| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In what way could forced sacrifice ever be conceived of as "neutral"?
No - We do not know that Altruism and self-sacrifice have been ubiquitous across societies as a valued belief. You take a small sample of beliefs across a narrow swath of history (for example, tell me what the Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, Abysissians, Old Kingdom Eygptians felt about altruism and self sacrifice based upon their own recorded beliefs) Tell me what the Vikings, Goths, Mongols felt about these topics.I wouldn't necessarily label any of these societies as "good" either. Slavery, forced human sacrifice, pillaging... nope, most of these are pretty evil or neutral at best.
I never said that past societies were "good" - whatever that means. I'm saying that past societies recognized altruism and sacrifice as good. This includes the ancient civilizations of South America (I've personally been on Mayan digs in Belize). And it applies to civilizations of the Middle East, the Far East, Vikings, Mongols, and anywhere else that people were gathered in a civilization.
Don't believe the more salacious and gaudy aspects of history as a reflection of a civilization. Just because there are TV shows about rabid Viking pillagers doesn't change the fact that Norse society was, at large, a peaceful agrarian civilization.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know those rules threads that come up now and then where someone is saying something like "you can't do such-and-such when wielding a buckler because real-life bucklers were used this other way instead of how the CRB describes them and I know because I make period bucklers for Renaissance Festivals"?
Alignment threads are like that, but with less rules emphasis.
The Aztecs were by and large a peaceful agrarian civilization as well, but they occationally cut the hearts out of POWs and rolled the severed heads of children down their temple steps.No - We do not know that Altruism and self-sacrifice have been ubiquitous across societies as a valued belief. You take a small sample of beliefs across a narrow swath of history (for example, tell me what the Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, Abysissians, Old Kingdom Eygptians felt about altruism and self sacrifice based upon their own recorded beliefs) Tell me what the Vikings, Goths, Mongols felt about these topics.I wouldn't necessarily label any of these societies as "good" either. Slavery, forced human sacrifice, pillaging... nope, most of these are pretty evil or neutral at best.I never said that past societies were "good" - whatever that means. I'm saying that past societies recognized altruism and sacrifice as good. This includes the ancient civilizations of South America (I've personally been on Mayan digs in Belize). And it applies to civilizations of the Middle East, the Far East, Vikings, Mongols, and anywhere else that people were gathered in a civilization.
Don't believe the more salacious and gaudy aspects of history as a reflection of a civilization. Just because there are TV shows about rabid Viking pillagers doesn't change the fact that Norse society was, at large, a peaceful agrarian civilization.
You use the word "they" in a way that doesn't make sense. All Aztecs didn't perform the Sun ritual. In fact, 90% of Aztec society were busy in villages living daily life and weren't aware of what was being done in Tenochtitlan.
In much the same vein, I'm not personally evil if an official I didn't elect decides to attack a country that I don't hate.
You can't cast Detect Good on a society. Personal Good/Evil is what the thread is about. In particular, how it is "hard" to be personally Good (with a capital G). How it is much easier to be Neutral or Evil than to go out of the way to consistently do the Good thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hell as described in Dante's Inferno
Man, one of these days I need to write a book that describes something I made up myself, use terminology and imagery stolen from a major world religion, and see if I can get non-members of that religion to think my book represents actual canon of that religion.
Hell as described in Dante's InfernoMan, one of these days I need to write a book that describes something I made up myself, use terminology and imagery stolen from a major world religion, and see if I can get non-members of that religion to think my book represents actual canon of that religion.
Are you describing the bible?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Are you describing the bible?Hell as described in Dante's InfernoMan, one of these days I need to write a book that describes something I made up myself, use terminology and imagery stolen from a major world religion, and see if I can get non-members of that religion to think my book represents actual canon of that religion.
I'm guessing you're making a jab based on the first half of my post, but my main point was actually the second half.
Anyone who thinks the main difference between good and evil is which set of outsiders you're likely to find yourself fighting does not understand alignment.
You misunderstand what I'm attempting to say. For normal, non-adventuring people, any given alignment is pretty easy to maintain. Small, day-to-day acts add up to a particular alignment for better or for worse. It's when you get to adventurers, warriors, etc, so forth that alignment starts involving blood and struggle and strife on a regular basis and becomes genuinely difficult.
Isolda the Inkeeper might be NG, but she's not obligated to try and fight off a red dragon. She has no power to do so! An adventurer, on the other hand, has such power and now faces the somewhat difficult choice between letting innocents get harmed vs. potentially becoming dragon chow.
Isolda the Inkeeper might be NG, but she's not obligated to try and fight off a red dragon. She has no power to do so!She should go play the martyr anyway and become Saint Isolde, patron saint of dragon-fighting barmaids.
...Is it bad that my first thought was a devout Magus who took up this saint as her patron, having witnessed her mother's heroism in defeating bandits at their roadside inn?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Anyone who thinks the main difference between good and evil is which set of outsiders you're likely to find yourself fighting does not understand alignment.You misunderstand what I'm attempting to say. For normal, non-adventuring people, any given alignment is pretty easy to maintain. Small, day-to-day acts add up to a particular alignment for better or for worse. It's when you get to adventurers, warriors, etc, so forth that alignment starts involving blood and struggle and strife on a regular basis and becomes genuinely difficult.
Isolda the Inkeeper might be NG, but she's not obligated to try and fight off a red dragon. She has no power to do so! An adventurer, on the other hand, has such power and now faces the somewhat difficult choice between letting innocents get harmed vs. potentially becoming dragon chow.
The Core Rulebook's definition of the good alignment does not distinguish by scale. To be good, you've got to be the kind of person who makes personal sacrifices for others. It doesn't say it has to be a sacrifice of physical safety, just a sacrifice; could be time, money, effort, whatever.
And sacrifice is, by definition, hard.
And sacrifice is, by definition, hard.
Not really. It's not hard for me to sacrifice the time it takes to listen to someone's troubles. It's not hard for me to sacrifice a bit of effort and work into helping someone with a question I know the answer to. It's not hard for Isolda to offer a cot to a traveler that can't pay, or to share her leftovers with the hungry (or even a meal). It's a mark of a Good character that they'll make such sacrifices even when it is hard, but that doesn't make them hard automatically, or mean that 'easy' behaviors are not Good.
We don't play with alignments much of the time. And all the world's we play in didn't develop with a Judeo-Christian ethic. As a result it IS often relative and that's part of the fun of it, I think.
A CG Druid fights encroaching human development and part of the fallout is a poacher who wouldn't desist was killed. A LG Paladin goes to arrest the druid because the poacher is part of a group who bought the land from the lord and it is "theirs" now by human law. The law says the Druid is a trespasser, brigand and potentially guilty of manslaughter or even murder.
People want everything black and white, and the way they see things. I like setting firm moral and ethical lines for myself, but how can anyone reasonably expect everyone else around them, many with totally different life experiences and wold views, to possibly agree across the board on what is good and bad? This is especially true in a game with truly different races and completely variable deities.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I like setting firm moral and ethical lines for myself, but how can anyone reasonably expect everyone else around them, many with totally different life experiences and wold views, to possibly agree across the board on what is good and bad?
The same way I can reasonably expect everyone else around me, many with totally different life experiences and worldviews, to agree across the board on how a Pathfinder buckler works: by either using the Core Rulebook's version, or coming to a table consensus before the game.
Why is that difficult or unreasonable?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People want everything black and white, and the way they see things. I like setting firm moral and ethical lines for myself, but how can anyone reasonably expect everyone else around them, many with totally different life experiences and wold views, to possibly agree across the board on what is good and bad? This is especially true in a game with truly different races and completely variable deities.
God in Pathfinder are not moral authorities or moral sources, though. They're bound by alignment just like mortals - good gods fall, and sometimes evil ones redeem themselves. Alignment exists independant of dogma.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Evil can be pretty hard if you consider the amount of out of character abuse people often suffer or evil acts in character, the fact that their character is in it alone against hordes of "good" people, or take into consideration how difficult it is to get any plans to really come to fruition.
That's pretty obviously a very different kind of "hard" than what the OP was talking about.
This thread gobbled up my lunch hour (and then some).
Loving it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And sacrifice is, by definition, hard.Not really. It's not hard for me to sacrifice the time it takes to listen to someone's troubles. It's not hard for me to sacrifice a bit of effort and work into helping someone with a question I know the answer to. It's not hard for Isolda to offer a cot to a traveler that can't pay, or to share her leftovers with the hungry (or even a meal). It's a mark of a Good character that they'll make such sacrifices even when it is hard, but that doesn't make them hard automatically, or mean that 'easy' behaviors are not Good.
Websters gives us this:
the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.If it's not hard, then it isn't a sacrifice.
As Jiggy points out, handing out leftovers don't really count as "the surrender of something prized or desirable".
I actually struggle with alignment quite a bit. I tend to reject moral absolutism.
Is it wrong to kill? Depends on the circumstances. If someone of sound mind truly wants to die, then I think helping him die quickly and painlessly is an art of mercy, and therefore good.
Is it wrong to steal? Again, it depends. If it's between stealing from the rich and watching someone starve to death, I think it would be arguably be evil to NOT steal.
On the other hand, I also believe that the ends does not always justify the means. Torturing potential terrorists, even if it saves lives, is wrong.
Maybe I'm just chaotic. Or inconsistent. Or both. :)
I like to think of myself as (trying to be) NG. I certainly don't always get there. I'm absolutely certain, however, that some people would call me N, or even CE, based on what I wrote above.
I actually struggle with alignment quite a bit. I tend to reject moral absolutism.
Is it wrong to kill? Depends on the circumstances. If someone of sound mind truly wants to die, then I think helping him die quickly and painlessly is an art of mercy, and therefore good.
Is it wrong to steal? Again, it depends. If it's between stealing from the rich and watching someone starve to death, I think it would be arguably be evil to NOT steal.
On the other hand, I also believe that the ends does not always justify the means. Torturing potential terrorists, even if it saves lives, is wrong.
Maybe I'm just chaotic. Or inconsistent. Or both. :)
I like to think of myself as (trying to be) NG. I certainly don't always get there. I'm absolutely certain, however, that some people would call me N, or even CE, based on what I wrote above.
Every situation needs to be evaluated on its merits.
It's more of a problem when people try to shove everything into tidy boxes to make them fit an alignment, more so when they take that alignment as defining everything they do when it's better used just to identify a trend, and worse yet when GMs start interfering and insisting you wouldn't do something (not even just this once, when it's obviously necessary) just because your alignment says so.To me you seem pretty close to NG (I certainly wouldn't argue the alignment if you'd just handed me your character sheet along with that description), you're tending towards things for the greater good while evaluating every situation on its own merits to decide how to do that good.
Of course, everyone's take on what fits into which box on the alignment axis tends to be a bit different so it's always going to be down to a GM how a particular type of action is seen in their game world, and down to individuals how they interpret your outlook.
I find it's best if people build some flexibility into their idea of alignment - the walls between alignments can bend, and don't break unless you throw yourself at them continually. If nothing else, it saves a heck of a lot of arguments at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest using "morals" as a crutch is easy. Actually doing Good in every situation would be incredibly hard.
I like the simplicity of Ross's point, though:
Good = sacrificing self for others
Evil = sacrificing others for self
And sacrifice is, by definition, hard.Not really. It's not hard for me to sacrifice the time it takes to listen to someone's troubles. It's not hard for me to sacrifice a bit of effort and work into helping someone with a question I know the answer to. It's not hard for Isolda to offer a cot to a traveler that can't pay, or to share her leftovers with the hungry (or even a meal). It's a mark of a Good character that they'll make such sacrifices even when it is hard, but that doesn't make them hard automatically, or mean that 'easy' behaviors are not Good.Websters gives us this:
the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.If it's not hard, then it isn't a sacrifice.
As Jiggy points out, handing out leftovers don't really count as "the surrender of something prized or desirable".
One's time, effort, and property are certainly prized or desirable. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that 'sacrifice' isn't the only thing included in the definition of Good - it also involves altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sapient beings. Offering out one's leftovers for free, or space on the common room floor (pretty common in the time periods most PF settings are loosely based on, usually priced at a few pennies) might not be sacrificing something of great value but it's still offering something when it would've been easier to offer nothing. It's still Good. Is it profoundly Good? Probably not. But that doesn't make it neutral.
Killing someone who truly wants to die? You're still taking a life instead of helping them to see that life might just be worth living.
Can one really "take" something that is freely given? But semantics aside, it's their decision. Who am I to tell them they can't choose to die?
Stealing from the rich to feed the poor? You are taking what doesn't belong to you. Why not give from your own wallet before resorting to theft?
I did say "If it's between stealing from the rich and watching someone starve to death." If I could pay myself, I would. But that's not the question at hand.
The last one concerns me a bit. You're advocating taking a life of someone who wants to die. But then say it's wrong to use whatever measures it takes to save the lives of those who wish to continue living?
I'm not sure I see a contradiction there (which of course doesn't mean there isn't one). I definitely get that on one hand I seem to be saying morals aren't absolute, but then I'm turning around and saying it is absolutely wrong to torture someone. The thing is, I don't think we can ever be sure that torturing someone is actually going to save lives, and anything less than absolute certainty is unacceptable. Dunno, I have to think about that one more.
I like the simplicity of Ross's point, though:
Good = sacrificing self for others
Evil = sacrificing others for self
Agreed.
I'm not sure I see a contradiction there (which of course doesn't mean there isn't one). I definitely get that on one hand I seem to be saying morals aren't absolute, but then I'm turning around and saying it is absolutely wrong to torture someone. The thing is, I don't think we can ever be sure that torturing someone is actually going to save lives, and that anything less than absolute certainty is unacceptable. Dunno, I have to think about that one more.
Torture degrades the torturer as much as the victim, inflicts needless suffering, and shows no regard for the dignity of sapient beings. It's pretty definitely never Good, and almost always going to be Evil - especially given the numerous painless, non-torture alternates available in Pathfinder's settings. If you've got a guy prisoner already, it's time to bust out the mind magic, y'know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking over the pathfinder definitions, while good has an implication of altruism and states that good characters make personal sacrifices to help other, evil does not have connotations of selfishness.
Good Versus Evil
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.
Evil debases or destroys innocent life and implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Selfishness is not evil in Pathfinder.
Altruism and sacrifice are not opposites of evil, respecting and protecting innocent life is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I think you and I have different definitions of "sacrifice". Allowing someone to make use of your leftovers (food or otherwise) is not "sacrifice".And sacrifice is, by definition, hard.Not really. It's not hard for me to sacrifice the time it takes to listen to someone's troubles. It's not hard for me to sacrifice a bit of effort and work into helping someone with a question I know the answer to. It's not hard for Isolda to offer a cot to a traveler that can't pay, or to share her leftovers with the hungry (or even a meal). It's a mark of a Good character that they'll make such sacrifices even when it is hard, but that doesn't make them hard automatically, or mean that 'easy' behaviors are not Good.Websters gives us this:
the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
If it's not hard, then it isn't a sacrifice.
That's not what the definition says. The definition says that what is given up (surrendered or destroyed) is prized or desirable, not that the giving has to be hard. In fact, since you're giving up something prized for something having a higher or more pressing claim you may feel that the sacrifice is a no-brainer, absolutely worth it. For example, my SO and I recently gave up a car for reasons including expense, desire for exercise, and environmental concerns. It was a sacrifice since we've enjoyed the convenience of a car for quite some time (and considered it desirable), but it wasn't hard.
Giving someone your leftovers is not a sacrifice, since leftovers aren't generally prized, but sharing your meal with someone might be, especially if you are hungry.
Staying up all night with a sick child is a sacrifice, since sleep is prized.
Any kind of volunteering is a sacrifice since you are giving up your time - and when it's skilled work it's appropriately called pro bono, "for the good." And yet the people who volunteer generally feel that the pleasure they get from giving up their time to others is more than they'd get from leisure activities. They don't see volunteering as "hard."
This is certainly one way to approach the good alignment - to simply value the happiness of others more than your comfort.
@Prince of Knives - I'd probably call someone who offers leftovers to beggars or lets them take an empty place by the hearth "a good person" casually, but from an alignment POV they're probably "Neutral leaning to Good rather than "Good but not profoundly."
Yeah I definitely think it's a very relative thing. The circumstance and motive of the person doing an act is of much more interest to me than the outcome. I am not saying what Detect Magic suggested people do; Absolve evil acts due to ignorance. But it's not a continuum, not a category. A person who fights and kills enemy soldiers for their country is less evil (or even not at all, many would say) than someone raised to believe sacrificing someone to their god would make it and their whole community happy. And they are less evil than someone who kills for pleasure or personal gain.
By the same token, someone who donates money to a police force to hide their drug cartel business "in plain site" isn't a good person even if their act is good. I feel the same way about people who do good deeds so they can brag about it. I obviously prefer that to no help at all, but I think motives and consequences have to be looked at independently as well as together.
Who are you to give them their death?
It's their life, to offer to whom they will. It's not evil to accept, nor is it necessarily Good to refuse.
Who are you to give them their death?It's their life, to offer to whom they will. It's not evil to accept, nor is it necessarily Good to refuse.
There's a lot of people that don't agree with that.
There's a lot of people that don't agree with that.Who are you to give them their death?It's their life, to offer to whom they will. It's not evil to accept, nor is it necessarily Good to refuse.
It's certainly a complex question, but for me in Pathfinder's alignment system it comes down to one aspect of the Good/Evil axis - respect for the dignity of sapient life. A Good character can and, yes, even should seek to understand the reasons behind such a request, and do what they can to lift those reasons. Bringing that kind of hope is a profoundly Good act. But respecting their choice isn't Evil.
For game purposes I think a simplified view of individual acts of good and evil can be used to determine alignment by looking at the characters action "history".
I think every character commits the full range of acts on the good-evil axis (and the law-chaos one as well). I agree that there are greater and lesser goods / evils as well. I think the acts can be individually judged on the good-evil scale. I don't think you need to view them through the lens of relativity or intent. It's the preponderance (and magnitude) of actions that determine alignment, not (or at least very rarely) a single act. Even evil people do the occasional good dead intentionally or not (as mentioned above, i.e. criminals donating to a good cause for ulterior motives) while the best of people may find an evil act necessary. This probably wouldn't change their alignment. Dragging "intent" into it muddies the waters and it can be ignored if you look at a cumulative series of actions. The worst of villains often justify their deeds by the desired ends. No matter how "good" your cause if you keep doing evil deeds to further or protect it, evil is what you become. That takes time, and effort (or a really tremendous act of evil...). An isolated evil act is just that, isolated. Occasional "good acts" (i.e. tithing, charity, etc.) can mitigate isolated evil acts, or over time alter, alignment. The only characters who can not consciously commit a single evil act (without consequence) are Paladins.
Ahem, again, this refers to game alignment with it's absolute system of good and evil. Not real life :) It points to a plus / minus simple tracking of alignment. And no, I'm not suggesting a minute track every action system. That would be tedious at best.
And, ymmv.