I think people are mixing up Chaos vs Law and Good vs Evil.
For instance:
If you read the actual stories about Robin Hood (i.e. not that stupid disney B.S.), you will see that he killed lots of people. He often killed people attempting to capture him. But Robin Hood is VERY VERY VERY often shown as THE example of the CG character...
Just putting that out there.
I think people are mixing up Chaos vs Law and Good vs Evil.
For instance:
If you read the actual stories about Robin Hood (i.e. not that stupid disney B.S.), you will see that he killed lots of people. He often killed people attempting to capture him. But Robin Hood is VERY VERY VERY often shown as THE example of the CG character...
Just putting that out there.
The stupid Disney version of him is THE example of a CG character.
The more 'realistic' version of him is much more CN with tendencies toward evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think I am evil for swatting flies and not eating them then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.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.
...
If you don't accept that morally unjustifiable killing is evil then I really don't know how to approach that argument.
Man, you jumped through some hoops from that one. Or you really just misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Maybe I was unclear, I didn't think I was, but c'est la vie.
I'm saying a killing isn't morally justifiable it's evil. I didn't really give an exhaustive list of what does or doesn't make something morally justifiable. I gave one example, which was killing non-sentient creatures is morally justifiable (unless you're PETA). There are many reasons that are valid. I think most people accept that killing an insect is accetpable on the grounds that it is disturbing (whether because it bites you, you find it to be dirty, etc). I was not implying that killing a mosquito without the intention of eating it isn't morally justifiable.
|
I think people are mixing up Chaos vs Law and Good vs Evil.
For instance:
If you read the actual stories about Robin Hood (i.e. not that stupid disney B.S.), you will see that he killed lots of people. He often killed people attempting to capture him. But Robin Hood is VERY VERY VERY often shown as THE example of the CG character...
Just putting that out there.
The stupid Disney version of him is THE example of a CG character.
The more 'realistic' version of him is much more CN with tendencies toward evil.
very true he was a "hero" only to those he helped. I see that as little different that southerners at one time seeing Klansmen as heroic, since they were on their side.
very true he was a "hero" only to those he helped. I see that as little different that southerners at one time seeing Klansmen as heroic, since they were on their side.I think people are mixing up Chaos vs Law and Good vs Evil.
For instance:
If you read the actual stories about Robin Hood (i.e. not that stupid disney B.S.), you will see that he killed lots of people. He often killed people attempting to capture him. But Robin Hood is VERY VERY VERY often shown as THE example of the CG character...
Just putting that out there.
The stupid Disney version of him is THE example of a CG character.
The more 'realistic' version of him is much more CN with tendencies toward evil.
But is that not always the case? History is written by the victors. Who is a "hero" and who is a "villian" is often dependent on the side you pick. More than a few times in history, some peasant guy will overthrow the "evil" monarch/lord/noble and try and run things as they see as "fair" only to find that they end running the country/kingdom into ruin.
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.
As a clarification in response to your response of my agreement-with-you-coupled-with-additional-thoughts post, I said "they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts" which doesn't outright prohibit an individual from changing their stance in light of new facts (as evident in the individuals you cite)...only that according to recent research (which could be proven wrong or at least faulty...but I haven't found credible evidence supporting the alternative), on average, a person with an emotionally invested interest in a belief/ideology will likely ("likely" but not "certainly") dig in and find ways to rationalize their view in spite of the evidence presented (as indicated in the article and sources from my previous post on this thread). And this would occur more often (but not absolutely) for individuals who have not been exposed to the very idea that in having an emotional investment in an ideology/belief one will default to rationalizing against evidence showing their ideology/belief as false than for those who have been taught/are aware of logical fallacies in general, and that specific point in particular.
As for "How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they?" I used ideology loosely so as to include any political, religious, sociological, etc. point of view, assumption, assertion. Everyone has one or more (some have consciously thought about it while others have been indoctrinated from a vary young age, and others sit somehwere within the spectrum between the two extremes). And "must they?" ... yes. Though it may be wholly unconscious and only exposed upon in-depth questioning or it may be accurately and precisely thought out (and therefor better in-line with reality...or not).
Concerning "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?" my statements don't support nor deny those who are "simply right." All that my post pertained to is for people who 'think' they are 'right' when they are confronted with facts that prove they are, in fact (by definition), not 'right.'
And that reveals the insidious danger of the "backfire effect." If the facts/evidence support your 'ideology' then it should be easy to rationalize the facts/evidence to support you. If the facts/evidence do not support your 'ideology' then it will be difficult to do so...but the more intelligent you are the better equipped you will be to rationalize the facts/evidence in ways to support your (wrong) point of view. Which then negates your opening statement of "the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite." where in fact the more intelligent you are, the better equipped your mental faculties are for deceiving you; especially if you have a deep emotional investment in that belief/ideology (but it says nothing about those trained in skeptical self-reflection on one's emotionally held beliefs/ideologies or those who hold a reality based view [even if they came to that view via non-rational means).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
very true he was a "hero" only to those he helped. I see that as little different that southerners at one time seeing Klansmen as heroic, since they were on their side.
Regardless of historical Robin Hood's ability to live up to Robin Hood of subsequent legend, if you consider the Robin Hood people think of when they call him heroic to be comparable to the KKK, I suggest looking a little more into (to name just a few) history, anthropology, psychology, political science, comparative folklore/religion/mythology (stories of heroic criminals who rob from the rich and give to the poor come from all over the world).
Oh, and give this nice little bauble a whirl. I'd say if Rudyard Kipling can sort this out eventually, then there's hope for us all.
|
|
very true he was a "hero" only to those he helped. I see that as little different that southerners at one time seeing Klansmen as heroic, since they were on their side.Regardless of historical Robin Hood's ability to live up to Robin Hood of subsequent legend, if you consider the Robin Hood people think of when they call him heroic to be comparable to the KKK, I suggest looking a little more into (to name just a few) history, anthropology, psychology, political science, comparative folklore/religion/mythology (stories of heroic criminals who rob from the rich and give to the poor come from all over the world).
Oh, and give this nice little bauble a whirl. I'd say if Rudyard Kipling can sort this out eventually, then there's hope for us all.
A killer and thief yeah he is scum of the lowest sort even if he gave some to others
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternate scenario:
A Neutral Good bard is suspected of theft. A paladin and 10 guards confront him, but before he kills them all with a surprise meteor strike scroll "because they threathened me". Evil act or not?
The OP main argument seems to be "because i'm stupid and violent, you should expect me to behave bad and therefore it's not evil".
Alternatively "if the murderer is a barbarian, then murder is not evil".
sorry, but no.
He was maybe brought up in a CE society and never learned right from wrong, but that doesn't make him 'neutral'. It does however mean that he doesn't care what the last letter of his alignment is. The only problem I see here is that the player for some reason doesn't want the character to be characterized as evil, and launches this discussion to absolve himself and blame the DM.
For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.
|
For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.
Self-defense is not Evil last time I checked. Not even in the CRB ;-)
|
|
As a clarification in response to your...
@Fizzygoo: That article cited a study where a certain group of people were told they were wrong and refused to accept it, but then it made an immediate leap from that to "this is clearly EVERYBODY'S problem" - no, there's no reason to think that at all. Also, umm...the site you cite itself is committed by its very domain name to a certain prejudice. Also, understand a few things:
- "People tend to..." and "people are likely to..." are nowhere near as irreproachable as they're often treated. These are statistics, which have many useful applications, but they aren't actually real - it just isn't so easy to know, judge, and track every REAL individual in all Space and Time.
- Saying "they did a study" is almost a logical fallacy in its own right. Truckloads upon truckloads of studies have been done, are done, and continue to be done, and the fact is, people are too impressed by them.
- Sociology/psychology just isn't as easy as "hard science;" you can study group behavior relatively well, but the most important stuff, including the things upon which questions like "are people inherently rational or not?" hang, just can't be done (at least not in the absence of some way to truly be able to see into another person's mind, which I realized long ago would be the most revolutionary technological breakthrough EVER, probably even moreso than agriculture or futuristic heavy-hitters like time travel, raising the dead, or travel to/creating parallel universes). Science is fantastic, but it has limitations. Also, remember that psychology is, in addition to being as "soft" as a science can get and still call itself a science, still less than 150 years old, and already showing signs of its own ontological crisis.
- If you do say "everyone has an ideology," you can't expect, much less state as fact, one which says "the truth has already been discovered and anyone who contradicts it is wrong or lying, and my purpose is to spread what I've been taught and defend it and those who embody it from those who deny it or them" to deserve to be considered the intellectual equal of one which says, "I'm not sure I know what's true, but I want to find out, and I'll listen to anyone and go anywhere to discover it;" how about we apply our trusty Occam's Razor (TM; Leave it to a Theologian to Craft a Knife that can Kill his own God)? Rather than looking for some bogeyman hiding in the dark recesses of people's brains who exists to make smart people stupid, let's look at what we've got here and say, the first ideology is going to do what it says it's going to do, and so is the second - and the article you cited showed exactly that.
- If you're using some definition of "intelligence" that means "the smarter you are, the more you can, and more importantly WILL inhibit your own ability to learn," then you're not defining the word the way I do (and it's always been a frustrating concept to pin down to begin with). If you mean something like "IQ," that means something, but nowhere near as much as people might attribute to it (and this is coming from someone who, by the rubric of IQ, has been confirmed by multiple tests as a "genius"); if you mean "better-educated people," that, sadly, does not equate to intelligence - there's enough more to the ability to earn a degree, that shouldn't really be there, than intelligence that it's all too possible for someone who abhors reason and learning to earn a PhD, and for a genius to flunk out - and then there's the story of two people I'm very close to: They were grad students together and worked on the same project. In the end, one earned a PhD and the other didn't make it, in spite of the fact that they both knew just as much at what they were doing and did just as much work - in the end, the second person got shortchanged by rigmarole.
- Finally, I think people are made to look far less "rational" than they truly are because they are judged by a definition of "rational" that really is nothing of the kind. People are too impressed by the ability to communicate, which, horror of horrors, has nothing to do, or may even be antagonistic to, ability to think. This is a LOOONG rabbit hole that I feel too taxed to go into, but I've pointed it out.
A killer and thief yeah he is scum of the lowest sort even if he gave some to others
Seriously? Lower than, say, rich people who not only rob from the poor to give more to themselves, but use their wealth and influence to lie to their own victims and rape their minds to the point where their victims become their loyal and willing servants, then, having convinced them that they're not allowed to be angry at them, redirect that anger toward innocent scapegoats (outcasts, foreigners, the weak, people who can't be fooled, etc.), whom their victim-slaves kill en masse at their edict, at which point they rob from the scapegoats to give EVEN MORE to themselves?
Iconoclasty is trendy and all, but it's worth remembering why people are made into icons in the first place.
Lots going on here...hmm...here is 2 copper.
I think it all boils down to one old saying, I have no idea who said it first...but it's been said a lot.
"Sometimes, it's a necessary evil."
As in...yeah it's kind of evil to kill a sentient being, regardless what it is...but if it's justifiable in the manner of, if I don't stop these orcs, much more evil will occur. I will accept this evil I must due upon my soul so that other souls will not have evil done upon them.
Kind of like helping someone get healthy is a good act, even evil clerics have to heal people sometimes, for the greater evil and all.
Killing is evil, but the circumstance dictates if it is a necessary evil or is straight up evil.
In this case, it was not necessarily, necessary. So I would say it was evil.
However if you are Neutral that means that you do some good and some evil acts. This however does not mean that you need to discuss an alignment change everytime one of these happening.
Also alignment allows for interpretations. You can be Lawful Good, as long as you stay away from evil acts and have a code you follow. That code does not necessarily mean that you also have to include all laws from every city you pass through. (look at samurai, or monks even)
In my opinion the only time someone should start talking about if someone needs to have an alignment change, is in the case of premeditated good or evil. As in they plan out an action ahead of time that is not a 'necessary' good or a 'necessary' evil.
*clink clink*
If killing, regardless of circumstances besides utter self-defense, is evil, then how do you run a Paladin? Last I checked, most Paladins don't just act bouncers at your local church...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not always evil, but never good.
I guess the LG god of executions, Dammerich, has a different opinion.
Not to mention all those evil dogs, lions, falcons, and other vile killers out there. A paladin would surely have his hands full trying to stop SO MUCH evil in the world--especially considering he can't kill ANY of them without falling...
*rolls eyes*
Let me guess: The Paladin was making a little speech about what he was doing and why and you said "I charge him and attack!" and then killed him outright. That's...not necessarily bad roleplaying, but it's bad manners OOC. Letting adversaries who aren't making overt aggressive moves finish speaking is usually part of the assumed social contract in most games most of the time. After all, without such conversations,the PCs might well have no idea what's going on with large sections of the plot, something many GMs spend quite a while working on.
My usual stance it: "Kill the bad guy before he finishes speaking, it could be a spell or something." And my characters have often been punished if I forgot that "rule" because it really was something the other side should better not had a chance to finish.
And I hate it when computer games force me to watch a cut-scene before being able to kill my enemy. I feel THAT is bad manners.Not all playstyles are the same.
Is killing spiders evil?
From my standpoint bloodsucking is evil.
Because bloodsucking is evil mosquitos are evil, too.
Spiders kill mosquitos, which are evil and killing evil is good which leads to spiders being good.
Killing good is evil which leads to killing spiders being evil.
Yes, killing spiders is evil.
Just doing their jobs, doesn't make killing them anymore evil, considering they were willing to resort to force. Also, killing can totally be a good act. Killing a dude who is going to kill someone else is a good act hands down.Not always evil, but never good. The temperament of a barbarian is a non-issue, and should hold no more weight in decided whether or not it's okay to kill someone than whether or not someone in real life has anger issues and a history of violence" killing is killing. The only time it might be considered neutral, in my mind, is if it was self defense, or if you truly had no other option.
In this case... why EXACTLY were they pursuing you? You mentioned a stolen sword, so it sounds like they were just doing their jobs to me.
But not because you killed. Because you altruistically defended the life of someone.
Pathfinder defines killing as evil. It almost defines evil as killing. I'm 100% of the idea that killing can be tempered to acting neutral, but there is no good killing. Generally if you are getting a net gain towards the "good" end of things it's because you were doing something good in addition to the otherwise tempered kill, such as protecting / aiding someone in need.
What the barbarian was originally described as doing I would probably accept as neutrality. Whether the authorities were in the right or not, the barbarian was defending himself and/or his freedom. That's not to say he's not evil for other reasons but killing in self defense isn't one of those reasons. That's not to say that what he did was acceptable in their society or anything but it's pretty indifferent on the good/evil scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm imagining a criminal in court trying that.
"Well, yes, I stole that family's belongings ... but the cop pointed his gun at me and said freeze! I only shot him in self defense!"
Shooting a police officer in self defense is still self defense. It is not by any means lawful however, nor is it going to be well received by the vast majority of people because even if it's not evil doesn't mean it's acceptable and comes with its own set of consequences.
Whether something is criminal or not has little to do with morality and instead what is or is not acceptable within that society, which is why laws are not universal but actual good and evil in D&D is (slavery is does not stop being evil the moment you walk into Cheliax, it just stops being unacceptable).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.Self-defense is not Evil last time I checked. Not even in the CRB ;-)
You're missing his point. The point is that in the core rulebook nothing is defined as an actual aligned act because that's effectively impossible, but each act that you do can be in keeping with a particular alignment and it does define what those alignments entail. Further, a character's alignment is based on their overall norms.
What he is saying is that killing is always evil. It is. But altruism and protecting life are always good. So if you're killing in self defense you're hitting a net neutral (you're doing evil - killing, but you're protecting life - yours). If you're killing to protect someone else, you're probably acting more in keeping with good (you are being altruistic and protecting someone).
This is why Paladins can defend themselves and others and be A-OK. It's not that killing stops being evil but that the whole of your actions aren't evil.
He's all like "You didn't even ask what they were charged with".
And I am like "Korgoth doesn't care" They pointed swords at him and tried to arrest him by association and threatened him. Barbarians follow the law of nature. On a battlefield if you point a sword at someone that's a death threat.
I think what he's really mad about is that my little level 4 Barbarian has Power Attack, Cleave and was able to kill both the Paladin captain's mount and him in a single round. Honestly I am sick of mediocre or bad DMs trying to shove "the local law" down on PCs. A group of Paladins hunting a party over a stolen magical sword is just silly.
Yeah OK I'm min-maxed and deal 2d6 + 22 damage on a hit and have a bite attack. So what? Sure I can critically hit for 4d6 + 44 damage while raging. That's what Barbarians do.
He made me justify my build, which is strictly APG and Core. Masterwork greatsword, 20 base strength. Potions of Bull's strength for emergencies, or cleric buffs. Rage for 4 more strength. 3 levels in Fighter get me extra feats for cleave, power attack and extra rage. Also Two-hand fighter variant gives me. 2*STR damage on the first attack.
Honestly this guy's just mad that I critically hit his Paladin for 61 damage and buried him. Isn't that the epitome of bad DMing?
Your GM raises a lot of red flags that have nothing to do with alignment. Most notably the fact that he's demanding you "justify" your build when the entire build can be summed up as "I swing my sword real good".
The fact a group of Paladins is apparently the equivalent of the local police also seems pretty suspect, but that could just be a difference of ideals from my perspective and that GM's (to me Paladins are way more than just mundane law enforcement).
While I'm also of the opinion that what your barbarian did wasn't evil I'm also tossing out that I don't think it was particularly good either since it was effectively just self defense. It was illegal, unacceptable self defense to boot, so there would likely bring more real problems on your party that aren't necessarily related to alignment (in fact, alignment generally should have little to no effect on the world at large most of the time because it's an intangible thing that generally only matters when aligned-spells and class features start entering the mix).
That doesn't mean your character isn't evil. I've no idea what happened surrounding this island incident. As others have pointed out, stealing from people and anything involved with that may have already tilted your alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Evil. Not murdering children at the playground and wearing their innards to freak out the parents kind of evil. But more evil than stealing (or; it's the worst theft of all...someone's life).
But then there's just the inherent nature of the game itself where some GM's just accept that when an NPC/monster is reduced to 0 hp, it's dead, instead of applying when hp drops to negative Con or greater as for the PCs and checking if the NPC stabilizes.
It's stuff like this that really reminds me how odd my characters must be for attempting to stabilize every NPC that we end up fighting. I've got an 8th (now technically 9th level psion since our last session's XP but I haven't leveled her up yet) who has a few ranks in heal so that I can take-10 and stabilize people. Generally speaking this applies to NPCs who've wound up on the wrong end of our party's offense. She usually just eats the dead ones though, and in the case of certain NPCs, animates them.
|
|
For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.Self-defense is not Evil last time I checked. Not even in the CRB ;-)You're missing his point. The point is that in the core rulebook nothing is defined as an actual aligned act because that's effectively impossible, but each act that you do can be in keeping with a particular alignment and it does define what those alignments entail. Further, a character's alignment is based on their overall norms.
What he is saying is that killing is always evil. It is. But altruism and protecting life are always good. So if you're killing in self defense you're hitting a net neutral (you're doing evil - killing, but you're protecting life - yours). If you're killing to protect someone else, you're probably acting more in keeping with good (you are being altruistic and protecting someone).
This is why Paladins can defend themselves and others and be A-OK. It's not that killing stops being evil but that the whole of your actions aren't evil.
Actually, you are missing my point which is that there is nothing in the CRB that says "Killing is always evil" ;-)
Also, if killing is always an evil act, then the Paladin under your system falls right away after killing whatever the circumstances and the target because the RAW makes no provision for "the whole of your actions". It forbids any single evil act. QED
We have to keep in mind that modern morality doesn't enter into the equation. This is a medieval game world. The Paladin was well outside his church and nation's border. Even in the nicest of terms, the Paladin had zero authority to arrest someone that was unrelated with the crime, lacking evidence and then threaten the guys life for refusing to drop his weapon.
I wanna chime in here as well. D&D doesn't use medieval morality either. It uses a standardized morality that is defined by simplistic but traditionally highly acceptable basic principles of morality. Its simplicity is not only a virtue but is effectively required to use it as a game mechanic because of BS like this.
Actually, you are missing my point which is that there is nothing in the CRB that says "Killing is always evil" ;-)
Also, if killing is always an evil act, then the Paladin under your system falls right away after killing whatever the circumstances and the target because the RAW makes no provision for "the whole of your actions". It forbids any single evil act. QED
There are no evil acts (or chaotic acts, or lawful acts, or good acts for that matter). There is only in keeping with alignment based on the definitions of those alignments. The evil alignment expresses killing as being implied by evil, while the mention of killing in all other alignments mention compunctions against such things or indifference.
No one thing in the game is innately aligned. It's based on the whole. It's a simple and relatively elegant if often misused (or simply ignored in favor of more complex yet inferior methodologies).
Let's evaluate how simple this is.
Paladin kills an orc to protect someone. Good (killing was in keeping with evil, but altruism and protecting life are in keeping with good).
Paladin kills an orc in self defense. Neutral (killing was in keeping with evil, but protecting life is in keeping with good).
Paladin kills an orc to take his stuff or on grounds of him simply being an orc. Evil to very evil (killing was in keeping with evil, and oppression is also evil). Paladin dun goofed.
Regardless of the plausibility of paladins working as the local law enforcement, we can't deny that the OP is having a temper tantrum on the forum because he stole something valuable and oh no... They want it back.
I agree that the OP needs to seriously sit back and think about some things. I also don't agree that the OP is right about everything, just as I don't think he's wrong about everything. I agree that his character was acting pretty darn chaotic neutral (not even in the internet meme sort of way but in the his freedom trumps all + self defense = pretty chaotic and neutral), but I also think that he sounds really standoffish about all of this, and in the same vein his argument about medieval morality is just as out of place as he claims modern morality to be.
I was trying to avoid getting into the temper tantrum side of things because my interest in this discussion is a less emotionally charged one and I'm more interested in talking about the system we are given and how it actually works. Despite mostly playing without alignment in many of my more recent games, I don't dislike the alignment system, I dislike this crap that the misuse of the alignment system brings with it, and since I do a lot of online gaming I've grown rather tired of having to stop sessions to explain why cannibalism isn't evil or why killing people to take their stuff is.
Also, I can understand having someone justify their build because you'll be surprised what those dastardly players will pull. One of my players showed up and neglected to tell everyone until we got to the BBEG that he was A WEREBEAR.
Wait, even the GM didn't know? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's evaluate how simple this is.
Paladin kills an orc to protect someone. Good (killing was in keeping with evil, but altruism and protecting life are in keeping with good).
Paladin kills an orc in self defense. Neutral (killing was in keeping with evil, but protecting life is in keeping with good).
Paladin kills an orc to take his stuff or on grounds of him simply being an orc. Evil to very evil (killing was in keeping with evil, and oppression is also evil). Paladin dun goofed.
Also, re-reading this, I should also note that while the middle ground will never make a Paladin fall for acting neutral, if the Paladin just acts neutral most of the time then he'll stop being a Paladin because his alignment is Neutral.
This is because alignment does not dictate the way you act but the way that you act does dictate your alignment. If you're consistently being neutral then your alignment will be neutral. If you're consistently being good, you will be good. This is why being a Paladin is generally such a big deal in terms of things. Not only do they simply not do evil things but they actively do good things more often than not.
This is also one of the problems with the idea of "forced alignment" as it goes against everything that the alignment system is. For example, let's pretend for a moment that I'm a vampire, you're my victim, and I turn you into another vampire. When you become a vampire your alignment changes to Evil, but being a vampire has literally no further effect on your personality beyond whatever you want to explore with that change, so if you now as a vampire don't kill people (vampires can very easily feed on both nonsentient creatures as well as not kill their victims), then your alignment will just naturally shift back to whatever fits your personality.
Wait, even the GM didn't know? O.oI used to have an honor system in place where I would trust players not to do weird stuff like that (and I have a lot to think about in the game besides reviewing their character sheets.)
Needless to say I have ceased the honor system.
Wow. Well I can actually relate to the honor system idea as I too trust my players a lot. I would even say that under the right circumstances that might have not even bothered me and could have been really cool (say the the PC did something unexpected that wasn't cheesy within the rules and then did the big reveal as sort of a thematic surprise) but I get the impression this wasn't one of those times. :P
I guess that doesn't come up much because I tend to be pretty involved in the development of most of my PC's characters because I tend to try to incorporate things about and for those characters into my games, so usually even if one of the PCs has a secret that is kept from the rest of the party for long stretches of the campaign I'm usually privy to it. (^_^)"
In fact, there's actually quite a few PCs and NPCs in the current campaign that I'm running that have some secrets - some of them quite dark and would get them into serious trouble - that the rest of the PCs don't know anything about yet, or in some cases only a few select PCs with similar dark secrets are aware of (some of the PCs have picked their battles in who they speak of their situations to).
Seems pretty clear to me that it's evil. It was convenient for him to kill the lawful guards attempting to arrest him. That they were prepared to use force to arrest him is of no consequence. Or else you're telling me it's not evil for a criminal to kill cops to avoid being arrested. I can understand why a criminal might do it, but it doesn't make it less evil.
Alignment is object, it doesn't matter what the barbarian's opinion on the situation is because good and evil are set by outside forces. Unfortunately we don't have exhaustive examples so we are forced to interpret it ourselves and leads to these discussions. To me, it seems clear the barbarians actions are evil.
this is why alignment is such a pain.
if you say alignment is objective then most of the actions a paladin takes on the average adventure can be considered evil.
On the other hand if alignment is subjective than that same paladin can gleefully slaughter for any reason that fits his rational and be continually blessed by their god.
In my games the GM is the sole arbiter of alignment... however a GM cannot punish a players alignment without warning, either prior to the action that the act will be considered counter to their alignment for xyz reason OR after the action that the act, if continued or repeated, will affect alignment.
This is why I like that there are no X-acts, only acts in keeping with X. The system actually works really well, it's just that nobody actually uses the system.
If we had talked about it before and level-adjusted it a bit, I would've allowed it. But he literally just said "I turn werebear!" and looked at me with a defiant grin. I then screamed at him for about 20 minutes while he sipped on his Mt. Dew and then I calmed down I just accepted it, hahaha
Haha, wow. (^~^)"
Yeah, I probably would have been fine with it too if he had followed the proper rules and/or house rules we have for dealing with monstrous races and then sprang the big reveal. I've had a few PCs play things like lycanthropes (in fact, I've really wanted to play a lycanthropic character at some point, but I'm content to just enjoying the occasional lycanthropic NPC).
In fact, in my current campaign one of the PCs is a child tiefling vampire who tries to hide her vampirism. It's worth noting that the vampire template I use in my games is significantly altered from the standard PF vampire (a number of weaknesses and a lot of their benefits are removed or lessened) but it's still a pretty solid bump.
She, the character, is having to deal with a lot of stuff on her plate at the moment. She's bound to a magical book ('cause being an outsider sucks), she's about twice as old as she looks ('cause undead), and she's currently having something of a crisis in dealing with the whims and desires of her evil tyrannical vampire overlord. That's aside the fact that even though most people don't recognize that she's a vampire (because of a combination of NPCs not passively beating her Disguise check or having ranks in Knowledge Religion), she's still a high-elf-born tiefling with very noticeable wings in a country full of people who tend to look down on tieflings and generally kill undead on sight or flee from them.
Amusingly, she and another vampire friend of hers are currently under the protection of the party Paladin who is skating on thin ice with his order by claiming them as his wards (his order has a long history of fighting and destroying the undead) and his insistence on not killing them and protecting them has put his honor and motives into question with the order (and he risks everything from demotion to excommunication to worse if things go badly). He has faith in them if no one else will.
A fun story is that one of the vampires he is protecting he discovered when he attempted to heal a wound she took on her face and ended up melting off half her face. He was like "oh crap!" and the shock of it caused her to go into a blood-rage (we use a close proximity to the feeding mechanics from the Pathfinder vampire supplement so occasionally based on HD a vampire has to make a saving throw or go berserk). What was really impressive is when she jumped him trying to feed on him, he was like "oh, uh, uh-oh" and then he did the coolest thing that I've ever seen a Paladin do...
He apprehended her. Like, she attempted to grapple him, he declared smite, out-wrestled her and then slapped some handcuffs on her until she calmed down. Now that he has access to a few pearls of power and can cast lesser restoration he has been allowing the two vampires to feed on him which is scoring him all manner of goodness points. :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that I joined in on this conversation a bit late, but wow. It seems that many are characterizing the actions of the OP's character as self-defense, and thus not evil.
Charging a group of town guards and "slaughtering" them before they can even get a word in edgewise is NOT self defense, even if they had their weapons drawn. And why wouldn't they have their weapons drawn when they are trying to arrest a group of armed criminals?
If the paladin and the guards were charging the barbarian with their weapons drawn and he killed them? That would be self defense.
If they were shooting at him with arrows? That would be self defense.
Or if the Paladin said something along the lines of "Prepare to die, evildoers!" Then charging and killing him would be self-defense.
I can think of many ways to end this situation without bloodshed. Heck, what about simply taking a -4 and hitting the paladin with the broad side of your greatsword to do non-lethal damage?
But no. Instead the OP's character decided to butcher a bunch of officials for drawing weapons on him because they thought he was a dangerous criminal. And lo and behold, turns out the character was a dangerous criminal. Yeah, Korgoth's Chaotic Evil, darling. Deal with it.
Is killing spiders evil?** spoiler omitted **
Yes, killing spiders is evil.
On a side note, there's a few spiders in my house that my family hasn't bothered to kill. They're spiders that aren't dangerous to us and they do in fact eat things like ants & mosquitoes so we (my brother and I) find them to be like helpful neighbors, though my mother and sister were initially less enthused. There's a spider that lives above our shower that I enjoy seeing when I'm using it.
The spider thing just made me think of that. I'm often sad when insects that aren't harming anyone are killed, but it's still socially acceptable so it's one of those things that doesn't get sweated.
I realize that I joined in on this conversation a bit late, but wow. It seems that many are characterizing the actions of the OP's character as self-defense, and thus not evil.
Charging a group of town guards and "slaughtering" them before they can even get a word in edgewise is NOT self defense, even if they had their weapons drawn. And why wouldn't they have their weapons drawn when they are trying to arrest a group of armed criminals?
Dunno, I'm pretty sure he said that the authorities threatened him, but who knows?
I can think of many ways to end this situation without bloodshed. Heck, what about simply taking a -4 and hitting the paladin with the broad side of your greatsword to do non-lethal damage?
You know, I find the -4 penalty to be the biggest deterrent to fighting without lethal force. There's been many instances where some of my players just decided to deal lethal damage because taking the -4 was too risky.
Though without the -4, I'm pretty sure 99% of my characters would almost deal lethal damage unless it was against undead and constructs.
Yeah, Korgoth's Chaotic Evil, darling. Deal with it.
The funny thing is...probably not. Alignment is based on your overall activities. Even if doing this was evil, it means he did a bad thing but it doesn't immediately shift his alignment anymore than a neutral character who has a good day makes him a good guy.
Perhaps more humorously is that there's basically nothing to "deal with" either. He's a barbarian. Being Chaotic Evil literally does nothing directly to him. In fact, he's not even 5th level yet so it doesn't even cause him to ping on detect evil.
|
|
EDIT #2:
I think some forum members need to look-up what constitutes evil. Per the PRD, it's not evil to kill someone that threatens your life. Especially if you're in a foaming mad rage when you do it.
While you are asking us to look up the definitions of Evil per the PRD, perhaps you should look up Barbarian Rage.
"Rage" is not the same as "Frenzy" from D&D. A barbarian can still think and control his actions while enraged. It is not some moral "get out of jail free card" or a form of temporary insanity.
If you willingly commit evil acts while in the grip of rage, your alignment will shift to evil regardless.
|
|
Perhaps more humorously is that there's basically nothing to "deal with" either. He's a barbarian. Being Chaotic Evil literally does nothing directly to him. In fact, he's not even 5th level yet so it doesn't even cause him to ping on detect evil.
Until a Divine Hunter pulls a smite evil sniper shot on him from across a ravine. And even if he doesn't detect as evil yet, I am sure the murdered Paladin's brothers and sisters in arms would be willing to spend one of their daily smites on Korgoth based on the reasonable assumption that he's a blood simple mass-murderer (with eleven deaths attributed to him) who needs to be taken down.