| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that you contradict yourself, that you give inconsistent examples, and that your campaign rules have not been presented in a coherent manner is not an insult.
Remarking on how you are very quick to announce how wrongbadfun people's opinions are is not an insult.
You're either reading into insults where none are present, or seeking to be insulted because you want to feel like you have the moral high ground. Quit it. Be mature.
I think you've done a pretty good job of exaggerating what you're saying all on your own, myself.
Okay, more insults are just getting swiped by a non-contributor, now.
Asking for a thread lock.
==aelryinth
Saying that you contradict yourself, that you give inconsistent examples, and that your campaign rules have not been presented in a coherent manner is not an insult.
Remarking on how you are very quick to announce how wrongbadfun people's opinions are is not an insult.
You're either reading into insults where none are present, or seeking to be insulted because you want to feel like you have the moral high ground. Quit it. Be mature.
My examples were all consistent, thank you. That they chose to reinterpret them to fit a counterargument that was not there is their fault, not mine, thank you.
My rejoinder: trying to keep a level of politeness and pointing out direct insults when not employing them IS rather unliked by those starting with the insults. It's not a remark, sir. And I never said they were doing badwrongfun, so now you are putting words in my mouth again...which is again hyperbole and exaggeration I Did Not Do.
I'm reading insults where insults are intended, and which I did not initiate. I suggest you turn your intention to those initiating the tactic in a mature manner of your own. I don't knuckle under to those types of people, and your backing them isn't going to stop me resisting.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've done a pretty good job of exaggerating what you're saying all on your own, myself.Okay, more insults are just getting swiped by a non-contributor, now.
Asking for a thread lock.
==aelryinth
You don't agree?
With every post your word count goes up, but the content boils down to you saying the same thing in increasingly haughty ways.
That's not an insult, that's just self-evident from looking at the words you're writing.
The entire tone of your recent posts just OOZES this absolute certainty that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong, despite your occasional throwaway statements to the contrary.
Even this short one sentence post drips condescension. "Non-contributor"? Really?
This was a pretty chill thread up until a couple of pages ago. The most heated it got was a comparatively mellow discussion of the merits of frequent apologies.
Telling you to chill out is not an insult. It's sound advice.
|
but that explanation is really encouraging an extremist view of alignments...you either have a powerful adherence and are a zealot, or you don't get anything at all.
Or you don't need anything at all from alignment. Yes, to be aligned you have to be out on the extremes, and do have to be a zealot of some sort or another, under the modifications I'm contemplating. Most mortals just aren't extreme enough, but under these changes, yes, I'm rather de-emphasizing much of the reliance on alignment-based powers.
You'll probably need intermediary steps of some sort.Likewise, how are you going to handle aligned weapons and powers? they'll be virtually useless unless they indiscrimantely affect the unaligned, much like Ashiel's do. Certainly Holy won't be worth anything if it only affects a small tithe of creatures that are incarnations of Evil. It would be less worthwhile then a Bane, even.
Probably won't need intermediary steps (although I am considering your suggestion)-- but I will probably need to lower the price on aligned weapons and such to make them worthwhile. Either that, or give aligned weapons and powers that don't already have "half-effects" vs. neutral or unaligned creatures some sort of reduced effects. Something like Holy and Unholy weapons will still do +1D6 vs. the unaligned, but not the full +2D6 they get against the opposite alignment (or reduce the price a little and still give them some effect, albeit reduced, against the unaligned).
Is it possible, just once, to have an alignment thread pop up that doesn't end up boiling down to repeated personal insults between posters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible, just once, to have an alignment thread pop up that doesn't end up boiling down to repeated personal insults between posters?
That's funny.
I think you've done a pretty good job of exaggerating what you're saying all on your own, myself.Okay, more insults are just getting swiped by a non-contributor, now.
Asking for a thread lock.
==aelryinth
You don't agree?
With every post your word count goes up, but the content boils down to you saying the same thing in increasingly haughty ways.
That's not an insult, that's just self-evident from looking at the words you're writing.
The entire tone of your recent posts just OOZES this absolute certainty that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong, despite your occasional throwaway statements to the contrary.
Even this short one sentence post drips condescension. "Non-contributor"? Really?
This was a pretty chill thread up until a couple of pages ago. The most heated it got was a comparatively mellow discussion of the merits of frequent apologies.
Telling you to chill out is not an insult. It's sound advice.
Interesting.
You aren't contributing to the discussion, you're just sort of weighing in with variants of "Ael sucks."What you see as me saying everyone else is wrong is me saying I'm right, which doesn't mean they aren't right in their campaigns, too. People saying I'm saying they are all wrong is them putting words in my mouth, no more, because they disagree with me and hyperbolic exaggeration is easiest to refute.
I'm quite chill. I'm not the one who started insulting others and belittling them. I have refuted the points they kept bringing up repeatedly, but I also did not comment on how horrible it would be to play in my campaign, without knowing almost anything about it, complete with completely hypothetical examples and other things with no basis in fact.
So, I'm chill. I am the one responding levelly to other commenters, you realize.
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just get to the inevitable conclusion of this thread.
Hitler would have had no issues with his good players using Infernal Healing, therefore if you feel that way you are a g*+$$~n nazi and obviously hate freedom and justice.
Is it possible, just once, to have an alignment thread pop up that doesn't end up boiling down to repeated personal insults between posters?That's funny.
Meh, likely not. It's a hot topic. And if you value alignment vs. value mechanics, it only gets more heated in the differences of opinion.
I can play either way, but my home campaign, the profound alignments are real things, and trying to ignore the repercussions of your actions is usually not a good idea. None of which has numbers attached to it.
==Aelryinth
Let's just get to the inevitable conclusion of this thread.
Hitler would have had no issues with his good players using Infernal Healing, therefore if you feel that way you are a g&#&*$n nazi and obviously hate freedom and justice.
There's got to be another thread killer then Hitler and Nazis.
Chuck Norris jokes, maybe?
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about Stalin? He gets rather underused in baseless internet comparisons.
In Soviet Russia Stalin enforced a strict communist alignment on his players and if they deviated he made them NPCs forever in Siberian work camps.
but that explanation is really encouraging an extremist view of alignments...you either have a powerful adherence and are a zealot, or you don't get anything at all.Or you don't need anything at all from alignment. Yes, to be aligned you have to be out on the extremes, and do have to be a zealot of some sort or another, under the modifications I'm contemplating. Most mortals just aren't extreme enough, but under these changes, yes, I'm rather de-emphasizing much of the reliance on alignment-based powers.
Probably won't need intermediary steps (although I am considering your suggestion)-- but I will probably need to lower the price on aligned weapons and such to make them worthwhile. Either that, or give aligned weapons and powers that don't already have "half-effects" vs. neutral or unaligned creatures some sort of reduced effects. Something like Holy and Unholy weapons will still do +1D6 vs. the unaligned, but not the full +2D6 they get against the opposite alignment (or reduce the price a little and still give them some effect, albeit reduced, against the unaligned).
You'll probably need intermediary steps of some sort.Likewise, how are you going to handle aligned weapons and powers? they'll be virtually useless unless they indiscrimantely affect the unaligned, much like Ashiel's do. Certainly Holy won't be worth anything if it only affects a small tithe of creatures that are incarnations of Evil. It would be less worthwhile then a Bane, even.
The former is what Ashiel does....+1d6 against Neutrals, +2d6 against the opposite alignement.
he does the same thing for smites, etc as well. So Neutrals are anything but safe in his system. Probably a decent compromise, although being unaligned and cut by a holy sword is probably not going to be appreciated by anyone...keeps the weapons useful, however, without as many opposed foes.
==Aelryinth
How about Stalin? He gets rather underused in baseless internet comparisons.
In Soviet Russia Stalin enforced a strict communist alignment on his players and if they deviated he made them NPCs forever in Siberian work camps.
In Soviet Pathfinder, alignment chooses you?
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ael, I haven't been responding to your posts in depth because there's no point in doing so.
Your entire argument stems from a false source.
You have stated that Evil acts cancel out any good you may do with them from the get go, and then the result is a net evil regardless. You then cite the setting rule that aligned spells are aligned acts, and conflate the two, claiming that your first statement is therefore the rules.
The problem is, while I can accept the fact that the setting rule on aligned spells exists, I can't accept the claim you're tacking onto that. That's something you made up whole cloth and are claiming is rules.
You also seem to misunderstand my objection to your resolution to shut down the game if the "problem" player didn't comply with your demands.
It's not the punishing of the player I take issue with.
It's that you were willing to take it out on all the OTHER players as well, rather than merely removing the problem element.
THAT is the bit that struck a nerve with me, and struck me as petty and spiteful.
You don't "suck". You just seem woefully unaware of how to keep opinions and facts separate.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously. Why ask for the thread to be locked when we were all having a civil discussion beforehand? You're not being agreed with so you ask for the thread locked to prevent other people from commenting on what you've added and to prevent the topic from going further?
Man, nobody told you that you were doing alignment wrong. What they did do what comment on what you posted. Not once citing alignment rules against you, merely noted where we found inconsistencies or apparently red flags in your post. When you then went on to tell other people the ins an out of alignment as though it were default, then yes, you got on your high horse and were doing what you claim others were doing to you.
I said as much. It doesn't matter now. I'm just sad that everyone else is going to be punished because of it.
2) Um, Evil people can save others for their own purposes. That doesn't make the action suddenly good. Evil people can do seemingly good actions for their own benefits all the time. It's one of the joys of being evil...selective morality on demand. An evil monarch saving his peasant farmers from raiders doesn't make him good - it makes him want to keep his food and tax revenue steady, completely selfish.
so, yeah the list of things good people can do:
murder innocentsset forests on fire
destroy property
enforce slavery
genocide
setting animals on fire
I can go on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter now. I'm just sad that everyone else is going to be punished because of it.
Welcome to Paizo and the General Discussion boards. And the reason I took a break from this board for a while.
At this point, I'm going to have to intercede and say what amounts to "can everyone shut up, agree to disagree, and move the [REDACTED!] on!?"
Yes, there's venom there. Venom because I hate when innocents are caught in the crossfire and an otherwise alright discussion is all but nuked due to unnecessarily high rocking ponies and closed minds... And I'm one of the most downright evil bastards I know. THAT is how bad this thread has gotten...
Is it possible, just once, to have an alignment thread pop up that doesn't end up boiling down to repeated personal insults between posters?That's funny.
Lol, yes. It does happen once in a blue moon though.
In parallel with this fortnight's three Paizo forum alignment threads, I started an alignment thread on a different forum. We're eight pages in so far, and no insults yet, despite the inevitable paladin side-conversation! Although we have recently drifted into discussing Hogwarts houses and the Sorting Hat.
I could speculate on the factors that contribute to a civil alignment thread, but that might offend this one's angry spirit. ;)
In Soviet Pathfinder, alignment chooses you?
==Aelryinth
Nice. :)
Aelryinth, so if the character had done most of the same things using non evil spells, summoned elementals and archons to fight for him instead of demons, made pacts with djinni nobles he used planar binding on for wishes instead of efreeti, he would have been fine?Aside: I don't allow you to force wishes out of anything. Genies are well aware of the market value of a wish and you can't just Call them up and get the Wishes. They are held to higher powers and don't do that. It's about game balance. You earn wishes from Djinn Nobles by valorous actions, not summoning them up and browbeating them.
I don't allow planar binding for wishes either, it is fairly problematic. It is a standard way to powergame exploit high level spells though.
But yes, if he paid attention to alignment descriptors and realized the implications of using Evil magic, of spreading the idea that animating the dead is fine, that enslaving your enemies and using them to kill their allies is great, that Summoning up creatures from Hell to fight for you is perfectly reasonable, and getting gifts from fiends and paying them to serve you is perfectly valid for all CG folk as long as Good People don't get killed...no, there wouldn't have been much of a problem. Those spells are there for a reason, they can be used. He just picked the 'best' ones, ignoring everything else in favor of mechanics.
Probably best to separate out the dominate from the fiend summoning when discussing whether using [Evil] descriptor spells is inherently an evil action. Dominate person has no evil descriptor, it is not powered by supernatural evil. It is very easy to use a complete enslavement spell evilly though as you recognize.
There are mechanical reasons to go Evil, neutral, or Good.
A single summoned demon can block a horde of fiends in a corridor thanks to the mutual DR/Good which will prevent any of them from killing each other. A summoned angel however will kill a fiend by piercing its DR/Good with every hit. Fiendish creatures get DR/evil that works against evil creatures, but their smite does not work against them. Celestial creatures are the reverse, good offense instead of defense against evil.
Mechanically offense can be more powerful than defense.
A paladin in Wrath of the Righteous (war against demon invasion AP) is a strong powergaming choice, despite being hit by lots of good targeting abilities. Magic circle against evil, holy smite, and summoned good creatures are strong spell choices.
Choosing good does not need to be a sacrifice.
A neutral wizard can reasonably decide that [Good] spells are a superior tactical choice for non moral reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was a mercenary. CG is a very flexible alignment, you can justify just about anything for it. Getting paid to 'do good' is certainly inside that paradigm.Okay, I'd like to clarify something.
Aelrynith, was the character in question actually doing anything Good? At all? Ever? Was he saving people, helping the downtrodden, defending the innocent, or just being generally nice, anything like that?
Because I think a lot of people objecting to treating the player and character as you did are assuming he was doing stuff like that, but that's not the impression I'm getting from your posts. So...was he? Or was he being a self-serving mercenary type even aside from the spells thing.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here.
Did he go out of his way to do 'good things' of his own volition? Like, charity and such? no. He'd rescue things if he was paid to rescue things...happily.
A good mercenary seems a reasonable character concept. Selling his services to fight evil in good causes.
Works for me equally for LG, NG, or CG.
If that involved carrying decrepit miners out on the shoulders of an undead ogre, c'est la vies.If the enemy had loot, that was even better.
A little creepy for the rescued miner but very pragmatic in the cause of rescuing someone and doing good.
If there was a size L creature to charm with strength, reach and good hit points to turn into an undead minion after it killed his enemies for him and got killed, even better!
Here is the part I start to have moral disapproval. Mind slaving can turn evil fairly easily.
i.e. he didn't play like some saintly guy who just happened to use evil magic. He played like a ruthlessly intelligent, pragmatic wizard who had no compunction against breaking the wills of sentient creatures, using them against their own kin and kind, animating their remains when they were killed, and dealing with creatures of the Lower Planes for more power...because it was mechanically the best thing to do, and he could justify it in his own mind as being without consequence.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with playing a ruthlessly intelligent, pragmatic wizard good guy who is not saintly. I do it with my current character.
Breaking the wills of sentient creatures is often morally problematic, but that is because of what is being done, not any alignment descriptors of the spells involved.
yikes, when did this thread become dump on Aelryinth?
I actually disagree with most posters and am closer to Aelryinth camp, he was pretty clear that he doesn't want to run evil characters, that's a clear DM choice that players either take or leave.
Now arguing over what is good, neutral, or evil becomes pretty clutch, and again Aelyrinth has made those lines pretty clear. The fact the player rolled a new character and continued to play in the campaign suggests the player accepted the DM ruling and moved on, calling it a 'dick move' is rather insulting and needlessly provoking in my book.
This whole thread is asking people how they use alignment (if at all) in their games, arguing with someone (and again calling it a 'dick move') who describes what they did in their game with alignment seems off topic to me.
I probably would of been explicit on the alignment change from CG to CN by telling the player to change it on their character sheet, and after that I would probably have explicit in game temptations from clearly evil beings, probably by offering power with in game boons from again clearly evil beings and sources in return for 'favors' or what not. Aelyrith also did mention that the quest givers became increasingly sketchy, I am somewhat curious to know the details of that more -- sometimes in this thread it does feel like so people want 'evil' to be nearly impossible to become, for people who don't even play with alignment it becomes a bit silly to even refer to them on what is good or evil since they don't play with alignment.
Also, how was the wizard getting the profane bonus(you mention it as +4, surely it was only +2?), but what was the wizard doing, dominating the succubus then casting flesh to stone every day?
Also, how was the wizard getting the profane bonus(you mention it as +4, surely it was only +2?), but what was the wizard doing, dominating the succubus then casting flesh to stone every day?
Presumably something like this.
Flesh to stone is instantaneous so it would not need to be cast daily.
Flesh to Stone
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (lime, water, and earth)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yesThe subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.
Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to bring this up one more time to make sure people have SEEN it, because the last few posts after Chris are dredging up the debate again. Stop it.
As to the topic at hand.
When I DO use alignment, I use a grid to keep track of people's alignments. 9 squares, 10 lines in each square horizontally and vertically. I actually use a big whiteboard for it, and put magnets with character names on them at the points where people are (one grid per prson). Leave it right up on the board behind me, so people know where exactly they stand.
In any case, I'm still pretty liberal. Pragmatism is neutrality in my game. Charity and selflessness are good acts. Following or upholding the law is Lawful. Breaking laws or codes is Chaotic. Slaughtering innocents or destroying things for no reason, evil.
And, really, it takes some really big $#!& to make someone change alignment. For me, alignments are ideas, concepts. Outsiders are formed of said concepts, and thus are core to their being. For mortals, undead, and spirits, they're guidelines, mere indicators of the way your character acts.
Because, for me, personality trumps alignment. Your personality, experiences, and beliefs, trump the examples of the Alignment system in the core rule book. Because, from what I recall, they even admit that those are what they are, examples, not hard coded straight-jacket rules.
I should also note that when I DO use alignment, I strip it from many monsters and all spells save the 'Protection From' and Summoning. Sorry, but undead were once mortal, therefore, rules for mortal apply to them as well.
Edit: I should also mention I absolutely loathe the ALWAYS CHAOTIC EVIL!!!!11ONE!! BS I see floating around. Like I said before, I am a vile, horrible human being IRL (general apathy towards fellow man, and I really don't give a @#$% about much of anything). I am STILL capable of good acts, like dropping a few dollars in some homeless guy's cup outside Del Taco the other day.
|
Like I said earlier, I use Alignment because it's easier to use than to not (and I find it a useful metric for measuring the likely behavior of NPCs), and it has really never been particularly high impact in any game I've ever run.
Seriously, I've seen one player character ever change Alignment (a Druid who went from LN to N) and that was just because the Lawful wasn't getting played up much, was the player's choice, and wasn't even in a game I ran.
In my games? I've just never seen it happen. People read the Alignment descriptions, then pick one that reflects how they're actually gonna play their character. It's just not all that big a deal.
Like I said earlier, I use Alignment because it's easier to use than to not (and I find it a useful metric for measuring the likely behavior of NPCs), and it has really never been particularly high impact in any game I've ever run.
Seriously, I've seen one player character ever change Alignment (a Druid who went from LN to N) and that was just because the Lawful wasn't getting played up much, was the player's choice, and wasn't even in a game I ran.
In my games? I've just never seen it happen. People read the Alignment descriptions, then pick one that reflects how they're actually gonna play their character. It's just not all that big a deal.
The problem happens when the GM and the player differ on opinions as to what constrains which alignment.
For example, back in my 3.5 days of yore, I had a half elf druid with an ape companion. We came to a cave, we suspected there were monsters in said cave, I sent my ape in to investigate on the basis he was bigger than my puny 12str self. My sheet said NG, but the GM said I was endangering my beloved pet, so he bumped me to N. Eventually, when I tried to modify my actions in the future to reflect this new alignment, such as not helping those in need without reward, etc, the motherlover bumped me to evil. Apparently to him not being altruistic equals evil.
So I said bugger it, and became a blighter, and derailed his game at every chance I had until I found another group.
I was in my early 20s. I was immature. The point though was the conflict wasn't my actions reflecting my opinion of NG and later N, it was his differing interpretation from mine.
And that he was objectively wrong.
|
|
The problem happens when the GM and the player differ on opinions as to what constrains which alignment.
This is indisputably true. However, if a GM is willing to screw players over without warning over this, they'll probably be likewise willing to do so over other things, and if they give warnings you'll know enough to know that your gaming styles are incompatible.
For example, back in my 3.5 days of yore, I had a half elf druid with an ape companion. We came to a cave, we suspected there were monsters in said cave, I sent my ape in to investigate on the basis he was bigger than my puny 12str self. My sheet said NG, but the GM said I was endangering my beloved pet, so he bumped me to N. Eventually, when I tried to modify my actions in the future to reflect this new alignment, such as not helping those in need without reward, etc, the motherlover bumped me to evil. Apparently to him not being altruistic equals evil.
Case in point. A GM who'll do this is would almost certainly do other things just as bad even without alignment in place. I mean, seriously, changing alignment over single petty acts like this? Not cool, and not a sign of a good GM.
So I said bugger it, and became a blighter, and derailed his game at every chance I had until I found another group.
I was in my early 20s. I was immature. The point though was the conflict wasn't my actions reflecting my opinion of NG and later N, it was hos differing interpretation from mine.
And that he was objectively wrong.
Indeed. Playing with people with gaming styles widely divergent from one's own is generally unpleasant. Especially if they're kinda dicks about it. But, frankly, if they're dicks about one difference, they'll likely be dicks about others.
You could argue that you lose some people who you'd otherwise mesh with by using Alignment...but the same applies to not using it (since some people won't play without it).
2) Um, Evil people can save others for their own purposes. That doesn't make the action suddenly good. Evil people can do seemingly good actions for their own benefits all the time. It's one of the joys of being evil...selective morality on demand. An evil monarch saving his peasant farmers from raiders doesn't make him good - it makes him want to keep his food and tax revenue steady, completely selfish.so, yeah the list of things good people can do:
murder innocents (for the lulz). War is a neutral action at best.
set forests on fire (because we like seeing trees and wildlife burn, and the aesthetics of a charred landscape are inspiring!). Not because controlled burns are good forest management, of course.destroy property (because my neighbor has more then I do, so I'm going to destroy it!). yay, wartime! or destroying harmful substances for the greater good...that you might justify as a good action.
enforce slavery (because I enjoy having slaves and they are lower life forms, obviously). Uh, no. Slavery is a necessary societal evil at the very best, an alternative to slaughter. That doesn't make enforcing it good, it makes it neutral at best again.
genocide (for laughs and an evening's entertainment). Genocide of a genuinely harmful species might be a good action, but in any event other alternatives should be explored before extinction. Just going ahead and doing it is either callously neutral or pragmatically evil.
setting animals on fire (particularly whole herds of them, for no other other reason then I can!). Not sure where this comes from, but casually roasting animals for lulz isn't going to be good. If you mean just killing them off to prevent overpopulation, that's a resources management task, and just neutral again.
I can go on.
FTFY.
So, no, plenty of actions that good people can't take that evil ones can without batting an eye.
And in very, very rare cases above were what you described even possibly Good actions. At best they were neutral, and not something to do without reluctance and soul-searching by good folk, and only in very rare situations and very proper context. Doing that sort of stuff regularly is going to wear you down. Just ask any psychiatrist or psychologist.
And Evil can, of course, be charitable, give helpful advice, kind to kittens, donate their time, faithful to their spouse and dote on their children. All if it serves their own ends. It doesn't make their actions good. Doing good things because they further your evil agenda doesn't make you a good person, it makes you a manipulative mastermind. Thinking that just casting Good spells so you can mechanically remove the Taint of wanting and choosing to cast Evil ones isn't going to work on a spiritual level, you're foiling it with your own choices.
If you don't agree with that, that's fine. But there's no mechanical basis for arguments either way, so it's all how you judge spiritual balance. And someone trying to pull that kind of logical argument is thinking like a devil, looking for a loophole that isn't there.
Evil spells, however, are an evil choice on the face of it, period, for this purpose. You can dance around with if and then circumstances. It's a choice to do an Evil thing, even if the results are good (murdering an innocent to save a city), it's at the very, very best going to be neutral, and is pretty much the choice of your classic LN determinator, not most good people. On the other hand, even good people know you can't save everyone.
now, if you want to be like Remmy and call it evil power instead of an Evil spell, that's your call, more power to you. I take my Evil more seriously, and stick by the rules line for them, because I LIKE the idea of their being consequences for dealing with evil.
You get the power, you get the freedom of action to do what you want. And there's consequences for that, just as the limitations on actions permitted is a consequence for being Good.
==Aelryinth
Like I said earlier, I use Alignment because it's easier to use than to not (and I find it a useful metric for measuring the likely behavior of NPCs), and it has really never been particularly high impact in any game I've ever run.
Seriously, I've seen one player character ever change Alignment (a Druid who went from LN to N) and that was just because the Lawful wasn't getting played up much, was the player's choice, and wasn't even in a game I ran.
In my games? I've just never seen it happen. People read the Alignment descriptions, then pick one that reflects how they're actually gonna play their character. It's just not all that big a deal.
The problem happens when the GM and the player differ on opinions as to what constrains which alignment.
For example, back in my 3.5 days of yore, I had a half elf druid with an ape companion. We came to a cave, we suspected there were monsters in said cave, I sent my ape in to investigate on the basis he was bigger than my puny 12str self. My sheet said NG, but the GM said I was endangering my beloved pet, so he bumped me to N. Eventually, when I tried to modify my actions in the future to reflect this new alignment, such as not helping those in need without reward, etc, the motherlover bumped me to evil. Apparently to him not being altruistic equals evil.
So I said bugger it, and became a blighter, and derailed his game at every chance I had until I found another group.
I was in my early 20s. I was immature. The point though was the conflict wasn't my actions reflecting my opinion of NG and later N, it was his differing interpretation from mine.
And that he was objectively wrong.
I'd never rule that after just one 'sacrifice' of a pet you'd swap alignment, but it's hard to consider the ape a beloved pet if you send it to its doom.
If you keep repeating this, it's pretty clear you consider the animal companions an expendable resource, which is actually permitted by the class. It's one of the hallmarks of evil druids, who'll callously expand their companions without a second thought, to summon up a new one tomorrow.
So, yeah, continually sacrificing an animal companion is one of the things I watch for in druids. But they have to show a pattern of it, and display the improper attitude for the loss. If they are heroic, they would probably try to get them raised, but that's an RP choice.
So, yeah, a flat alignment change for one time like that is pretty harsh. And yeah, there's nothing that says you can't continue to act NG in spite of that, which means you're trying for personal redemption. I'd agree, he was definitely overly harsh.
==Aelryinth
Like I said earlier, I use Alignment because it's easier to use than to not (and I find it a useful metric for measuring the likely behavior of NPCs), and it has really never been particularly high impact in any game I've ever run.
Seriously, I've seen one player character ever change Alignment (a Druid who went from LN to N) and that was just because the Lawful wasn't getting played up much, was the player's choice, and wasn't even in a game I ran.
In my games? I've just never seen it happen. People read the Alignment descriptions, then pick one that reflects how they're actually gonna play their character. It's just not all that big a deal.
And I agree, it's rarely an issue. When they start pulling a Knight of the Dinner Table, and playing something other then their alignment, I do take notice, however.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth, so if the character had done most of the same things using non evil spells, summoned elementals and archons to fight for him instead of demons, made pacts with djinni nobles he used planar binding on for wishes instead of efreeti, he would have been fine?Aside: I don't allow you to force wishes out of anything. Genies are well aware of the market value of a wish and you can't just Call them up and get the Wishes. They are held to higher powers and don't do that. It's about game balance. You earn wishes from Djinn Nobles by valorous actions, not summoning them up and browbeating them.I don't allow planar binding for wishes either, it is fairly problematic. It is a standard way to powergame exploit high level spells though.
But yes, if he paid attention to alignment descriptors and realized the implications of using Evil magic, of spreading the idea that animating the dead is fine, that enslaving your enemies and using them to kill their allies is great, that Summoning up creatures from Hell to fight for you is perfectly reasonable, and getting gifts from fiends and paying them to serve you is perfectly valid for all CG folk as long as Good People don't get killed...no, there wouldn't have been much of a problem. Those spells are there for a reason, they can be used. He just picked the 'best' ones, ignoring everything else in favor of mechanics.Probably best to separate out the dominate from the fiend summoning when discussing whether using [Evil] descriptor spells is inherently an evil action. Dominate person has no evil descriptor, it is not powered by supernatural evil. It is very easy to use a complete enslavement spell evilly though as you recognize.
There are mechanical reasons to go Evil, neutral, or Good.
A single summoned demon can block a horde of fiends in a corridor thanks to the mutual DR/Good which will prevent any of them from killing each other. A summoned angel however will kill a fiend...
From a mechanical aspect in a standard game, the Evil creature is almost always better then the good. This is because Summoned creatures tend to be much less powerful then what you are fighting, and so their offensive ability tends to be sketchy at best. What you basically end up with are blockers and flankers, hit point sponges. And Fiends make much better hit point sponges then Celestials for this purpose, with also tending to be more crunchy combat wise. Also, Evil enemies tend to be geared to take on Good enemies, not other Evil enemies! (i.e. all those unholy words, blasphemys and whatnot are worthless!). The party was generally able to handle the offense, the extra defense and minions who could be buffed was VERY useful in almost all circumstances.
So, unless the enemy also has DR/non-Evil, the Fiends were almost universally a better choice, and so that's what the guy used.he optimized, and he powergamed. he was good at it, I didn't blame him for his tactics. But, as I noted, he simply ignored any moral consequences of his actions in favor of the most tactically useful choice. Classic superior wizard attitude, fit the trope to a T!
==Aelryinth
stuff2) Um, Evil people can save others for their own purposes. That doesn't make the action suddenly good. Evil people can do seemingly good actions for their own benefits all the time. It's one of the joys of being evil...selective morality on demand. An evil monarch saving his peasant farmers from raiders doesn't make him good - it makes him want to keep his food and tax revenue steady, completely selfish.so, yeah the list of things good people can do:
murder innocents
destroy property
enforce slavery
genocide
setting animals on fire
woo, and here I was hoping you'd actually counter my argument and not just go crazy on a tangent. guess I'll just make crazy examples, that could technically happen in a pathfinder game with some GM.
Murder Innocent - The innocent will be, though the actions of another, the cause for great evil to be unleashed on some land area, the whole world, the universe or what ever. If he is killed before then, none of the evil will be unleashed, however who ever kills him has his soul/whatever obliterated.
the action is extremely on the good side of things. you need to sacrifice to save tons of people, as inaction would damn the entire universe or what ever, and resistance would be futile at that point.
Destroy Property - pretty simple, property of some evil guy using it as his crutch for his doomsday device.
Enforce slavery - world is f$+~ed and only through sheer perseverance can the race survive to make it to the next time the planet will be good. Any wasted energy will simply cause many people to die. so, at birth 3/10 people are labeled slaves. Any action the slaves take to resist will injure thousands and probably themselves making it an evil action, and thus by the stopping of evil actions being innately good, the enforcement of slavery is a net good action.
genocide - kill all undead, pretty simple.
setting animals on fire - we have to cook them somehow and feed the urchins, or maybe the animals are just weirdly evil.
remember, neutral actions can still be done by good people, aka self preservation is easily an action a good person can take.
details like saving people for your own sake and being evil, are possible because it is a neutral action. remember the devil is in the details. if you have no reason to save someone other than loss of life would occur, that is not an evil action, it is inherently a respect for life action and thus good.
please note your first example on this topic was something like: a Evil person can save someone, because he is doing it for his own good. and so my argument is a good person can murder innocents if he does it only for the betterment of others and life in general. it's all about the why of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why I stopped playing Star Wars Saga Edition.
A Jedi must use the Force to cause harm only as a last resort, exploring all other options before making with the Move Object or Force Blast.
Ergo, the easiest way to incapacitate a Jedi is to offer him a blaster. Odds are, he won't be proficient with it, and since he's probably spent a couple of feats on gaining Force powers, that is that number of feats that he didn't spend on Point Blank Shot or the like. And since you've offered him a blaster, he now has an option to inflict harm at range without using the Force.
Therefore, he must exercise that option. If he wants to avoid a Dark Side Point, he doesn't have a choice. Nevermind that he's not proficient with the blaster. Nevermind that he has none of control of the Force over what the blaster does ("clumsy and random" versus "it controls your actions and obeys your commands"). The blaster might turn a creature's brain into steam with a lucky shot, but hey, it's not the Force and that's all that matters. No mitigating circumstances, no consideration of intent, we're just looking for one criterion to put that checkmark beside.
So I've got a low view of Morality being a binary computer that can be hacked. Using a technically good spell or Force power or whatever doesn't excuse a bad deed, and I refuse to think that Morality can be hoodwinked into dismissing an otherwise good act just because of its power source.
A view of Morality from an omniscient perspective is better than that.
So, I no longer own any Star Wars RPG books (actually, it was a combination of that and the fact that non-Force-users don't have and are not encouraged to have near the level of scrutiny that Force-users have.)
stuff2) Um, Evil people can save others for their own purposes. That doesn't make the action suddenly good. Evil people can do seemingly good actions for their own benefits all the time. It's one of the joys of being evil...selective morality on demand. An evil monarch saving his peasant farmers from raiders doesn't make him good - it makes him want to keep his food and tax revenue steady, completely selfish.so, yeah the list of things good people can do:
murder innocents
destroy property
enforce slavery
genocide
setting animals on firewoo, and here I was hoping you'd actually counter my argument and not just go crazy on a tangent. guess I'll just make crazy examples, that could technically happen in a pathfinder game with some GM.
Murder Innocent - The innocent will be, though the actions of another, the cause for great evil to be unleashed on some land area, the whole world, the universe or what ever. If he is killed before then, none of the evil will be unleashed, however who ever kills him has his soul/whatever obliterated.
the action is extremely on the good side of things. you need to sacrifice to save tons of people, as inaction would damn the entire universe or what ever, and resistance would be futile at that point.
Destroy Property - pretty simple, property of some evil guy using it as his crutch for his doomsday device.
Enforce slavery - world is f~$~ed and only through sheer perseverance can the race survive to make it to the next time the planet will be good. Any wasted energy will simply cause many people to die. so, at birth 3/10 people are labeled slaves. Any action the slaves take to resist will injure thousands and probably themselves making it an evil action, and thus by the stopping of evil actions being innately good, the enforcement of slavery is a net good action.
genocide - kill all undead, pretty simple.
setting animals on fire - we have to cook them somehow and...
So, you did exactly what I thought you would...made up a bunch of very corner cases that don't happen in real life, and then STILL call them good.
1)God, you even used exactly the same tired old trope that gets trotted out every time, except usually its to make Paladins fall.
You don't know the innocent will be the cause. you can choose otherwise. In any event, it's not a Good decision, and it's not something you make over and over and over and over again and still call it a Good decision. Because, you know, the whole situation is a contrived trope on its own. a truly Good person will Fight the future.
So it is exteremely NOT on the good side of things, and maybe barely on the neutral side. killing an innocent is never good. It's a contrived circumstance in the extreme. That does not make it good. It's the very picture of a Lawful decision at best, the many for the price of the one.
2) Again, you're putting this in a very specific set of circumstances. I'll agree with your specific example. of course, if you simply put "Destroy property in any/all circumstances," your example falls extremely flat.
3)Oh My God. you are attempting to present your slavery solution as the only GOOD alternative? That is textbook LE thinking. You instituting a class separation, you are forcing your wills on others, and you are claiming it's the 'only way to survive.' Textbook LE! And you consider it Good. That is a horrible example even for a contrivance. The forceful imposition of slavery is an evil act, and you are considering rebellion against that a greater evil? By your terms, anytime people rebel against slavery and people die, it's evil! Holy crap! You just turned a LE vs CG struggle into evil vs evil! You are aware that justification you gave for slavery is exactly one f the arguments posited by hereditary slave owners THROUGHOUT HISTORY?
And you're calling it GOOD?
I don't think I've ever seen a worse moral justification anywhere!
4)Undead are already dead. That's not genocide by ANY definition, thanks. Kindly expand your definition to anything and everything, and lo, you lose it. Even the total extinction of an innately evil race without a hope of redemption isn't normally Good...it's neutral and survival more then anything else, akin to putting down a rabid dog.
5) You're saying COOKING OUR FOOD is Evil, but for a Good purpose? WTH? Nowhere in your example is it ever even hinted that the animals are already dead. I'm sorry, that's just insulting, man.
-------------------------------
That has got to be the worst set on the whole of contrived examples I've seen, and nowhere does it take away from the absolute reading of all the instances of those examples. I knew you were going to be coy and invent circumstances like that, but still...those were awful.
Evil can use genocide as a reasonable tactic literally anytime it wants to. Good has to be pushed to the limit and literally given no other choice even to consider it, and that will happen only in the rarest of circumstances. Even then, it will never be a Good act.
the other categories are similar. Anyone can make up a set of contrivances where there might be an exception, but never, ever are the examples you've given a clear and ready set of answers to any and all potential times they could be used. They are the exact opposite...things that are used only with very good reason, and only in circumstances which dictate them as a viable response.
That man insulted me! DESTROY EVERYTHING HE OWNS!
No, I don't think destruction of property is appropriate for the good person. For the evil guy, sure is!
Etc etc.
===Aelryinth
stuffstuffstuff2) Um, Evil people can save others for their own purposes. That doesn't make the action suddenly good. Evil people can do seemingly good actions for their own benefits all the time. It's one of the joys of being evil...selective morality on demand. An evil monarch saving his peasant farmers from raiders doesn't make him good - it makes him want to keep his food and tax revenue steady, completely selfish.so, yeah the list of things good people can do:
murder innocents
destroy property
enforce slavery
genocide
setting animals on fire
because saving someone for personal gain isn't a corner case? it isn't simply a pragmatic neutral decision, with no actual connection to being evil.
saving a person for any/all circumstances is as permitable for an evil guy as murdering someone for any/all is for a good person. chaotic-good tends to be that guy who kills people to accomplish something for the greater good, as they don't trust the law to deal with it, or organized religion necessarily.
so yeah, give me a reason an evil character can save another living creature with no personal gain involved. you know, a reason that is free of circumstance.
Fine, I made crazy scenarios because you made my examples crazy to begin with.
Chaotic good assassin, kills a Lawful neutral King, because he feels that he is imposing too much power without the will of the people. The action isn't necessarily good, but the King is innocent of any true evil crime, and this is merely a conflict of law and chaos, however the character is still killing an innocent(of any true evil crime) with the goals of creating what he considers a more good option. sure, chaos will probably be the immediate side effect, but she believes and will attempt to push the aftermath towards a more democratic society.
also i'd have to disagree with the LE enslavement thing. no one is claiming anything, when slaves rebel, people die. before that when conflicts in resources happened, people died without there being any bloodshed or rivalry. so they imposed an extremely lawful solution with the goal of helping people survive until the end. there is no power grab happening(and thus no leader trying to hold in power and simply do it for his own ends), everyone has a fair chance at being a slave, and there is nothing in place that promotes slave's children from also being slaves. everyone is simply trying to survive, and the law was made to make sure people survived. in pathfinder trying to support life, is an inherently good action.
1) Saving someone for personal gain is getting rewarded for rescuing the princess, saving the hostages to up your rep, etc. etc. It's actually pretty standard, esp for adventurers.
2) CG tends to be that guy who kills people IF NECCESSARY to accomplish things, not giving a fig for the greater good, only that it trips his moral code. He's an individual, the 'greater good' is lawful thinking.
3) Whimsically, the evil guy decides to save someone, throw money at a beggar, etc. If he can then later exploit it, more for him. Maybe the antagonist just pissed him off. Sometime he might let it slide, Today he didn't.
Happens all the time.
4) Actually, you made your scenarios hugely broad and so openly implied that Good creatures could do ANY MANNER of those scenarios. I presented ones they couldn't, which shot your examples down. THEN you made up crazy examples in contrived circumstances which were so corner case as to be deus ex machine, and some of those didn't even work.
5) You are implying that SLAVERY is a GOOD THING in this example. No, it isn't. The lack of respect for the individual, the trampling of rights, the debasement of being a slave.
This is LN class stratification thinking at BEST, and then only if it is purely equitable, not based on class or birth...which it will certainly devolve into, and then become LE.
Everyone dies when there is a revolt. Actually, the Good thing might be revolting against this decision, killing more people off, and finding the reduced numbers enough to survive without having to deal with someone else telling me I'm now a slave. You're also trying to really, really back away from the whole slavery issue with an extremely unlikely example of leadership (is any person at the top of the scale going to just let their children or themselves be made into slaves? They will do everything to subvert the system in their own favor, which is exactly where class conflict comes from!)
LN society-over-the-person at very, very best, and that's tenuous.
Trying to support life at the expense of other people lives, rights and dignity is not inherently good, it's neutral at best, and usually evil.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I expect this thread to devolve into another round of bullheadedness, I'd like to point out an example from Ultimate Campaign.
Specifically, the background generator. It's optional, yes, but Ultimate Campaign is part of the Pathfinder Role Playing Game line of hardbacks, and thus, are still considered rules.
Might take a bit of scrolling down, it's step 3.
Those give some pretty good examples of what you gotta do to slide over to the evil or chaotic side. And it takes an EXTREME amount to wind up Chaotic OR Evil.
Plus, I'd also like to point out that, yes.. According to this IN RULES... Motivation plays a factor. What you actually do plays a factor... HOW you go about it does not.
1) Saving someone for personal gain is getting rewarded for rescuing the princess, saving the hostages to up your rep, etc. etc. It's actually pretty standard, esp for adventurers.
2) CG tends to be that guy who kills people IF NECCESSARY to accomplish things, not giving a fig for the greater good, only that it trips his moral code. He's an individual, the 'greater good' is lawful thinking.
3) Whimsically, the evil guy decides to save someone, throw money at a beggar, etc. If he can then later exploit it, more for him. Maybe the antagonist just pissed him off. Sometime he might let it slide, Today he didn't.
Happens all the time.4) Actually, you made your scenarios hugely broad and so openly implied that Good creatures could do ANY MANNER of those scenarios. I presented ones they couldn't, which shot your examples down. THEN you made up crazy examples in contrived circumstances which were so corner case as to be deus ex machine, and some of those didn't even work.
5) You are implying that SLAVERY is a GOOD THING in this example. No, it isn't. The lack of respect for the individual, the trampling of rights, the debasement of being a slave.
This is LN class stratification thinking at BEST, and then only if it is purely equitable, not based on class or birth...which it will certainly devolve into, and then become LE.
Everyone dies when there is a revolt. Actually, the Good thing might be revolting against this decision, killing more people off, and finding the reduced numbers enough to survive without having to deal with someone else telling me I'm now a slave. You're also trying to really, really back away from the whole slavery issue with an extremely unlikely example of leadership (is any person at the top of the scale going to just let their children or themselves be made into slaves? They will do everything to subvert the system in their own favor, which is exactly where class conflict comes from!)
LN society-over-the-person at very, very best, and that's tenuous.
Trying to support life at...
1)exactly, all neutral actions which do not change alignment, like eating or painting a portrait.
2)chaotic good, is someone who supports freedom and liberty, and generally distrusts large organized institutions. He does things himself to do the greater good because he doesn't trust a huge organization to actually keep the people in mind. chaotic good people tend to free slaves, kill criminals in towns instead of capturing and turning them in, and supporting guerrilla warfare against tyrants.
3)and if he kept on doing that, he would eventually become neutral. whimsically helping someone is showing on a base level, you thought that guy could use some money, and didn't even expect it to necessarily help you later(which would have been a neutral action).
4)and you did the same for evil creatures. I still don't see you showing a circumstance where a evil human/other can do a non-circumstantial good act and write it off as something he can constantly do(which is what you claim in the opposite for good people).
5) respect for individuality is a chaotic idea, not a good or evil one. people having base rights is also a chaotic idea. The idea that your own liberty is more important than the lives of thousands is a chaotic evil belief or idea. and once again, the leaderships goal is to survive some horrible condition which is pressuring the race, not express rulership over the people, so it still falls in at worst a neutral action.
saying something will turn into something, when they clearly have no intention of supporting slavery for powers sake(since i declared this WAS there intention and not simply what they explain to the people) and are simply using it as a last resort is some circumstance you're adding to the scenario and is not it's current state, thus irrelevant. sure, after the condition ends they might not end slavery, and then their a LE civ pretty easily, but as it stands the reason they support the slavery is due to it be necessary for the number of people that are currently alive.
the regime even actually enforces the complete random selection, it's LG because it actually enforces the conditions of the slavery it put forth.
basically, slavery can be a non-evil action, if it's enforcement and benefit is not to support the nobility or to line someones pockets. if the slavery is meant to make life in general for the people survivable, then it can even be considered a good action.
|
Personally, I don't use alignment per se. The definitions for them will always be food for argument, because ethics in real life is arguable. Almost everyone believes themselves to be good, to be fighting for the right things and against the wrongness they see. That is what I use in place of alignment
Characters require an ideology that they fight for/ something they fight against. It can be anything from "For my own personal power/ against those who would seek to control or weaken me" to "For the freedom of all thinking beings/ against slavers, gaolers, mind-controllers, and pet stores"
I can't relate to and have not observed anyone in real life who acts much like any alignment, so I can't really figure out how to RP them. When I GM there will always be arguments (some very well presented) as to why a seemingly evil/ good act could be construed as the opposite. Therefore, i think it easier amd more satosfying to allow people to decide on a discrete ideology rather than endlessly interpretable things like good and evil.
1) doing just neutral actions over and over will of course move you to neutrality. So, if you make a habit of genocide, which is a horrible thing, you don't casually ever do it, and it's never Good. It's also exceptionally rare.
2)chaos is the primacy of the individual. Recognition of the rights of people is good, not Chaotic. Chaos doesn't innately care about rights (re: CN, CE), rights are a construct of Goodness.
3)You asked for specific circumstance, not if he continued to do something. If he kept doing it, then we look at his reasons for doing so. And whimsy, knacks and habits are often done simply because they are done, and for no furtherance. This instance is unlikely to be indulged in frequently, because charitable acts that are continuous involve sacrifice, and an evil individual is unlikely to pursue them to such a point without an ulterior motive.
4) I claimed no such thing. Again, you are contriving to establish pattern where I gave example.
5)You are in error. RESPECT has nothing to do with Chaos and everything to do with good. CN and CE generally have little to no respect for other individuals...their views are about themselves vs the whole. Rights and Respect are about Goodness. The idea that my individuality and rights are more important then your devaluation of them is both Chaotic and Good. The idea that thousands of people will die if I don't give up my rights to knuckle under to your will is a contrived circumstance whose blame rests solely on those that would mandate such a plan, not I...and in any event, you are raising the magnitude of the decision to apocalyptic levels. If 30% of your population must be subjugated for the benefit of the other 70%, then it is the plan itself which is Evil, not the rebellion against it. A Lawful Good man will find another alternative. A LN man will believe in the will of the majority, and act to suppress. A LE man will do so ruthlessly. Good folk will rebel. Chaotic folk will personally blame the instigator of the plan and refuse to bow to him.
Such rebellion is anything but evil. It is the right of individuals to stand up for themselves and not agree with the plan. It is about a pure LN/LE set up as you can get.
And there will be blood if it is enforced against a minority who do not believe in it. That is not evil in the slightest. It is their right. If it imperils lives, then so be it. If they are now willing to fight, they will be subjugated against their will, and now you have slavery in earnest. Slavery, which by your basis, is totally justified, undeniable, and inescapable...the very IDEAL of LE.
===Aelryinth
6)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
CN and CE generally have little to no respect for other individuals...their views are about themselves vs the whole.
Unless it's respecting everyone's right to make their own decisions, eh?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, anyone who suggests evil > good in this game seriously needs to read the statblocks of celestial beings like angels and archons. Those suckers are stacked man. Holy crap. Heck, Solars are the strongest creature in the core game. You literally cannot summon an evil monster that's even on the same level as a generic solar.
1) doing just neutral actions over and over will of course move you to neutrality. So, if you make a habit of genocide, which is a horrible thing, you don't casually ever do it, and it's never Good. It's also exceptionally rare.
2)chaos is the primacy of the individual. Recognition of the rights of people is good, not Chaotic. Chaos doesn't innately care about rights (re: CN, CE), rights are a construct of Goodness.
3)You asked for specific circumstance, not if he continued to do something. If he kept doing it, then we look at his reasons for doing so. And whimsy, knacks and habits are often done simply because they are done, and for no furtherance. This instance is unlikely to be indulged in frequently, because charitable acts that are continuous involve sacrifice, and an evil individual is unlikely to pursue them to such a point without an ulterior motive.
4) I claimed no such thing. Again, you are contriving to establish pattern where I gave example.
5)You are in error. RESPECT has nothing to do with Chaos and everything to do with good. CN and CE generally have little to no respect for other individuals...their views are about themselves vs the whole. Rights and Respect are about Goodness. The idea that my individuality and rights are more important then your devaluation of them is both Chaotic and Good. The idea that thousands of people will die if I don't give up my rights to knuckle under to your will is a contrived circumstance whose blame rests solely on those that would mandate such a plan, not I...and in any event, you are raising the magnitude of the decision to apocalyptic levels. If 30% of your population must be subjugated for the benefit of the other 70%, then it is the plan itself which is Evil, not the rebellion against it. A Lawful Good man will find another alternative. A LN man will believe in the will of the majority, and act to suppress. A LE man will do so ruthlessly. Good folk will rebel. Chaotic folk will personally blame the instigator of the plan and refuse to bow to...
1) ugh... no or else eating in general would change your alignment, all races that i know of eat other at least once living creatures to survive(plants are alive, yo!).
2)chaos is the primacy of individuality, not the individual.
Chaos Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
3) if a single action is fine, then yet, a good character can totes do any evil action once. like your simply extremely lopsided in how you weight the arguement. you say an evil guy can do a good act BECAUSE blah, but say that good people simply cannot do evil acts, and that adding a BECAUSE doesn't work, when the evil guy could only do the good act because of the BECAUSE.
4)same as #3
5)this is actually a little pet peave of mine, most actions or creatures displayed as chaotic evil, are actually just neutral evil based on pathfinder's alignment descriptions. Chaotic evil should be more along the lines of a terrorist cell, or a cult of hedonism. rampant slaughter is just evil and doesn't really emphasize chaos.
and no, Chaotic evil believes they have the right to kill someone because they have the power and means, as does a chaotic good character think they can kill criminals. chaos simply does not support given "rights". Law thinks people can't do it because it's the law, or it's wasteful. LE people do not support random killing, why? that's destabilizing the current structure you're trying to take advantage of. The difference between believing what people have the Right to do or not, is a Law-vs-Chaos conflict.
and no, damning thousands to die for any reason is evil, and ignoring the lawful establishment and function of it is chaotic. the slave probably would have never been born if the law wasn't first enacted, I've told you several times, the motivations of the people who placed the law was doing it so that the race as a whole could survive. whatever circumstance the planet is in, requires strict cooperation to survive, which is not available under normal circumstances.
there are still several forms of enslavement that are legal today. why? enslavement is a lawful action and is not wholely or necessarily evil. The one everyone knows about is a draft, you are forced into service and sentenced jail time if you decline, and this is all to protect the people of the country(usually). when people are in the military, they cannot disobey orders or they are jailed. This is obviously not a innately evil action and is neutral at worst, but extremely lawful.
Law Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
I think it's easy to understand how extreme lawfulness is forcing people to act as they should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's officially safe to say that how one views alignment depends on how grimdark or happy-rainbow-kittens your view on human's natural predilections on morals are.
Either way...
I think it's officially safe to say that how one views alignment depends on how grimdark or happy-rainbow-kittens your view on human's natural predilections on morals are.
Either way...
Thank you dear friend. *om noms* ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, anyone who suggests evil > good in this game seriously needs to read the statblocks of celestial beings like angels and archons. Those suckers are stacked man. Holy crap. Heck, Solars are the strongest creature in the core game. You literally cannot summon an evil monster that's even on the same level as a generic solar.
Then you check the Evil versions of aligned spells (barring Blasphemy, which is potentially better than Holy Word) and get even sadder.
For the most part, they're all worse than their Good counterparts.
Hell, the Lawful and Chaotic versions are all worse too. Barring Order's Wrath which is like WTF seriously.
Holy Smite: 20 ft. burst, Blind.
Unholy Blight: 20 ft. radius burst, Sickened.
Chaos Hammer: 20 ft radius burst, Slowed.
Order's Wrath: 30 ft. radius burst, Dazed.
One of these things is not like the others...