| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no rules for any of this stuff. ;P
Well, the rules we have in the additional rules chapter governing alignment note that few characters of an alignment are always consistent with their alignment (which means they do things associated with other alignments too). Merely that being an alignment means doing things of that alignment more often than not. Since alignment doesn't determine actions but actions alignment and alignment is based on how you most consistently act.
But D&D alignment isn't really suitable for moral event horizon type games because it's at best a sort of uniform you wear. You can simply have atonement cast on you and you change alignments instantly, though the atonement spell says that usually the alignment is up to the player anyway.
Which again, is why I say it depends on the players involved. It's no harder to have a chaotic evil character be a valued and loved member of a team than it is to have a lawful good character be the same. In some cases, if done well, both can be on a team and co-exist. Not everyone has to be at each others' throats with swords and bat-poo.
We agree on the last paragraph, not on the first and second. But that stuff is kinda off-topic anyways.
There's an old saying that goes something like "One evil act can forever wipe out a lifetime of good"
Again, it's all about perception.
We currently think its evil to lock people into insane asylums or chemically castrate them because they're homosexual or they get caught in the act of self pleasuring.
However, for a long time that was actually considered not only the norm, but was considered to be helping people overcome a mental disease. That act was indeed considered good.
Times change and so does perception.
During Greek and Roman times slavery wasn't considered evil. It was part of life and accepted as a consequence of losing war or becoming indebted. People who owned slaves or captured slaves weren't considered evil for the majority of society.Recently there was a war were a country invaded another country under false pretences. IT was shown that the governments knew their pretence for the war was false after the act. The enemy were considered evil and many were locked away without trial. The soldiers on one side were treated as heroes, the soldiers on the other were considered evil people perpetrating an evil regime.
Both sides committed atrocities during the war. I'm pretty confident the majority of the people in both armies were just folk fighting for they thought was the right thing. Both sides had folks willing to commit evil acts, and arguably both Governments acted with Evil intent.
Depending who you talk to depends on who the evil ones are.
to be clear to mistreat slaves in greek/roman society was an affront to zues/jupiter, as he was the god of hospitality and politeness. to mistreat them was considered hubris and you could actually get freed if you could prove that you were being mistreated.
they also had to be "paid" fairly for the work so that they could get out of their debt.
I've only skimmed, but there have been several little discussions that I'd like to chime in on with this:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
We have it in rules text that the intentions of actions directly affect the character's out coming alignment.
If ever there is a discussion about actions vs intentions, there is the rule.
Or at least, a precedent for how to rule if nothing else, from a core book no less.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've only skimmed, but there have been several little discussions that I'd like to chime in on with this:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.We have it in rules text that the intentions of actions directly affect the character's out coming alignment.
If ever there is a discussion about actions vs intentions, there is the rule.
Or at least, a precedent for how to rule if nothing else, from a core book no less.
That's only true if you consider good & evil to be equal arms on a balance scale.
I'm more of the mind that a few evil things can corrupt someone into being evil despite otherwise being good.
1. If a character helps little old ladies cross the street so that he'll be voted dictator and he can then rule with a ruthless fist - crushing the innocents etc - he's evil.
2. If a character decides to pick a few random citizens to execute - claiming that they were dissidents in order to instill order and figures that overall fewer people will die - he's evil.
3. If a guy is an upstanding citizen who volunteers in a soup kitchen and gives away half of his income and also murders one person each year on their birthday so that their mommy will love him - he's evil.
It's not a balance scale. Intentions are not what matter, or if they do they're a minor consideration.
Your bolded section is basically saying that they can only do good things if it's for the greater evil. In the long term - it'll end evil. Basically my #1 example.
If he helped little old ladies cross the street just as a habit from what his mom taught him as a kid - that would be a good act despite a lack of any intention of good or evil, though the character would still be evil.
I kind of agree, think of good -> evil as the amount you're "willing" to do.
but at the same time, alignment in pathfinder is based on the gods' opinion of you. so they very well may overlook your evil tendencies and have you ping as good, or at least neutral if you end up creating more or at least equatable good.
I kind of agree, think of good -> evil as the amount you're "willing" to do.
but at the same time, alignment in pathfinder is based on the gods' opinion of you. so they very well may overlook your evil tendencies and have you ping as good, or at least neutral if you end up creating more or at least equatable good.
I thought alignments were intrinsic to creatures rather than somethings the deities decide, as they're subjected to them too.
I thought alignments were intrinsic to creatures rather than somethings the deities decide, as they're subjected to them too.I kind of agree, think of good -> evil as the amount you're "willing" to do.
but at the same time, alignment in pathfinder is based on the gods' opinion of you. so they very well may overlook your evil tendencies and have you ping as good, or at least neutral if you end up creating more or at least equatable good.
well it's more like the gods set the goal post of the universe. it doesn't matter how evil something is considered in X place in the world, because only the gods matter.
I've only skimmed, but there have been several little discussions that I'd like to chime in on with this:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.We have it in rules text that the intentions of actions directly affect the character's out coming alignment.
If ever there is a discussion about actions vs intentions, there is the rule.
Or at least, a precedent for how to rule if nothing else, from a core book no less.
I agree, though just to clarify, the "Cannot perform good acts without evil motivation" is an antipaladin thing, not an Evil thing. I'm just clarifying that before someone misconstrues it.
I kind of agree, think of good -> evil as the amount you're "willing" to do.
but at the same time, alignment in pathfinder is based on the gods' opinion of you. so they very well may overlook your evil tendencies and have you ping as good, or at least neutral if you end up creating more or at least equatable good.
Source this?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It all boils down to this: What kind of absolute idiot would EVER willingly put their lives in the hands of any kind of evil d-bag?
Answer: Nobody. Not even an absolute idiot.
That's why I cannot ever get my head around a party of good PCs traveling with an evil one. Any flavor of evil. They wouldn't. Not in a million years. Not if their lives depended on it (because they certainly would depend on NOT traveling with him).
It's not much better traveling with an unpredictable, random, "I'll do what I want not what you say" chaotic ally Any flavor of chaos. They might, but it would only take once or twice where the chaotic guy decides to "spice things up" by inciting a combat or peeing in their noble hosts's prize petunias, or stealing something just because, or whatever, before the party kicks the chaotic moron and finds someone less troublesome.
Fred was Chaotic-Crazy in real life too. Couldn't hold a job, did drugs (way too much), and was just extremely ADHD and overbearing about it.
One day Fred told me he found an old treasure map to a lost gold mine in the Superstition Mountains and he was going to go dig for gold and get rich. He even showed me the map He was pretty convincing, but of course I didn't believe him.
He and his friend bought some assault rifles "to protect themselves from claim jumpers and other freaks" and Fred got two pit bulls and taught them to be really mean, dangerously mean.
Then he invited me to come with him. Out to the middle of nowhere to dig for gold. Split the loot evenly 1/3 for each of us. Never even asked me for a dime (it wasn't a scam to steal any money from me).
At the time I was just working a dead-end minimum wage job and was a little tempted. It would be like a vacation with some tiny little chance that he might even be right and I could get rich. Yeah, right, like winning the lottery. But hey, a vacation and who knows, maybe I win the lottery.
And then this thought set in: The minute we walk into that mine and pull some gold ore out of the wall, Fred will shoot me in the back so he can have more for himself.
Would he do that? We were friends, of course he wouldn't. Or would he? Well, maybe he would. He was Chaotic-Crazy.
As far as I know, there was a real chance that I would be shot in the back. Real enough that I wondered if I should shoot him first, even before we pull any ore out of the wall. Call it self-defense.
Yeah, I actually had that thought. But then reality sunk in; I'm not that kind of person. I don't operate like that, not even close.
Needless to say, I declined Fred's invitation. There was not a chance in hell I would be out in the middle of nowhere with Chaotic-Crazy Fred.
And, mining for gold is NOT the same level of danger or the same level of reward as being an adventurer in Golarion - which means that the evil guy in the party is at least 100x more motivated to backstab the people who were stupid enough to travel with him.
That's why I strongly discourage alignments in general, but definitely discourage creating Chaotic-Crazy characters for a party of otherwise heroic adventurers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
evil d-bag?
Good thing nobody here's talking about playing an evil d-bag. Nor is anybody talking about playing Chaotic Crazy PCs.
Nothing is more inherently unreliable about an Evil PC than a Good PC. Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly was regarded as a very unreliable "adventurer" because sometimes his conscience would lead him to renege on a job. The eponymous Buffy the Vampire Slayer was criticized by some of her teammates for being unwilling to sacrifice "the needs of the few for the needs of the many", and at one point threatened to kill anybody who attempted to do so in her stead. Nothing is inherently compelling an evil PC to betray his party like you seem to be implying. Why would I betray my friends? Why would I betray my partners? Why would I betray these people that help me get more money/power/prestige?
evil d-bag?Good thing nobody here's talking about playing an evil d-bag. Nor is anybody talking about playing Chaotic Crazy PCs.
Nothing is more inherently unreliable about an Evil PC than a Good PC. Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly was regarded as a very unreliable "adventurer" because sometimes his conscience would lead him to renege on a job. The eponymous Buffy the Vampire Slayer was criticized by some of her teammates for being unwilling to sacrifice "the needs of the few for the needs of the many", and at one point threatened to kill anybody who attempted to do so in her stead. Nothing is inherently compelling an evil PC to betray his party like you seem to be implying. Why would I betray my friends? Why would I betray my partners? Why would I betray these people that help me get more money/power/prestige?
You're a kobold.
I EXPECT you to bite my ankles the minute I turn my back. I wouldn't go prospecting or adventuring with a kobold, either.
Asking for trouble.
I wouldn't ever adventure with a DM, so I guess that's fair enough.
Source this?I kind of agree, think of good -> evil as the amount you're "willing" to do.
but at the same time, alignment in pathfinder is based on the gods' opinion of you. so they very well may overlook your evil tendencies and have you ping as good, or at least neutral if you end up creating more or at least equatable good.
just look at my next post for more of my reasoning.
else certain spells having an alignment descriptor and what not shouldn't be a thing, i'm animating the dead to protect people damn it.
Some types of magic being inherently evil has nothing to do with the gods—it could involve the process (messing with souls, for instance).
Some types of magic being inherently evil has nothing to do with the gods—it could involve the process (messing with souls, for instance).
still why is that evil? no real reason, other than it's mostly acceptable to evil gods and outsiders...
Screwing around with sentient souls is evil for fairly self-evident reasons that have nothing to do with gods. If you don't see twisting and warping the barest essentials of a person's being as wrong, I guess I'm really glad necromancy is fictional and you don't have access to it? :P
Unless you really philosophically believe that morality cannot exist outside of religion, in which case I don't think we have anything to talk about on this front.
Screwing around with sentient souls is evil for fairly self-evident reasons that have nothing to do with gods. If you don't see twisting and warping the barest essentials of a person's being as wrong, I guess I'm really glad necromancy is fictional and you don't have access to it? :P
Unless you really philosophically believe that morality cannot exist outside of religion, in which case I don't think we have anything to talk about on this front.
well as far as i'm aware animate dead is only implied to mess with a creature's soul since they can't be reincarnated. I've brought this up before but i thought it was because their intended mortal coil was in use. for instance if someone magic jared you and you went into a gem and the gem was destroyed killing you, you couldn't be resurrected since someone is using your body.
but yeah, manipulating a soul isn't innately evil, trying to fix a broken one is a case of good manipulation, and if it IS required to animate the dead it still can be of good output through it's use. If the target gives it permission prior to death is it still evil?
The fact that the spell is innately evil is evidence that whatever the spell does is innately evil. You can feel free to have a headcanon that the gods decide all morality, but nothing in lore or rules states it. Especially since a paladin can go against the gods and still keep his or her powers.
The fact that the spell is innately evil is evidence that whatever the spell does is innately evil. You can feel free to have a headcanon that the gods decide all morality, but nothing in lore or rules states it. Especially since a paladin can go against the gods and still keep his or her powers.
1. it's innately evil because it creates undead
2. that isn't what i'm saying i'm saying the gods are kind of goal posts that determine if you ping as what alignment.3. paladin's can do what they want because of their inner righteousness, this righteousness just so happens to have to be close to what the beliefs of several lawful good gods believe.
4. my point was your alignment isn't based on local customs.
It's based on neither. It's based on our sense of right and wrong. Like I said, nothing in the rules or lore supports your supposition that the gods define morality.
Let's remember, first, that mortals can become gods through ascendance. What if fifty idiots beat the Test of the Starstone and reckoned that, really, torturing children is the only way to achieve true goodness?
Second, remember that the gods don't actually seem to follow the same alignment rules as everybody else. Nethys is the literal example of "burn down one orphanage, save another" True Neutral. Gozreh isn't far off. Gorum...well, we've already discussed Gorum. Erastil enforces strict codes of family, community and tradition, and calls himself Chaotic. Pharasma is a classic example: Her sense of morality is so far beyond ours that she gets away with condemning countless souls to eternal torment as punishment—not to mention being, technically, a sort of serial killer by keeping all these people dead (though both acts are "for the greater good" of keeping everything in balance). For her, it's okay, since she's a god and it's her job. But imagine if a mortal started following Pharasma's behavior as a guideline, hunting down and killing resurrected people for living "beyond their time".
I see the gods' alignments as rather separate from their true identities. That's why you can worship Rovagug and not be evil, for instance. But their standards certainly don't define mortal alignments.
Really? I could've sworn someone said he was Chaotic Good earlier. Welp, fair enough.
These discussions always remind me that there is a Chaotic Good racist deity of tradition. So alignment is a pretty vague thing.
So out of curiosity, who was this referring to?
That's why you haveGodsgods whose domains include...
"God" is only capitalized when referring to a monotheistic religion because it can take the place of their name. Sorry - pet peeve.
|
Pathfinder and DnD's ethical system is sometimes deontological (some acts are always good, always bad, period), sometimes consequentialist (the intention of some act can change its ethical quality), without a simple, reliable mechanism to rely on to determine which paradigm is supposed to be in-play at any moment. It's why alignment debates are so murky.
and this people is why i use the loyalty system with relative alignments.
and this people is why i use the loyalty system with relative alignments.There's absolutely nothing wrong with alignments being relative, or absolute. The decision however on which has major impact on what kind of game you run. Certain classes and a whole raft of powers and spells do not belong in a game where alignment is subjective. And many other things need modification.
Anyone who thinks that a "loyalty" system is free from it's own issues will find themselves mistaken.
under the relative alignment in unchained it pretty makes it so any spell with a descriptor is changed to whatever you think it is. you always consider yourself good and enemies morally opposed to you as evil. Domons consider themselves good, etc, anything that says requires evil is changed to good. spells that oppose you that were good change to evil, etc etc etc.
also loyalty has been working for me so far.
So how often do people encounter LE player characters? From my experience its the one evil that gels well with most party's as its simply after dominance in the social ladder i.e get rich which is the goal of most adventurers. Its also right next to NG in the department of alignments that no one talks about.
|
So how often do people encounter LE player characters? From my experience its the one evil that gels well with most party's as its simply after dominance in the social ladder i.e get rich which is the goal of most adventurers. Its also right next to NG in the department of alignments that no one talks about.
I like Lawful Evil as a PC type to be honest. You can be the brutal body guard that follows the order no matter what the target. As long as the guys giving the orders are careful how it's worded, you can match a party really well.
I also find Neutral Evil can be good. Following your own agenda as long as it doesn't detract from ten groups goal.
I was running a witch with the disease domain. She would track down vagrants and homeless during the night using her fox familiar. After drugging them she would take them to a hovel on the docks the group had cleared out and used them to experiment on to aid in her healing skill and explain some of the powers she got.
When she used her witch healing, I always described it as being an uncomfortable ache deep in the bones as the wounds healed. They also itched for a few hours after words.
Her Snow White fox occasionally came home from his nightly forays with his muzzle stained red with blood, and had a tendency to stare intently at certain party members.
Everything about her was completely unsettling but none of the evil she was doing was out in the open. It was all just background stuff and flavour. She ran with the group for protection. They got a good rep which helped to hide her activities and if started getting into trouble she arranged things so the party ran into the investigators at a time when they could be killed in the collateral of an adventure raid or mission.
It was a cool character we all enjoyed having in our neutral to good party.
In regards to Chaotic Neutral being super disruptive, I made a post on an older alignment thread about a CN ranger that I've been playing off and on for two years who really sold me on the concept that any alignment is valid for nearly any campaign if your willing to put in the effort to make an actual character and not a caricature.
As far as conflicting alignments not being able to work together, in a different game I'm currently playing, my LG Lore Oracle is most involved with the NE Necromancer (uses undead as cheap labor force) Wizard and the CN (impulsive, not crazy) Bard in the party. Our group goes out and kills the baddies, the CN Bard uses their corpses to create new and exotic instruments (or make alterations to current ones) then the Necromancer uses what's left to make an undead horde, of which some of them help me keep my ever expanding library neat and organized. The three of us work together to make sure the library is stocked with books and servants and expanding as quickly as possible for our own reasons (for me, to educate the masses, for the bard to draw in scholars of the arts to learn more about the technical aspects of music and to build a healthier musical community in the area in general, and the necromancer to provide a service so that people become more accepting of the undead, allowing him to more easily prepare to dominate the land once his horde is sufficiently powerful) and while the wizard's may be more nefarious than ours, his even isn't that bad (his undead reign is largely just to boost the economy significantly by decreasing the need for a paid labor force, increasing the percentage of people that can enter STEM jobs significantly) so I'm having a hard time agreeing with the people who are saying that alignments cause issues. They don't. Players who use alignments as an excuse to get lazy with their RP cause issues.
I don't readily ban alignments, but one of my groups has agreed that we pay minimal attention to alignment in general.
My group is moderately loose with alignment stuff...
We sometimes ban evil (or good) to set the tone for the entire campaign...
CN is discouraged if people say they are going to play it as crazy...
We do have it written down on our sheets, and do get warnings if we start drifting obviously away from it... because there are spells and effects that depend on it!
But generally, it's not taken too seriously, unless a Paladin starts being evil, or a Monk starts randomly getting drunk and starting bar fights (illegal activities, perhaps those examples are bad, you get the idea).
As a player, I wish good characters could animate dead without such huge repercussions... I would LOVE to play a necromancer, and most GMs don't allow evil in my group!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: it sounds like you have a problem with one of your DM's campaign parameters. You always have the choice to quit the campaign "I'll pass on this one folks" or run your own campaign. I don't see much value in your airing out your dislikes about your DM's alignment ban. He sounds like someone who has dealt with the evil PC b&+#%@&$ before and does not want to focus his campaign on babying certain players around...
Sometimes DMs have an actual plan for where their campaign is heading and might know that certain alignments will mess it up?
playing a Good character is boring
pls
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot of alignment issues would be easier to solve if players and GMs would talk about them before the game started so they're each clear on how the other person views things and plans to run them.
I can't disagree with you more. Never once has open communication led to anything good in this world and this "democracy" you seem to be implying sounds suspiciously like "mob rule" to me. The only thing players, the sneaky, degenerate, entitled children they are, understand is force. They need, no they crave, and the iron fist of DM tyranny!