|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look over the ultimate campaign rules. Torturing a hostage for information is only a 2 step change on the 9 step system. Which means a Good character who does this would not even change alignments to neutral. And remember, the Good characters who did the torturing can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss.
Uh...in the Ultimate Campaign Alignment rules, which are optional, by the way, the only thing listed as worse (ie: more steps) than torture is intentionally burning down an orphanage full of children (which is 3 steps).
So...saying 'it's only 2 steps' is sorta a load of crap. 2 steps is a lot.
Look over the ultimate campaign rules. Torturing a hostage for information is only a 2 step change on the 9 step system. Which means a Good character who does this would not even change alignments to neutral. And remember, the Good characters who did the torturing can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss.Torture is defined IN THE GAME as evil.
'Modern' moral code has nothing to do with it, nor context. Absolutely, torture is an Evil thing to do. It is an Absolute Fact in the game. Arguing moral relativity with the real world is pointless. Good is what it is, and Evil has happily claimed torture as its own. 'Different perspectives' mean NOTHING to the absolutes that are alignments in the game.
Watching your friends and allies commit an Evil action in the face of your objections is going to be a clear indication to ANY paladin that these are not people he should be associating with. Letting them do it and then taking advantage of them doing it is effectively encouraging them to do it again, not providing an example to STOP them.
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.Muss and fuss. Yes, you can atone for it. That's fine.
But you have to actually repent. You can't fake it. You can't have the attitude of "I'll just do and atone later." You especially can't keep doing it and atoning. You can't buy atonement scrolls to prepare for your future misdeeds. All of that shows there's no actual repentance. As does your attitude towards it.
You can keep doing it and apologizing for it, provided you are sincerely sorry each time. Which you should be. Presumably Good characters don't jump to torture (unless they are Jack Bauer), it's a hard choice they make. And as long as they are sincerely sorry about having to make it each time, that's exactly what atonement is for. It's best the paladin stays clear though since their code is harder on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell that to all the people who end up dying from the disease that didn't have to, if you'd made the hard choice. But no, Good gets to get away with letting people die that didn't have to, because it can hide behind it's "moral" shield. That seems much easier to me. Just hide behind morality and never make hard choices.Good is easy. You can fail to protect people and claim "It wouldn't have moral to do X, Y, or Z." Evil can't. If Evil wants to protect people it will succeed at any cost.Note: Why does making "hard choices" always seem to involve being willing to hurt other people?Answer: Because choices where no one needs to get hurt are by definition not hard.It's the "other people" that puzzles me.
Not torturing someone isn't considered a hard choice, even if it puts you more at risk. It's always sacrificing someone else, never the people making the hard choices.
Wow, is this wrong or what?
Good is HARD. Good involves NOT taking the easy way.
Evil involves whatever is most pragmatic and efficient, without caring of the cost to others. Stop a disease by slaughtering the sick? Yeah, that is MUCH easier then caring for them, risk contracting the disease and spreading it, and searching for a cure, spending time, money and people to do so.
Being Good is hard, much harder then being evil. Being Good is 'easy' only if everyone else around you is also good...because if they aren't, they will shamelessly take advantage of you, and you will have to back off being Good just to get by.
That's why Good people flock together...they help one another, everyone profits, hugs and kisses. Introduce one bad apple into that mix, and the paradigm shifts FAST.
Evil is easy, has always been easy. Caring enough to do the right thing? That's hard.
==Aelryinth
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Be one of those 'hard choices'. Oh, we have the choice to kill Anzyr, or search for a cure for him. Man, we're going to have to feed him, and change his bedpan, and risk infection.
Nope, let's just shoot him, burn the body, and be done with it. No more Anzyr.
Yeah, that's the HARD choice. Uh-huh.
Whereas spending billions of dollars and man-hours and brainpower to eradiate smallpox OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD, so we wouldn't have to put up with this child-killing disease ever again, is the EASY choice, an effort that literally took most of a century and the devotion of volunteers, and much of the civilized world to pull off.
Yeah, that was definitely the easy choice.
Eesh.
You're just not seeing what the hard choice actually is, you're fretting over the Neutral "I don't wanna do that" choice, also known as 'looking for an excuse'. Good doesn't do that. Good makes things better, and it sacrifices for others.
Evil, on the other hand, sacrifices others, and wiping out disease victims to eliminate the threat to yourself is EXACTLY what Evil doesn't mind doing.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can keep doing it and apologizing for it, provided you are sincerely sorry each time. Which you should be. Presumably Good characters don't jump to torture (unless they are Jack Bauer), it's a hard choice they make. And as long as they are sincerely sorry about having to make it each time, that's exactly what atonement is for. It's best the paladin stays clear though since their code is harder on...Look over the ultimate campaign rules. Torturing a hostage for information is only a 2 step change on the 9 step system. Which means a Good character who does this would not even change alignments to neutral. And remember, the Good characters who did the torturing can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss.Torture is defined IN THE GAME as evil.
'Modern' moral code has nothing to do with it, nor context. Absolutely, torture is an Evil thing to do. It is an Absolute Fact in the game. Arguing moral relativity with the real world is pointless. Good is what it is, and Evil has happily claimed torture as its own. 'Different perspectives' mean NOTHING to the absolutes that are alignments in the game.
Watching your friends and allies commit an Evil action in the face of your objections is going to be a clear indication to ANY paladin that these are not people he should be associating with. Letting them do it and then taking advantage of them doing it is effectively encouraging them to do it again, not providing an example to STOP them.
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.Muss and fuss. Yes, you can atone for it. That's fine.
But you have to actually repent. You can't fake it. You can't have the attitude of "I'll just do and atone later." You especially can't keep doing it and atoning. You can't buy atonement scrolls to prepare for your future misdeeds. All of that shows there's no actual repentance. As does your attitude towards it.
If you keep doing it, then there's no way you're sincerely sorry for it, because if you were sorry you'd find another way.
You aren't. You keep doing the same thing, and expecting forgiveness.
Letter of the law, killing the spirit. Ain't working.
==Aelryinth
Again, the Paladin did attempt to render aid. The Paladin is not trying to weasel...No, it would be abetting Evil if the Paladin helped capture the person *knowing* their party members planned to torture them. Then yes, the Paladin would be in violation of their code. However, if after the successful capture the other party members agree that torture is required, then the Paladin is not violation of their code. They should as I have stated attempt to render aid by trying to convince the other party members to not torture the captured person, but there is no requirement they physically lend aid to the captured person. Paladin is in adherence to code.Disagreed. Your actions in capturing the person were (presumably) not Evil. So if after that some Evil actions happen as a result of that, you are not "abetting" the Evil. Unless you actually assist in the torture. I mean we're talking about campaign setting where medieval stasis has set in. Torture is like a Tuesday there. What do you think all those racks are for?If torture isn't evil, then you're obviously right. If torture is evil, then my argument stands.
By your argument the paladin could be capturing enemies and directly turning them over to his allies to torture to get information. As long as he isn't personally doing the torture he's fine.
This is a Lawful Stupid interpretation of the code. In short, you are subverting the spirit by trying to adhere to the letter.
Pretty sure nobody here agrees that standing by while a person you captured, who is helpless to defy it, is delivered into torture, is a Good thing. Furthermore, that the allies who would do this are people you should be hanging around, knowingly and willingly committing evil actions when it is convenient for them to do so.
Paladins adhere to the spirit and the letter of the code. Trying to weasel around the spirit is LN/LE behavior, and would do diabolics proud.
==Aelryinth
Again, the paladin stood by while his friends and allies committed an Evil deed in front of him on a helpless person over his objections.
he most definitely did not live up to the code.
==Aelryinth
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Be one of those 'hard choices'. Oh, we have the choice to kill Anzyr, or search for a cure for him. Man, we're going to have to feed him, and change his bedpan, and risk infection.
Nope, let's just shoot him, burn the body, and be done with it. No more Anzyr.
Yeah, that's the HARD choice. Uh-huh.
Whereas spending billions of dollars and man-hours and brainpower to eradiate smallpox OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD, so we wouldn't have to put up with this child-killing disease ever again, is the EASY choice, an effort that literally took most of a century and the devotion of volunteers, and much of the civilized world to pull off.
Yeah, that was definitely the easy choice.
Eesh.
You're just not seeing what the hard choice actually is, you're fretting over the Neutral "I don't wanna do that" choice, also known as 'looking for an excuse'. Good doesn't do that. Good makes things better, and it sacrifices for others.
Evil, on the other hand, sacrifices others, and wiping out disease victims to eliminate the threat to yourself is EXACTLY what Evil doesn't mind doing.
If spending billions of dollars and man-hours and brainpower is an option, then this is by default again, not actually a hard choice. The hard choice is preventing the spread of the disease if quarantine measures are not effective, there is no time to spend those billions/hours, and the disease will infect additional people if not dealt with immediately then you have the hard choice. Remember always shoot the person who gets bit in zombie films. Always. And in that scenario where I was infected and had the potential to infect countless more people I would carry no grudge against being sacrificed if it was necessary. If there's only so many lifeboats, would you really resent children being given priority over you? Of course not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A true paladin never calls it a day.
Anzyr's paladin is so neutral it hurts
Uh, what? This is now a completely different argument then you were positing before.
The WRONG thing to do is to let the disease out in this situation. You're claiming that the Good person will promptly make the Wrong Decision.
Sorry, the Good person will make the right decision, if necessary killing the infected to stop the disease. The Good person will be the one to volunteer to get shot to stop turning into a zombie.
The EVil person will kill anyone and everything they suspect of having the disease, and if that happens to include the innocent and disease-free, oh well. It's not his job to take the time and risk. Kill everyone but me, I'm not infected, and I'm safe. He will beg and plead NOT to be killed in the reverse scenario, expecting everyone else to do whatever they can to save him, because he's more important then they are. If he happens to be a carrier and immune to the disease and spreading it to others, there's no way he can be blamed for that, it's simply not fair he should be quarantined or killed to stop the spread. It's not affecting HIM, after all.
Which, btw, is textbook Typhoid Mary. Go look her up.
Good makes hard choices all the time. Evil makes easy choices all the time. You seem to have a VERY skewed idea of what a hard choice actually is.
==Aelryinth
A true paladin never calls it a day.
Anzyr's paladin is so neutral it hurts
"Never calling it a day." is not a brave or good attitude. It's a delusional one. There's a reason disaster relief don't bother trying to treat to certain patients, because the odds simply aren't worth the resources, which could be be better spent saving more people. A character who never calls it day, would potentially responsible for failing to save hundred thousands in such cases.
Uh, what? This is now a completely different argument then you were positing before.
The WRONG thing to do is to let the disease out in this situation. You're claiming that the Good person will promptly make the Wrong Decision.
Sorry, the Good person will make the right decision, if necessary killing the infected to stop the disease.
The EVil person will kill anyone and everything they suspect of having the disease, and if that happens to include the innocent and disease-free, oh well. It's not his job to take the time and risk. Kill everyone but me, I'm not infected, and I'm safe.
Good makes hard choices all the time. Evil makes easy choices all the time. You seem to have a VERY skewed idea of what a hard choice actually is.
==Aelryinth
Killing the infected is not Good. It is by definition Evil.
Killing the infected is not Good. It is by definition Evil.Uh, what? This is now a completely different argument then you were positing before.
The WRONG thing to do is to let the disease out in this situation. You're claiming that the Good person will promptly make the Wrong Decision.
Sorry, the Good person will make the right decision, if necessary killing the infected to stop the disease.
The EVil person will kill anyone and everything they suspect of having the disease, and if that happens to include the innocent and disease-free, oh well. It's not his job to take the time and risk. Kill everyone but me, I'm not infected, and I'm safe.
Good makes hard choices all the time. Evil makes easy choices all the time. You seem to have a VERY skewed idea of what a hard choice actually is.
==Aelryinth
Untrue.
Dispensing mercy to prevent INEVITABLE suffering and the death of others is by definition good. And that's what your SECOND example forced.
Go watch World War Z. There's the part where they are trying to get the plane into the air in Korea, the officer in charge gets bit. His boys are willing to kill him, to make his end quick and painless so he doesn't rise up to try and kill them, and he instead shoots himself so they don't have to.
And you're trying to tell me that's an Evil decision? That's highest Good all around.
Killing others just to save your own worthless hide? That's evil. Oh, and why not rummage through their pockets for their money while you're at it, and cut off their hair to sell for wigs, and extract the gold in their teeth...
You keep waffling between absolute circumstances and circumstances where there are other options.
==Aelryinth
"Never calling it a day." is not a brave or good attitude. It's a delusional one. There's a reason disaster relief don't bother trying to treat to certain patients, because the odds simply aren't worth the resources, which could be be better spent saving more people. A character who never calls it day, would potentially responsible for failing to save hundred thousands in such cases.A true paladin never calls it a day.
Anzyr's paladin is so neutral it hurts
Being stupid means you don't triage. That's what triage stations are for.
Not being able to save people is reality, sure enough. You do the best you can with what's available. But being willing to sacrifice your own time and effort to help the maximum number of people, instead of just punching a clock and not giving a (*&(&* unless you're paid to, is kind of what he's referring to.
Cops are always on the clock, as are doctors. That doesn't mean they work themselves to death. It means that if they are needed, they are there. How much each will give is a choice they make, but they are there.
An Evil person would, by definition, simply ask "How much are they paying?" and be perfectly willing to let people who could be saved die to waste time and effort on someone who isn't, as long as he's being compensated.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you as GM want paladins to be a viable option and want them to keep taking the high road, don't do that to them. Don't have villains game the legal system.
This just seems like bad GMing. Making characters saturday morning cartoon levels of villainy doesn't seem like it's really doing your players any favors, especially since it limits your villains and narrative options heavily.
Don't set up the game so torture is the smart option.
It's not really possible to do so unless you just decide that torture just never works. But that's not really practical. It also removes the allure of the "easy path" which in turn makes it entirely pointless that the Paladin is a good guy if bad things never work anyway.
However, providing positive alternatives is doable. Intimidate + Diplomacy should generally grease the gears without any physical recovery time or healing spells necessary.
If you want your players to play good, heroic characters, make the good, heroic options work.
Agreed.
Look over the ultimate campaign rules. Torturing a hostage for information is only a 2 step change on the 9 step system. Which means a Good character who does this would not even change alignments to neutral. And remember, the Good characters who did the torturing can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss.Uh...in the Ultimate Campaign Alignment rules, which are optional, by the way, the only thing listed as worse (ie: more steps) than torture is intentionally burning down an orphanage full of children (which is 3 steps).
So...saying 'it's only 2 steps' is sorta a load of crap. 2 steps is a lot.
Not only that, "it's only two steps" shouldn't even be something you are thinking about as a paladin. A little evil is still evil and a paladin is supposed to be a paragon of good.
I think that looking at it as "I can always get an atonement spell later, no muss no fuss" is trying to metagame the situation rather than coming at it as a paladin, someone who BELIEVES in their code (and/or God) and what they are standing for, rather than a player who doesn't want to take the hard way at the table or disrupt what the other players are doing.
Good is hard. Being a paladin is harder still.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really possible to do so unless you just decide that torture just never works.
Right. Which works, because it actually doesn't (okay, technically it works in extremely specific circumstances...which are almost never actually useful to PCs).
But that's not really practical. It also removes the allure of the "easy path" which in turn makes it entirely pointless that the Paladin is a good guy if bad things never work anyway.
I disagree with this completely. Torture is a specific thing, and one of the worst possible things to do to another human being, it is the not the sum total of morally dubious options, and making it effective in fiction is both damaging to my suspension of disbelief and helps legitimize its use in the real world.
As for some more effective less-than-moral options that a Paladin should oppose to some degree under most circumstances, well, cold-blooded murder is often highly useful, as are threats to people's loved ones, blackmail, framing people for crimes they didn't commit, and in a more fantastic vein necromancy and demon-summoning.
Really, it's not hard to have morally dubious and effective options available without resorting to the tired and unfortunate cliche of torture working and being acceptable.
However, providing positive alternatives is doable. Intimidate + Diplomacy should generally grease the gears without any physical recovery time or healing spells necessary.
Indeed.
Gilfalas wrote:
You're entirely ignoring context here. You're right, random people aren't obligated to risk their life for others. Hell, making a law that forces all people to aid others is a terrible idea on a dozen levels. But even legally, some people (mostly health care professionals) in some places (several US states, for example) are, in fact, obligated to help others in need.But more importantly, morality and law don't operate by exactly the same principles. Someone can have a moral responsibility to do something they do not and should not have a legal responsibility to do.
Anzyr you may want to double check your sources and ascribe the correct person to the correct quotes there. I did not write that.
