Remembering a scene from a book I've read, a character basically goes looking for trouble in order kill some criminals.
She walks through a rough part of town in her finery, and when some armed thugs try their luck, she dispatches them.
Thinking about this in in-game alignment, what sort of action is this? I'm thinking CG, maybe just CN.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that person was acting evil. Killing people for stealing is a bit disproportionate. Seeking out petty thieves to kill isn't much different than looking to murder prostitutes because nobody will care.
Lawful evil is the realm of the individual who knows what they want and will manipulate the system (legal, cultural, and so forth) to achieve those ends, no matter the consequence. This can be for personal gain (for example, the traditional evil vizier who seeks to claim the kingdom for himself) or to better society at all costs - the "I know what's best for everyone else"-attitude without any of the compassionate limits to action found in lawful good (an excellant example is Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame).
The 'desire to better society at all costs' seems to be the motivation of the character you mentioned. So, I'd argue that specific action would be Lawful Evil. If the character didn't care about stomping out crime, then I would argue it was a Chaotic Evil action.
A CG character might do this if thievery was out of control and they were just fed up. If I was the GM and a player did this, I would have the half-starved children of the deceased thieves come up and cry at the death of their parents, just to make sure the player knew to stop their evil actions.
Perhaps I was not clear, as it seems that the thieves come off as harmless pickpockets, like Disney's Aladdin.
These are men with knives and clubs that'll use them if you don't give them what you want.
|
Perhaps I was not clear, as it seems that the thieves come off as harmless pickpockets, like Disney's Aladdin.
These are men with knives and clubs that'll use them if you don't give them what you want.
Assuming they've killed people before and are dangerous criminals.. any alignment could use this sort of tactic to draw them out and deal with them. It's clever. Not good, evil, or anything in between, really.
|
|
Remembering a scene from a book I've read, a character basically goes looking for trouble in order kill some criminals.
She walks through a rough part of town in her finery, and when some armed thugs try their luck, she dispatches them.
Thinking about this in in-game alignment, what sort of action is this? I'm thinking CG, maybe just CN.
ah, good ol' Jasnah Kholin (I'm guessing). Shallan tackled the issue pretty well, and I'll go with her gut feeling. It's not an evil action, per se, but it certainly isn't a good one. She did this to kill people, and regardless of who those people were, killing is...I don't know, it strikes me as distasteful unless absolutely necessary. As for it's chaotic aspect? Maybe. I mean, it is a vigilante move to assault the men yourself as opposed to just going with the law, but I'd actually argue that the action had a more lawful intent. The men were a disruption of order, a disruption that was not being put right. To go out of your way in order to remove the disruption restores law to the lawless, and therefore, I'd say it's got the teeniest hint of Lawful. So, I'd say Lawful Neutral, but only just.
You have just described the story of the Movie "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson. A man who's wife and daughter were killed by home invaders is dismayed by the law enforcements lack of ability to control crime, so he sets off on a one man spree to wipe out violent criminals.
He is certainly Chaotic Good, so is the character you described.
Drunken Dragon has it, I was describing Jasnah (it seems there's a movie with a similar scenario though, neat to know). Wasn't sure if there was any spoiler element to it. Shallan is a little soft at that point, I think.
My take is, the lawful way of dealing with it would be petitioning for more guards to be posted in the area, since it's known to be unsafe. The chaotic way is to go through it yourself to draw them out.
I'm a little surprised no one else has thought this might be Good, as it has parallels to classic missions like clearing out goblin warrens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have just described the story of the Movie "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson. A man who's wife and daughter were killed by home invaders is dismayed by the law enforcements lack of ability to control crime, so he sets off on a one man spree to wipe out violent criminals.
He is certainly Chaotic Good, so is the character you described.
That would be debatable. It's basically the same story as Punisher and a hundred other vigilante Stories. And I really don't consider them 'Good'. Maybe neutral if their heart is in the right place... Depends on if the motive is more 'You can't do this to anyone else..' or if it's 'I hate all of you so DIE!!!!'
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, Good vigilantes don't kill people unless they must.
Now, a CG character could easily do this and remain Good, I don't think it's even Evil...but it's sure not Good in and of itself.
I do agree that it's Chaotic if done on one's own. If doing it as part of a sting operation of some sort, it could be Lawful, though.
|
|
Drunken Dragon has it, I was describing Jasnah (it seems there's a movie with a similar scenario though, neat to know). Wasn't sure if there was any spoiler element to it. Shallan is a little soft at that point, I think.
My take is, the lawful way of dealing with it would be petitioning for more guards to be posted in the area, since it's known to be unsafe. The chaotic way is to go through it yourself to draw them out.
I'm a little surprised no one else has thought this might be Good, as it has parallels to classic missions like clearing out goblin warrens.
I never considered the classic missions of clearing out goblin warrens as truly good, and have never bought the logic of "killing evil things is a good act." Unless the things you happen to be killing are incapable of free will, killing a creature aborts its potential. Once a life is snuffed, it can never be restored. Ever. That means you have literally neutered all other possible options. You could restrain the creature. Redeem it. Reason with it. But killing someone, especially if you do so actively (as in, not to protect yourself or someone after they've initiated the attack) doesn't truly feel like a good act. I don't know how to explain my exact reasoning, as I have no formal training in moralist philosophy, but I feel, personally, that going out and killing something on your own volition, actively, not in a reactionary or defensive fashion, isn't right. It isn't wrong, but it can never be truly right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its premeditated murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lawful character believes there is a proper way to go about things, in this case involve the authorities, and that the manner in which something is done does matter. I would imagine a lawful character bringing the authorities with her on the "mission" or seeking to become deputized before going in. I could still buy lawful if the character had exhausted every conceivable avenue to get the authorities involved but they wouldn't budge, but at that point I might even say that the character realized the flaw in lawful thinking and shifted to neutral.
A good character could have done this and just not killed the thugs, but only subdued them for the authorities to come and collect them. Or maybe she could have drawn them out and then begged them to see the harm they were causing, effectively offering the chance for redemption. If the character had just happened to be passing through the alley and ended up killing her assailants in self-defense, then I'd call it neutral. But where she intentionally went in there with the intent to kill whatever riff-raff that took the bait, I'd call that evil.
Summary: I'd call it neutral evil. Regardless of her motivation, she wanted something done, something dark, and she did it. Not on a lark. Not to be disruptive. Just because she wanted it done.
Redemption assumes a lot of time and resources, which is idealistic.
If caravans on the road are being robbed by highwaymen or farms are being raided by goblins, you can send someone to try to reform them. Is it going to work? Maybe on some percentage of them. Is it going to take a long time? Probably, unless you use magical compulsion or threats and make an example of your power.
Killing may not be the ideal solution, but it is an immediate ceasing of Evil. Redemption is for saints, and you don't need to be a saint to be Good.
That's my take on why killing evil creatures is still Good in PF.
Based on the responses I have seen so far the character of Dexter would not be considered evil! Really!
In case you do not know the tv reference:
"Dexter is an American television drama series. The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system." from Wikipedia
I would say either CN or CG depending on the character's motivation.
If he did it to prevent other people from being violently mugged then CG. Otherwise I would say CN.
In other words what Phantom1592 said.
Pathfinder allows two people to do two opposite things and have their actions be considered the same alignment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the responses I have seen so far the character of Dexter would not be considered evil! Really!
In case you do not know the tv reference:
"Dexter is an American television drama series. The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system." from Wikipedia
Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.
In other words, different situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the responses I have seen so far the character of Dexter would not be considered evil! Really!
In case you do not know the tv reference:
"Dexter is an American television drama series. The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system." from Wikipedia
Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.
In other words, different situation.
This. Totally evil all day long. Even he would admit it... ;)
Based on the responses I have seen so far the character of Dexter would not be considered evil! Really!
In case you do not know the tv reference:
"Dexter is an American television drama series. The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system." from Wikipedia
Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.
In other words, different situation.
I do not believe that this situation is really any different. The character in question has decided she wants to kill a certain type of person and has set in motion a plan to locate those people in order to kill them.
Nothing in the original indicates that the character is in anyway interested in bringing a specific person or group to justice. She just wants to find some people to kill. This is the essences of evil
|
|
Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.
In other words, different situation.
I do not believe that this situation is really any different. The character in question has decided she wants to kill a certain type of person and has set in motion a plan to locate those people in order to kill them.
Nothing in the original indicates that the character is in anyway interested in bringing a specific person or group to justice. She just wants to find some people to kill. This is the essences of evil
Having read the book the example is from...that's really not the motivation at all. Nor is it the motivation of most people who want to 'kill some criminals' to quote the OP. Most people who make a statement like that are doing it to get rid of criminals, which is a much more defensible rationale (though still not Good, IMO) than just to kill somebody.
If the motivation is just to kill? Yeah, then it's Evil. But that was very much not the assumption people were going with for the OP's example, nor the reason almost any character would have for doing that. Dexter's particular combination of sadism and a specific code involving killing criminals isn't precisely common.
I think the real problem with the alignment system in Pathfinder is that the game has failed to clearly define what constitutes good, evil, law, and chaos. The game should have provide examples of actions that represent each of these aspects.
You can gain a few examples of what constitutes each by looking at the spell descriptions. For example all spells in the books that are specifically for torturing are listed as evil. Thus we can see the designers obvious consider torture for any reason to be an evil act. As individuals we may disagree with this but for this game that is the way it is.
The way to resolve these issues at least in a non PFS game is for the gaming group to have discussed what is considered good, evil, law, and chaos. In addition everyone must agree that the GM is the final judge. I would expect the GM to provide a warning that an intended action my shift your alignment but then allow you to make the decision to continue with the action or choose another path.
Dexter is also a sociopath, and as such does not discern between good and evil, or more to the point is not influenced by them. He kills because he feels the need to, and doesn't fully understand why. The only reason he kills only criminals is because his "father" instilled the code to stop Dexter from becoming a complete monstrosity instead of the controlled one that he is.
Take that in context of what Jesterle is getting at and you see where it's totally subjective. The person that was a victim of one of the serial killers that Dexter puts down might see him as more neutral or good. The family is going to see him as evil.
Guantanamo. The soldiers trying to get information resorted to waterboarding and other forms of torture. People were appalled by that. The soldiers were acting for what they thought was the greater good. Chaotic to be sure, but from their standpoint...good.
That's why alignment is going to be as tricky as it is. Everyone is going to have a slightly different views on what's good, and where the line is drawn between it and evil. And Paizo is not going to give concrete answers on the different alignments, because they don't want to alienate anyone with an opposing view.
Jasnah isn't doing evil people. Really the hardest core good (Lawful Good) has been called the Crusader because they hunt down and destroy evil. This is merely an unusual tactic toward ridding the streets of violent criminals. Is it chaotic to use an unusual tactic as many here suggest? No. It is good as described. Could evil people use a similar tactic to prey upon other criminals for fun or profit? Yes. But in the case of this character who is doing this to rid the streets of violent criminals it is simply a good act.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't find moral relativism a particularly convincing argument. Never have. Some things (torture, rape, and the abuse of children leap to mind) are categorically wrong. Full stop.
Pathfinder alignments are certainly an oversimplification of the way morality works, but they're a useful one (particularly for NPCs) for giving a quick shorthand for likely behaviors performed or condoned by the individuals in question. In my experience they only become problematic when the players and GM suffer a breakdown in communications...and those inevitably cause problems, Alignment system or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you must use alignment, which I strongly suggest not doing, the only arbiter of alignment should be the player themselves. Feel free to provide real world consequences to actions; that's the fun of the game. But alignment should be up to the person embodying the character.
Absolutely NO.
Leaving alignment in the hands of the player is a route to madness and I stand 100% behind the game developers in making an absolute arbiter for alignment in each game. That one person being the GM!|
|
Jasnah isn't doing evil people. Really the hardest core good (Lawful Good) has been called the Crusader because they hunt down and destroy evil. This is merely an unusual tactic toward ridding the streets of violent criminals. Is it chaotic to use an unusual tactic as many here suggest? No. It is good as described. Could evil people use a similar tactic to prey upon other criminals for fun or profit? Yes. But in the case of this character who is doing this to rid the streets of violent criminals it is simply a good act.
Murdering people you could just as easily capture and bring in for trial is pretty clearly a slide in the Neutral direction, though. As is setting out to kill them, as opposed to just stopping them. That's an issue. It's not bad enough to ever make a Paladin fall, it's not enough to make a Good character stop being Good, not even if performed regularly (as long as they keep doing other Good stuff)...but neither is it an act that makes a Neutral character more Good.
A CN character who sets out to do this every night and does, making it his mission and primary goal in life, doesn't become CG. Indeed, the Punisher is a wonderful example of a guy who does precisely that. He is also rather definitively not Good aligned. Nor should he be. Which means, knda definitionally, that it can't be a Good act per se.
A Good version of this story involves more Batman, and less Punisher, IMO.
Murdering people you could just as easily capture and bring in for trial is pretty clearly a slide in the Neutral direction, though. As is setting out to kill them, as opposed to just stopping them. That's an issue. It's not bad enough to ever make a Paladin fall, it's not enough to make a Good character stop being Good, not even if performed regularly (as long as they keep doing other Good stuff)...but neither is it an act that makes a Neutral character more Good.
A CN character who sets out to do this every night and does, making it his mission and primary goal in life, doesn't become CG. Indeed, the Punisher is a wonderful example of a guy who does precisely that. He is also rather definitively not Good aligned. Nor should he be. Which means, knda definitionally, that it can't be a Good act per se.
A Good version of this story involves more Batman, and less Punisher, IMO.
I bolded the incorrect part. Unless the criminal surrenders I fail to see how she is going to bring them in for justice. And if she kills a surrendered opponent then yes this becomes evil. BUT that isn't what I have read is happening here. If you kill someone in self defense that isn't evil. She isn't attacking them... they are attacking her. Or are you somehow suggesting that it IS non-good to leave yourself vulnerable? I don't know anything about the Punisher so using him as an example isn't effective in my case. She is targeting violent evil and that is good, as it makes society safer. If this Punisher is waiting till evil violently reveals itself and then defending against those evil people (lethally or not) then I guess he is good; but as I said I have no idea about this Punisher so he is a bad example. As for Batman doesn't the Dark Knight kill people too? Unless they surrender? Maybe it depends on which version of Batman you are talking about?
On a related point; Can you do good and remain neutral? Yes. Your alignment is a big picture thing and one act or even a string of similar acts isn't necessarily going to shift that alignment. If doing good starts to define your character then a shift is warranted.
|
|
I bolded the incorrect part. Unless the criminal surrenders I fail to see how she is going to bring them in for justice. And if she kills a surrendered opponent then yes this becomes evil.
Well, in the actual book she kills all but the first as they flee in terror after she casually and brutally kills the first ie: they never had a chance, she casually could've captured them, and she killed them while they ran from her.
But what happened in the book doesn't even matter. It's about intent. If your plan is "I'm going to go out and troll for muggers and see what happens." that's potentially Good...but if, as in the OP, your plan is "I'm going to go kill some criminals." That's not Good any more.
BUT that isn't what I have read is happening here. If you kill someone in self defense that isn't evil. She isn't attacking them... they are attacking her.
True. But, again, intent. She baited them into attacking her specifically so she could kill them. Not fight, not capture, but kill. That was the plan. That...makes claims of self-defense legally valid, but morally not so much.
Or are you somehow suggesting that it IS non-good to leave yourself vulnerable?
No, it's non-Good to walk out your door planning to flat-out kill people, generally speaking. Planning to fight people? Sure, okay. Planning to defend yourself as necessary? Totally Good. Planning to lure people into attacking you and then kill them dead? Not so Good any more.
I don't know anything about the Punisher so using him as an example isn't effective in my case. She is targeting violent evil and that is good, as it makes society safer. If this Punisher is waiting till evil violently reveals itself and then defending against those evil people (lethally or not) then I guess he is good; but as I said I have no idea about this Punisher so he is a bad example.
The Punisher kills criminals. That's his mission in life. He absolutely might pretend to be a victim to lure them in...but that's far from his only methodology (others range from complicated manipulations, to a knife in an alley, to a sniper rifle).
As for Batman doesn't the Dark Knight kill people too? Unless they surrender? Maybe it depends on which version of Batman you are talking about?
Uh...no. Batman never kills. It's an ironclad rule. Superman is more likely to kill people than Batman.
I'm...just gonna stop the superhero analogies now.
On a related point; Can you do good and remain neutral? Yes. Your alignment is a big picture thing and one act or even a string of similar acts isn't necessarily going to shift that alignment. If doing good starts to define your character then a shift is warranted.
Right. Which is why I mentioned it becoming their primary goal and activity.
Deadmanwalking, No just no.
Do a web search on "who does batman kill" and you will find a string of brutal murders committed by Batman going all the way back to the earliest issues.
Ok I hadn't read the book in question so I didn't know she killed fleeing villains. THAT is a gray area. But is it gray enough to knock it outside of "good"? Debatable. They were no longer a threat to her... however they did remain a threat to all the other people in the community. They didn't surrender to be taken in for a trial did they?
BUT simply dressing nice and walking down the street IS NOT BAITING! This is the same logic as "blame the victim" and I reject it angrily. She shouldn't be attacked period. Why is how I dress as a woman relevant to ANY crime against me? What she did walking down a street dressed nice in an area where violent attacks are common is more akin to Rosa Parks staying in her seat. With the exception that Rosa wasn't going to be violent in defending herself. It should be everyones right to walk safely down any street.
Baiting would be offering to sell illegal guns or drugs to some bad guys and then arresting them when they take the deal.
|
Its an alignment discussion! I haven't gotten involved in one of these in a while (and its Good Friday, I need some penance...)
Alright, way I look at it is this.
We need to find out what the intents were.
If as OP states, the person went looking for bad guys with the express purpose of 'I want to kill some folks' we're definately treading on the evil side of things.
The part that makes the Deathwish character so interesting in parts is that he's for the most part not expressly 'seeking horrible people to kill,' its that when they present themselves, he whallops them mercilessly. I'd peg him as more of a LN. Mr. Kersey (in the first film) for the most part does activities that a law abiding citizen should be able to. He walks through the park at night, or strolls through a 'bad neighborhood' and is accosted.
He /should/ be able to walk through the park or any neighbordhood without being accosted.
Kersey is 'baiting' the hook somewhat, and is why he's an anti-hero at best, but his bait comes from acting like people should be able to, and then enforcing that order brutally as he sees the system as not operating. In that way he's the paragon to me of the Lawful lawbreaker.
A PC who decides to 'go down to the docks and find someone evil and then rough him up,' is taking a different approach. I found myself thinking about Lina Inverse, but Lina gets to remain CN/CG based on the fact she tends to weigh 'I want some gold' with 'those guys are jerks and need to be stopped and hey they have gold!' in her attacks on bandits (ultimately resulting in the profession's extinction or at least endangerment) and then pirates. Lina in this case is seeking out bad people to beat up, and taking their stuff as what she views as her rightful due. Her objective again is 'get stuff,' but she's not precisely luring the bandits into their banditry, no entrapment, just a redheaded nemesis showing up out of nowhere.
What the character is intending, his goals and his methods are major players in this particular alignment discussion as a lot of folks above have twigged onto.
|
|
Deadmanwalking, No just no.
Do a web search on "who does batman kill" and you will find a string of brutal murders committed by Batman going all the way back to the earliest issues.
Not in most continuities. But that's a side-issue.
Ok I hadn't read the book in question so I didn't know she killed fleeing villains. THAT is a gray area. But is it gray enough to knock it outside of "good"? Debatable. They were no longer a threat to her... however they did remain a threat to all the other people in the community. They didn't surrender to be taken in for a trial did they?
Well, she didn't bother to ask...but yeah, they were still a threat to the community, and very bad people. Which is why I'd say it's Neutral and not remotely Evil.
BUT simply dressing nice and walking down the street IS NOT BAITING! This is the same logic as "blame the victim" and I reject it angrily. She shouldn't be attacked period. Why is how I dress as a woman relevant to ANY crime against me? What she did walking down a street dressed nice in an area where violent attacks are common is more akin to Rosa Parks staying in her seat. With the exception that Rosa wasn't going to be violent in defending herself. It should be everyones right to walk safely down any street.
Again, it's about intent. I'm not talking about her dressing a particular way, or going a particular place as baiting. That is indeed victim blaming, and I am similarly upset by it.
I'm talking about her going place X wearing outfit Y specifically to draw in criminals. The issue isn't what's being worn or the place gone, but why that outfit is worn and that place is visited.
You can walk out into an area that people are killing a particular group in, dressed very obviously as a member of that group, and not be responsible for being attacked. But if you dress up that way specifically to draw an attack...that's baiting.
Baiting would be offering to sell illegal guns or drugs to some bad guys and then arresting them when they take the deal.
No, that's entrapment. A legal concept, and not what I'm discussing at all.
|
|
Jasnah isn't doing evil people.B+$%!&~+. She's committing murder. Premeditated even.
Killing people who've previously raped and murdered various people while they are in the process of trying to do it again (thus making their guilt indisputable)...is probably not full-on Evil. It's not Good, but I continue to maintain it's a Neutral act.
Jasnah isn't doing evil people.B+~$**%%. She's committing murder. Premeditated even.
This logic is flawed. Is a paladin who rides to the lair of the evil baby sacrificing cult with the intent to slay the vile den of evil doers himself evil? According to TOZ yes that paladin is evil. According to me (and I hope most of you) he is good.
