Alignment Shift...Because of Pastry!?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Why is Nick "being a dick" because he thinks your character is Lawful Evil? Is it a "no evil alignment" campaign? Will he get to smite you if your alignment is changed? How would being LE instead of LN hurt you?

(

The paladin player will lose the right to play his character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


Op, it's simple. Invite the Paladins player to come here and post. We'll get both sides.

If you demur, that would indicate you aren't perhaps telling us the whole truth.

If indeed, however, the Paladins player is (as Rygin so delicately puts it) "being a dick", then that will be obvious from his posting.

I note no invitation has apparently been issued.


DrDeth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Why is Nick "being a dick" because he thinks your character is Lawful Evil? Is it a "no evil alignment" campaign? Will he get to smite you if your alignment is changed? How would being LE instead of LN hurt you?

(

The paladin player will lose the right to play his character.

How does that hurt the OP?


A few quick responses.
DrDeth: I have not invited Nick to respond. Mainly because he would have to, most likely, come to my house and use my computer to do so. I am going to let him read as much of this as he wants to this weekend when we game however. I do regret calling him a dick. I am frustrated with him at the moment but he has been and will continue to be a good friend. He is just like a little brother who can aggravate you to no end sometimes.

A general response to a number of posters: It seems a few people do think I am being evil. I say maybe not GOOD but not EVIL either. I am hesitant to bring Thrair into this since he said he will not be posting anymore comments but I think he made my point for me.

Thrair wrote:


Gellos Thran wrote:

Sir Reginald would find, much to his sorrow, that I wield a considerable amount of influence in Magnimar and the city guards would be happy to escort him right out of town for those kinds of antics.

And this a worrying attitude. Someone with noble goals feels you're doing something wrong, and you use your influence to have him removed from the city. Although this seems to have been a hypothetical response, if your character has the general attitude, that smacks of abuse of authority to avoid prosecution.

I apologize up front to Thrair if I am misinterpreting what he means but I take away from this the feeling that he thinks that what I am doing is wrong/evil. My whole point is that while its not nice its not evil either. It is also absolutely what a Lawful Neutral person would do. I would be working within the system to gain my goal (Lawful)while eliminating an obstacle without resorting to truly nasty means.(Neutral) An Lawful Evil character would use his position and influence to have Sir Reginald arrested and the either imprisoned or executed. Chaotic Evil would just hire the local assassins guild to remove his head. While I am not being good in that instance I am not being evil either. That his been my point all along. I may be self serving and I may not be nice but I am not behaving in an evil manner either. That's Neutral. If White=Good and Black=Evil Then Neutral is in a gray area and that's exactly where I am operating.

Dark Archive

Jaelithe wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The problem is that it is also being used to benefit a lot of others. This fact seems to be getting repeatedly overlooked by people in the "it's evil" camp.
It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed as a rationalization. Which it is.
Precisely.

Once again, real life morality does not have any bearing in this case, and doing good in Pathfinder does help to balance out any evil you might do; that's just how the alignment system is. The fact that you might home rule it otherwise in your own campaigns will not change how things work per RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beard wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The problem is that it is also being used to benefit a lot of others. This fact seems to be getting repeatedly overlooked by people in the "it's evil" camp.
It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed as a rationalization. Which it is.
Precisely.
Once again, real life morality does not have any bearing in this case, and doing good in Pathfinder does help to balance out any evil you might do; that's just how the alignment system is. The fact that you might home rule it otherwise in your own campaigns will not change how things work per RAW.

I believe there has been commentary to the effect of "murdering people and then giving gold to charity to assuage your guilt doesn't make you any less evil for being a murderer". At some level your intentions do matter. Good is unarguably good, but doing small acts of good to counter your evil acts doesn't erase them or mean they've been nullified. Especially if you motivation is only to do such, not because you genuinely want to help.

Dark Archive

Claxon wrote:
The Beard wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The problem is that it is also being used to benefit a lot of others. This fact seems to be getting repeatedly overlooked by people in the "it's evil" camp.
It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed as a rationalization. Which it is.
Precisely.
Once again, real life morality does not have any bearing in this case, and doing good in Pathfinder does help to balance out any evil you might do; that's just how the alignment system is. The fact that you might home rule it otherwise in your own campaigns will not change how things work per RAW.
I believe there has been commentary to the effect of "murdering people and then giving gold to charity to assuage your guilt doesn't make you any less evil for being a murderer". At some level your intentions do matter. Good is unarguably good, but doing small acts of good to counter your evil acts doesn't erase them or mean they've been nullified. Especially if you motivation is only to do such, not because you genuinely want to help.

Now that I will agree with. Being able to balance out your evil acts only goes so far. That's why striking up a good balance is such a difficult thing to do in some campaigns.

Dark Archive

Dark Lord Fluffy wrote:

I'm sorry, but could someone please point out the mechanics of these pastries? All I've been able to really confirm is that he has a product that is strongly desirable, made so by magic, but honestly without knowing the effect that's no different then saying they are masterwork. They both are +1 to desirable, one done by raw skill the other done by magic. In a game where magic is common any number of things could be enhanced by magic. They also make people more willing to share information then they normally would.

Let's change the context to an actual bar. I'm not sure how aware lay folk peasants would be about the addictive nature of alcohol, so let's not bring that into it. Is a barkeep who has a side business as an information broker inherently evil? You could argue that people are aware that they have loose tongues when liquored up, but unless these cupcakes are putting a mental whammy on people I imagine that they would remember their indiscretions after eating these pastries and word would get around.

The OP would need to provide a lot more solid information before I jump to mind control muffins vs my previous post outline of events.

You're right that we don't have the specific mechanics of the pastries yet. However, according to the OP, the GM handwaves a certain amount of stuff relating to this scheme for the plot. As such, there may not be a mechanic to examine. So, to your example. If a bartender started using the information he collected, in the course of running his bar, in an information brokering business, I would not, necessarily, consider the bartender evil. As I said in my post, it would depend on what information he sells, to who, and what his overall motives were. If he used his info to out villains, undermine crooks and generally be good, then he's good (see Oracle). If he sells his information to criminals, crooks, assassins and gangs, he's evil (see Calculator). If he sells it indiscriminately, just to make a profit, he's also evil. Getting ahead yourself, and damn the expense, is not neutral.

Pathfinder_PRD wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Good is making sacrifices. Neutral is not causing harm, but not making sacrifices. Evil is causing harm. Selling indiscriminately is causing harm. Ergo, not neutral, evil.


But it is not a question of Good Act A and Evil Act B balancing each other out.

It's Good Result A being one byproduct of Evil Act B.


Again, just chiming in... I reject out of hand the notion that real-world morality bears no relation to the alignment system in Pathfinder. Take a step back. Pathfinder was made to model many aspects of the real world. Yes, there's a lot of fantasy in there. But the onus is on whomever claims that what we consider evil and unlawful in real life is, in fact, nothing of the sort in pathfinder.

Now, I think a much more reasonable claim could be made that the alignment system in Pathfinder should more closely align with morality of medieval to early-modern Europe. Does that change what's good and evil? Sure it does, in many cases. Still, fraud - which is what this pastry business amounts to - is as old as it gets, has always caused problems, and has been dealt with as such.

Again, whether it's Evil or not is one question. Whether it's Lawful or not is another. If the answer to either question is negative, then the paladin has a valid in-game reason to try to get this to stop. If it would get you arrested, there's a good chance it's one or the other. Why not go explain to the king and his guards the nature of the business to test the theory of whether this is behavior to be overlooked by a paladin?

Dark Archive

It appears many of the good acts are intentional, however. Out of character the player might just want to maintain a balance, but in-character, it seems like his spell caster isn't doing things just for "balance." Seems like some of the good acts are done with good intentions, though they are the byproduct of something that could be very slightly evil.


From the initial description on page one, it appeared more that any good was incidental to the greater "magnificent bastard" plan that allowed him to make money and gain informaiton. But this is just my opinion. This is something that the GM will have to resolve, at least in terms of what you alignment really is.

However, the paladin's player is justified in thinking that your actions are evil because he may truly believe as a person that such is the case, even if you don't ping on his radar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, of course one can balance the scales by doing Good. but this mostly only works if either:

Your bad deeds were unintentional, caused by miscalculations or carelessness. For example- chasing down a very BBEG thru the city you unleash a fireball, forgetting where you are. You destroy some property, fry a beggar. Repairing everything, give him a good burial and alms to his family makes up for a lot (maybe even a Raise dead?). Intent is a lot here. The Op's intent is evil or at least not good.

OR

You repent your previously life of evil and wish to atone. But this includes no longer doing evil. The Op continues the evil acts. If this had been done once as a set piece to get info about some evil skullduggery in the city, it could be forgiven and atoned (not to mention fiendishly clever). But it continues.

OP- you mean your friend Nick doesn't even have access to the internet?!?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone thought the problem might be the GM? Over the years I have seen DMs who liked a single idea from a player or just liked a certain player more than others so the game started to revolve around one character at the expense of other characters or players. It is human nature not the end of the world. But if the GM is hand waving how this info system is working it makes it a lot harder to examine.


Asked to my husband. He says: you don't hurt anyone, and give food and money to the poor... You're definitely not evil. You could even be good. But you're definitely not lawful, either. He thinks you're CG.


kodiakbear wrote:
Has anyone thought the problem might be the GM? Over the years I have seen DMs who liked a single idea from a player or just liked a certain player more than others so the game started to revolve around one character at the expense of other characters or players. It is human nature not the end of the world. But if the GM is hand waving how this info system is working it makes it a lot harder to examine.

The thought crossed my mind. But without knowing more I didn't want to be the one to voice it.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
EDIT: What's with so many people saying information brokering is evil? I guess those ladies from the Music Man who sang "Pick A Little" were actually Chaotic Evil rogues? Information brokering is just gossip + money.
The morality of information brokering is going to depend a lot on how it's used, but there's definitely the potential for evil. Stuff like selling a guard rotation schedule to an assassin, letting an evil warlord know about that one weak spot in the city's walls, etc.

Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions. So I don't think he's helping out warlords. ;D

I really don't see how any of this is evil. The "make you more talkative" pastries are dishonest, but no more inherently cruel than selling non-addictive alcohol.

The bottom line is the guy is clearly doing this with good intentions behind his greed. He's not using his power to harm innocents. He's just nosy and manipulative.

This is basically a victimless crime.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:

Again, just chiming in... I reject out of hand the notion that real-world morality bears no relation to the alignment system in Pathfinder. Take a step back. Pathfinder was made to model many aspects of the real world. Yes, there's a lot of fantasy in there. But the onus is on whomever claims that what we consider evil and unlawful in real life is, in fact, nothing of the sort in pathfinder.

That really hasn't been the claim. The charge has actually been the reverse. That alignment is a rather blunt simplistic measure if it's applied to complex real life issues. It's perfectly fine as a game aid which is the context in which this issue should restrict itself to.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions.

What is the road to Hell paved with?


I think a big reason this seems like a problem is that the PC comes off as evil. He describes himself as a spider, is getting crazy rich, and has already wiped out several (evil) competitors.

But not all that is Good seems nice, and while what he's done is a little Magnificent Bastard-ly, not all Magnificent Bastards are evil.


LazarX wrote:
aegrisomnia wrote:

Again, just chiming in... I reject out of hand the notion that real-world morality bears no relation to the alignment system in Pathfinder. Take a step back. Pathfinder was made to model many aspects of the real world. Yes, there's a lot of fantasy in there. But the onus is on whomever claims that what we consider evil and unlawful in real life is, in fact, nothing of the sort in pathfinder.

That really hasn't been the claim. The charge has actually been the reverse. That alignment is a rather blunt simplistic measure if it's applied to complex real life issues. It's perfectly fine as a game aid which is the context in which this issue should restrict itself to.

In general I'd agree, but the claim has in fact been made, repeatedly, in this thread; that's what I was responding to, although I can see where confusion might arise.


Ross Byers wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions.
What is the road to Hell paved with?

That's a bit outta context, y'know. I was saying that to a guy who'd said,

Quote:
The morality of information brokering is going to depend a lot on how it's used, but there's definitely the potential for evil. Stuff like selling a guard rotation schedule to an assassin, letting an evil warlord know about that one weak spot in the city's walls, etc.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
But not all that is Good seems nice, and while what he's done is a little Magnificent Bastard-ly, not all Magnificent Bastards are evil.

I agree he isn't necessarily evil, especially once he explained that most of the treats were just magically enhanced to be tasty (words were simply chosen poorly in the initial example.)

But his overall attitude and justifications make me feel he's still probably evil.


I think the overall attitude ties in with my point about Magnificent Bastards--even if he's not evil, he kinda talks and acts like he is, which is why so many people said he was no good at the start. I don't think that attitude makes him evil, but I do think it makes him a really interesting character to roleplay. What happens when that power corrupts?

Also, something people haven't touched on enough is the reason the other paladin is angry: Potential jealousy over the money being earned.

I suggest you start "finding" jobs for the paladin that let him look awesome and pay well. ;D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions.
What is the road to Hell paved with?

I always thought it was the bodies of the damned.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What I don't understand is why the OP is going through all the trouble. If he describes his character using magic to enhance the taste and quality of his products, then he will have the exact same effect WITHOUT all of the evil stigma or stuck up paladins.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions.
What is the road to Hell paved with?
I always thought it was the bodies of the damned.

Those are the roads in Hell. Whole different contractor.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I think the business itself is probably a bit evil. As someone pointed out earlier, the way that the tobacco industry is kind of evil. However, that to me, doesn't mean that every person who sells cigarettes (or addictive pastries) is irreparably stained with evil. The character's alignment should be taken as the totality of his actions and choices; if this his one evil vice, no worries, Neutral is probably a fine place for him to be. Now, if this is just a symptom of a wider tendency in the day to day choices of the character, evil may be a possibility. I think the karmic goodness of feeding the poor is probably more than canceled out by the fact that you're feeding the poor magic mickeys which make them want to tell you things they otherwise wouldn't, so that really doesn't count towards your tally of "Hey, look at all of the other good stuff I do!". Consider the entire pastry business as net evil and evaluate the rest of your character's actions from there to come up with an accurate gauge.

On a bit of an ancillary note here, I don't think this particular pastry business is particularly lawful either, so everything I said above applies on the lawful/chaotic axis as well.


Of course, the tobacco industry is actively hurting people. This business probably doesn't so much. Like I said, it's a somewhat victimless crime as long as he uses his power wisely.

Also, he said he wasn't giving the poor the "tell me everything" pastries. Even if he was mean enough, it'd be kinda wasteful. ;D


Ross Byers wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, but it sounds like this guy is doing this with good--if somewhat self-serving--intentions.
What is the road to Hell paved with?

Hand-baskets?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course, the tobacco industry is actively hurting people. This business probably doesn't so much. Like I said, it's a somewhat victimless crime as long as he uses his power wisely.

Also, he said he wasn't giving the poor the "tell me everything" pastries. Even if he was mean enough, it'd be kinda wasteful. ;D

People buying cigarettes know what their buying. Comparing what the OP is selling to tobacco and alcohal doesnt work, the pitfalls of tobacco and alcohal are known. You should be comapring what the OP is doing to being roofied since the buyer of the pasty DOESNT KNOW hes buying an enchanted pastry.

Just my opinion on this of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charm is magical roofies.

Liberty's Edge

The Beard wrote:

I think my old party's paladin would've had an aneurysm if they ever succssfully used detect evil on my spell caster. That thing probably did more damage to the world than Aroden's death did to Golarion, and let me assure you, it was all completely intentional. ... But a high bluff score coupled with undetectable alignment, some damn fine acting skills, and working through simulacrums and proxies half the time had that paladin thinking it and the magic user were like two peas in a pod. ... Two lawful good peas in a pod, might I add.

He spawned his own undead nation by sending a swarm of plague zombies into a major city; it snowballed from there to devour several surrounding countries. Never got traced to him. Slowly but surely, this character's actions were decimating the world they lived in. It became a lich right under everyone's noses; still didn't get found out until just before the final battle, and even then he was able to convince them that his "condition" was gained against his will. He whipped around and blasted the entire party with a maximized cone of cold after the boss fell, my lich having used its absurdly high bluff score to convince them his spells were depleted. Bright side? I'll bet they made for some really powerful minions. THIS is evil, this is extreme evil, but overly cerebral evil played with a healthy touch of style.

The OP, on the other hand, probably shouldn't take an alignment hit. But if they do? There are lots of awkwardly simple yet ridiculously effective means of putting off a false alignment reading.

From the guy that say this:

The Beard wrote:
Still sounds to me like the paladin is being the jerk, judging PURELY by what we currently know. It is very possible the OP is in the wrong, yes, but we'll never know without a reply. Still, it's just as possible these actions aren't evil in the GMs campaign. They are allowed to change where the lines are after all. Kind of hoping more information gets posted up. Wouldn't mind hearing from the paladin, honestly.

an this:

The Beard wrote:
People becoming angry OOC that there's an evil PC afoot seems quite indicative of immaturity, I figure.

So essentially you find fun to kill other players PC, bamboozle the players and the characters and then you say that the people playing paladin or disagreeing to play together with playing with evil characters are jerks?


DrDeth wrote:


Some minor petty cash when there's too much downtime. Not a FT occupation that clearly here interferes with adventuring.

Nothing stated so far has 'clearly' interfered with the adventures their party are having.

In fact he has been having information coming in that has been helping with the adventure.

Don't see anything that shows it is interfering at all, except to perhaps excite some roleplay. And something the OP 'thinks' might be jealousy on the part of the Paladin's player outside of the game. Which shouldn't be interfering at all with the adventure. He even stated he has people who run the shop for him. So he doesn't even have to stay in town to continue his business.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:
So essentially you find fun to kill other players PC, bamboozle the players and the characters and then you say that the people playing paladin or disagreeing to play together with playing with evil characters are jerks?

No, I said that getting angry OOC because someone's character happens to ping evil is immature. There is a major contrast between "enjoys killing and bamboozling other PCs/players" and "finds it ridiculous to get angry if someone's PC is evil, especially if it's the kind of evil that isn't harmful to the party, doesn't eat babies, and doesn't burn cities down for lulz."

Plus nobody I played that campaign with had an issue with what was going on. They all understood that it was A.) purely in character and B.) it wasn't screwing up party dynamics at all. I orchestrated things in such a way that the party had someone far worse than the "villain" of the story playing them like fiddles, but their characters weren't actually aware of it. That isn't bamboozling players, that's playing evil with some effin' class. Evil doesn't have to try and bring the world to an end; it also doesn't have to burn cities, kill children, or kick the homeless for existing. It's the intelligent, methodical evil that should really be feared. You do it right, people will enjoy the addition to the story as opposed to finding butthurt in it. In fact, I was even giving some of the extra funds my minions funneled to me to the party so they could better equip themselves for the bumpy road ahead. Suffice to say I was very careful to avoid derailing the campaign--the least little mistake could've screwed it all up, all things considered. Didn't even put the proverbial knife in their backs until the story was at an end.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is interesting to note that I am now convinced that the OP character actions are evil, and who convinced me are mostly the guys that defend his actions and say they aren't evil.
The lengths to which they had to go to justify his actions have convinced me that those actions are evil.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting to note that I am now convinced that the OP character actions are evil, and who convinced me are mostly the guys that defend his actions and say they aren't evil.

The lengths to which they had to go to justify his actions have convinced me that those actions are evil.

Because thinking it's okay to play evil characters invalidates our opinions; also mildly altering free will (which is a lawful thing to do) in order to gain information that you don't actively blackmail people with is a terrible, awful thing deserving of your soul falling to the plane of Abaddon. By this logic it is safe to assume that almost no one on these forums are qualified to respond to any posts.

Liberty's Edge

The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting to note that I am now convinced that the OP character actions are evil, and who convinced me are mostly the guys that defend his actions and say they aren't evil.

The lengths to which they had to go to justify his actions have convinced me that those actions are evil.
Because thinking it's okay to play evil characters invalidates our opinions; also mildly altering free will (which is a lawful thing to do) in order to gain information that you don't actively blackmail people with is a terrible, awful thing deserving of your soul falling to the plane of Abaddon. By this logic it is safe to assume that almost no one on these forums are qualified to respond to any posts.

A "bit" defensive and out of target.

1) "Because thinking it's okay to play evil characters invalidates our opinions;"
Actually I didn't say anything about the people that say that his action are evil and more power to him. I spoke of those saying "no, his actions are not evil or even good"

2) "also mildly altering free will (which is a lawful thing to do)", Lawful, maybe, good, not at all, nor neutralwhen done for selfish reasons. Evidently we have big differences in our evaluation of the right to free will

3) "in order to gain information that you don't actively blackmail people"; he blackmail people, he don't blackmail people that he feel don't "merit" it

4) "is a terrible, awful thing deserving of your soul falling to the plane of Abaddon"; hyperbole, you have a reasonable argument?

5) "By this logic it is safe to assume that almost no one on these forums are qualified to respond to any posts."; and you really have to explain what you mean with this.


The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting to note that I am now convinced that the OP character actions are evil, and who convinced me are mostly the guys that defend his actions and say they aren't evil.

The lengths to which they had to go to justify his actions have convinced me that those actions are evil.
Because thinking it's okay to play evil characters invalidates our opinions;

Nah. It could be that that side of the debate just has generally craptastic arguments. It happens.

(Not that I have an opinion either way, but your response was hilariously defensive and, well... poorly argued!)

Dark Archive

The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


5) "By this logic it is safe to assume that almost no one on these forums are qualified to respond to any posts."; and you really have to explain what you mean with this.

Context; it's a very simple matter of picking this out. You have displayed a propensity for unfavorable reactions to people whose characters may be evil or do evil things, as well as those players that condone such activities. Your attempted personal attack on me earlier was only one such instance of this, as many others are present throughout the various forums. Reading between the lines is not something difficult; you should veil things a little better. In any case, this line of conversation isn't going to help the subject of the thread.

The point of my hyperbole was to illustrate something, though I was a bit too laid back in my exaggeration in hindsight. My point is that there is nothing wrong with disguised evil in a good campaign so long as it doesn't interfere with party dynamics, there is nothing wrong with protecting yourself by maintaining an information web, and there's definitely nothing wrong with good old selfishness. To be selfish is not to be evil; selfish is the very definition of neutrality. You do what you have to do to look out for you and yours; the rest of the world can burn for all you care.

Arnwyn wrote:
The Beard wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It is interesting to note that I am now convinced that the OP character actions are evil, and who convinced me are mostly the guys that defend his actions and say they aren't evil.

The lengths to which they had to go to justify his actions have convinced me that those actions are evil.
Because thinking it's okay to play evil characters invalidates our opinions;

Nah. It could be that that side of the debate just has generally craptastic arguments. It happens.

(Not that I have an opinion either way, but your response was hilariously defensive and, well... poorly argued!)

There have been several valid arguments for both sides posted throughout this thread; that is the general consensus. As for your personal opinion regarding my reaction, we'll just leave that one to settle in the dust. My observations regarding how players that condone evil actions get treated by some on these forums have been well documented not just in this thread, but in other threads as well. I am far from the only person to notice these things--there are a growing number of individuals acknowledging it. That's the last I will say of it.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people take a very hardline stance against anything that falls in the "gray area." Why can't people just leave it at that? The game stops being fun when everything is in black and white. Yeah, the OP's whole schtick might be evil to some extent, but is it really worth an alignment shift?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course, the tobacco industry is actively hurting people. This business probably doesn't so much. Like I said, it's a somewhat victimless crime as long as he uses his power wisely.

Also, he said he wasn't giving the poor the "tell me everything" pastries. Even if he was mean enough, it'd be kinda wasteful. ;D

People buying cigarettes know what their buying. Comparing what the OP is selling to tobacco and alcohal doesnt work, the pitfalls of tobacco and alcohal are known. You should be comapring what the OP is doing to being roofied since the buyer of the pasty DOESNT KNOW hes buying an enchanted pastry.

Just my opinion on this of course.

Seconding this.

The alcohol comparison really doesn't work because people know what alcohol's effects are when they purchase it. It's all about informed consent; people who go into a bar to buy and consume alcohol know more-or-less what's going to happen when they start drinking, and have accepted that outcome. Going into a bar and buying alcohol contains an implicit acceptance of the fact that you will get drunk, and all that comes with it.

Pastries, by contrast, normally don't include mind control magic. There is no informed consent.

Let's go back to the standard I suggested earlier: comparing the the ethics of magic to mundane means of accomplishing the same goal. How would people react if the thread was about a rogue selling drug-laced pastries that made the goods mildly addictive and contained some truth serum. I imagine the response would be a lot more negative.


Sushewakka wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
He specifically said in the OP his pastries aren't addictive.

I read the original post.

Gellos Tharn wrote:
I'm not talking about a drug addiction kind of thing. It's more like they walk down the street and see the bake shop and say "I know the wife wants me to loose a few pounds but their pastries are SO GOOD! Just one won't hurt".
Thesaurus wrote:
2. -- addiction - an abnormally strong craving
He's pretty much defined addiction in his justification it's not addiction.

I don't call Cinnabon an addiction. But I usually cave and have some when I see one. But I don't wake in the morning, craving it every day and shaking and going through withdrawals if I don't have one for 6 months.

Just saying. There is more than just a craving that goes with a true addiction. As in you have difficulty functioning if you don't have something.

Dark Archive

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Let's go back to the standard I suggested earlier: comparing the the ethics of magic to mundane means of accomplishing the same goal. How would people react if the thread was about a rogue selling drug-laced pastries that made the goods mildly addictive and contained some truth serum. I imagine the response would be a lot more negative.

That does seem fair might evil to me, though there's a big contrast between making you like pastries way too much and getting you fully addicted to them to the point of not being able to resist. I'm still inclined to say the OP's deal falls into a moral gray area, possibly erring more towards evil than neutral, but not deserving of an alignment shift at this time. There are too many other things happening to help mitigate it a little bit.


Very well since people are resorting to hyperbole I shall give an irrefutable reason as to why he is the moat Evil of evil beings. When he told us about the other information broker who tried to eliminate him he didn't mention the name of his employee who was killed and replaced. In fact I'll bet he doesn't even know their name much less arranged a proper funeral or offered support to his widow and 12 kids.


Ross Byers wrote:
Gellos Thran wrote:
It's ok to subvert someone's will for your benefit in one instance but not another?

Kinda. Subverting free will is a harm, the same way stabbing someone is a harm. Charm person is not [Evil] for the same reason fireball isn't: there is a time and a place.

The onus is on the user to ensure that they're using the effect to make the world a better place: that the lesser harm is justified by a greater good.

Indiscriminately drugging or charming the populace into giving you money and information is probably an Evil act. But that doesn't mean your character is Evil, because you may do Good things with that information.

I feel a world where the murdering of intelligent beings is considered good because the intelligent beings being murdered are belonging to a race of intelligent beings that have a reputation of murdering other intelligent beings, whether they actually have or not, because the intelligent beings killing the 'bad' intelligent beings is doing so for money (mercenaries) typically or because some mysterious stranger/god/deity/lord/king/friend asked them to do it.

But it's not okay to make people like Cinnabon pastries a little more than normal because the net result is good?

Isn't that pretty much what Neutral Good is? The ends justify the means and such? Well maybe Chaotic Good. Whichever.

And blowing people to cinders with a fireball because they are attacking you is self defense and not considered evil typically.

Blowing people to cinders with a fireball because they are defending themselves from you violent home invasion, is a little bit evil. At least to me. Good/Evil are pretty loose in relation to what we would consider as Good/Evil in our world.


Claxon wrote:
Charm is magical roofies.

This.

The OP is setting the City up for a date rape.

But the problem here is, i think the way the GM handels the thing.
This is a thing that is funny to do in a game but if it dosent Fall apart with a big crash and an angry mob it is a GM Fail.

Dark Archive

Cap. Darling wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Charm is magical roofies.

This.

The OP is setting the City up for a date rape.

But the problem here is, i think the way the GM handels the thing.
This is a thing that is funny to do in a game but if it dosent Fall apart with a big crash and an angry mob it is a GM Fail.

That or a particularly intelligent spell caster. Rewarding intelligence is part of the GM's job description, after all. Just uh.... yeah. Roofies. Somebody's bound to catch on eventually.


Sloanzilla wrote:

I'm going to triple down on the argument that it being "for the greater good" is a rationalization.

I'm still in the "it's evil" camp, but the argument that it is not significantly different than numerous other "not evil" actions such as charm person is a good one.

I also disagree with the statement that lots of little evil does not add up. In fact, lots of little evil implies a deliberate decision to do evil over a long period of time, which I believe to be very much as significant as one evil act of the moment.

Cool character concept, either way. I also don't fault the paladin for disliking it. Sounds like everyone is roleplaying well, and either an alignment switch or lack-of-alignment switch could be defended. (Though I still vote evil!)

We must slay this entire village of orcs! For the greater good!

We must destroy this forest because to many bandits live there! For the Greater Good!

That man stole my coin purse, I will shoot him in the back with my longbow and murder him! FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

Those terribly poor individuals in town are part of the thieves guild and are EVIL! I don't care that they are probably poor people with nowhere else to turn, it's FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

Nothings black and white. And neutral definitely is not black and white. At best grey. Seems to be what he is describing.

Slaughtering people is evil. Even if they are orcs. When is the last time any peaceful reconciliation with a tribe or orcs has ever been attempted by a group of adventurers? It's probably happened, but I'll bet good money it's attempted less than 1% of the time. People go straight for the planning of how to assault and destroy the village, not how we could try to come to a peaceful resolution. Theft is evil, but killing him because he stole something isn't?

Neutral is Neutral. Not mostly Evil. Not mostly Good. Somewhere in between. I think everything he is describing is what Neutral really is. Evil things mixed with Good things.

If anything I wouldn't say he is exactly Lawful. Maybe True Neutral instead.

251 to 300 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment Shift...Because of Pastry!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.