The contraction is simple. You've advocated committing one evil act to save one person. Then you have turned around and condemned another evil act in order to potentially save multitudes.
You're begging the question. I don't agree that stealing is always evil...which is kinda the point.
You're free to believe differently, but please don't confuse your subjective position as being objectively correct. I know doing so is popular, but still...
Many sources hold that stealing isn't even usually evil, but is instead a Chaotic act (obviously stealing that leads to suffering or harm is also/instead evil).
The critically important thing Ross forgets is that good exists. There are paladin orders and people who took the test of the starstone and wound up as good deities and NPCs with good alignments and PCs aren't forbidden from taking good alignments.
.
Of course Good exists. I never said it didn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is worth noting here that ordinary people will never light up under detect evil or detect good.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is worth noting here that ordinary people will never light up under detect evil or detect good.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.
I know I wouldn't.
You are correct, I've lumped in a chaotic act in the evil category and was thinking in terms of extremes. I retract my previous statement.
Color me impressed, sir. *tips hat*
Apologies for the bit of snark on my part.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is worth noting here that ordinary people will never light up under detect evil or detect good.
Really? That's interesting. How does one define "ordinary" in this context?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it is worth noting here that ordinary people will never light up under detect evil or detect good.Really? That's interesting. How does one define "ordinary" in this context?
I think you have to either be over 4th level or have a class tied directly to the divine in order for the Detect spells to work on you.
In many settings, the vast majority of people are NPC classes below 5th level.
I think you have to either be over 4th level or have a class tied directly to the divine in order for the Detect spells to work on you.
In many settings, the vast majority of people are NPC classes below 5th level.
Wow, I totally missed that. Is that in the CRB or elsewhere (not that "elsewhere" is a problem -- I'd just like to read more about it).
Wow, I totally missed that. Is that in the CRB or elsewhere (not that "elsewhere" is a problem -- I'd just like to read more about it).I think you have to either be over 4th level or have a class tied directly to the divine in order for the Detect spells to work on you.
In many settings, the vast majority of people are NPC classes below 5th level.
1 = other than undead, outsiders, and those with class levels in specific divine caster classes
Good gets easier if death by heroism seems badass to you as a player.
Ex. A Paladin in my group transferred a Plane Shift being cast on our Archer (who was stunned for 6 rounds) to herself (via Paladin's Sacrifice), and got herself stuck on the Shadow Plane.
1 = other than undead, outsiders, and those with class levels in specific divine caster classes
Wow, that's embarrassing. :P
Thanks for the link.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rob Godfrey - I'm talking about Pathfinder, not history. In Pathfinder, evil means a specific thing, and detecting it means you know something about that person.
Specifically, according to the Core Rulebook, if someone detects as evil then (again, in Pathfinder) you know they're the kind of person who hurts, oppresses, and kills others; whether they simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient, or actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
In-universe, that's what it means if someone detects as evil. That's the kind of person they are.
What I was saying in my post that you were attempting to reply to is that some folks make a (N)PC who is not that kind of person, but then writes "evil" on the sheet and tells the paladin's (or inquisitor's) player that they ping under detect evil.
What happens next (at least, what happens next in threads trying to prove how disruptive paladins are) is that the paladin player reacts to that person exactly the way any decent person would react to encountering someone that they knew beyond reasonable doubt to be someone who hurts, oppresses, and kills others; whether they simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient, or actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. The exact reaction ranges from general distrust to outright violence depending on the situation, but it's what you would expect from someone who just discovered the above.
Then the person setting up the situation points and says "Look! He's treating me like I'm the kind of person who hurts, oppresses, and kills others; whether they simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient, or actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master, even though I'm not like that at all!"
They separate the word "evil" from Pathfinder's definition of it, put one on their sheet and the other into the paladin's code, and then label the paladin (or the alignment system) as being the problem, when really the problem is that they're applying rules selectively in order to fabricate a situation that would be impossible in-character.
Basically, if evil means what the CRB says it means, then the guy claiming to not deserve distrust from the paladin isn't actually evil and doesn't detect as such. If instead the guy can be "evil" without being those things, then the paladin wouldn't treat him like those things were true. Instead, certain folks inconsistently apply the alignment rules in an impossible paradox, then pretend they're not the ones who broke it.
And that is what I was saying in my post.
|
Evil is hard.
Evil has nothing to prop itself it up on. Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices. Good is easy, because it can avoid those all together by propping up it's position as the moral/ethical thing to do. When the going gets tough the Good get to quoting reasons they cannot or when they try and fail they still get to be "good".
Evil does. Want to bring order to the kingdom? Shame that there's people who disagree with you. Good might try to reason with them, but they will never remove the obstacles to peace and stability. Evil will. You can be a great person, but when the chips are down people need someone who *CAN*. And Evil has a lot less restrictions to work around and doesn't bother justifying itself. So you killed Baron Zulthar's whole family? Ya, you're evil. But you can't just use morals and ethics to solve that problem. No you had to work for it, put in some elbow grease and brain matter. But hey now his tax policies aren't making the disenfranchised whisper of rebellion.
Evil is hard.
That is utterly ridiculous. Good is hard. they make hard choices and necessary sacrifices. I'm sorry, youre wrong.
I disagree, Rob. It certainly makes playing Good harder, but wasn't that the point of this thread?
I'd suggest (or re-suggest as one or more people made this statement upthread) that if we just recaliberate what we consider "normal" (as in, how we classify where most common folk fall in this Alignment system... which is actually Neutral), the game works fine. Good is hard to attain, and takes work, thoughtfulness, and sacrifice. If that doesn't sound fun for you, don't play Good.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Rob - No, that's not what I was saying. Heck, it's only even related to what I said insofar as my post and your impression of my post both mention alignment.
I mean, not that there's anything wrong with you simply stating your thoughts on alignment in general, but if that's what you're gonna do, it's probably best to leave the "Reply" button out of it so I don't try to read your thoughts in the context of my own like I would if you were actually replying to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the accuracy of history the Conquistadors would be lawfully neutral considering who they were wiping out, like the Incas and Aztecs. In Pathfinder it would be the equivalent of taking out an Orc colony.
Oh hell no.
What the conquistadors did was abominable and inexcusable. Evil doesn't stop being evil because of who it's being aimed at.
You don't get to go on campaigns of genocide and terror and still call yourself good or neutral.
Assuming the accuracy of history the Conquistadors would be lawfully neutral considering who they were wiping out, like the Incas and Aztecs. In Pathfinder it would be the equivalent of taking out an Orc colony.Oh hell no.
What the conquistadors did was abominable and inexcusable. Evil doesn't stop being evil because of who it's being aimed at.
You don't get to go on campaigns of genocide and terror and still call yourself good or neutral.
This. Evil directed against Evil is not any less evil. I mean, hell, look at the Blood War.
|
Basically, they apply a double-standard to what "evil" means; their necromancer can be "evil" independently of whether he's a bad and dangerous person or not, but the paladin is required to behave as he would if "evil" always meant "bad and dangerous person", and then point at the result as being proof that "good" includes violent psychopaths.
I think the problem here is that while the CRB definition is "an evil person is bad and dangerous," the use of [evil] magic to achieve good ends is poorly defined / hotly debated. Champions of Purity states "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." This is as far as I know the only evil act in PF that's officially defined by "god/the universe/the devs said so" rather than from the perspective of how these acts hurt sentient creatures. Unless the GM house-rules that dealing with undead mystically rots away your compassion, or that every time you animate a skeleton a child dies or an evil soul becomes a demon, it's perfectly possible to be a compassionate necromancer who makes personal sacrifices to help others, but is still evil.
Wow, I totally missed that. Is that in the CRB or elsewhere (not that "elsewhere" is a problem -- I'd just like to read more about it).I think you have to either be over 4th level or have a class tied directly to the divine in order for the Detect spells to work on you.
In many settings, the vast majority of people are NPC classes below 5th level.
Actually, while it's true that creatures of under 5 HD don't detect and it's often assumed that most people are under 5HD, Paizo's NPC guide has a lot of fairly ordinary folks as NPC classes 5th level or higher. The average guard is only level 3 and doesn't Detect, but a Tavern Champion or Grizzled Mercenary are level 5+, and an officer is a 6th level Aristocrat (9th level if they're a proper knight). A successful merchant and wise sage are 7th and 8th level experts. A shopkeeper is a 6th level commoner and even a barmaid is 5th level!
I don't know if Paizo is actually trying to break from the default 3E assumption that most of the population consists of 1st level commoners or they were just trying to differentiate between 10 levels of NPC classes. It's certainly against my intuitions (where someone with 5 levels, even in an NPC class, is a big deal on at least a local scale).
And even if Maria the kind-hearted barmaid doesn't Detect as good, a GM might still need to know if her ordinary level of goodness is enough to protect her from the Holy Smite the cleric cast on an area containing hostages - or if she's extra-vulnerable to the Unholy Blight the enemy cultist just casually tossed around.
So I do think it's worth discussing what a Good non-adventurer looks like.
In a reality where Necromancy is definitively Evil, why would a Good person pursue it as a career? Casting a necromancy spell every now and then because it's "necessary for the greater Good" or "the least bad solution in a terrible predicament" is one thing... becoming a "compassionate necromancer" seems to be something else altogether.
Actually, while it's true that creatures of under 5 HD don't detect and it's often assumed that most people are under 5HD, Paizo's NPC guide has a lot of fairly ordinary folks as NPC classes 5th level or higher. The average guard is only level 3 and doesn't Detect, but a Tavern Champion or Grizzled Mercenary are level 5+, and an officer is a...
I would guess that the NPC guide has higher level NPCs because it is pretty easy to whip up a 1st lvl commoner on your own.
In a reality where Necromancy is definitively Evil, why would a Good person pursue it as a career? Casting a necromancy spell every now and then because it's "necessary for the greater Good" or "the least bad solution in a terrible predicament" is one thing... becoming a "compassionate necromancer" seems to be something else altogether.It would really depend on the local views on the bodies of the dead, whether they are sacred relics, or empty shells the soul has no use for anymore, in the later case necromancy (for example making zombies to do hard labour like turning treadmills) wouldn't be 'evil' as long as said zombies remained under control.
I can however see deliberately creating more powerful undead, and allowing them to go uncontrolled as evil.
Not true. In the context of the reality Ross is discussing, necromancy is Evil. Full stop. How you use it doesn't change that fact.
Just like someone above said killing an innocent is Evil. Period. Killing an innocent for a greater good can be justified, but it's still an Evil act.
So I pose the question again... in a reality where Necromancy is definitively Evil, why would a Good person pursue it as a career?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, they apply a double-standard to what "evil" means; their necromancer can be "evil" independently of whether he's a bad and dangerous person or not, but the paladin is required to behave as he would if "evil" always meant "bad and dangerous person", and then point at the result as being proof that "good" includes violent psychopaths.I think the problem here is that while the CRB definition is "an evil person is bad and dangerous," the use of [evil] magic to achieve good ends is poorly defined / hotly debated. Champions of Purity states "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." This is as far as I know the only evil act in PF that's officially defined by "god/the universe/the devs said so" rather than from the perspective of how these acts hurt sentient creatures. Unless the GM house-rules that dealing with undead mystically rots away your compassion, or that every time you animate a skeleton a child dies or an evil soul becomes a demon, it's perfectly possible to be a compassionate necromancer who makes personal sacrifices to help others, but is still evil.
There's a couple of solutions to your dilemma.
Option #1: Houserule that there is no "inherent evil" in your campaign world; that is, if you're using anything (including necromancy) for ends that don't match the CRB's definition of evil, you're not doing evil. The important thing here is that if you do this, don't write "evil" on your sheet! Whatever you decide "evil" means, that's what detect evil detects. Consistency is the important thing.
Option #2: Accept that the way things work in the game world and the way any given player believes things work in the real world don't have to be the same. You take what the rules say, and apply them: creating undead is evil, and evil means XYZ, therefore creating undead shows that XYZ is true of you. You can find a way to justify this , but the important thing is that you roleplay it consistently: don't do something that, in-universe, makes you XYZ and then not act XYZ and expect to be treated as not-XYZ. Again, consistency.
Ultimately, what really matters is that when someone (whether a paladin PC or a random NPC) detects your alignment, they're given the right information. If in your campaign evil is defined as X, then the GM shouldn't be announcing a detection ping (and you shouldn't be writing "evil" on your sheet) unless X is actually true of you.
That is utterly ridiculous. Good is hard. they make hard choices and necessary sacrifices. I'm sorry, youre wrong.Evil is hard.
Evil has nothing to prop itself it up on. Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices. Good is easy, because it can avoid those all together by propping up it's position as the moral/ethical thing to do. When the going gets tough the Good get to quoting reasons they cannot or when they try and fail they still get to be "good".
Evil does. Want to bring order to the kingdom? Shame that there's people who disagree with you. Good might try to reason with them, but they will never remove the obstacles to peace and stability. Evil will. You can be a great person, but when the chips are down people need someone who *CAN*. And Evil has a lot less restrictions to work around and doesn't bother justifying itself. So you killed Baron Zulthar's whole family? Ya, you're evil. But you can't just use morals and ethics to solve that problem. No you had to work for it, put in some elbow grease and brain matter. But hey now his tax policies aren't making the disenfranchised whisper of rebellion.
Evil is hard.
Tell that to Baron Zulthar's whole family. When your Paladin can kill them all and not fall for having done what was necessary to prevent innocent lives from being lost, get back to me. Evil doesn't hesitate.
I can't tell if I'm supposed to be taking you seriously, Anzyr.
Hrm.. Yes and No. To some extent I'm just making the other side of the argument. But I do think that the truly heroic are willing to throw aside morals and ethics to accomplish their goals and I do not think those people meet the D&D definition of Good. Whether or not those who are willing to sacrifice several thousand innocents to save millions of innocents are Evil or Neutral is debatable I suppose, but I think in D&D terms they are probably on the deep end of the alignment pool. Those are the kinds of hard choices a Good character can and indeed must avoid by citing morals or ethics, at least if they want to stay Good.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I do think that the truly heroic are willing to throw aside morals and ethics to accomplish their goals and I do not think those people meet the D&D definition of Good.
How are you defining the "morals and ethics" that you think the truly heroic have to throw aside? What is it about throwing such things aside that fails to mesh with the "good" alignment? (Also, should I be paying attention to the fact that you said D&D and not Pathfinder? I imagine D&D's definition of the alignments has changed many times, and is also different from Pathfinder's, so perhaps you should cite which definition of good you believe the above would fail to meet.)
Whether or not those who are willing to sacrifice several thousand innocents to save millions of innocents are Evil or Neutral is debatable I suppose, but I think in D&D terms they are probably on the deep end of the alignment pool. Those are the kinds of hard choices a Good character can and indeed must avoid by citing morals or ethics, at least if they want to stay Good.
Again, I can't speak for D&D (not familiar with their alignment definitions), but at least for Pathfinder, I don't see how "causing there to be as few innocent deaths as possible even if I'm treated as a monster forever after" fails to match up with Pathfinder's standard of "willing to make personal sacrifices to protect innocent life". Unless I'm misunderstanding your scenario, that sounds like the definition of "good" (again, in Pathfinder), not something good can't do.
No, D&D is really kind of a stand in for the "objective morality system of D&D", which PF of course subscribes to. The big thing is when there is a hard choice that has to be made that *isn't* a personal sacrifice, like offing Baron Zulthar's family for the sake of the peace and stability of the region. The person who can do that when it is necessary is to me, much more heroic then the person who cannot.
As to your second point, this is the case in Pathfinder definitions as well, mostly because good can make "personal sacrifices" not sacrifices of other people. Also, since they protect innocent life, their damned either way by that definition.
No, D&D is really kind of a stand in for the "objective morality system of D&D", which PF of course subscribes to. The big thing is when there is a hard choice that has to be made that *isn't* a personal sacrifice, like offing Baron Zulthar's family for the sake of the peace and stability of the region. The person who can do that when it is necessary is to me, much more heroic then the person who cannot.
In this case there is a difference between more heroic and more Good. A truly Good character would not accept sacrificing other innocent people. He would try to find a different way and, succeeding or failing, would be the paragon of Good.