worthy act in and of itself for a paladin typically, which would be the case if it were always considered evil.
Again - just the way I do it, not an official take on Pathfinder's view - I don't think that a CDG during combat would be a fall for a paladin either. If the paladin's wizard buddy casts hold on an enemy, and the battle it still raging on, killing the enemy is acceptable.
If that seems to be a contradictory position, then I think our views on what constitutes "defenseless" are different.
As far as how you use alignment, pres man, would you say that it is suitable for a paladin to be an executioner? He only executes those individuals who have been found guilty by a fair jury, magic has been used to rule out any oddities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as how you use alignment, pres man, would you say that it is suitable for a paladin to be an executioner? He only executes those individuals who have been found guilty by a fair jury, magic has been used to rule out any oddities?
Assuming the person is being executed for an equivalent offense (not being executed for self-defense, stealing bread, etc), say a mass murderer. Then I would say it is tolerable for a paladin to do this, not necessarily preferable but acceptable (redemption would be a good act, ending an evil threat would be neutral). To me in that case it would be a lawful neutral act, which is how I would see using a helm on a similar person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In whatever sense you meant when you said, "In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act."The person that is forcing the helmet on another is performing a chaotic and evil act. They're choosing to inflict pain on the person, choosing to try to destroy the person's very self.
As far as capital punishment, I would say the vast majority of executioners are evil. They kill defenseless people simply because they are told to. The fact that the person they're killing is evil doesn't enter the fold.
As far as a judge is concerned, passing judgment on a criminal is more of a neutral act.
Its worth repeating that all of this is predicated on intent. If a character is unaware of what they're doing, then the action doesn't affect their alignment.
The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules. No where in the description of the item does it say that it causes either of those things. Making those changes could certainly change the morality of using the helm.
And it does sound like you are using an objective system. Not a quantifiable one, where there is this much Good and this much Evil, but certain actions are objectively Evil regardless of what the person doing those actions might think.
An executioner that is an upstanding citizen, a good father and generous to those in need is an Evil person because he slaughters helpless people all day at work. Sure those people are murders, rapists and crime lords, but what does that matter? It is Evil to kill a helpless person, no matter what.
And when Lex finally gets "kryptonite poisoning", why does Superman (or anyone for that matter) feel sorry for him? He is a mass-murdering, megalomaniac that has been using that kryptonite in an effort to kill Superman dead for years. The fact that it is finally killing him is well deserved.
End Side Rant
If that's how you want to run your world, cool. It could even be interesting, but I personally don't agree with your definition of Evil. Give me a helm to put on murders and I will make the world a better place.
Okay! Interesting discussion!
While I disagree with on several things, Tormsskull (neat name, by the way - is it from the FR deity?), I can actually respect you and your opinion. I mention this because what follows is an attempt to clarify and/or further the discussion (as opposed to saying, "You're wrong!" and so on, which, with tonal absence on the 'net, I know such things can seem to be.)
Is the personality objectively Evil? If so, why is destroying it Evil instead of, say, Neutral? In your mind it is better to end a life (ensuring that they never get to make a choice again) than to allow it to live under new parameters (in which they now know their old choices were awful)?The way I view alignments is based on actions, not the long-term result or some such. Killing a defenseless person is evil. Even if that person is the most vile evil person in the world. Its worth noting (as other people have) that 1 single evil action doesn't move a person from good to neutral. I fully expect most good people to actually commit some evil acts, but its just that they do far more good acts.
So, while the Alignment is Objective (actions have specific moral components) and True, the Results are completely irrelevant - only intent matters?
If I sound like I'm misconstruing, that is not my intent - clarification is. I'd be interested in hearing more. I don't want any Straw-folk cluttering up our dialogue!
I can accept that killing is a Neutral act. I can accept that Morality and Ethics is not Quantifiable (as such). But in this case, why the difference? Is it because it's creepy, or is there something deeper?I really dislike the idea of good and evil as measurable things. It results in really silly (IMO) concepts and characters.
I can understand that. I suppose in this instance, however, I'm not seeing the "downside" at all. If Alignment is measurable and knowable, there needs to be some sort of mitigating factor to make this an Evil act - something that causes the person who is applying it to change alignment.
As it stands, there's nothing worse done that killing the person - creepier in some regards, certainly, as none of us like the idea that our autonomy can be altered, but definitely not worse.
In such cases, in your opinion, can you say that one evil act is "worse" than others? Or is it a straight-up "Cross this line and fail." system?
I recognize that I might be asking questions that are too detailed - maybe you haven't worked out all the answers. That's fine. Mostly, I'm just curious in exploring this view and style of Objective Morality.
Unless you're using a variant Cosmology (which is fine, but worth noting in this case) you're consigning the Soul to a kind of Personality Death anyway, eventually.Yeah, I don't use the Pathfinder cosmology at all.
That does, in fact, clarify many things, to some extent. Could you elaborate at all on the Cosmology that you utilize? Because the nature and method thereof could very well alter the answers that we have. Until there is a baseline element from which we can all communicate - a Common Ground - it's going to be very difficult to fully discuss the nature of Evil.
For example: do Phylacteries of Faithfulness function? Detect Evil? Smites? Etc.
In whatever sense you meant when you said, "In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act."The person that is forcing the helmet on another is performing a chaotic and evil act. They're choosing to inflict pain on the person, choosing to try to destroy the person's very self.
As far as capital punishment, I would say the vast majority of executioners are evil. They kill defenseless people simply because they are told to. The fact that the person they're killing is evil doesn't enter the fold.
As far as a judge is concerned, passing judgment on a criminal is more of a neutral act.
Its worth repeating that all of this is predicated on intent. If a character is unaware of what they're doing, then the action doesn't affect their alignment.
I find that very interesting - that someone could avoid culpability simply by virtue of command rather than execution. What's interesting is that, in my view, if an Evil Command is given, the quality of Evil in its execution depends heavily on the person following it and the situations around it. While executing (hah! pun! again! it never gets old, I'm tellin' ya...) such a command would still be evil across all circumstances, it is, in its own way, less evil for someone who cannot see how to escape from enacting the command because they are not fully "in charge" of the system. The more power one has, to me, the more culpability one holds over a current system.
Now, if your argument is that people who actually engage in the execution become more callous over time than, say, the judge in question, I'd agree - consistent exposure ensures eventual resistance, after all. But that callousness toward human death does not need translate into anything else, as pointed out by others.
I also find it notable that you say "most all" executioners. Do you know of any exceptions, or was that just a "safety" set of words? I know I often place safety's in my speech, because, "Never say never." is an important thing to remember. Mostly I'm just curious if, off the top of your head, you know of any exceptions and what they'd be like.
Again - just the way I do it, not an official take on Pathfinder's view - I don't think that a CDG during combat would be a fall for a paladin either. If the paladin's wizard buddy casts hold on an enemy, and the battle it still raging on, killing the enemy is acceptable.
Why would a CdG not be a fall? What makes it acceptable? The fact that conflict is going on around you?
If that seems to be a contradictory position, then I think our views on what constitutes "defenseless" are different.
... it does, and I strongly suspect that's where much of the dissonance lies. There are certain individuals who are, ultimately, never "helpless" outside of being dead (and, in a PF-driven universe, even with a different cosmology, often not even then).
Taking down a powerful wizard alive in order to gain information, for example, but killing him after he's proven unwilling to change seems entirely conscionable to me - he's a clear and present threat, and our only other options would be to force mutilation or other permanent "helplessness" on him, or some forcible conversion, like the helm.
As far as how you use alignment, pres man, would you say that it is suitable for a paladin to be an executioner? He only executes those individuals who have been found guilty by a fair jury, magic has been used to rule out any oddities?
pres man answered this, but I will to.
To me, a paladin being an executioner is not "appropriate" but it has nothing to do with alignment: it has everything to do with not being what a paladin is.
In other words, you're using the wrong tool for the job.
Now, that only holds for specific understandings of both Paladin and Executioner - I'm presuming we're talking about the standard "headsman who waits and occasionally uses his axe" kind of Executioner. If we're talking about, "Go forth, find the evil, and slay it." kind of Executioner, I have no problem with a paladin behaving in such a role. The alignment isn't the issue - it's the utility.
Similarly, I wouldn't use my katanas to cut myself a sandwich - katanas are certainly sharp enough, but it would be a waste, awkward, somewhat frustrating, and would dull the blade for nothing, when I have a perfectly serviceable kitchen knife.
Of course, if it's a one-time or only part-time job, and the paladin does something else with his time as well... that's probably fine. And there's nothing wrong with making a paladin an executioner if you've got a glut of them.
But if paladins are rare and special, as I generally presume, than it's a waste.
EDIT: I know, Twig! And the Joker! Seriously! Dude's killed so many, and tried to force people to murder each other! He's not going to get better! He's actively escaped and corrupted others! Holy crap, comics, not killing him is definitively evil: he's perpetrating evil and you're enabling him.
Ugh.
I think he means he doesn't play with an Objective System, but still Objective Alignment. Many people confuse the two. It's easy to do.Okay. I'm confused. What's the difference?One is an objective in-game system that a creature - regardless of who or what they are - can, in character, appeal to. This is a System. This has mechanical effects.
So, for instance, Smite Evil works on such a System. Detect Evil functions this way. If it exists as evil, it can, then, be detected.
Such a System necessarily includes elements of Cosmic Morality, i.e. there is a "higher standard" than the individual, but that Cosmic Morality doesn't necessarily need the system.
In an Objective Morality without the System, the Morality is still absolute, but the mechanics become necessarily murkier.
That is, Detect Evil doesn't function as Detect Evil, as, necessarily, you're doing without the System that tells you what Evil is Cosmically, despite the fact that such an Objective Truth exists.
In such presumptions, Alignment still exists and things like Paladins can still be beholden to it, but Smite Evil does not necessarily function in the way we expect - instead it becomes more akin to Smite Heretic or similar, as there is no Objective System to appeal-to in-character. Detect Evil would automatically go out the window under such a set of presumptions, though, again, Detect Heretic or something similar might function well enough. Technically Smite Evil should automatically go, but many people still like it, so it's often "grandfathered in".
These presumptions create a world with an Unknowable (in-character) Objective Standard that insists that there is Right and Wrong, but the character cannot, in-character, See it or otherwise confirm.
The characters might believe something to be true or false, but whether they are right or wrong is known by the players (or, at least, the GM, though I'll talk a bit more about that under Subjective Morality below).
In other words, this functions substantially more similar to most peoples' views on Real Life - that there is an Objective Standard, but the Individual cannot Know or Measure it in the manner one Knows or Measures mass, velocity and so on. Instead, it is Presumed by all with a reasonable degree of certainty. Most people would agree that Murder is wrong in Real Life, and deem anyone who suggests that, "Murder is Generally a Good Thing" either psychologically unhinged or evil (with a non-moral use of the word "good"). Thus most of us believe in an Objective Morality on some level, though the strength, importance, and purpose of that Objective Morality is... variable.
The actual implementation of these worlds is Subjective - i.e. the Objective System that the world uses is Subjective to the GM's own moral and ethical code - the world remains Objective (as the poster's comment above indicates) but the standard it uses is Subjective to our experiences (as disagreement with it can show).
Thus, what the GM deems morally reprehensible on an individual level (forcibly turning evil people good against their will because the evil person would hate it in this instance) becomes Objectively evil, in part (whether recognized or not) because the people who are utilizing the helm in this fashion can't automatically and fundamentally know that they are "in the right" by appealing to a Higher Power. This is one (of several) reasons that you so often see in the (comprehensible) anti-helm arguments the conflation of "Law-Breaker" and "Subject to the Helm". It's one of the few Higher Authorities that can be appealed to, and yet we all know that the Law can be abused...
Then there are the worlds without Alignment at all. These are utilized by people who do not wish a Cosmic Good or a Cosmic Evil beyond the individual. This is utilized in order to create a much Grittier system that more accurately models in the players that morality is either Subjective or Unknowable. We have certain presumptions and beliefs, but in situations like this, ultimately, that's all they are. In a world without an Alignment System at all, the Helm simply wouldn't function, or it would function in a manner that is reprehensible, as it would just make a "nega-you", as there is no other criteria to be used (as Alignment doesn't exist) or the GM just arbitrates what is reversed (which can get very comprehensibly creepy).
. . .
I use a slightly different variant. Morality is subjective but there is Cosmic [EVIL] and [GOOD] in my game. Descriptors for outsider subtypes and spells stay the same. Creatures including PCs are neutral/unaligned unless they connect up to a source of cosmic alignment such as a paladin or cleric with their aura.
Evil and good are more like holy and unholy, a paladin using [EVIL] has disrupted his supernatural aura of [GOOD] and must purify through supernatural atonement.
Undead are powered by [EVIL] and so they always detect as evil as under the spell.
I feel this gives players a lot of flexibility on how to play and perceive their own characters even when their view of LG morality conflicts with mine yet still keeps in a lot of neat stuff about cosmic GOOD versus EVIL.
This requires some tinkering for alignment based effects, for instance I chose to make a paladin's smite work on the two levels, smite everybody versus the big wham against Evils.
Helms of opposite alignment type artefacts have only come up so far in my campaign as background to explain historical corrupted clerics and planetars (Banewarrens) and potential existing corruption threats turning to evil. I have not included the actual helm in my game so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best Pathfinder thread ever.
I have been trail-rationing all the good stuff here for days. Kudos to all for a rightly impassioned and yet flameless (and often extremely well written) debate. This is what these boards should be all about.
I do hope the developers are reading. So much grist for the creative mill here!
The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules. No where in the description of the item does it say that it causes either of those things. Making those changes could certainly change the morality of using the helm.** spoiler omitted **...
Not a house rule, but an extrapolation of existing rules. My thinking goes like this:
1) Alignment is central to who you are.
2) Alignment determines whether I kiss the baby or eat the baby.
3) From my moral philosophy, I see a person's "self" as the sum of his actions and choices up to that point.
4) If a hat makes me into a person who would have made none of the choices that make me me in what sense am I still the same person?
That's actually really cool, Voadam! I could definitely get behind such a world. I'm really interested in hearing you flesh our your cosmology, what happens with souls, and so on, too. Are there any non-Cosmically Good good people? Neat ideas.
I want to note, again, that my earlier breakdown wasn't all-inclusive. I honestly didn't mean it to be, "Everyone must fit this mold." but rather to give examples of how I understand it, based on the generally-presumed PF defaults, where applicable.
Clearly we have two very different (and interesting) alternate cosmologies going on.
And, frankly, I agree porpentine! I think this thread is great! Very educational and thought-expanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4) If a hat makes me into a person who would have made none of the choices that make me me in what sense am I still the same person?
You aren't. You are a "new" you. It is a more "humane" way of having the death penalty. The old bad you "dies" (death of personality) and the new good you is born. (assuming you were evil originally of course)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually really cool, Voadam! I could definitely get behind such a world. I'm really interested in hearing you flesh our your cosmology, what happens with souls, and so on, too. Are there any non-Cosmically Good good people? Neat ideas.
I keep a lot of the cosmology mythic and contradictory from the PCs' point of view. The holy Lothian empire considers the Heldannic deities demons or jumped up giants and culture heroes with myths that have gotten exagerated over time. The Heldanes generally consider them the true greater Gods who wear other names and masks in other cultures or they consider them cosmic personifications and metaphors. There is belief in cosmic deities, ascended deities, and clerical traditions that tap divine power without reference to deities.
Some of the world's cosmologies see demons as what happens to sinful souls at death. Others see them as elementals that were corrupted by a force of evil. Another considers them as actual elementals of CHAOTIC EVIL.
The nature of souls and the afterlife is not clear, there is resurrection magic and reincarnation magic but there are lots of unreliable narrator sources of information and cosmology theorizing.
Alignment descriptor outsiders, spells, and items always detect and are affected as their alignment. Clerics and paladins and anti-paladins get auras as well tied to the source of their supernatural power.
Per detect evil undead always detect as evil. I added fey to Chaos and constructs to Law for flavor as they seemed appropriate. I have not come up with any such group for good but I'm open to suggestions but also OK leaving that empty.
So for non-cosmically Good people they do not detect as [GOOD] but can be morally good people.
One of my players had a character who considered himself LG and wanted to do the right thing. His back story was he got picked by an [EVIL] god of Tyranny as a(n anti)paladin who powered him up. He knew he would eventually be an instrument of evil and probably bring evil down upon those around him at some point so he left his village and tries to do as much good as he can before his destiny hits and be as far away from his family as he can when it does hit. Detected as [EVIL], acted LG.
Another character was a devout Lothian (follower of an ascended paladin). He considered everyone including himself CE sinners at heart but that Lothianism was the LG path and so he was LG for following it. In actions he was played as a terrible colonialist.
A third played a LG paladin in ways I did not consider LG at all but he sincerely did and I was fine with it.
The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules.
I thought I was pretty clear when I stated that I don't follow the Pathfinder cosmology, I don't use objective good and evil, etc. Call it a house rule, call it whatever you like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with on several things, Tormsskull (neat name, by the way - is it from the FR deity?), I can actually respect you and your opinion. I mention this because what follows is an attempt to clarify and/or further the discussion (as opposed to saying, "You're wrong!" and so on, which, with tonal absence on the 'net, I know such things can seem to be.)
Torm is from FR, Skull was one of my favorite MUD characters way back when, put the two together :) Been using the name for a long time.
I'd be happy to clarify, but once again I want to try to make clear that this is simply how I run it in my games. I'm not trying to say that I think this is what the Pathfinder designers (or D&D designers) intended. Simply my way.
So, while the Alignment is Objective (actions have specific moral components) and True, the Results are completely irrelevant - only intent matters?
There may be some situations that would require exceptions, but generally speaking, only intent matters. And by that I mean that no one can be tricked into an alignment shift.
In such cases, in your opinion, can you say that one evil act is "worse" than others? Or is it a straight-up "Cross this line and fail." system?
Sure, some evil acts are more evil than others. But I don't actually measure it or give alignment points between shifts or anything. Its not something that needs to be codified, IMO. If a good PC is taking actions that I deem as evil, I would mention to that player 1 on 1 that certain actions seemed to be evil, and continuing on that path would eventually shift their alignment away from good.
That does, in fact, clarify many things, to some extent. Could you elaborate at all on the Cosmology that you utilize?
Its fairly simple. When characters that have souls die, their souls go to a sort of waiting room. In that waiting room, they're not sentient - they're unaware of anything. The gods (good or evil) can offer a soul a place in their afterlife. If they accept, that soul moves on to the appropriate afterlife.
Such a soul could be turned into an angel or demon, or simply live in that afterlife in peace.
The number of afterlifes is theoretically infinite. Each god can have as many as they want, but most only have one.
Its impossible for a mortal to travel to these afterlifes - its one of the rules all of the gods have to follow. Mortals sometimes get glimpses of them in dreams, however.
I find that very interesting - that someone could avoid culpability simply by virtue of command rather than execution. What's interesting is that, in my view, if an Evil Command is given, the quality of Evil in its execution depends heavily on the person following it and the situations around it.
I understand that viewpoint, and I would make some exceptions based on the situation, but actions are the important part in my mind.
If for example a character really wanted another character dead, is that evil? Is thinking/wishing for someone to die an evil act? If character A is speaking to character B, and mentions that he'd really like to see Bob fall off a bridge, is that evil? If B arranges for Bob to die without letting A know that he did so, does it now become an evil act?
That's why I stick with actions. The person performing the evil act is the one who suffers the alignment repercussions.
I also find it notable that you say "most all" executioners. Do you know of any exceptions, or was that just a "safety" set of words? I know I often place safety's in my speech, because, "Never say never." is an important thing to remember. Mostly I'm just curious if, off the top of your head, you know of any exceptions and what they'd be like.
Definitely a "never say never" situation. I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean its not possible. If there was some really good reasoning, its possible.
And yes, you correctly understood what I meant by executioner. Not a one time thing. The actual profession where it is your job to cut the heads off of whoever someone else told you to execute.
Why would a CdG not be a fall? What makes it acceptable? The fact that conflict is going on around you?
Momentarily defenseless is not the same thing as defenseless. If you've stunned an opponent for a round (or held or whatever) and then CdG them, that's not an evil act. Its part of combat.
Taking down a powerful wizard alive in order to gain information, for example, but killing him after he's proven unwilling to change seems entirely conscionable to me - he's a clear and present threat, and our only other options would be to force mutilation or other permanent "helplessness" on him, or some forcible conversion, like the helm.
I can definitely see that argument playing out in game (would be very interesting.) But I would still consider it evil to kill the wizard after he's been pacified. Again, I have to caution that it doesn't mean a good character would instantly fall to neutral.
It is something that I could imagine a good character doing, and then it nags at them for days, weeks, months. If its something that they simply justify and continue to do, then they slowly fall to neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The helm inflicting pain and "destroying the person's self" are house rules.I thought I was pretty clear when I stated that I don't follow the Pathfinder cosmology, I don't use objective good and evil, etc. Call it a house rule, call it whatever you like.
I think the idea was that someone saying they don't follow the cosmology doesn't automatically mean making something that has no indication of inflicting pain into something that does inflict pain. That isn't necessarily a natural consequence.
Voadam: very cool. Do you have answers? You don't have to share them, even if you do, but I'm always voracious when learning about new and interesting worlds, so I'm curious. If you don't feel like expounding, that's fine. If you do, however, you (and, incidentally, Tormskull) might want to open a House Rules thread devoted to your campaign setting! Then you can have lots of people yell at you and tell you how non-Pathfinder you're being!
(Also, add to all of those, dang it! I need more input or I wither and forgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet... what were we talking about?)
I don't fully like your system, but I can understand it, given certain presumptions, and it's certainly interesting. I would, however, note that your Cosmic Good actually uses a different definition than I do! Very neat.
RE your name, Tormsskull: cool! I always loved Torm, and I didn't know if Tormsskull was a reference to his death at Bane's hands (and possibly something played in your game) or other reference. Neat!
Also, nifty afterlife! You might want to check out the one I crafted in "The APG, Worldbuilding, and You" thread (the "It" link above). It might help with your visualization of how those afterlives interact with each other, even if you don't keep the full details down.
Also-also,
I'd be happy to clarify, but once again I want to try to make clear that this is simply how I run it in my games. I'm not trying to say that I think this is what the Pathfinder designers (or D&D designers) intended. Simply my way.
... yep! Fully understood and accepted: I'm totally cool with this and recognize it. One of the reasons I'm asking for clarity is that, given that you've a different base of presumptions, it's interesting to clarify and thus discuss on a form of Common Ground. If you feel I'm being pushy or just lose interest (which is entirely possible) just let me know and I'll drop it.
In a similar way, please don't take any disagreement with you as personal disparagement - it's not. I genuinely respect your view on alignments, even if I disagree. In other words, we're cool. :)
Sure, some evil acts are more evil than others. But I don't actually measure it or give alignment points between shifts or anything. Its not something that needs to be codified, IMO. If a good PC is taking actions that I deem as evil, I would mention to that player 1 on 1 that certain actions seemed to be evil, and continuing on that path would eventually shift their alignment away from good.
One of the interesting things about the idea of value and depth is that while I see where you're coming from (that giving evil varying values yields a point-based metric system) I don't really see it as such, either, despite having "values" (in vague terms) for good and evil. Instead (said in order to create a point of understanding, not to sway or reject your own notions), what I see is that in general (though specific circumstances may certainly apply to change this):
1) the over-all reduction of evil is a good thing2) the over-all increase of good is a good thing
3) acts that generate "1" or "2" by default tend toward "good"
- 3a) corollary: acts that generate both, therefore, by default, tend toward a greater non-numbered "value" of good
4) acts that eliminate, hinder, or otherwise hamper "1" or "2" by default tend toward "evil
- 4a) corollary: acts that hinder both, therefore, by default, tend toward a greater non-numbered "value" of evil
These elements are, of course, modified by the actions taken to create them and the intent - one does not negate the other, but modifies it.
Persuading an evil person to redemption, then, falls under the corollary of 3a. Killing an evil person would fall under "1", presuming it's not for evil reasons or methods. Performing good acts would, likewise, fall under number "2", presuming it's not for evil reasons or methods.
I think so far we're basically in agreement (though likely with some amount of quibbling over word choice, probably revolving around precise use of "killing an evil person", however I do note that killing is, in most all cases, the last resort rather than the first - in other words, only in the proper time or place).
I think where we diverge is probably on the universal value of number "1", and how we look at "intent".
For example, if my "intent" is "to make a better world for all good people" and I do so by engaging in a campaign of genocide because I consider a given ethnicity evil... that's... evil. It doesn't matter my intent. This, to me, is the very personification of "Good intentions pave the road to hell."
Which brings me to...
There may be some situations that would require exceptions, but generally speaking, only intent matters. And by that I mean that no one can be tricked into an alignment shift.
... which I know you said earlier, but didn't flow then. :)
To comment on it, I see what you mean, but I don't necessarily agree. I think that people can be fooled into an alignment shift, though I still value their intent. In this case, I think we're just disagreeing on the nature of the word "intent", though.
As an example, it's quite possible for the genocidal person I noted above to truly believe that the ethnicity in question is fundamentally evil and that there is no redeeming it. Thus his intent is, in his own way, pure: he wants to do nothing but good for the sake of all non-evil folk. However he is deceived. Perhaps he deceived himself, or perhaps someone else deceived him. In this case, though, the deception has corrupted his otherwise-good intent... and paved the road to hell.
On the other hand, I don't agree with "Good intentions pave the road to hell." being interpreted as, "I long to do the right thing and begin enacting the right thing as best I know how, but made a mistake, I'll turn evil." It doesn't necessarily morally corrupt the person making the mistake.
In other words, to me, intent does matter, but only in the mitigation of degree of culpability (which I will address in my point below). It can, in fact, mitigate someone entirely... but it depends on the situation.
Let's look at several situations.
1) the genocidal man above
2) someone who genuinely believes her new angelic friend can grant her wishes (but is actually consorting with a Glabrezu against their knowledge)
3) a good-hearted sorcerer who has discovered within himself the power to heal the wounded!
4) a sociopath who takes it upon herself to eliminate other serial killers
1) In the genocidal man's case, the reason I say he can be deceived into evil is that he does not necessarily become evil, even by his own actions, if he can't understand that they are evil - that is, if he has actual Innocence, similar to the cruelty of children - but if he is confronted with evidence or even the knowledge that he might be wrong, he must, then seek a different course of action, or to study and learn whether or not he is. If he rejects information that contradicts his view, because he genuinely believes he is correct, he has accepted that his genocide is correct. He has fallen to evil by way of deception. Yes, it was his own choice, but he was, in fact, deceived into it. After it becomes ingrained enough, it's not always possible to break a given belief. That said, if the man repented upon learning, or at least sought the truth, he could be redeemed from his own actions by stopping or even opposing them.
2) In this case, it is much less likely that the person in question would automatically fall to evil due to clinging to her misconception. Instead it is much more likely that the Glabrezu would, in some way or another, eventually twist a wish or errant wording on her part to corrupt her against her will. That said, if he's found a willing dupe that can be deceived, and he's clever, he can string her along for as long as he dares, even to the point that he seems to be doing genuine "good" (and may, in fact, be doing exactly that) but is also planting lots of "back doors" for himself in every wish he grants so that, when it comes time to act, he does so in a way that causes torment and heartbreak. It might well behoove him, then, to keep the dupe good (and unaware) and thus himself less detectable. In any event, when the truth is revealed, it's how she handles that moment that determines where her alignment lies - if she's become addicted to the power, she might begin making excuses or otherwise seeking a method of keeping her friend, while if she's honestly pure (just dumb) she would reject the power, and seek to undo and atone for the mistakes made (though it may well be too late in such a tragic case). If, on the other hand, she starts taking knives to children (maybe starting with, say, cats or goats first) because they're "really devils in disguise" she's started becoming directly corrupted by deception.
3) The sorcerer actually calls upon evil power to empower his magic - thus it is an evil act. How this functions and what the results are is fundamentally different in different cosmologies, but that's the basic rule for all of them, unless house-ruled (which is also fine). In Voadam's world, it's very probable that the sorcerer will maintain his alignment. In yours, I'm not sure. In base PF, the sorcerer will feel his conscience pricked each time he uses it (though he won't necessarily know why, unless he succeeds a spellcraft check) and either he'll stop using it or he'll eventually become corrupted from the power by association (even if he thinks he's doing good). This answer is, then, ultimately the most variable of the three, and heavily depends on your cosmological outlook.
4) I think we can all agree that this person is (probably) evil (in most all cases). She might be out to get bad guys, but that doesn't make her a good one. She is a murderer and ultimately unhealthy, mentally.
In all of the above cases, motive plays a part, as does intent, but each case is very different from the others in how the intent plays a part and how much culpability it eliminates.
Which brings me to...
I understand that viewpoint, and I would make some exceptions based on the situation, but actions are the important part in my mind.
If for example a character really wanted another character dead, is that evil? Is thinking/wishing for someone to die an evil act? If character A is speaking to character B, and mentions that he'd really like to see Bob fall off a bridge, is that evil? If B arranges for Bob to die without letting A know that he did so, does it now become an evil act?
That's why I stick with actions. The person performing the evil act is the one who suffers the alignment repercussions.
... which is actually very different than I interpret what you're saying. In this case, intent matters just as much, if not more, than action, to me.
Let's look at your questions:
If for example a character really wanted another character dead, is that evil?
Without just cause, yes. With just cause, no. Note that this is different than actions.
Is thinking/wishing for someone to die an evil act?
As above.
If character A is speaking to character B, and mentions that he'd really like to see Bob fall off a bridge, is that evil?
Again, as above. But for the sake of this discussion, starting here, I'll presume that there is no just cause. In which case: it can be, depending on the intent of the statement. If the intent is to explain your frustration with yourself ("I can't stop hating him no matter how much I try!" or seeking help ("Help! I know it's not his fault!") than it's not evil. But if you're trying to get them to hate the person, ("Don't you agree he should just die?!") than it is a minor evil. If, on the other hand, you're trying to get them killed (reminder: without just cause!) than it is actively evil and of the worst kind - it's shoving the responsibility onto someone else and attempting to get them to take part in the evil for.
To me, the evil "action" here is entirely in the attempt to get someone else to do evil. This is corruption at its finest/worst.
If B arranges for Bob to die without letting A know that he did so, does it now become an evil act?
No: this is not a results-based thing, for me (at least not directly). If the mention was not evil before, it is not evil now. If it was evil before, but Bob doesn't die, that doesn't change its evil.
That's why I stick with actions. The person performing the evil act is the one who suffers the alignment repercussions.
I see that - but the speaking in order to get the execution to happen is, itself, an action.
To relate this to the judge from before, it's not the swinging of the arm, but it's the judge's best equivalent of that. The judge can't swing the axe themselves - they'd be breaking the proper order or methodology of things and get in trouble themselves.
Instead of an axe, the judge wields invested authority: the headman.
Instead of a gun, the genocidal dictator wields political power: the army.
Instead of a club, the chief wields honor and pride: the warriors.
Instead of a weapon, the friend wields respect and devotion: the friend.
In all of these cases, the weapon wielded is not a weapon itself - it's the person that uses the weapon.
If killing is evil, the intent to cause death must, therefore, be evil. A non-actioned intent (wishing the person to die) is substantially less evil than doing the deed, but getting someone to do it for you is worse because you now have two people fully participating in evil: yourself and them.
At least, that's how I view it. I do understand your view is different.
For the rest of it, it's simply a difference in how much we look at the ultimate impact our action (or inaction) will have on others and what we consider "pacified" and "helpless". Without some form of permanent action, I would never consider a powerful wizard helpless. There's an entire Adventure Path that is set up based around the premise that some considered one helpless/pacified. Hint: it didn't end well, even though it took quite a while. Caused a lot of souls to be damned.
To me, the consideration of a wizard being helpless and pacified is the same folly of considering the Joker or Lex Luthor helpless or pacified: innocent naivete that will ultimately only enable more evil. They've already proven themselves willing and capable of violating others' and eventually escaping the power of the law/other confinements. A temporary victory will not permanently undo their next victim. Allowing them to live is, then, a wrong action, though based on the intent to do good. A mistake, but not a soul-damning one.
1) the over-all reduction of evil is a good thing
2) the over-all increase of good is a good thing
I get this view, and many people have it, but it just seems overly simplistic in my mind. I'm fond of the good guy becomes neutral or evil because he became way to fanatic in his views. In a scenario where killing an evil character is a good act, this trope is really minimized.
A good character can essentially become a mass murderer, as long as his targets are all evil, and become MORE good than your average good guy trying to redeem people. That doesn't sit well with my view.
For example, if my "intent" is "to make a better world for all good people" and I do so by engaging in a campaign of genocide because I consider a given ethnicity evil... that's... evil. It doesn't matter my intent. This, to me, is the very personification of "Good intentions pave the road to hell."
Agreed, that is evil. Genocide is always going to be evil. Definitely different definitions of intent. Let's say a good character is taking part in an archery contest, firing arrows at a target. Unbeknownst to the character, there are slaves bound and gagged on the other side of the targets. The archer fires an arrow, hitting the target and killing the slave on the other side.
An evil act? No, because the character was unaware of the slave, there was no intent to kill a person.
In your example, a character that considers genocide of a certain race to be a good thing still intends on killing them all. Simply because they believe, like many evil people do, that their actions are justified does not change the act its self.
Without just cause, yes. With just cause, no. Note that this is different than actions.
That seems really odd to me. A character can essentially radically change their alignment just by thinking enough evil or good thoughts to result in an alignment shift?
To me, the consideration of a wizard being helpless and pacified is the same folly of considering the Joker or Lex Luthor helpless or pacified: innocent naivete that will ultimately only enable more evil.
If there is an evil wizard, and people have been sent to kill him, why are they taking him prisoner? If you think "we'll pacify him, extract as much information as possible out of him, and then kill him," then that is an evil act (the killing him part.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you see the Alingment is determined by gods or even some higher power. What makes whatever this being or beings the ultimate authority of right and wrong? Even the churches themselves do not push the agenda that they are infallible or perfect. So even at the best possible case they are the most qualified for the position, but even then it ultimately is just valuing another persons opinion above others. So in the end the alingment of a person is just determined by a very complicated "rules." Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, these are all just labels by whatever powers be use to categorize people/beings.
I'm reading the section in the rules on Alignment and don't see where it states that alignment is determined by a higher power.
Except maybe the GM, which is a fun thought exercise. I always felt that Ao from FR was really the DM of the campaign.
Spoilered for making it more manageable. Sorry, I write way too much.
1) the over-all reduction of evil is a good thing
2) the over-all increase of good is a good thingI get this view, and many people have it, but it just seems overly simplistic in my mind. I'm fond of the good guy becomes neutral or evil because he became way to fanatic in his views. In a scenario where killing an evil character is a good act, this trope is really minimized.
A good character can essentially become a mass murderer, as long as his targets are all evil, and become MORE good than your average good guy trying to redeem people. That doesn't sit well with my view.
I think you might have mistook me or mistakenly ignored the remainder of my point.
The two notes that you quote are, objectively, true - less evil is inherently good, while more good is inherently good.
However, I noted right below that,
These elements are, of course, modified by the actions taken to create them and the intent - one does not negate the other, but modifies it.
What does this mean? It means that an otherwise good actions can be performed by an evil person for no good "benefit" of that person - in other words without making that person good.
This takes intent, action, and methodology into account.
For example, if my "intent" is "to make a better world for all good people" and I do so by engaging in a campaign of genocide because I consider a given ethnicity evil... that's... evil. It doesn't matter my intent. This, to me, is the very personification of "Good intentions pave the road to hell."Agreed, that is evil. Genocide is always going to be evil. Definitely different definitions of intent. Let's say a good character is taking part in an archery contest, firing arrows at a target. Unbeknownst to the character, there are slaves bound and gagged on the other side of the targets. The archer fires an arrow, hitting the target and killing the slave on the other side.
An evil act? No, because the character was unaware of the slave, there was no intent to kill a person.
In your example, a character that considers genocide of a certain race to be a good thing still intends on killing them all. Simply because they believe, like many evil people do, that their actions are justified does not change the act its self.
And that's where we differ on intent and deception.
To me the fact that a character is killing another race isn't really surprising - especially in realities like Pathfinder where it can, in fact, be a good thing to do so (specifically: demons, daemons, devils, qlippoths, etc).
If the man truly believes that he's doing a good thing, his intent is good, but his method and action is evil. Ultimately, his evil is due to the fact that his evil outweighs the good. In this case action and methodology trump any intent.
Without just cause, yes. With just cause, no. Note that this is different than actions.That seems really odd to me. A character can essentially radically change their alignment just by thinking enough evil or good thoughts to result in an alignment shift?
And here's where we actually get to the "weakness" many people see in the alignment system (note: I like the system).
The short answer? Sort of.
The apparent paradox arrives because most people generally feel (myself included on occasion) that when a person has an alignment, they're an exemplar of that alignment.
This... isn't really necessarily true. Only paladins are forbidden from doing an evil action. Lawful good anyone else? They can get away with many evil actions and still be lawful good, though if they keep them up they might need atonement later.
A good person can have evil thoughts or evil actions, but stay a good person. This is readily seen. Things like this occur in... oh, let's just say, The Road (a great book, by the way): the Father is a good person, but stealing that man's shoes was evil.
Or let's say Star Wars: saving Padme from death, saving his mother from death, and trying to aid the people he loves is good, but Anakin descended into evil by actions... and Palpatine even more so by corrupting him. (This is a great display of the difference in our "Intent".) Or Han fleeing the Rebel Alliance with his money is an Evil act - yet he was a good person who ultimately came back in the end. Or Mr. Fredrickson from UP - hitting the worker with his cane was an evil act, but he, ultimately, was a good person who simply failed.
Reference the archery contest, the response of the good character to new stimulus would ultimately determine whether or not they undergo an alignment shift - the alignment shift would be a revelation of alignment, not a forced change in their character.
In this case, intent and innocence cause the good archer to maintain his alignment, even though the action is awful. He personally killed people, but didn't realize he was doing it. Being a good person, he would immediately stop by default.
But what if he becomes corrupted by the contest? The prize? What if whatever he was firing for was so valuable that he'd eventually agree to do it anyway?
This is what I mean by being corrupted by deception - at first you are innocent, necessarily. Through repeated exposure, however, things can become habitual, addictive, or even perceived as necessary.
But this is a slow shift in alignment - it is a shift built upon what you value and why you engage in things... and they "why" can definitively shift without people ever realizing it, due to them being deceived.
(Example: what if he became so enamored with the archery contest that he wouldn't have stopped, even if he knew? The probability is that even as his alignment shifted over time, he would never have known or even thought about slaves being behind the targets. He just accepted what he was doing wasn't evil... but his alignment shifted anyway.)
Because, ultimately, alignment doesn't control your actions, it represents your nature and general intent. Alignment isn't enforcing, it's responsive.
Similarly, evil people can perform good actions, but their nature - who and what they are - is still evil, despite their seemingly good actions. Their motivations corrupt the action into wickedness, in spite of it's "default" mode.
LE: comes across a starving orphan, feeds and shelters him, and sets them up to do something with their life
CG: comes across a starving orphan, feeds and shelters him, and sets them up to do something with their life
In the above situation, both seem identical, despite maintaining a very different alignment. But why and how can this be? Because the motivation is the primary factor. The LE guy doesn't save the orphan from a desire to save the orphan - to him, the orphan is an opportunity, a method of exploitation, a manner of gaining more prestige and acclaim - a way to be loved. The CG guy, on the other hand, genuinely cares about the orphan, and is doing all of this for the orphan's sake.
In this case, the outcome doesn't matter - the action is good. But the intent matters tremendously.
In this way good actions can be accomplished by evil people with no change in their nature.
Heck, Evil is not even all-encompassing. An evil person can care for and even love someone else. Wouldn't stop them from being evil.
Now, there is a reasonable limit to all this. If all the LE person did was good actions, regardless of his intent, eventually he'd - in all likelihood - more or less switch his alignment by default... effectively against his will. That's kind of how people work, and the nature of repeated exposure and reinforcement by action.
But in this case intent negates any good that might otherwise have been done. Likewise with the archer, intent - innocence - negates any culpability. The archer could be absolutely any alignment at all - archery on targets has no alignment. It is the creature's response to new stimuli, their reason for continuing, or their commitment to continuing that can degrade the character into evil... even if they don't realize it.
To me, the consideration of a wizard being helpless and pacified is the same folly of considering the Joker or Lex Luthor helpless or pacified: innocent naivete that will ultimately only enable more evil.If there is an evil wizard, and people have been sent to kill him, why are they taking him prisoner? If you think "we'll pacify him, extract as much information as possible out of him, and then kill him," then that is an evil act (the killing him part.)
What if they were not sent to kill him? What if they were sent to pacify him?
Again, I'll pull up the Joker analogy. In fact, I'll pull up something really familiar: the Dark Knight.
I would agree that it would have been comprehensible to simply lock him up in the Asylum after his first, er, "outburst" let's say.
But he proved himself capable, canny, clever, and monstrous enough to cause havoc from within imprisonment, murdering people and influencing them and working at setting up situations where otherwise innocent people would murder each other... with a kill switch on them in case they didn't.
The man is too dangerous to allow to live.
(His subsequent lack of appearance has nothing to do with his character, and thus isn't really a valid track to take.)
In a similar way, what if the PCs were sent to stop a powerful mage. They take him down, non-lethally, but then learn the extent of his plans. Perhaps he escapes and murders more people - they are still sent to bring him in alive. During the combat, they realize how impossible to truly stop he is, though they take him alive by virtue of doing what they came there to do - there really isn't time to discuss or quibble. AFTER THEY HAVE TIME, by virtue of pacifying him... again... they can discuss what the best recourse is. Clearly the villain has escaped - and has the power to do so again - and clearly the villain's plans are not going to be stopped by simple repeated incapacitation. If that's all it took, they'd be stopped by now.
Their options are, at this point, kill him, or imprison him and wait for him to escape, murder innocents, and then kill him (unless they're sent to incapacitate him again, in which case they "accidentally" kill him in combat, I guess?). The difference between the two scenarios is 1) time of the villain's death, and 2) how many innocent people will suffer, 3) the chance for failure to stop him at all. Is there a possibility the villain could be redeemed? Sure. But he's already rejected it by virtue of escape and second attempt.
The fact is, that's only one scenario in which, after "pacifying" a villain, death becomes necessary.
You Pacify in order to <imprison, redeem, cleanse, heal, learn, etc.>, but then realize that due to <self-destruct timer, secret plot, his carefully laid plans, his social position, his allies' social position, his personal power, etc> you no longer have <time, effort, ability> to <justifiably> bring them in?
Still think that you're a cool dude, though. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Setting things on the deities. And by higher power I was referring to the actual force of Alingment X, the "energy" as within the rules it is observable force.(As in Daemon is actually composed of Evil.) It does not really matter who or what does it, point is something is doing it. Even if it is something like say law of gravity, so what do laws of nature determine morality? The main point was even if poorly conveyed that Right/Wrong=/=Good/Evil.(That does not mean they don't overlap.) And for the record no it does not say that, but it is the only possibility that makes sense in-game, at least only one I could come up with.Well you see the Alingment is determined by gods or even some higher power. What makes whatever this being or beings the ultimate authority of right and wrong? Even the churches themselves do not push the agenda that they are infallible or perfect. So even at the best possible case they are the most qualified for the position, but even then it ultimately is just valuing another persons opinion above others. So in the end the alingment of a person is just determined by a very complicated "rules." Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, these are all just labels by whatever powers be use to categorize people/beings.I'm reading the section in the rules on Alignment and don't see where it states that alignment is determined by a higher power.
Except maybe the GM, which is a fun thought exercise. I always felt that Ao from FR was really the DM of the campaign.
Yes. But if alignment is simply a force of the universe, like gravity, then your statement "it ultimately is just valuing another persons opinion above others" doesn't make sense.
Gravity doesn't make value judgments. It isn't an "ultimate authority" on the behavior of mass. It just is a property of the fabric of the universe.
With alignment as a force of the universe Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are not labels any more than angular momentum or the value of Pi are labels.
EDIT: ninja'd by Democratus in a more eloquent manner than I put it, using the same example!
1) the over-all reduction of evil is a good thing
2) the over-all increase of good is a good thingI get this view, and many people have it, but it just seems overly simplistic in my mind. I'm fond of the good guy becomes neutral or evil because he became way to fanatic in his views. In a scenario where killing an evil character is a good act, this trope is really minimized.
A good character can essentially become a mass murderer, as long as his targets are all evil, and become MORE good than your average good guy trying to redeem people. That doesn't sit well with my view.
Dexter was a lot of things, but by his own admission, Good, or Heroic wasn't it. He was motivated by at most, enlightened self interest.1) the over-all reduction of evil is a good thing
2) the over-all increase of good is a good thingI get this view, and many people have it, but it just seems overly simplistic in my mind. I'm fond of the good guy becomes neutral or evil because he became way to fanatic in his views. In a scenario where killing an evil character is a good act, this trope is really minimized.
A good character can essentially become a mass murderer, as long as his targets are all evil, and become MORE good than your average good guy trying to redeem people. That doesn't sit well with my view.
I know that. The premise of the show is still "good serial killer."
That's according to the author, who said the whole idea came about from a discussion of what a person like that would even be like.
Whatever Dexter was, he certainly wasn't evil.
In this way good actions can be accomplished by evil people with no change in their nature.
I don't want to minimize your post, but it seems we mostly agree on things here. This one part, however, I would slightly adjust. If the LE man clothes and feeds the orphan because his intent is to use him as a slave, or something else evil, then his "good action" of clothing and feeding him never was a good action.
You said: "It means that an otherwise good actions can be performed by an evil person for no good "benefit" of that person - in other words without making that person good."
And then later you said: "Now, there is a reasonable limit to all this. If all the LE person did was good actions, regardless of his intent, eventually he'd - in all likelihood - more or less switch his alignment by default... effectively against his will. That's kind of how people work, and the nature of repeated exposure and reinforcement by action."
This is were the crux of our disagreement comes in. I believe a LE character could perform unlimited "good" acts without ever adjusting his alignment, if the character's intent for doing the good acts was to eventually perform an even greater evil.
That show got 8 seasons.
I don't watch the show, but would you argue that Dexter is a good person? As far as getting 8 seasons, that doesn't provide validity to the argument, it just goes to show you that audiences like 1.) violence 2.) vigilante justice, and 3.) contradictions.
Dexter was awesome.
...Until the last episode. What the hel was that about?!
I would define Dexter as evil bent for good causes.
Though it's questionable whether his evil was innate or chosen, which may alter the nature of things, depending on how you view free will.
In this way good actions can be accomplished by evil people with no change in their nature.I don't want to minimize your post, but it seems we mostly agree on things here. This one part, however, I would slightly adjust. If the LE man clothes and feeds the orphan because his intent is to use him as a slave, or something else evil, then his "good action" of clothing and feeding him never was a good action.
Again, the degree of motivation is different, but I don't think we actually disagree much beyond that "degree". :)
You said: "It means that an otherwise good actions can be performed by an evil person for no good "benefit" of that person - in other words without making that person good."
And then later you said: "Now, there is a reasonable limit to all this. If all the LE person did was good actions, regardless of his intent, eventually he'd - in all likelihood - more or less switch his alignment by default... effectively against his will. That's kind of how people work, and the nature of repeated exposure and reinforcement by action."
This is were the crux of our disagreement comes in. I believe a LE character could perform unlimited "good" acts without ever adjusting his alignment, if the character's intent for doing the good acts was to eventually perform an even greater evil.
I think you are focusing on something due to a disagreement with me; that happens in back-and-forth conversations that get into too much detail. Everyone who's seen enough of my posts knows that I do this.
On one hand, you speak of Intent. On the other you speak of Action. You cite that you don't have an Objective Alignment, but note that certain things automatically result in certain Alignments. To me, these all seem contradictory.
In the above example you noted that his goal would be the "even greater evil". That is an example of a broad-spectrum commitment to either a Cosmic Evil or Supreme Selfishness - either way, I agree that it's evil, but it's an important thing to note.
In my example, the man did unlimited good deeds simply because he wanted one thing: acclaim. In yours, eventually, he eventually acted on the evil for the evil. In mine, he did no such thing - he acted on the good exclusively, for the evil, and kind of failed by way of success.
Eventually there will come a point at which cognitive dissonance results in either the alteration of the character or the action of the alignment. This is one of the reasons well-trained spies are such dangerous people. They live in this state of cognitive dissonance. It's also (one reason) why defection is such a major thing. It's very difficult to become true friends with someone and still want them dead.
Eventually your actions will out, or you will change.
If there is some Greater Evil you are working toward (whether or not you realize that is evil, ala the genocidal guy), than the good deeds done in the pursuit of that goal are worthless, for secretly they all help the goal of the Greater Evil. This is the nature of the fanatic or patriot or spy or other extremely devoted Idealist.
If, on the other hand, your goal is not a Greater Evil, but only a Supreme Selfishness, it could well (and likely will) simply be a transition from a nature of evil into a nature of non-evil or even good. Whatever your original motive you have, mostly by accident, become a good person (or evil, as the case may be).
This is what I mean, and I think where we're getting the disagreement from.
My appeal is to look not only at the local, individual action, not only the ultimate goal (the Intent, as it were), not only the method, but also the degree of all of these things. Further, I see "Action" as more than just the single, individual movements of, say, my arm. Instead, it's the entire thing when taken together.
Thus, "If all the LE person did was good actions, regardless of his intent, <snip> switch his alignment..." because the only actions they took were Good actions, not for any greater evil, but for a Greater Selfishness... which just doesn't stand up to infinitely repeated charity, regardless of your motives.
THAT SAID, I do agree with you. I think our disagreements are based on fine nuance and subtle disagreements of degrees and word-definition rather than outright "NOPE!" fests. :)
Liam
1) spoilers, man. Also
2) Your world being different effectively defines things for your world, not for the default cosmology. And within your world, doesn't death mean that mortal existence, and thus the ability to learn and grow, is cut off? However if there are specifically evil side-effects, again, that's your world, which is valid for your world, and is an interesting idea (which I actually addressed earlier under "other information we don't have") but is not applicable to the broad spectrum of games.
3) Killing someone is inflicting pain until they die, unless you go by Coup De Grace rules I don't know about or something. That's pretty torturous. Would it, then, be okay for them to be killed, raised, and continue to do evil things? Is that preferable? Thus allowing other innocents to suffer?
4) Why is erasing this person bad? This question has never been answered adequately. The person is Objectively, evil - they are harming those who have done no wrong for their own gain. Erasing that is not a wrong thing to do. That is the exact same thing you're trying to do by killing them, unless you've got a lot of insight into the cosmology that most people don't have. Erasing the creature that seeks to harm others is not a bad thing.
5) Why is creating a good person a bad thing? Again, a question that's never adequately explained.
6) Lumely's books have nothing to do with this, at all. Having no mind is not the same thing as having a changed mind. And if you're going with the "erased" argument above, than there is a new creature to contact in their place. Thus any attempt to contact the "old" person results in contacting the "new" (because, you know, they're the same person).
7) If the newly good person goes to hell, it's not really erasing the old person, is it? Instead it's applying a magical effect on a person and, at worst, you've given someone time to attempt to repent. Anything else would require information we don't have. If the newly good person goes to Heaven, you just performed one of the greatest acts of mercy possible. Also, oddly enough, you seem to presume they will instantly die after their conversion. If not, it's hardly a "free" card, as they'll work hard to live according to their new alignment for however long they live.
8) By killing someone you're already setting yourself up as their judge. You are creating an artificial distinction. "It's one thing to judge someone, but you can't judge someone." Unless, of course, you're saying that bearing the helm allows you to go to the gods and force them to change their judgement on your terms... which might not be a bad thing, depending on how they take it.
9) It cheapens redemption... to your way of seeing it. Which is fine. But insisting it cheapens redemption across the board is false. The description does not say they can't turn back (in fact, it notes that Wish or Miracle can bring them back... kind of like Raise Dead can bring back a person killed, eh?), but does say they don't attempt to restore their old alignment, and avoid returning to it through any (alignment appropriate) means at their disposal.
~ 9-a) Also, it doesn't provide evidence that the person was destroyed, only changed. Do you regret anything you've done? Do you think that something you've done was horrible? If so, was the old you somehow suddenly "destroyed"? Or are you "still" yourself, only with a different outlook? Further: redemption, by it's nature, requires that you loath what you are redeemed from. THAT'S WHAT REDEMPTION IS. And, again, even if you look at it as destroying the old and creating a new, this is practiced in modern and ancient real-world human religions today. "Born again" is a statement that means "I now have a new life - my old is dead." Those who are born again are "a new person", but at the same time, they are still themselves. I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of this concept.
10) So, if you kill the villain, they are punished. That is acceptable and not-evil. But if you erase them from existence they don't suffer torment. This is not-evil as well. And it only sends a good person to suffer if you have very specific interpretations which are simply not borne out by any reading of the rules anywhere. Everywhere it's "judged based on alignment" (and/or actions), or "magic effects end at death". So pick and choose: if the old person is erased, they are erased, thus their deeds cannot count against a new person, because they are a new person; thus only the life of good counts for the new person. If the helm is only a magical effect, than it ends at death, and an evil person is punished according to freely-chosen evil deeds, but in the meanwhile, good deeds were done. If the person is the same person is judged on the net total of their deeds, changing them gives them a chance to avoid eternal punishment which they were otherwise guaranteed - a form of mercy. Mercy, I'll remind, is, when applicable, one of the central tenets of Good.
11) "Power corrupts" is a terrible argument. You'd better make sure Solars don't have the power to use Wish once per day, or they're going to destabilize all of reality. While we're at it, going from Objective Good to Subjective Preference is a step of corruption, but it is definitively not automatic. Otherwise, you're looking at the fall of every paladin that holds a blade. That world sucks.
12) The idea of escalation is flawed. Demons wouldn't wait for you to start doing it. If they had the capability, they'd be doing it already. We know this, because they are demons - that is exactly what they already do, they just don't come with convenient helms. Citing escalation as a reason to avoid one-shot inherently-limited-quantity items is awkward. If you multiply the availability, demons are either already well aware of the helms' power and have been using them, or are morons (and not acting in accord with their mental ability scores), or are newly born. Escalation only functions when you've got two sides that aren't already using every resource at their disposal to annihilate the others. Demons already do that.
13) I find it fascinating you're obsessed with the "horror" as "pain" part and completely ignore the "thoroughly enjoys his new outlook" part. That does not sound like "pain", to me. Of course they respond to horror to the idea of going back. If I were given a new lease on life, let's say by suddenly becoming immortal/invulnerable/immune to sickness/diesase/etc, but then later told, "you have to lose your power" my tendency, as a human being, would be "that's terrible!" because I would be enjoying my new way of living. The same could be applied to gaining/losing the power to heal others, gaining/losing money, and so on. Morality only makes this response stronger.
14) As for someone being driven mad, you're welcome to House Rule it, but that's in your own world. It's not a good generic argument.
Most of your rejection comes down to, "I wouldn't want it done to me." and, you know, that's fine. If you're a good person, than having it done to you is, by default, evil.
But, again, I'm going to put myself here: if it were objectively provable that I were evil, I'd want the helm to be applied to me immediately, presuming I couldn't get an atonement. Ethics are great and all, but they're not important in the face of Morality.
Everything else about you, however, all the other elements of your personality not dependent upon alignment are the same.
Like/hate the color green, certain foods, music? Same.
Charismatic with a certain skill set? Same.
Skilled and interested in magic? Same.
Everything that isn't alignment? Same.
The text, again, for the curious
When placed upon the head, this item's curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required.
Only a wish or a miracle can restore a character's former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
Can someone be "harmed" by this? Sure, probably. But is it innate to the item itself? Nope.
Instead, as I've noted, the act is as evil as it's purposes are being used for and the circumstances its used in - the why and how and when. Much like shoving a sword through someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THAT SAID, I do agree with you. I think our disagreements are based on fine nuance and subtle disagreements of degrees and word-definition rather than outright "NOPE!" fests. :)
Agreed. I think to continue at this point would be splitting hairs. See you on the next alignment thread :P *tip hat*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I am having issue with is people are defining the removal of someone's free will as evil. It seem to me that free will or lack there of is more something that belongs on the Chaotic/Lawful scale.
Further, calling it oppression is also inaccurate.
Oppression 1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
For the treatment to qualify as oppression it would have to be unjust, but if they are evil, then punishing them for the evil they have done would be just. For it to be cruel, you would have to show that the process is unpleasant or painful, which is not supported by the rules.
One of the things I am having issue with is people are defining the removal of someone's free will as evil. It seem to me that free will or lack there of is more something that belongs on the Chaotic/Lawful scale.
Further, calling it oppression is also inaccurate.
For the treatment to qualify as oppression it would have to be unjust, but if they are evil, then punishing them for the evil they have done would be just. For it to be cruel, you would have to show that the process is unpleasant or painful, which is not supported by the rules.
Oppression 1. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
I think this is one of the best arguments in the thread so far.
Well done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever Dexter was, he certainly wasn't evil.That's debatable. But the show itself is intended to stand coventional notions of ethics and morality on it's head. If anything it shows that some things simply don't lend themselves to the simplistic system of D20 alignment.
The only thing that makes Dexter acceptable are his choice of targets. All of his other qualities are those that exhibited in anyone would make that person be labeled a sociopathic monster. The other thing that makes him sympathetic is that Dexter's sociopathy seems to be a genetic inheritance.
I suspect that this is a more accurate statement of the author's intention... deliberate ambiguity of the question.
Well said! The only thing I might object to is Dexter's psychopathy being genetic; I myself thought that the writers were pretty clearly tying it to his childhood trauma. And not only in Dexter's case; many of the show's killers, both minor and major, are discovered to have suffered some significant trauma. Although as you say, the show is not only deliberately ambiguous, it's also not very scientific or particularly applicable to D&D's alignment milieu. I took Doomed Hero's original reference to Dexter as at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I'm surprised that it's being so rigorously debated.
FYI, Dexter is specifically a psychopath, which is a subset of the sociopath group. (Socios are merely lacking in empathy, and often skilled at manipulating people, while psychos are the extreme ones who do things like kill people.)
|
Lets play a fun game:
Situation: Your character is a paladin, and his twin brother is a irredemeable anti-paladin. Your father and mother are good people but love both of them and allowed the evil twin to much forgiveness in hope of his redemption. He has done terrible things and will be executed if captured by all good kingdoms, but it is your character brother.
He capture your character in hope of using the helm of opposite alignment because he loves him and want the family to be together in evil. Your character escapes and win an epic duel and the evil twin goes uncounscious with the cursed helm close by. The parents get inside the room and urge your character to use the helm on him, to heal the evilness of his mind so he can be a paladin like him, that what they believe.
What is right for the paladin to do ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, Tormsskull! :)
Excellent point, Charender! Excellent post!
Also: Heh. My spoilers tag is wrong! I flagged my post for this.
Shows me for chiding other people. In my face!
Also, Draco, if it's me, I helm him.
That... wasn't that hard a decision. I have already exhausted all other avenues of conversion, he is my brother and important to me. He is important to my parents. The helm would basically be a miracle offered to heal the family. The other option is death.
The point at which I would hesitate or alter my answer is if you alter the basic presumptions of the cosmology.
@Liam Warner
I wish I had more time to read and post, but Tacticslion covered just about everything I would have said, and probably better than I would have said it.
The only think I would add is that many people still see to find the absolute destruction of a person as worse than an eternity of suffering (or some other long period of torture). Really? I would think it a mercy. Not to say that I am happy about the prospect of oblivion, but it sure beats having my skin burnt off, replaced, and burnt off again for a couple trillion years. or longer.
So even if a helm does completely destroy or erase a person, which I don't believe it does, it is better than the alternative.
You have to keep in mind that this was written with the purpose Gygax intended for the item, to be something that's encountered as a TRAP, as a royal PITA for the party that encountered it with their comrade suddenly made into a reverse of himself. It was intended to make sure that a Party that sought to restore their comrade would have to overpower him first... Assuming he didn't simply kill them all. It was never ever meant as a resource a party could make use of.
This and other trap items were created in the days that it was nearly impossible or severely crippling to identify items out in the field.
I... don't know where I ever considered otherwise?
The point's irrelevant, though. (EDIT: at least irrelevant to whether or not it can be a method of redemption. It's an interesting thing to consider on its own.)
People have been using terrible things to their advantage for a long time. In fact, I have it on good authority that people managed to find a great use for this natural phenomena that will totally kill you: it's widely considered one of the worst and most painful ways to die, yet somehow we discovered (and utilized!) fire to ensure that our civilization not only existed, but flourished - an advancement we still use to this day!
We used the terrible fact that if enough pointy things run into you you stop breathing forever to get food and clothing for our families.
We used the fact that gravity literally (and figuratively) "keeps us down" to sail further and faster in space than we could otherwise generate on our own.
It doesn't matter whether or not something is "meant" as a resource or is instead a trap to be overcome. To those who figure a way to use it, it always will be a resource as well as a trap.
This was true in his home games (at least if any of the anecdotal tales I've heard are correct), and its true now, in a completely different game system altogether (albeit one that descended directly from his influence and legacy).
That it's dangerous no one has ever doubted.
You have to keep in mind that this was written with the purpose Gygax intended for the item, to be something that's encountered as a TRAP, as a royal PITA for the party that encountered it with their comrade suddenly made into a reverse of himself. It was intended to make sure that a Party that sought to restore their comrade would have to overpower him first... Assuming he didn't simply kill them all. It was never ever meant as a resource a party could make use of.
This and other trap items were created in the days that it was nearly impossible or severely crippling to identify items out in the field.
Disagree, Gygax was proud when Robilar used a trap magic item to defeat the Demi Lich in Tomb of Horrors.
Then he changed the rules so further players couldn't in the next version of the Tomb, but he did like the ingenuity.So he would applaud the Helm being used for this.