PFS alignment question - CN character, is this an evil act?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 1/5

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sera Dragonbane wrote:


Neutral Druid: "Their murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things in order to acheieve balance, their lives must be taken in return."
Having experience of Pathfinder worlds, anyone who thinks murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things is crazy. Gratuitous murder is the natural order of things. A more perceptive druid would embrace this.

What? Just... what? Please walk me through the logic as to how you determined gratuitous murder was the natural order of things. I am curious as to the play by play that went on when you wrote that down.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Sera Dragonbane wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sera Dragonbane wrote:


Neutral Druid: "Their murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things in order to acheieve balance, their lives must be taken in return."
Having experience of Pathfinder worlds, anyone who thinks murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things is crazy. Gratuitous murder is the natural order of things. A more perceptive druid would embrace this.
What? Just... what? Please walk me through the logic as to how you determined gratuitous murder was the natural order of things. I am curious as to the play by play that went on when you wrote that down.

It is common to assume that in the natural world, the main situation is "kill, or be killed". This might be what JJ is basing the post upon.


Sera- from the sheer body count in Pathfinder games. Including from "good" characters.

From this it probably follows that not only is constant murder the natural order, it is also morally required.

In fact, as a primarily good party roaming around killing right, left and center is probably the norm in Pathfinder, murder is the good, and the more murder one commits the more good you are.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

To the OP, I would strongly suggest re-reading all of the information on Calistria and all the aspects of her and what they entail and how some of them are resolved based on the different alignments of her followers.

As a Neutral deity on the Good-Evil axis, there is a great deal of variation in how her auspices are applied, and just because SHE is neutral in no way means that certain ways of following her credo are not flat out evil. The harshest adherents to her aspect of vengeance are not neutral, they are evil.

The fact that her church has Anti Paladins who are dedicated to her ideals of vengeance to the death is proof of that. In fact, her Anti Paladin code sounds a lot like what you have described for your character...

  • My life is my path, and none will sway me from it.
  • I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions.
  • I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me.
  • All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.
  • I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands.

Remember that part of Calistria's portfolio is lust, and of great appeal to the elves that worship her is her lust for life, and while they will have rivalries and the like, the neutral churches to her worship generally avoid the more violent plans for revenge.

Silver Crusade 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Problem. The premise you are working under; that all killing is murder, is inherently false. Furthermore, you are equating killing as a good act. This is also false even within the standard adventuring party. Killing in self defense is a neutral act while killing unprovoked is an evil one. Finally using a few incredible leaps you jumped to a fallacious conclusion that wouldn't follow from your premises even were they true.

Now I am certainly hoping you are being snarky rather than serious. If you were serious then that would mean that you used an excessive amount of insane troll logic to get to yoir conclusion... and thereby believe your own statement as truth.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.

The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.

Sovereign Court

trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.

In theory. I'd argue that many laws are to help/punish one group or another for immoral purposes. (Not going to go into specifics on a Pathfinder message board.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.
In theory. I'd argue that many laws are to help/punish one group or another for immoral purposes. (Not going to go into specifics on a Pathfinder message board.)

No, it's not in theory. The fact that it regulates the morality of those in power over the morality of those who aren't doesn't change the fact it's purpose is to regulate morality. Even if the people creating the laws hypocritically don't abide by the morality they are writing laws for, that doesn't change the purpose of the laws. Given that morality in the real world it relative and not absolute, then you are always going to have the case of one person's morality being another person's immorality.

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.

The existance of chaotic good and lawful evil show why that doesnt work

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.
The existance of chaotic good and lawful evil show why that doesnt work

In what way?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.
The existance of chaotic good and lawful evil show why that doesnt work
In what way?

The first shows that good can co-exist with chaos, the second shows that the most horrific evil can be quite fitted with law.


trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.
The existance of chaotic good and lawful evil show why that doesnt work
In what way?

Because people aren't perfect.

You're both right. The theory of law is that it's an instrument to regulate morality and produce public good. In practice, many things that are regulated are not themselves evil, and many of the regulations can be twisted to produce unintended evil consequences. That's not even accounting for active sabotage, where an evil ruler replaced a good one and decides to make "evil" laws.

Every law that is proposed, however, is justified by the proposer as being a benefit (i.e. "good"). "School buses must stop at railroad crossings" -- who could be against the safety of schoolchildren?

Grand Lodge

Treatment of prisoners, barring extended torture, is typically something I toss up the the Law-Chaos axis rather than the Good-Evil axis.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

LazarX wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.

That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
The two are closely intertwined. The entire purpose of laws is to regulate morality.
The existance of chaotic good and lawful evil show why that doesnt work
In what way?
The first shows that good can co-exist with chaos, the second shows that the most horrific evil can be quite fitted with law.

First of all, fictional fantasy game concepts don't prove anything in the real world.

Second, the fact that something doesn't always work for its intended purpose does not change its intended purpose. If I build a car as a means of transportation, the fact that I may use it to run someone over does not change the purpose of building a car to being to commit murder.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Treatment of prisoners, barring extended torture, is typically something I toss up the the Law-Chaos axis rather than the Good-Evil axis.

I would do the opposite. Good and Evil have a lot more to do with 'how' & 'why' then they have to do with 'what.'

Dark Archive

So if goodness and lawfulness necessarily coincide, does that mean participating in slavery is moral in societies in which it is lawful? I think most would argue that slavery is immoral and evil, and the fact that it has been deemed lawful by many societies, past and present, by definition decouples goodness and lawfulness.

1/5

the sound of a thread becoming an alignment discussion is the same sound that a field of old tires makes when it catches on fire

Dark Archive

Lamontius wrote:
the sound of a thread becoming an alignment discussion is the same sound that a field of old tires makes when it catches on fire

Yep, time to head back over to the Grapple a Succubus thread for some lighthearted fun. And ideas for what to do next time I get invited to one of the Paracountess' parties.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trollbill,

You re assuming that the system is not working as intended

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
So if goodness and lawfulness necessarily coincide, does that mean participating in slavery is moral in societies in which it is lawful?

That all depends on who you ask. As I said before, morality is relative, not absolute in the real world. Many people think gay marriage is immoral and many people think preventing gay marriage is immoral. If morality were an absolute, there would me no argument there.

Quote:
I think most would argue that slavery is immoral and evil, and the fact that it has been deemed lawful by many societies, past and present, by definition decouples goodness and lawfulness.

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Heck, if you dial the microscope down fine enough you will realize the entire reason morality exists is so that human beings can function as a society. In other words, morality is basically a lawful concept.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
trollbill wrote:

[

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Untrue. I'm not going to make statements about morality because that's almost irrelevant on that scale. But much of our laws and operating principles do operate from the past.

Much of what we take for granted in American principles dates back to a 12th century document called the Magna Carta. Quite a few of our laws date back a few thousand years to the Code of Hammurabi. And let's not forget physicians still take or at least abide by the Hippocratic Oath.

And apparently, even Neanderthals had strong family values, even caring for the aged and infirm, if paleontological data is to be believed.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
So if goodness and lawfulness necessarily coincide, does that mean participating in slavery is moral in societies in which it is lawful?

That all depends on who you ask. As I said before, morality is relative, not absolute in the real world. Many people think gay marriage is immoral and many people think preventing gay marriage is immoral. If morality were an absolute, there would me no argument there.

Quote:
I think most would argue that slavery is immoral and evil, and the fact that it has been deemed lawful by many societies, past and present, by definition decouples goodness and lawfulness.

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Heck, if you dial the microscope down fine enough you will realize the entire reason morality exists is so that human beings can function as a society. In other words, morality is basically a lawful concept.

Morality is absolute, human understanding of morality is imperfect and that is where we get variation.

I will continue to focus on ethics over morality, as what we call morality is driven by your religion of choice.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

LazarX wrote:
trollbill wrote:

[

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Untrue. I'm not going to make statements about morality because that's almost irrelevant on that scale. But much of our laws and operating principles do operate from the past.

Much of what we take for granted in American principles dates back to a 12th century document called the Magna Carta. Quite a few of our laws date back a few thousand years to the Code of Hammurabi. And let's not forget physicians still take or at least abide by the Hippocratic Oath.

And apparently, even Neanderthals had strong family values, even caring for the aged and infirm, if paleontological data is to be believed.

Firstly, your arguments do not disprove the statement, "The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past." What it disproves is the statement, "The morality of the past has zero bearing on the laws of today."

Regardless, Tiger Lily was stating that because current society considers slavery immoral then the existence of laws in the past that allowed slavery prove the two are not intertwined. I am saying this is nonsense because the laws of the past were not created based on the morality of today, they were created based on the morality of past. The fact that today's morality is an extension/evolution of the morality of the past is irrelevant to this. The past effects the future, not the other way around (unless you believe time is a circle).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

graywulfe wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
So if goodness and lawfulness necessarily coincide, does that mean participating in slavery is moral in societies in which it is lawful?

That all depends on who you ask. As I said before, morality is relative, not absolute in the real world. Many people think gay marriage is immoral and many people think preventing gay marriage is immoral. If morality were an absolute, there would me no argument there.

Quote:
I think most would argue that slavery is immoral and evil, and the fact that it has been deemed lawful by many societies, past and present, by definition decouples goodness and lawfulness.

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Heck, if you dial the microscope down fine enough you will realize the entire reason morality exists is so that human beings can function as a society. In other words, morality is basically a lawful concept.

Morality is absolute, human understanding of morality is imperfect and that is where we get variation.

I will continue to focus on ethics over morality, as what we call morality is driven by your religion of choice.

First of all, you are contradicting yourself. First you state morality is absolute, then you state it is driven by your religion of choice.

Second, even if morality were absolute (something you can't prove in reality) it is irrelevant semantics because man has no way of knowing what the absolute morality is. Ergo, to man it is relative regardless of whether it is absolute in reality.

Dark Archive

Consider the abolitionist movement, or suffrage movements for women and minorities. Those would be times where the morals of the era, at least for many citizens, were most distinctly aligned against the law. They pushed for the law to change and eventually succeeded, but the law and its benefactors pushed back before that.

Or take for example a military force operating under a chain of command. Following orders would be an example of a lawful act. Following orders to fire on peaceful protesters, or rape and pillage a village, while lawful, would be evil (and if you're going to try to argue that even rape and pillaging could be moral in the historical context, then it's obvious our internal values are so irreconcilably askew that this conversation is pointless). This could even apply to some things the Pathfinders do - just because the Decimverate orders us to do something doesn't make it a good act, and there are likely adventures in which a character truly wishing to do good would intentionally fail the mission, doing good in opposition to lawfulness.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
trollbill wrote:
I am saying this is nonsense because the laws of the past were not created based on the morality of today, they were created based on the morality of past. The fact that today's morality is an extension/evolution of the morality of the past is irrelevant to this. The past effects the future, not the other way around (unless you believe time is a circle).

You're absolutely wrong. Laws, no matter what time period you are looking for are mostly created by the Economics of the culture, then morality is refitted to accommodate the change, assuming it's addressed at all. If your society's economics are based on slavery, then gosh darn it, your priests are going to call it moral. The industrialisation of the American North, made slavery economically obsolete. (it's far cheaper to pay your factory workers low wages and make themselves responsible for their own upkeep, rather than house, feed, and pay guards to make sure they did not run away.) Only at that point did Northern clergy started condemning slavery as evil.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

Consider the abolitionist movement, or suffrage movements for women and minorities. Those would be times where the morals of the era were most distinctly aligned against the law. They pushed for the law to change and eventually succeeded, but the law and its benefactors pushed back before that.

Or take for example a military force operating under a chain of command. Following orders would be an example of a lawful act. Following orders to fire on peaceful protesters, or rape and pillage a village, while lawful, would be evil (and if you're going to try to argue that even rape and pillaging could be moral in the historical context, then it's obvious our internal values are so irreconcilably askew that this conversation is pointless). This could even apply to some things the Pathfinders do - just because the Decimverate orders us to do something doesn't make it a good act, and there are likely adventures in which a character truly wishing to do good would intentionally fail the mission, doing good in opposition to lawfulness.

I am at a loss as to how this would disprove my point.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

LazarX wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I am saying this is nonsense because the laws of the past were not created based on the morality of today, they were created based on the morality of past. The fact that today's morality is an extension/evolution of the morality of the past is irrelevant to this. The past effects the future, not the other way around (unless you believe time is a circle).
You're absolutely wrong. Laws, no matter what time period you are looking for are mostly created by the Economics of the culture, then morality is refitted to accommodate the change, assuming it's addressed at all. If your society's economics are based on slavery, then gosh darn it, your priests are going to call it moral. The industrialisation of the American North, made slavery economically obsolete. (it's far cheaper to pay your factory workers low wages and make themselves responsible for their own upkeep, rather than house, feed, and pay guards to make sure they did not run away.) Only at that point did Northern clergy started condemning slavery as evil.

Please show me a historical case of a law being passed and then the morality adjusting to it. At worst, the morality was already adjusting when the law was made (gay marriage being a case in point.) Now economics may effect the morality, but the change in morality comes first, not the law.

Even with all that, your comments still do not prove that the morality of today has a bearing on the laws of the past. Please quite pretending you are countering an argument that you have done absolutely nothing to counter.

Dark Archive

trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

Consider the abolitionist movement, or suffrage movements for women and minorities. Those would be times where the morals of the era were most distinctly aligned against the law. They pushed for the law to change and eventually succeeded, but the law and its benefactors pushed back before that.

Or take for example a military force operating under a chain of command. Following orders would be an example of a lawful act. Following orders to fire on peaceful protesters, or rape and pillage a village, while lawful, would be evil (and if you're going to try to argue that even rape and pillaging could be moral in the historical context, then it's obvious our internal values are so irreconcilably askew that this conversation is pointless). This could even apply to some things the Pathfinders do - just because the Decimverate orders us to do something doesn't make it a good act, and there are likely adventures in which a character truly wishing to do good would intentionally fail the mission, doing good in opposition to lawfulness.

I am at a loss as to how this would disprove my point.

My point is that even if you go to the extreme end of moral relativism, there are cases when a person's morals directly contradict the law. People's morals often contradict other people's morals, and not all of them can be codified. Therefore, lawfulness cannot implicitly be a measure of goodness. Some societies may place moral weight on following the law, but that doesn't mean they are deeply intertwined as you seem to be trying to argue, and I would argue there are many cases when the only moral action is to violate the law, no matter what era or belief system you're operating in.


Sera Dragonbane wrote:

Problem. The premise you are working under; that all killing is murder, is inherently false. Furthermore, you are equating killing as a good act. This is also false even within the standard adventuring party. Killing in self defense is a neutral act while killing unprovoked is an evil one. Finally using a few incredible leaps you jumped to a fallacious conclusion that wouldn't follow from your premises even were they true.

Now I am certainly hoping you are being snarky rather than serious. If you were serious then that would mean that you used an excessive amount of insane troll logic to get to yoir conclusion... and thereby believe your own statement as truth.

Yes, I am being sarcastic rather than serious and you are quite right about the insane troll logic.

But there is a serious point behind it. Adventurers keep going adventuring, therefore creating a situation where they will keep getting attacked by things and therefore be forced to kill them in self defence.

OK, Pathfinder games are not supposed to be seminars in moral philosophy and are based on fantasy literature where the same kind of thing happens to a lesser extent and likewise are not supposed to be seminars in moral philosophy.

But the body count racked up by "good" parties is staggering. This is the way it seemed to me in 1979 when I first played D and D and my view never changed. Do you really disagree?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joynt Jezebel wrote:


But the body count racked up by "good" parties is staggering. This is the way it seemed to me in 1979 when I first played D and D and my view never changed. Do you really disagree?

Depends on what you're referring to. I don't think we need to weep for all of the demons being killed by good parties doing their thing during the Wrath of the Righetous AP. D+D/Pathfinder IS fundamentally a war game after all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

Consider the abolitionist movement, or suffrage movements for women and minorities. Those would be times where the morals of the era were most distinctly aligned against the law. They pushed for the law to change and eventually succeeded, but the law and its benefactors pushed back before that.

Or take for example a military force operating under a chain of command. Following orders would be an example of a lawful act. Following orders to fire on peaceful protesters, or rape and pillage a village, while lawful, would be evil (and if you're going to try to argue that even rape and pillaging could be moral in the historical context, then it's obvious our internal values are so irreconcilably askew that this conversation is pointless). This could even apply to some things the Pathfinders do - just because the Decimverate orders us to do something doesn't make it a good act, and there are likely adventures in which a character truly wishing to do good would intentionally fail the mission, doing good in opposition to lawfulness.

I am at a loss as to how this would disprove my point.
My point is that even if you go to the extreme end of moral relativism, there are cases when a person's morals directly contradict the law. People's morals often contradict other people's morals, and not all of them can be codified. Therefore, lawfulness cannot implicitly be a measure of goodness. Some societies may place moral weight on following the law, but that doesn't mean they are deeply intertwined as you seem to be trying to argue, and I would argue there are many cases when the only moral action is to violate the law, no matter what era or belief system you're operating in.

Let's try the car analogy again. I build a car for the purpose of travel. The fact that some people prefer to use bicycles instead of cars for travel or that some people may use cars for purposes other than travel does not change the fact that the basic purpose of the car was for travel. Nor does it mean you can separate the car from the concept of travel. The two are intricately linked because there never would have been a car in the first place if no one had wanted to use it for travel. Thus there would have been no laws if no one had wanted to regulate morality in the first place.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Let's try the car analogy again. I build a car for the purpose of travel. The fact that some people prefer to use bicycles instead of cars for travel or that some people may use cars for purposes other than travel does not change the fact that the basic purpose of the car was for travel. Nor does it mean you can separate the car from the concept of travel. The two are intricately linked because there never would have been a car in the first place if no one had wanted to use it for travel. Thus there would have been no laws if no one had wanted to regulate morality in the first place.

To play with your own analogy - the purpose of motor vehicles (generally cars) in general is travel. However, even though a tank is a vehicle - it's primary purpose is violence despite being a vehicle. And the people who designed and built the tank meant it that way, even though it's generally based on the same principles as normal cars and trucks.

In the same way the primary purpose of laws in general is to regulate morality. However, that does not mean that the purpose of every law is to regulate morality, nor was it even the intended purpose by their creators.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.

What is the purpose of morality?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Let's try the car analogy again. I build a car for the purpose of travel. The fact that some people prefer to use bicycles instead of cars for travel or that some people may use cars for purposes other than travel does not change the fact that the basic purpose of the car was for travel. Nor does it mean you can separate the car from the concept of travel. The two are intricately linked because there never would have been a car in the first place if no one had wanted to use it for travel. Thus there would have been no laws if no one had wanted to regulate morality in the first place.

To play with your own analogy - the purpose of motor vehicles (generally cars) in general is travel. However, even though a tank is a vehicle - it's primary purpose is violence despite being a vehicle. And the people who designed and built the tank meant it that way, even though it's generally based on the same principles as normal cars and trucks.

In the same way the primary purpose of laws in general is to regulate morality. However, that does not mean that the purpose of every law is to regulate morality, nor was it even the intended purpose by their creators.

I don't disagree. But we are talking about Law as a concept, not as a specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:


OK, Pathfinder games are not supposed to be seminars in moral philosophy and are based on fantasy literature where the same kind of thing happens to a lesser extent and likewise are not supposed to be seminars in moral philosophy.

But the body count racked up by "good" parties is staggering.

Well, yeah. So is the body count racked up by soldiers, by exterminators, by pirate hunters, by SWAT teams,... and, fundamentally, by anyone whose job description includes "kill bad guys."

Dark Archive

trollbill wrote:
Let's try the car analogy again. I build a car for the purpose of travel. The fact that some people prefer to use bicycles instead of cars for travel or that some people may use cars for purposes other than travel does not change the fact that the basic purpose of the car was for travel. Nor does it mean you can separate the car from the concept of travel. The two are intricately linked because there never would have been a car in the first place if no one had wanted to use it for travel. Thus there would have been no laws if no one had wanted to regulate morality in the first place.

The problem with this analogy is that I vehemently disagree with the concept that the fundamental purpose of the law is to enforce morality. The law serves to enforce the will of those in power. Generally, this is stability, because instability would increase the chance that they would lose their position of power. In some instances, the will of those in power and the means of stability has been morality, but it still doesn't mean that law and morality are implicitly linked, and in many cases the will of those in power has been anything but morality.

Not to mention, this also wanders down fun definitions of good vs morality. Sharia law is an example of law and morality intermixing, but most of the civilized world would argue that it is an example of evil rather than good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Sharia law is an example of law and morality intermixing, but most of the civilized world would argue that it is an example of evil rather than good.

That's partly because this thread is quite confused about what the word "moral" means. In a Pathfinder context, "moral" means "good," and if your personal feeling about what is best-in-life doesn't match that, you are, first, wrong, and second, evil.

For example, as you wrote earlier, "there are cases when a person's morals directly contradict the law. People's morals often contradict other people's morals, and not all of them can be codified." Yes, that's true -- and when people's moral contradict other people's morals, at least one of them is wrong. And if you need to know which one, there's a commune spell for that.

In the real world, the people who push Sharia law do so because it is good. In the real world, the people who oppose Sharia do so because it is evil. Unfortunately, we lack a commune spell so we have no widely accepted way to resolve this disagreement -- but to suggest that both groups are correct is, even in the real world, silly.


trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?

If you really want to know, the answer can be found in "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche.

The purpose of morality is to arrange society in such a fashion as the most remarkable of individuals [the oft misunderstood Ubermenschen} are most likely to arise.

Glad you asked?

Having already been I think the first person to reference Foucault on a Pathfinder thread, I now add Nietzsche. Next stops Kant and Wittgenstein.
Oh wait...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?

If you really want to know, one possible answer can be found in "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche.

Fixed that for you

Sovereign Court

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?
If you really want to know, the answer can be found in "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche.

Lol - only if you like to hear the ramblings of a man who was brain-damaged from syphilis.

Silver Crusade 2/5

trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?

Stability.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:

Generally, this is stability, because instability would increase the chance that they would lose their position of power.

In some instances, the will of those in power and the means of stability has been morality, but it still doesn't mean that law and morality are implicitly linked, and in many cases the will of those in power has been anything but morality.

I am referring to societal motivations, not individual motivations. Maintaining power is why an individual may create laws, not why societies do. Your mention of stability is getting more to the heart of it. Societies need stability to function. No stability = no society. And since humans are more successful as a society than as individuals, then it is logical to have means of maintaining stability.

Morality is used to determine what behaviors are bad for a society and what behaviors are good, in the long run. (I say, "in the long run," because some behaviors may temporarily harm society but ultimately strengthen it.) Laws are simply a method of codifying and enforcing what morality has determined as good or bad. The fact that some individuals or groups of individuals may co-opt laws or morality for other purposes does not change their basic reason for existing in the first place.

Again, I am looking at this from a societal level, not an individual one. And since we are talking about Law & Good as broad concepts then we need to look at them in a bigger picture than just an individual level.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

David Bowles wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?
Stability.

Bingo!

Liberty's Edge 1/5

trollbill wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
So if goodness and lawfulness necessarily coincide, does that mean participating in slavery is moral in societies in which it is lawful?

That all depends on who you ask. As I said before, morality is relative, not absolute in the real world. Many people think gay marriage is immoral and many people think preventing gay marriage is immoral. If morality were an absolute, there would me no argument there.

Quote:
I think most would argue that slavery is immoral and evil, and the fact that it has been deemed lawful by many societies, past and present, by definition decouples goodness and lawfulness.

It does no such thing. The morality of today has zero bearing on the laws of the past. If you judge history based solely on the current morality then you will find the vast majority of history to be 'evil.' I find such a concept incredibly egocentric and silly. The laws of the past were built around the morality of the past.

Heck, if you dial the microscope down fine enough you will realize the entire reason morality exists is so that human beings can function as a society. In other words, morality is basically a lawful concept.

Morality is absolute, human understanding of morality is imperfect and that is where we get variation.

I will continue to focus on ethics over morality, as what we call morality is driven by your religion of choice.

First of all, you are contradicting yourself. First you state morality is absolute, then you state it is driven by your religion of choice.

Second, even if morality were absolute (something you can't prove in reality) it is irrelevant semantics because man has no way of knowing what the absolute morality is. Ergo, to man it is relative regardless of whether it is absolute in reality.

I said Morality is Absolute and what we call morality is driven by religion. There is a difference between morality and what we call morality. So no there is no contradiction in my statement.

I would say that, if we accept that Morality is relevant at all, the answer to whether it is absolute or not (a point which I agree can not be proven either way) is in fact very relevant.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?
Stability.

I'd argue that while stability is definitely a positive result of morality (generally), I think it's a bit too cynical to think that's its purpose.

After all - many wars etc have been fought for reasons of morality. And wars are hardly the same as stability. (I'm not going to weigh in on which ones etc here - too controversial for a Pathfinder message board.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

graywulfe wrote:

I said Morality is Absolute and what we call morality is driven by religion. There is a difference between morality and what we call morality. So no there is no contradiction in my statement.

I would say that, if we accept that Morality is relevant at all, the answer to whether it is absolute or not (a point which I agree can not be proven either way) is in fact very relevant.

We are using what we call words to have what we call a discussion about what we call morality. So a discussion about some abstract absolute that we don't call morality is what we call irrelevant.

I am sorry, but I seriously do not get the point or relevance of your arguments.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The purpose of most laws seems to be stability rather than mortality.
What is the purpose of morality?
Stability.

I'd argue that while stability is definitely a positive result of morality (generally), I think it's a bit too cynical to think that's its purpose.

After all - many wars etc have been fought for reasons of morality. And wars are hardly the same as stability. (I'm not going to weigh in on which ones etc here - too controversial for a Pathfinder message board.)

There is some semantic wiggle room here, but I would submit that Wars are an example of what I referred to earlier as long term stability. In the long term, if successful, wars decrease the threats to stability from adversaries, increase the stability due to increased resource (or decreased need of resources through population reduction), and/or increase stability through forced uniformity of cultures.

Dark Archive

Is stability actually good for society, or for the system itself? A government and its people are not the same thing. It is good for the government, the system itself, to have stability, since that stability is the basis for its existence. The government hence enforces the laws to promote that stability. But it's not necessarily true that it is a good thing for the people living in that society. Take for example Cheliax. I think it would be fair to argue that injecting a bit of chaos into that nation that operates under the pretense of Order At Any Cost could potentially produce a net good by stopping the evil inflicted in the name of law.

Now, if the society is actually good, the stability of that society would be a net good. But not all societies are good. So not all stability, and not all law, is good.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PFS alignment question - CN character, is this an evil act? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.