| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Paladin's are mighty screwed in your campaigns then huh? I mean if any willful act that ends another living thing is evil, Paladin's can't even hunt for food. I'm sorry but I don't think this is case and that some takings of life are not just neutral but good.The nuance of my post you're referring to seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
Taking a life is evil...but should be compared to why it was taken and what other options were available.
Paladin's are the life-taking arm of their deity. So long as they are working towards the greater good (and law) of their deity then the evil done by killing will be far outweighed by their good deeds. If the LG deity's tenants say that all thieves, even beggars stealing bread, should be put to death and the paladin follows that tenant then I, as a GM, wouldn't punish that paladin. I just wouldn't be GM in a campaign that had such a deity getting away with being defined as good. If I were a player in that campaign world then I would keep my grumblings about how that's not a good deity off-table and OOC.
The code of conduct for a paladin states "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Which gives the GM and player a lot of leeway to decide guidelines for how the paladin should appropriately deal out punishment which should be guided by the specific deity/order the paladin follows.
So again, by default, at the baseline; killing is evil. But the good of saving the lives of others from a murderer/assailant far outweighs the evil of killing said murderer/assailant. Such that, at least when I GM, the paladin would never be in danger of 'falling' for doing so.
Hrm, I think you missed the point I was implying, which is fair since I wasn't really clear. In the paladin's code we have the following line:
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Thus my comment that if all takings of life are evil as you are suggesting... paladins in your campaign are profoundly screwed. Paladins don't get to "balance" these evil acts normally as *any* evil act is enough to ax their class features. Since this does not appear to problem generally in anything I've read for a Paladin to knife a villain the kidney, I can't imagine that all life taking is evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be practical, it doesn't really matter if you consider the Barbarian's act neutral, or evil (and I take it that no one has called it "good"). He's probably toast. They killed a Paladin. And guards. But not all of them. That means witnesses. Were there other witnesses as well? Let's see... Paladin... does he have an order? Does he have a deity, complete with Clerics (Divination time) etc.? And the guards have an organization behind them as well. And this guy doesn't sound hard to find. All of which probably equals "dead". Problem solved. One dead cop killer. Everyone can argue the morality of his act later after his head goes up on a pike :)
And as other posters mentioned, it sounds more like a problem with his DM anyway.
Hrm, I think you missed the point I was implying, which is fair since I wasn't really clear. In the paladin's code we have the following line:
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Thus my comment that if all takings of life are evil...
Ah! Hehe, yeah, now I understand where you're coming from.
Yes, applying that sentence in the Paladin's code of conduct section within the framework I set out absolutely would not work.
So it becomes up to the GM (along with input from the players) as to how deal with this; especially since one may be gaming with gamers that have different ideas on the idea of evil/good, morality, etc.
I never explicitly stated it in my previous posts but to expand on the good outweighs the evil part; if the good done from the result of killing "equals" the evil from killing then that would balance it out to be 'neutral' (but a complex neutral that is composed of good and evil, rather than lacking either). And if the good "outweighs" the evil of the killing then the net value of the act is good, etc. So the net good of a paladin killing a deer to feed himself (an entity that can do more good in the world than the deer) and his good-aligned party far outweighs the evil of killing the dear and the net result of the act (taken in context with all the complexities that come with it) is good.
I prefer to set a ground level morality for good/evil (which then works for determining and adjusting all PC and NPC alignments) and then expand/change/modify that one code of conduct sentence rather than treat it as immutable.
And before all that, I come to the table with the desire to make sure my players have the opportunity to have fun. Which includes making sure the paladin (or barbarian, or monk, or...) is a viable class option for them if they want to play it.
Just to be practical, it doesn't really matter if you consider the Barbarian's act neutral, or evil (and I take it that no one has called it "good"). He's probably toast. They killed a Paladin. And guards. But not all of them. That means witnesses. Were there other witnesses as well? Let's see... Paladin... does he have an order? Does he have a deity, complete with Clerics (Divination time) etc.? And the guards have an organization behind them as well. And this guy doesn't sound hard to find. All of which probably equals "dead". Problem solved. One dead cop killer. Everyone can argue the morality of his act later after his head goes up on a pike :)
And as other posters mentioned, it sounds more like a problem with his DM anyway.
XP and treasure that comes to you? I think that's called the plot. I sense the legend of a religion that got crushed off handily by a mighty barbarian being written!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking and killing someone simply for having a weapon drawn is an evil action, no matter what your class and int might be. The matter of it being justified or not isn't really an issue, since the alignment system is pretty black and white.
The Barbarian is probably chaotic evil, accept it and move along. In an evil group this isn't even a problem anyway, so nothing's lost. Our characters should have the alignments we play, not the ones we'd like to see on our character sheets.
On the matter of this being railroading and bad GMing ... Well. In my group we'd think of an arrest as a possibility for for adventure and roleplaying, not a forceful attempt to curb our fun, but each to their own I guess.
I'm just glad that I have at least one ocean (or a continent and an ocean depending on you going east or west) between the op and myself x)
... since the alignment system is pretty black and white.
Yeah, the simple three-step alignment axes (good-netural-evil and law-neutral-chaos) has always tickled me like a purple worm licking my popliteal fossa. What with then kobold-evil = Asmodeus-evil.
Which was why I liked the introduction of the Ultimate Campaign's alignment spectrum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.
Baron Babykiller von Rapemurder sends his guards to arrest a Paladin investigating his many foul and infamous crimes. Paladin resists arrest. Paladin falls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment discussion. 'nuff said.
Killing is not evil in Pathfinder. If it were, then a paladin would not be able to use smite evil without falling. Murder, on the other hand, is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.Baron Babykiller von Rapemurder sends his guards to arrest a Paladin investigating his many foul and infamous crimes. Paladin resists arrest. Paladin falls.
Paladin doesn't resist arrest. Goes to prison. Very interesting adventure follows. Perhaps even a trial where the Paladin brings injustice to light and the Baron is arrested.
Let's not assume the DM is on a mission to ruin the fun of the players.
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.Baron Babykiller von Rapemurder sends his guards to arrest a Paladin investigating his many foul and infamous crimes. Paladin resists arrest. Paladin falls.Paladin doesn't resist arrest. Goes to prison. Very interesting adventure follows. Perhaps even a trial where the Paladin brings injustice to light and the Baron is arrested.
Let's not assume the DM is on a mission to ruin the fun of the players.
I think that would be a most logical assumption for your average paladin player to be making in such a scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm still interested in this argument for understanding other people's opinion on the ethical basis. I want to understand what we disagree on. While this is an argument unlike other arguments I get myself into at times on the board I am not angry, but I seek understanding here.
My premises are:
1) Unjustifiable killing is evil
2) The barbarian's reason for killing is not justifiable
Then, based on this logic the killings the barbarian perpetrated are evil.
So which of my premises do you disagree with so we can further examine this? Is it that you think the barbarians reason is just? Or is it that you don't think unjust killing is evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unjustifiable is really just a bad word for good/evil discussion. A justification is something that acknowledges that legally it was ok for you to take the action. It may be good to kill a slaver and free their slaves, but in that lawful society it is certainly not justifiable. I think Claxon you are using the term "unjustifiable" to refer to things that modern legal systems would consider justifications of homicide, which is what is causing the disconnect. It's easier to think of the Paladin and Barbarian as opposing forces in a conflict, because that gets rid of the baggage that is attached to trying to apply a modern legal system to this issue. When the Paladin and Barbarian clash the good/evil authority is not the Paladin's society or the Barbarian's society and thus all we have is one force trying to capture/kill another force which is resisting being captured/killed. And that's neutral.
So yes, the Barbarians killing was "unjustifiable" to the Paladin's society, but being unjustified doesn't make resisting capture evil. Now if the Paladin and his men had no intention of using force, ie. didn't try and fight back and flee when the barbarian engaged and the barbarian still killed them, yes that would be evil. But that's not the case here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's evil. If I have to explain why killing a Paladin and a bunch of law enforcers, armed or not, is evil, then I have no hope of convincing anyone anyways.
/thread
This message was paid for and sponsored by the Asmodeus Ad Council.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, good/evil in Pathfinder are objective.
It doesn't matter if the Barbarian thought he was doing evil or even what his justifications were. The action was objectively evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unjustifiable is really just a bad word for good/evil discussion. A justification is something that acknowledges that legally it was ok for you to take the action. It may be good to kill a slaver and free their slaves, but in that lawful society it is certainly not justifiable. I think Claxon you are using the term "unjustifiable" to refer to things that modern legal systems would consider justifications of homicide, which is what is causing the disconnect. It's easier to think of the Paladin and Barbarian as opposing forces in a conflict, because that gets rid of the baggage that is attached to trying to apply a modern legal system to this issue. When the Paladin and Barbarian clash the good/evil authority is not the Paladin's society or the Barbarian's society and thus all we have is one force trying to capture/kill another force which is resisting being captured/killed. And that's neutral.
So yes, the Barbarians killing was "unjustifiable" to the Paladin's society, but being unjustified doesn't make resisting capture evil. Now if the Paladin and his men had no intention of using force, ie. didn't try and fight back and flee when the barbarian engaged and the barbarian still killed them, yes that would be evil. But that's not the case here.
The word justification doesn't need to be about the legal of something.
Justification - the action of showing something to be right or reasonable.
In this case you assume I'm talking about legal justificaiton, but I am referring to moral justification. If you prefer lets edit my original statement to say: Morally unjustifiable killing is evil. Does that satisfy you? That is how I intended it.
I assume you will accept this premise, since the rest of you argument doesn't really disagree and then you attempt to argue about whether or not the barbarians action is morally justifiable.
The barbarian and paladin are not opposing forces in a conflict, there is a strict differentiation between say two countries at war and two sides in a bar brawl. Your logic of two sides would apply if the barbarian was apart of a country that was at war with the paladin's country, but he is not. He is a member of a small group of dangerous criminals.
The paladin and guards are performing the lawful act of attempting to arrest dangerous criminals and those associating with dangerous criminals. This is in general also a good act because it is for the good of the society to remove dangerous criminals from society.
If the barbarian had merely resisted it would not have been evil, but he didn't just resist and run away. He killed people actively trying to make society better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both are false, but #2 is completely false while #1 is just a dangerous oversimplification.
1) Unjustifiable killing of people is evil. "It was annoying me" is not a justification, yet no paladin has ever fallen for swatting a fly. In this case the victims were people, but you really should be careful of absolute statements when constructing a system of ethics.
No, it holds up just fine. Killing of completely non-sentient creatures in a humane fashion for food is morally justifiable, though PETA would disagree. We can discuss what is and isn't morally acceptable by the majority of society as that sets the concept of good and evil. In Pathfinder it is technically the gods who define what is good and evil, and should thusly be immutable for the whole planet but that isn't reality so its harder to discuss. But we can at least discuss why something is or isn't morally justifiable.
If you don't accept that morally unjustifiable killing is evil then I really don't know how to approach that argument.
|
Both are false, but #2 is completely false while #1 is just a dangerous oversimplification.
1) Unjustifiable killing of people is evil. "It was annoying me" is not a justification, yet no paladin has ever fallen for swatting a fly. In this case the victims were people, but you really should be careful of absolute statements when constructing a system of ethics.
No, it holds up just fine. Killing of completely non-sentient creatures in a humane fashion for food is morally justifiable, though PETA would disagree. We can discuss what is and isn't morally acceptable by the majority of society as that sets the concept of good and evil. In Pathfinder it is technically the gods who define what is good and evil, and should thusly be immutable for the whole planet but that isn't reality so its harder to discuss. But we can at least discuss why something is or isn't morally justifiable.
If you don't accept that morally unjustifiable killing is evil then I really don't know how to approach that argument.
Actually, I would argue that, in Golarion, the gods are defined by alignment, rather than alignment being defined by the gods. The constitutions of good and evil are far more fundamental than the existence of quasi-deities.
Actually, I would argue that, in Golarion, the gods are defined by alignment, rather than alignment being defined by the gods. The constitutions of good and evil are far more fundamental than the existence of quasi-deities.Both are false, but #2 is completely false while #1 is just a dangerous oversimplification.
1) Unjustifiable killing of people is evil. "It was annoying me" is not a justification, yet no paladin has ever fallen for swatting a fly. In this case the victims were people, but you really should be careful of absolute statements when constructing a system of ethics.
No, it holds up just fine. Killing of completely non-sentient creatures in a humane fashion for food is morally justifiable, though PETA would disagree. We can discuss what is and isn't morally acceptable by the majority of society as that sets the concept of good and evil. In Pathfinder it is technically the gods who define what is good and evil, and should thusly be immutable for the whole planet but that isn't reality so its harder to discuss. But we can at least discuss why something is or isn't morally justifiable.
If you don't accept that morally unjustifiable killing is evil then I really don't know how to approach that argument.
While not necessarily holding true in the Pathfinder universe, in that other old system good and evil didn't exist until the lawful gods struck a deal with the being called Asmodeus creating the pact primeval which separated good from evil. Order and chaos predated good and evil.
Now, this framework doesn't necessarily apply since that was 3.5, but Paizo hadn't written anything to the contrary and hasn't actually given any explainaiton about it to my knowledge.
It doesn't matter if the Barbarian thought he was doing evil or even what his justifications were. The action was objectively evil.According to your objective definition.
Exactly the point.
The DM at that particular table is the only arbiter of the evil-ness of an action since he has the definition of what is objectively Evil and Good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing a LG character that is acting stupidly isn't evil.
I find this exceptionally interesting. That's because I came to this thread assuming it'd be a talk about whether or not it's evil to kill if you're a stupid barbarian with evil friends who doesn't know any better.
I actually started out more-or-less agreeing with the OP--a Chaotic Neutral guy would be within his "rights" to lash out if he felt he was being unfairly threatened. Further posts from the OP, however, have shown a complete lack of understanding for the rules of alignment.
I could see a Chaotic Neutral barbarian killing the paladin, yeah. Had he misunderstood the paladin's intent, been already raging when confronted, or acted out of a feeling of loyalty to his allies, I could see it. A bit of guilt would also go a long way. He'd be on shaky ground, but he'd still be Chaotic Neutral.
But this barbarian is, in my opinion, either NE or CE. He doesn't care about the law, he doesn't care about his allies, he doesn't care about the senseless loss of life. He only cares about his own interests. He shows no regret for killing the paladin, and that's what tips you off. Even Chaotic Neutral guys aren't cheerful murderers.
|
It doesn't matter if the Barbarian thought he was doing evil or even what his justifications were. The action was objectively evil.According to your objective definition.Exactly the point.
The DM at that particular table is the only arbiter of the evil-ness of an action since he has the definition of what is objectively Evil and Good.
That is true.
But it would have been better for him to share it with his players before they even start creating their characters. That would have prevented this thread and most alignment threads I ever read.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see 2 different things in this thread (similar to what KC wrote) :
1) CN Barbarian killing the Paladin.
I feel that most people would not find it evil if we merely replaced Paladin with Hellknight.
We know that Paladin = LG and that killing Good people is usually evil and this OOC knowledge colors the assessments given here.
My take : not evil from what info we were given.
2) OP wants to play an evil character.
That may not be a conscious choice, but the contents of the later posts really make me think that the character should be CE rather than CN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, the player seems to have been motivated to tick off the GM, so is there really a side worth defending in this scenario?
Thing is, there was a very simple solution to the barbarian's dilemma: Kill the horse. Scare the guards. Have fun watching the armored paladin try to keep up.
Again, there were ways that even the paladin's murder coulda been justified, but the player took none of them. As far as the barbarian sees it, the paladin deserved it for being stupid. What matters in this particular case is not so much the action as the justification for the action.
If the barbarian had thought the paladin was going to kill him? Chaotic Neutral, or even a Good or non-Chaotic alignment (though heavily conflicted).
If the barbarian had felt very, very bad about it? Chaotic Neutral.
If the barbarian had been actively raging? Chaotic Neutral--he was effectively intoxicated.
The barbarian made a conscious decision to kill a paladin and felt no remorse about it. Killing innocent people is bad whether they can fight back or not, and even a Chaotic Neutral person needs to be uncomfortable with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, here's a thought: Chaotic Neutral is only one type of Neutral. Here are two similar scenarios:
Lawful Neutral fighter allied with an Antipaladin. Andoran freedom fighters show up to liberate the city the Antipaladin has enslaved, and try to capture the fighter. The fighter is aware that the Antipaladin is evil and the freedom fighters are doing the right thing. Does he butcher Robin Hood? Knock him out? GTFO? Offer to ally with Robin Hood in exchange for his freedom (an option I think people have ignored here)?
True Neutral druid is very loosely allied with a band of murderhobos who recently, without the druid's involvement, burned down an orphanage. When priests of Sarenrae show up to capture the murderers, they attempt to capture the druid, too. The druid is aware that his comrades are monsters. Does the druid kill the priests? Beat it? Scare them off? Come quietly? Help them out?
These characters all possess the same levels of morality.
I'm not actually trying to make a point here. I really think this is an interesting matter to discuss: How do different ethics handle moral issues differently?
A raging barbarian is incapable of using any intellectual abilities he might possess, including his ability to work out complex philosophical concepts like whether or not to attack people threatening him with pointy swords.
Rage causes impaired judgement, and evil deeds performed Under The Influence of rage must be looked at in-context.
|
|
A raging barbarian is incapable of using any intellectual abilities he might possess, including his ability to work out complex philosophical concepts like whether or not to attack people threatening him with pointy swords.
Rage causes impaired judgement, and evil deeds performed Under The Influence of rage must be looked at in-context.
Exactly. The Barbarian chose to rage. If the rage was caused by some other means (such as a spell or involuntary rage through a class or race feature), that'd be a different matter.
If he was raging for another reason (such as having been fighting goblins right before), it would remain a valid excuse.
As a reminder, I'll say that this excuse does not apply to the OP's barbarian.
Choosing to impair one's thought is not the same thing as murder. They are two separate actions--first, raging, second, killing the paladin. The rage can be entered with noble intentions.
Saying that the barbarian being in rage makes the murder morally excusable is like saying that killing someone while drunk is ok, you where drunk after all, so it's not your fault :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Ozymandias strategy, is that it really doesn't address the underlying problem, and that it can backfire horribly when the truth comes out. (as forshadowed in the ending scene of the movie.) In which case those millions were sacrificed for nothing.
Regarding the specifics of the Watchmen storyline:
- Not to make too big a deal of this, but have you read the graphic novel, or just seen the movie (I ask since you refer to "the ending scene of the movie")? The graphic novel ends exactly the same way, and while the movie is EXTREMELY faithful to the book, what it does change doesn't serve much point or improve anything. For an easy and good comparison, the V For Vendetta movie deviated significantly more from the graphic novel, yet I think wound up doing a far better job preserving the core messages and themes than the Watchmen movie, in spite of making far fewer changes, managed to do (and before anyone accuses me of excessive fannishness, know that I never actually "got," and did not miss when it was completely absent from the movie, the Tales of the Black Freighter segment). I recommend it in all amiability and sincerity.
- Watchmen is not only a dark satire of the superhero genre, but also an informed meditation on the nature of one of the most important concepts underlying it: The ubermensch, embodied primarily by Rorschach, Ozymandias, and Dr. Manhattan. It is also a paean to moral ambiguity and a sort of "moral horror story" - of all the important characters, only The Comedian can be considered unambiguously "Evil." However, it is also a story. In the "real world," Ozymandias probably wouldn't have had to do what he did; someone with his resources and abilities would more than likely have been able to figure out and implement something better - but then there'd have been no story, and the story as written is a kind of masterfully-decorated Christmas tree where the plot can be considered a mere servitor for the display of characters and ideas.
- The issue of whether Ozymandias' plan "addresses the underlying problem" hinges on what that underlying problem is, whether it's at all possible to address it in any better way, and whether, as is entirely possible, it is possible or even best to address it by pulling so far in another direction that it snaps like taffy. If the "underlying problem" is in fact an illusion, yet one that so many people are convinced is real that it's hopelessly out of hand, then replacing that illusion with another one could well work - keep in mind that Ozymandias' end-game was the end-game to the Robber's Cave Study: Reconcile two camps who had once worked together, but then became mortal enemies for reasons that were far more grounded in falsehood than not, by forcing them to work together for a common purpose again. As for "what happens when the folks at The New Frontiersman read Rorschach's journal," I'm sure there are countless very long threads out there on that subject alone - to conclude that it all would have backfired and ruined everything is far from guaranteed, or even the most likely scenario. Maybe the Editor-In-Chief at The New Frontiersman tosses it in the trash after reading it because, paranoid, conservative, and small-minded sort that he is (who's also apparently an experienced, sober, and serious-minded journalist rather than someone like Andrew Breitbart), refuses to believe that Rorschach, his hero, could have been such a weirdo. Maybe it gets published, but A) Ozymandias, as well as the world's governments, who, though bitter and horrified, are ultimately grudgingly grateful for the intervention, as well as awed by someone taking initiative and doing something about a situation everyone else felt powerless to stop, wield far, far more media power than The New Frontiersman, and they nip the story's outbreak in the bud, or B) it blows over because hardly anyone's paying attention, The New Frontiersman is viewed as a bellicose extremist rag and Rorschach is remembered by the public as an imbalanced kook who wound up in jail, everyone who knows the truth and is still both alive and available for comment remains committed to the coverup, anyone who would be interested in Rorschach's story (such as the police investigating The Comedian's death) realizes in the end it would be better to keep it under wraps because they're already the sort of people who'd much prefer to put peace before truth, and it's so contrary to the zeitgeist for everyone else. Like I said, a topic by itself for countless other Internet threads.
- For purposes of my bringing this up here in the first place, it's not about the specifics of Watchmen - as I said, it's an horrific reality that many real and fictitious individuals have been (or at least felt) confronted with.
I also don't think that in the case of your Football players vers Einstein, that we're seldom in a position to have the knowledge or wisdom to identify and judge such a scenario. Because after all, what if one of those football players was Paul Robeson?
You realize this is the converse to the original statement, and you're saying "no" to both, right? We're talking about thought experiments here - you take certain circumstances and put them in a "sterile environment" so that you can divine truths on a more "atomic" level that you couldn't divine if you were restricted to operating in the Land of the Living. You say "we're seldom in a position to have the knowledge or wisdom etc etc," but the point of this is that we're assuming that this is one of those "seldom" occurrences - understand this is one of the ways that people acquire necessary elements of the knowledge and wisdom that make it at all possible to make such decisions, or (preferably and more likely), to achieve the perspective such harrowing mental journeys provide us with that will help us avert the need for such decisions to actually be made. Saying "it's not our place to make such decisions" is really just passing the buck - if too many people respond to such terrible power by saying, "it's too terrible, I don't want it," it will just wind up in the hands of whoever is willing to take it, AND it will wind up more and more likely for a "moral nightmare scenario" to actually be necessary.
Introducing Paul Robeson to the original thought experiment changes it substantially - I'd still choose Einstein, though. Robeson may have been far more than your typical NFL player, and it would be a tragedy to lose him, but did he/could he ever have changed the world forever, in ways that I more-than-slightly suspect have yet to reveal their full extent, the way Einstein did?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that the barbarian being in rage makes the murder morally excusable is like saying that killing someone while drunk is ok, you where drunk after all, so it's not your fault :P
That is how established legal codes in the modern world (or at least the US - I'd be surprised if any other "Western" nation was different in this regard) would view it, though; it's called "hot-blooded," as opposed to "cold-blooded" murder, and the idea is exactly that: "You didn't have full control over your actions, so while we're probably still going to punish you, it won't be as severe as if you'd thought it through clearly and still decided to go through with it." The alcohol analogy would not apply, though (again, at least not in American law, possibly due to the MADD era in the 1970's/1980's that had a great deal of background in old American traditions of religious puritanism and set the tone for contemporary DWI laws that are, quite frankly, unreasonably harsh), the idea being "you made a deliberate choice to get drunk, and are therefore fully responsible for whatever you did while drunk, yet for some reason, it's not your fault if you suddenly devolve into a chimpanzee because someone hurt your feelings." The point is, in spite of that, I agree with your initial premise - if anything, shouldn't it be the opposite? If you chose to kill someone even after taking the time to think clearly and carefully about it, wouldn't that mean you're much more likely to have actually had a good reason? It's like the act of murder is ultimately less frightening than simple intelligence....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something like that, yes.
The Barbarian chose to rage and he has some control over himself while raging, he can decide who to attack or when to end it after all.
So since he decided to rage to kill the paladin, his rage shouldn't be an excuse at all, it might even make matters worse that he somehow got himself quite worked up at the thought of slaughtering the paladin and the guards.
On the matter of him protecting his friends, I can't really see it as an excuse since he threw the first blow, choosing violence over a possible peaceful solution.
As for the int 7 argument it doesn't hold any water, being a dumb brute doesn't make it any more right to attack anyone, even if they're armed and pointing their weapon in your general direction.
As for the overall question about killing always being evil; the ansver is obviously no, there are reasons that makes it acceptable, otherwise there would be no paladins, as people has mentioned before.
A side note on paladins. In 3.5 there was a clarification of the paladin code that specified that a paladin was required to follow just law where he travled, but should he encounter an unjust tyranny he was obliged to do everything in his power to topple the tyrant and install a fair regime in his stead. I like to play with this extra because it allows paladins to actially be Lawful GOOD, instead of just Lawful :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A raging barbarian is incapable of using any intellectual abilities he might possess, including his ability to work out complex philosophical concepts like whether or not to attack people threatening him with pointy swords.
Rage causes impaired judgement, and evil deeds performed Under The Influence of rage must be looked at in-context.
I would very much like to know where in the RAW this is stated. IMO it unduly gives a free pass to the Barbarian based only on the fluff of its class feature.
Note though that I like very much the likeness to the common western medieval idea that demons could take control of your actions and that the state of your soul did not depend on those actions but on how you dealt with them afterwards (ie, remorse and penitence or acceptation and even pride). This would be a great fluff for a Barbarian character whose rage comes from being possessed by demons.
But I would not expect nor ask my GM to exempt my character from the alignment consequences of acts committed while raging. IMO the only thing that can actually waive alignment consequences for a PC's actions is when he actually becomes a NPC, ie when the GM takes control of the actions and the player has no choice.
If you chose to kill someone even after taking the time to think clearly and carefully about it, wouldn't that mean you're much more likely to have actually had a good reason? It's like the act of murder is ultimately less frightening than simple intelligence....
This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).
Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.
This is why I fall back to killing is evil as a default baseline. While the overall good accomplished from the act of killing may far outweigh the evil of the killing, and therefore in total be a good act, the killing part is still evil and for those of good alignment; killing should always be the last (perceived last, objectively last) resort.
But as far as the barbarian rage vs. drunk driving analogy; it's at best a false analogy:
Why, on average, does a person drive a vehicle? Why, on average, does a person drink alcohol? Why, on average, does a person who has consumed alcohol get behind the wheel of a vehicle? No one can reasonable answer those questions with "because they intend or are predicting a violent altercation."
Why, on average, does a barbarian enter rage? And make no mistake, entering rage is a consciously willed act as "A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength [to enter rage]". There is nothing (short of against-one's-will magical mental compulsions to change emotional states) that will force a barbarian to become enraged...it's up to the player to determine when and where (hopefully based on the role-playing aspects of the situation [but that's my bias showing through]).
The analogy just doesn't work. The barbarian isn't out peacefully raging (drinking) only to get carried away by picking up an axe (start driving) where he then unintentionally starts severing limbs on the dance floor (crashes into other drivers killing and/or maiming them).
I would very much like to know where in the RAW this is stated.
Yeah...it's not stated. The player (and hence by extension) the barbarian willfully determines when to enter rage, willfully determines which enemies to attack (an can thereby intelligently use tactics such as moving to flanking positions, etc.), and can willfully end their rage as free action.
The fluff in the barbarian class section makes them into whirlwinds of passionate slaughter though, and there's nothing wrong with a player deciding to play their enraged barbarian as if all reason has fled from their violence-soaked brains. But it's not RAW.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think someone made great justification to destroy all forms of authority because they might use force against you if you break the law (even if being a murdering psycho was the original offense, how dare they threaten me). Hmm kill all in my way so i can do as i please. pretty sure that is the good old CE in a nutshell....
|
|
This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).
Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.
To say that everybody, or even most people, are like that is simply nowhere near true - and the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite.
This depends largely on "what side of bed people get up on," except for their whole life rather than one morning, so to speak. If people are taught to defend ideologies, they'll behave as you say - up to a point. Forced to face enough evidence (it usually has to be traumatic, unfortunately), most people will break out of an ideology. Consider a few cases: David Brock, Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Bruce Bartlett, Bart Ehrman, and Daniel Everett.
Perhaps I should ask: How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they? The biggest problem with what you say, however: What about the people who aren't "rationalizing," but simply right - or at least are onto something? Does that statement, perhaps, imply stasis or finitude to you? It doesn't have to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the world of Pathfinder it is a certainty that there is an afterlife. Killing someone merely sends them to that afterlife, it does not destroy them.
If they are good people then they go to a good afterlife, and vice-versa. Again there is no real question as to this. Powerful enough characters can even interact with these departed souls.
So killing something isn't particularly horrible in PF so long as the act does not increase suffering in the mortal world.
This is a line of reasoning - not without some merit - that a paladin could use to justify killing.
This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).
Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.
To say that everybody, or even most people, are like that is simply nowhere near true - and the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite.
This depends largely on "what side of bed people get up on," except for their whole life rather than one morning, so to speak. If people are taught to defend ideologies, they'll behave as you say - up to a point. Forced to face enough evidence (it usually has to be traumatic, unfortunately), most people will break out of an ideology. Consider a few cases: David Brock, Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Bruce Bartlett, Bart Ehrman, and Daniel Everett.
Perhaps I should ask: How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they? The biggest problem with what you say, however: What about the people who aren't "rationalizing," but simply right - or at least are onto something? Does that statement, perhaps, imply stasis or finitude to you? It doesn't have to.
I'll just point to this pop article that references the studies and has links. You can be the judge.
Is killing spiders evil?
Was this in self defense? Were they obtuse Paladin Spiders trying to arrest you?