Alright, I'm not claiming to be an expert on roofies, but from what I've heard (and read online) they appear to be muscle relaxants. They also interfere with cognition, which is notably different than what the OP has described.
@jacob, yes diplomacy works that way. But if you combine it with bluff and a disguise they could think you are their friend and tell you stuff they wouldnt if they knew who you ate. It's just like charm person only more time consuming.
@ others, drugs and spells are not the same thing. Standing in a store casting charm person isn't evil (might get you arrested though); using disguises and skills on everyone who comes in to get information isn't evil (but its time consuming); giving people cupcakes that does the same thing isn't evil.
I am not arguing about what he does with the information, I'm arguing about how he gets the information.
You said he is deceiving people to get information, so he's evil. How is that deception different than the disguise/bluff/diplomacy above?
We've got one side of the story - the spies - and it sounds dubious to me. I'm betting with another side of the story, that of those being persuaded (or worse) or that of those being spied upon, it would sound worse. I'm not certain enough to convict but it seems likely to be evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@jacob, yes diplomacy works that way. But if you combine it with bluff and a disguise they could think you are their friend and tell you stuff they wouldnt if they knew who you ate. It's just like charm person only more time consuming.
Unintentionally hilarious.
Ok maybe an actual example will help. You are a bard and there is a suspected evil agency planning to invade (murder/pillage/rape etc). You have previously captured one of the higher ups. You study his mannerisms, don a cap of disguise and just outside cast glibness. You go in and find out everyone who is involved (through numerous deceptions and lies/diplomacy) without them ever finding out that you aren't who you seem to be.
They lose the choice to not tell you by virtue of not knowing who you really are. They would happily tell who you are pretending to be, not who you actually are.
So, he's evil by your standards?
Look, it's okay to fireball the evil dragon that's terrorizing the country, so clearly fire isn't evil. Don't come here saying fireballing the orphanage is evil! DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!!11one
The person your making a dipolmacy check on is aware of what your doing, since its face to face and not a pie roofie. To me that makes a big difference.
Diplomacy you just convince the fellow to tell you whats up. They're aware of what your doing and your motives for doing such. You're using magic to alter their very mind to suit your desires. If the spell simply made you more convincing and was cast on yourself then there would be no problems. But as it is, you are altering other people's minds without their knowledge for your own gain.
I understand what both of you are saying with this but I have a slightly different point of view on this. If you use diplomacy to gather information the person you are talking to may or may not know what you are doing to them. If you don't believe that someone can unknowingly say things without realizing they are being interrogated just ask some of the married men that might be reading this how often they have "talked" themselves into trouble with their wife without even realizing what they were doing before it was to late. Chances are, no magical food was involved. As a wizard, I can't afford to invest tons of skill points into diplomacy so I cover that by using magic instead.
I still dont see a build on how this is done.
Skill check?
"posion"?
?
A neutral character doesn't always need to be good but I can't see someone continuously and callously selling information that could ruin lives because it doesn't affect them specifically as being neutral. He's not on a mission (good), its not for some specific goal or cause (neutral) its solely a fishing expedition to increase his power and profits (evil)
As others said diplomacy is words, something their aware of and a dedicated person can still say "your my best friend but I can't tell you this." Whereas you've said your magic makes them more talkative and honest than they would normally be.
At what point did I ever say I ruined anyone's life? Also, your criteria for good and neutral sound like the same thing. A specific cause or goal is basically a mission. Once again not good equals evil. I think you misunderstand how a diplomacy check works. It's to get you to tell me something you don't necessarily want to tell me. Otherwise there is no point to the skill. The person in question would just answer anything you asked. FYI, a skilled interrogator (high diplomacy skill) can get people to admit to or talk about all kinds of things that they wouldn't normally even mention.
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.
This quote right here told me far more about his character than the rest of his passage.
What would that be? That in a situation where another person sets themselves up as a problem/threat to me I choose to use a minimum of force to end the problem as non violently as possible? How evil of me!
Like I said I'm not arguing about what he does with the information, I'm arguing how he gets it. Pastry vs my example aren't very different results or in how the information is gathered. Actually you could add a third one as being similar enough; casting charm person/memory lapse to get information.
In all three cases the target is deceived. In all three cases the target unknowingly tells a stranger things they otherwise wouldn't.
You may not be "altering their minds" but you are altering their perception which essentially robs them of choices. They see you as someone that you aren't and tell you things they ordinarily wouldn't so you point out the difference.
@aegrismonia; that could be the case, a difference in belief systems. I don't believe wrong= evil. It's wrong to lie and deceive, but not evil to do so (imo).
|
...and yes, the group's paladin is not an imbecile pain in the ass for trying to (at least) warn that PC to back off
STEP 1: back off! (either you back off or you become ten times more careful or scale back the scope of that operation; if not pally goes to STEP 2)
STEP 2: you're coming with me pal! (either you fight him, escape or force feed him one of your mind-controlling doughnuts...)
...As things stand right now, I am having a bit of a conflict with our parties Paladin who is trying to convince the GM that my alignment should shift from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil. Allow me to give a little background as to how this conflict has arisen.
I am playing a 9th level wizard based in and around Magnimar. I learned (for me at least) a long time ago that the best characters are not the ones with the maxed out stats but the ones designed around a good concept or theme. As such, I have been working several angles with this character since I first started playing him. Very early on I took baking as a profession and put a few points into Craft: Baked Goods. That got a few funny looks from the other players. When the party started to acquire some treasure I bought a small one room building and set it up as a bake shop. These days the gold just flows into my pockets. Not because of the bakery itself (I don't think it even makes a profit) but because of what I do with it.
I have hired a man and his wife to work for me and for the most part they just bake and sell my wares. I do routinely place various enchantments and whatnot on most of the baked goods. Most of them are pretty harmless. They just make the patron want more. I'm not talking about a drug addiction kind of thing. The last thing I want is people stabbing each other in back alleys because they are desperate for a doughnut. 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". A slightly less benign spell makes the patron a little more chatty (and truthful)than they might want to be. These are usually given to town guards and other notable passersby for free. A lot of my goods are given away to the poor. Many times along with small amounts of coin. Between the enchantments and the charity everyone from the highest noble to the lowest urchin tells me all the secrets worth knowing in town.
Exactly how did you come to the conclusion the paladin is lawful stupid when we have not heard of a single thing the paladin has ever done? The only thing mentioned was the Player asked the DM was this evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A neutral character doesn't always need to be good but I can't see someone continuously and callously selling information that could ruin lives because it doesn't affect them specifically as being neutral. He's not on a mission (good), its not for some specific goal or cause (neutral) its solely a fishing expedition to increase his power and profits (evil)
As others said diplomacy is words, something their aware of and a dedicated person can still say "your my best friend but I can't tell you this." Whereas you've said your magic makes them more talkative and honest than they would normally be.
At what point did I ever say I ruined anyone's life? Also, your criteria for good and neutral sound like the same thing. A specific cause or goal is basically a mission. Once again not good equals evil. I think you misunderstand how a diplomacy check works. It's to get you to tell me something you don't necessarily want to tell me. Otherwise there is no point to the skill. The person in question would just answer anything you asked. FYI, a skilled interrogator (high diplomacy skill) can get people to admit to or talk about all kinds of things that they wouldn't normally even mention.
What would that be? That in a situation where another person sets themselves up as a problem/threat to me I choose to use a minimum of force to end the problem as non violently as possible? How evil of me!
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.
This quote right here told me far more about his character than the rest of his passage.
You seem to be under the impression that neutral doesn't care if they do good or evil. That sounds evil to me. Neutral wouldn't feel compelled to do good but should still be against doing evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@scavion you say that you can't compare this to diplomacy because the other person knows what you are up to, but that's not necessarily the case. With diplomacy, bluff, a hat of disguise, and glibness you can get MOUNTAINS of information without the person that you are talking to knowing what he's doing or who he's talking to. Using the above you could get all of the information that the OP is getting but you can't possibly say that its evil, its just cunning. But magic is involved and its instant so its evil.
So someone disguises themselves as a confidante of the target, a spouse, a religious confessor, a therapist, a lawyer, etc. then uses that position of trust to gain confidential information.
Yeah, I'd say that is fairly immoral as well.
Could be done for a good cause and have the good outweigh the bad but the method involves a big abuse of trust and generally will be immoral.
A neutral character doesn't always need to be good but I can't see someone continuously and callously selling information that could ruin lives because it doesn't affect them specifically as being neutral. He's not on a mission (good), its not for some specific goal or cause (neutral) its solely a fishing expedition to increase his power and profits (evil)
As others said diplomacy is words, something their aware of and a dedicated person can still say "your my best friend but I can't tell you this." Whereas you've said your magic makes them more talkative and honest than they would normally be.
At what point did I ever say I ruined anyone's life? Also, your criteria for good and neutral sound like the same thing. A specific cause or goal is basically a mission. Once again not good equals evil. I think you misunderstand how a diplomacy check works. It's to get you to tell me something you don't necessarily want to tell me. Otherwise there is no point to the skill. The person in question would just answer anything you asked. FYI, a skilled interrogator (high diplomacy skill) can get people to admit to or talk about all kinds of things that they wouldn't normally even mention.
What would that be? That in a situation where another person sets themselves up as a problem/threat to me I choose to use a minimum of force to end the problem as non violently as possible? How evil of me!
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.
This quote right here told me far more about his character than the rest of his passage.
Incredibly. You have used your influential power to squash dissent in a very Lawful Evil manner. Someone wanted to do an investigation and you had them removed.
GEE, I wonder why you would want to keep it a secret?
Like I said I'm not arguing about what he does with the information, I'm arguing how he gets it. Pastry vs my example aren't very different results or in how the information is gathered. Actually you could add a third one as being similar enough; casting charm person/memory lapse to get information.
In all three cases the target is deceived. In all three cases the target unknowingly tells a stranger things they otherwise wouldn't.
You may not be "altering their minds" but you are altering their perception which essentially robs them of choices. They see you as someone that you aren't and tell you things they ordinarily wouldn't so you point out the difference.
Sure, addictive magical loquaciousness compulsion pastry, diplomacy combined with deception and abuse of trust, and charm person with magical roofie, all seem generally immoral.
So what about invisible and well all illusion spells. People trust that what they see is real and you are abusing that faith by creating illusions. People trust that there aren't invisible people around, you could hear all manner of personal things by being invisible. By your definition all illusions are evil
Edit: i can't help but think about when people used to stand in a long line and shoot at each other. People who didn't do it were bad because they were smart enough not to stand there and get shot
Godamnit, no.
This analogy has been made several times already: Illusions, charm spells, shooting lightning bolts from your hands.
None of these are innately evil.
But they can all be used to DO evil.
It looks like what is going on is the rule of cool overiding RAW...or RAI.
If paladin player is asking, you might want to flesh out the mechanics of how this is being done.
Which i have asked 3 times, and at least one other person has asked.
(and if i missed it, i apologize)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like we have three main schools of thought here;
1. What a cool idea- but it’s kinda evil (me)
2. It’s really evil
3. Paladins are dicks so if he’s against it, I am in favor.
So, let us take the hypothetical. I gots me a Pally who has a relic that does Dominate at Will. I wander around town, Dominating every townsfolk I come upon. If their sins are many and evil, I order them to turn themselves in. If their sins are few and petty, I order them to donate 10% of the funds to the Church or else I’ll rat them out.
The paladin is doing nothing but Good here, no? He has no personal gain, evil doers are stopped and the widows & orphan fund is full.
@ross the above post says "diplomacy mixed with deception and abuse of trust is evil. I was asking him where exactly does he draw the line. Being invisible and standing in the enemy base (or the right bar) can net you mountains of information, so can crafty uses of illusion spells.
Are you saying people expect others to be invisible so its ok? By casting invisible you are choosing to deceive everyone who would have otherwise sen you, thus betraying there trust in the room being empty. This way is even more "evil" because you don't even have to interact with them to get information
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what about invisible and well all illusion spells. People trust that what they see is real and you are abusing that faith by creating illusions. People trust that there aren't invisible people around, you could hear all manner of personal things by being invisible. By your definition all illusions are evil
Edit: i can't help but think about when people used to stand in a long line and shoot at each other. People who didn't do it were bad because they were smart enough not to stand there and get shot
Invisibility can be analogous but its a bigger stretch.
Using invisibility to hang out and eavesdrop while spouses' talk in confidence, or patients talk to their therapists, or people talk to their lawyers is generally an immoral invasion of privacy.
Ninjas have their uses but invisibility opens up a lot of potential for immoral abuses.
@ross the above post says "diplomacy mixed with deception and abuse of trust is evil. I was asking him where exactly does he draw the line. Being invisible and standing in the enemy base (or the right bar) can net you mountains of information, so can crafty uses of illusion spells.
Are you saying people expect others to be invisible so its ok? By casting invisible you are choosing to deceive everyone who would have otherwise sen you, thus betraying there trust in the room being empty. This way is even more "evil" because you don't even have to interact with them to get information
If you are referring to my post you are using your terms incorrectly.
I said it is immoral, not evil. You made the distinction that while you think deception is wrong you don't think wrong = evil.
Under pathfinder evil it is generally associated with hurting, oppressing and killing.
Good Versus EvilGood 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.
There is room for debating whether there are immoral abuses of trust that are wrong but do not cross over into debasing, hurting or oppressing.
Would you go to this bakery if you knew the pastries were ensorcelled to make you want more, and make you want to reveal your secrets which the owner would then either blackmail or sell to an information broker?
I don't think anyone would willingly use this establishment if this was common knowledge.
No one has said this is a good act, or at least, very few people have. The majority have ruled that it is either evil or neutral.
We have also not heard from the opposing players. We've been told instead, that at least one player involved has no internet and is therefore unable to respond.
I do not find this likely, but I do not know their situation or the situation of the other players. It surprises me that no one from this gaming group, including the DM, has internet except the OP.
That none of them apparently do potentially leads to the assumption that the OP would not like them seeing this thread. The OP set a specific tone when they went online and accused a game mate in open, negative terms and then chose ridiculing language to describe the situation ("a pastry?!").
This is a player issue and it needs handled that way. Unfortunately, we can't really give advice without knowing more than one side of it.
Argue alignment, sure, but anyone can do that, you know?
That's been my arguement the whole time; just because its wrong doesn't mean that its evil. Is is wrong and possibly illegal? Yes. Is it evil, not so much (imo)
That's been my arguement the whole time; just because its wrong doesn't mean that its evil. Is is wrong and possibly illegal? Yes. Is it evil, not so much (imo)
There is definitely room to argue though that he is debasing, hurting, and oppressing people and therefore evil.
He is taking people's secrets and selling them to those who will pay. I expect hurting and debasing as a natural consequence of the selling of these secrets and therefore he can be considered evil under Pathfinder alignment definitions.
You can't fight evil without hurting them. Use my bard example from above. He gives that information to the guard and those bad guys are in for some serious hurt (and probably getting debased and oppressed in prison.) And again I'm not saying HE isn't evil or judging what he did with the information, I'm talking about the information acquisition.
You can't fight evil without hurting them. Use my bard example from above. He gives that information to the guard and those bad guys are in for some serious hurt (and probably getting debased and oppressed in prison.) And again I'm not saying HE isn't evil or judging what he did with the information, I'm talking about the information acquisition.
I agree that by definition implied Pathfinder evil is done by good guys to fight evil. A paladin hurts and kills others to smite evil.
For your bard example, as I said before, ninjas have their uses. Sending in a spy to get info on bad guys is morally different than spying on tons of people to get valuable info to sell at their expense. One is using deception to try to do good and stop bad guys. The other is using deception solely to profit regardless of likely negative evil conequences to others.
That's been my arguement the whole time; just because its wrong doesn't mean that its evil. Is is wrong and possibly illegal? Yes. Is it evil, not so much (imo)
What are you defining as evil in Pathfinder?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider this evil. It's just very slimy. It's petty corruption that probably does no harm to those involved, but it does damage civic trust, encourage gossip mongering and lays a strong foundation for future compromises that could germinate into true evil. The paladin is right to be concerned: he's got a Ferengi for a party-mate.
That said, morally gray situations like these make for some great roleplay, as long as the players focus their discussions in-game and don't press too hard on the DM to prove them objectively correct. What's more interesting than what the DM says out of game is how the NPCs react when one or two of them discover the enchantment.
You can't fight evil without hurting them.
Sure, but the Op also hurts non-evil innocent townspeople. That is one of the definitions of 'evil".
You're both totally right.
Which is why I just think it's somewhat similar.
Keep in mind we wouldn't in a million years accuse a bartender of being evil, despite alcohol being harmful. Nor would we accuse a gossiping old lady of the same. We wouldn't even demand an alignment hit.
So what's going on here isn't what he's selling, since the substance itself is harmless. It's not like it's mind-raping them or anything. Nor is the problem the information brokering itself--after all, that depends on who's doing it. If the spider is only selling the secrets of criminals (and using the secrets of guards to dish out vigilante justice) then the only victims are people who deserved it.
So the sole problem is the dishonesty. Which is why I can't buy this being Evil.
Dishonesty?
Not the whole tricking people into eating your magic roofie pies so they'll divulge important information to you that they otherwise wouldn't have? And that they'll be compelled to come back and have more? That definitely sounds a little mind rapey to me. It's just more subtle than complete domination. It forces you to want to...
I did address all that stuff, actually. Like we said, it's not mind-raping. It's effectively getting these people drunk, except it only applies to what they say.
and the OP has never confirmed or rejected either claim.
Actually, he confirmed that there were two spell effects at play: One on some pastries that made people more talkative, and one that made all the pastries taste really, really good.
Huh. When I put it like that...basically, he's selling pot brownies without telling people they're pot brownies. ;D
I think it is no more wrong to 'drug' people or in this case enchant people since he is using magic on his pastries as it is to use charm person on the town guards when you are caught picking a pocket.You're right.
They're both evil.
Okay, so by this logic, when is Charm Person allowed? I mean, the way you're talking, it's an inherently cruel (i.e. Evil) spell that should only be used in dire circumstances. Y'know, like the spells with Evil descriptors. Using Charm Person on a guard is evil but hitting him with a Daze Monster or knocking him unconscious wouldn't be?
I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect here. Is the spell inherently evil, or is the way it's being used evil? We need to decide so people will stop focusing on one problem or the other. Is the "mind rape" the problem, or is it how he uses what he gains from an otherwise non-evil compulsion?
Sure, but the Op also hurts non-evil innocent townspeople. That is one of the definitions of 'evil".
How does he hurt them? We have no evidence he uses the information they give him unless he has reason to believe they aren't innocent.
To use the pot brownie comparison, this could be the equivalent of a detective giving people the brownies so he can work out if they committed a murder. Invasion of privacy? Sure. Evil? That's a stretch. The most hurt the innocent will suffer is a case of the munchies afterwards.
I don't consider this evil. It's just very slimy. It's petty corruption that probably does no harm to those involved, but it does damage civic trust, encourage gossip mongering and lays a strong foundation for future compromises that could germinate into true evil. The paladin is right to be concerned: he's got a Ferengi for a party-mate.
That said, morally gray situations like these make for some great roleplay, as long as the players focus their discussions in-game and don't press too hard on the DM to prove them objectively correct. What's more interesting than what the DM says out of game is how the NPCs react when one or two of them discover the enchantment.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Selk.
Who here's seen Miracle On 34th Street? Remember the scene where the mother's friend gets his wife drunk so she'll agree to let Santa Claus stay at their place? The friend was a pretty "slimy" guy, but it'd be pretty harsh to call him evil.
I mean, let's take another test for whether this is evil or not. Imagine writing down all your in-game plans, weaknesses, secrets, etc. Would you freely give this to others? If you discovered it had been taken, would you feel wronged, or be concerned about your well-being? If you discovered that the inn you went to did what you're doing, how would you respond?
That's not a test for evil, that's a test for douchebag.
Morality is objective in the game world
Everybody says this, but I've seen enough paladin threads to know it's goblin droppings.
Eh, there's not really a big majority either way. I think my side's winning, you think yours is.
However, since neither side is going to actually win, here's what I propose: OP, talk to the GM, raising the points that have been raised here in your defense. Make as good a case as possible, then accept his decision. Don't argue once he's decided.
Keep in mind that being evil is not going to change how you play your PC. PC determines alignment, always. Just start casting undetectable alignment regularly, keep doing what you're doing, and let the paladin complain. Keep that paladin on your radar.
See, the paladin's (maybe) envious player has forced your character to be classified as evil. If things get too difficult for you, keep that in mind when deciding how to handle this nosy knight. ;D