Im a bit confued about everyone talking about lawful in this thread.
I thought you could have a personal code that you followed to the letter and that could make you lawful.
For example you could have a personal code that said you would follow a person who saved your life.
Lets say then a chaotic person saved you and thus you decided to follow him to the death.
He gives you tons of orders to break the law all the time and you do so , always keeping in mind you own code.
This would keep you lawful , since you are following your code of honor , but you would still act much like a chaotic person as far the law goes since you are obeying a chaotic person.
Talk of "objective morality" makes me want to kick a puppy.
In my group lawful good does not mean you have to be nice.
While things like torture are out of the question it doesn't mean you can't play the good cop.
And yes, obviously breaking into someone's house, killing them, and taking all their stuff is clearly evil.
So you only pay in all evil groups?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, obviously breaking into someone's house, killing them, and taking all their stuff is clearly evil.So you only pay in all evil groups?
I don't pay anything, what a silly question.
Oh you meant play? No.
You assertion is ridiculous since I explained that there is a difference between murder and killing.
The example above assumes murder (unjustified killing) where as good heroes will typically have a good reason to kill a creature. Such as the goblins have raided the town and presented themselves as a threat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Paladin unknowingly commits an evil act they fall.
Ehm no
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
|
If a Paladin unknowingly commits an evil act they fall.Ehm no
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
There was a HUGE thread about this a little while back. Had to do with the difference between the words "willfully" and "unknowingly". They are different words, to be fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk of "objective morality" makes me want to kick a puppy.Then get to kicking because Pathfinder doesn't use Subjective Morality ever.
Oh, don't worry; I already have. Got two of them, actually.
A person, under subjective morality, could slaughter all small children that he comes across and justify that as good if they believe that the world is a horrible place and the children's existence in it is a cruel punishment forced on them. He could argue that he was healing them, in a way, and he could justify this which, under subjective morality, he would be correct he could still be Good under his own perceptions.
People can do those things. The fact that the Aztecs cut out someone's heart every day and played football with severed heads didn't make them evil in their own eyes. Alexander the Great didn't think "gosh, I'm so evil" when he ordered his army to raze Persepolis.
The entire universe doesn't turn on your moral compass, Walsh.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Lawful Good person would, in my opinion, chain the assassin tightly and turn him over the proper authorities.
In the OP's case, the Lawful Good magus has a military *BACKGROUND* and *SERVED* in the King's Army, which implies he no longer does, for whatever reason that is... depending on the *REASONS*, the LG magus may:
- NOT want to reach out to his previous military contacts if he was dishonorably discharged, or if he genuinely thinks this is a City Watch affair vs. a foreign threat to the kingdom matter;
- WANT to reach out to his previous military contacts if he still counts many there as his friends;
- WANT to turn over the assassin to the proper authorities as soon as possible (if he doesn't know the law);
- NOT want to turn over the assassin if he knows the law has a loophole (i.e. citizen's arrest may not exceed a period of 24 hours unless no servant of the King is within one day's travel, in which case the arrest can be maintained as long as the King's servants will take to reach the prisoner; food and water must be provided, etc.)
- NOT torture the prisoner in any way, shape or form, unless you live in Nidal, in which case it's probably encouraged, but the good part of his alignment would be sick at that...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torture is evil. You are making a helpless person suffer in order to get what you want. Any research on historic torture will tell you it's a barbaric, unreliable method of extracting information that leaves devastating psychological effects on its victims.
Torture isn't even a good war tactic. There exist more reliable methods for extracting information from captured enemies, such as bribery, bluffing, and social engineering. In a fantasy world like Pathfinder, you have plenty more options. I played a Lawful Neutral character for two years that routinely captured enemies and interrogated them -- I NEVER had to resort to torture.
Show me a Good character that resorts to torture, and I'll show you a lazy player who couldn't be bothered to come up with something more creative than "hurt the bad guy until he gives us what we want."
People can do those things. The fact that the Aztecs cut out someone's heart every day and played football with severed heads didn't make them evil in their own eyes. Alexander the Great didn't think "gosh, I'm so evil" when he ordered his army to raze Persepolis.
The entire universe doesn't turn on your moral compass, Walsh.
You need a couple of reminders.
1. The Aztecs would frequently start wars solely for the purposes of acquiring POWs for sacrifice. They may have considered themselves "noble, or honorable" but that is from even among their contemporaries, a sick, and twisted view of cosmology.
2 Alexander burned Persepolis purely as revenge for what the Persians had done to Athens. Not exactly the most noble of motives.
3.Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are values we impose on the real world. In Pathfinder, the default assumption is that they are not only values, but actual real forces, so let's put the real world comparisons to bed.
Thank you, just thank you for this input, the amount of times I here people trying to use real world values in table top.
It's like playing dark heresy all over again.
You need a couple of reminders.
People can do those things. The fact that the Aztecs cut out someone's heart every day and played football with severed heads didn't make them evil in their own eyes. Alexander the Great didn't think "gosh, I'm so evil" when he ordered his army to raze Persepolis.
The entire universe doesn't turn on your moral compass, Walsh.
Ha! As if I had forgotten.
Today's good is always tomorrow's evil, and we will be judged by future generations just as we sit in judgment of the past. But you boys are right about Pathfinder's nine flavors of morality.
I need to find a kitten.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, that just points to a massive amount of outright evil activities (human sacrifice, slavery, witch burning, spousal abuse, and so on) that used to be socially acceptable.
And in various parts of the world, many of those things are still socially acceptable.
"Socially acceptable" does not mean "not evil."
@ OP - I'd argue that if torture's a "first resort" method for a character, then that character isn't actually lawful good in the first place.
Also, "What would Captain America do?" works pretty well as a guideline for lawful good characters.
There was a HUGE thread about this a little while back. Had to do with the difference between the words "willfully" and "unknowingly". They are different words, to be fair.If a Paladin unknowingly commits an evil act they fall.Ehm no
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
It was more about the fact that many mistakenly read "willingly" instead of "willfully"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can do those things. The fact that the Aztecs cut out someone's heart every day and played football with severed heads didn't make them evil in their own eyes. Alexander the Great didn't think "gosh, I'm so evil" when he ordered his army to raze Persepolis.The entire universe doesn't turn on your moral compass, Walsh.
Subjective morality only makes any sense in a world without an outside scale - where humans determine our own morality.
Whether or not you think that there's an outside force determining morality in our world (I think/believe yes - and while I'd try to convince you of it in another context, I certainly won't insist or get mad at you for disagreeing with me.) but in Pathfinder there certainly is an outside scale of morality. Ones on which the gods all seem to agree. (The evil deities make no bones about being evil.) Therefore subjective morality within such a world makes no sense.
Subjective morality only makes any sense in a world without an outside scale - where humans determine our own morality.
"Scale" is an interesting choice of words. You could just as easily have said "power", with all that it implies.
Ones on which the gods all seem to agree. (The evil deities make no bones about being evil.) Therefore subjective morality within such a world makes no sense.
This is the part that makes no sense, and is indicative of a cartoonish view of good and evil. Why would a god let anyone define morality for him?
Your argument is basically a shell game. Mortals must live under morality because there is an outside power telling them what's right and what's wrong...but how does this power bind the gods, specifically the evil ones? Do they just let themselves be bound by the opinions of their "good" counterparts? How pitiful would that be?
Or is morality an immutable law of physics? If we look hard enough, will we find "love thy neighbor" written in the delicate interactions of waves and particles? Doubtful. In a game where "evil" gods exist, the only way to re-establish your outside scale would be to invent another god who sits above the gods of the Pathfinder pantheon. It's turtles all the way down, my friend.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Subjective morality only makes any sense in a world without an outside scale - where humans determine our own morality.
"Scale" is an interesting choice of words. You could just as easily have said "power", with all that it implies.
... what? You're nitpicking word choice? What does "power" imply that "scale" does not, in this case?
Ones on which the gods all seem to agree. (The evil deities make no bones about being evil.) Therefore subjective morality within such a world makes no sense.
This is the part that makes no sense, and is indicative of a cartoonish view of good and evil. Why would a god let anyone define morality for him?
Your assertion is false and itself is based on a subjective universe's view of morality.
Evil people, in our world, don't see themselves as "evil" because people view "evil" as being "bad" and "not the thing to be" and have put self-blinders on.
"Evil for Evil's sake" in our world is nonsense, cartoonish, and foolish - there is no gain there. "Evil for Evil's sake" in Pathfinder yields tangible, demonstrative power - power that is, it's worth noting, especially effective against "Good" agents.
Beyond that, as I'll get into later, "Evil" - even if it's accepted as "Evil" - might not be seen as "evil" - depending on who, exactly, it is.
Your argument is basically a shell game. Mortals must live under morality because there is an outside power telling them what's right and what's wrong...but how does this power bind the gods, specifically the evil ones? Do they just let themselves be bound by the opinions of their "good" counterparts? How pitiful would that be?
This... this statement is nonsense and displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of Objective Morality.
It looks like you are rejecting it as a concept in a game wherein it demonstrably exists because it does not align with your real-world view of what does not exist.
Again, I'll get back to that.
Or is morality an immutable law of physics? If we look hard enough, will we find "love thy neighbor" written in the delicate interactions of waves and particles? Doubtful. In a game where "evil" gods exist, the only way to re-establish your outside scale would be to invent another god who sits above the gods of the Pathfinder pantheon. It's turtles all the way down, my friend.
Your assertion is false, because it presupposes things that need not be true, based on a host of assumptions that need not be true; in fact, it is answered in your first question.
The answer to your question is "Yes - sort of."
One of the fascinating things about fantasy in general is that you can establish absolutes that are either untrue or are entirely (or at least seem entirely) like nonsense within the "real" world.
Let us, for the sake of this discussion, describe a world in which there is a color. That color is visible to all creatures. It tends to warp all other colors around it (except other yellows), fundamentally weakens wood and steel it's brought into contact with, and causes deep seated fear. It is, visually, unlike any of the colors ever seen in the real world. It is, arbitrarily, called Yellownumber5*.
*
Now, Yellownumber5 doesn't actually exist in the real world... not as I'm describing it anyway. It is not a distinct, independent color that has metaphysical-to-physical properties that alters the world around it. In the world that we imagine - a world that doesn't exist, mind - Yellownumber5 functions this way because we say it functions this way.
What this means is that, in our world, Yellownumber5 is a fabrication - a falsehood, a literal fantasy created by people for the idle purpose of self-amusement (though some might not find it amusing; it's up to them). This is made especially apparent when Yellownumber5 is recognized as Yellow Number 5 - something that does exist, but something that exists merely as coloring. A minor bit of synthetic dye that is used in food... something that, in some regards can be seen as similar to the Yellownumber5 we created, but a fundamentally different creature, without the mystical properties or cosmic importance.
One of the fascinating things, however, is that within the world we created, the inhabitants of the universe that Yellownumber5 exists as part of, it is, instead, of absolute importance, and a very definitive, very objective force in the universe that they live within. Why? Because we defined it that way for that universe when we created. It has a definition. This definition doesn't change, no matter what people in-universe care about. Hence, for them, it is objective.
For them, if we otherwise wish to create a believable world around this ludicrous concept, they have to react to and deal with it in a recognizable - or at least moderately sensible - way. This is where objective morality comes in.
Now to get into the meat of the thing, and to revisit a few concepts that we were talking about earlier.
First: in Pathfinder, Objective Morality exists. This is a fact. People may have subjective views, but that is views - regardless of what they believe or think, morality is known, it is an absolute quantity, and it is (meta-)physically part of the universe such that it generates physical consequences directly when applied. To prove this, we merely have to look at spell lists. Okay, bam, it's proven. Within Pathfinder, it's objective.
Here, in the real world, their definition of morality is subjective - it follows the gist of the basic tenets of the broad understandings of many religions and philosophies, though simplified and lacking nuance or deep understanding - but is still, technically, subjective, as it defaults to the understandings of those who create it.
Within Pathfinder, though? It's Objective.
This is a thing that is fundamentally different from our world to theirs - in our world, there is no obvious outside metric by which "alignment" - nebulous concept that it is - can be measured. We can look to our local religions, philosophies, and so on, to see if we're living up to those standards, but those do not have demonstrable, tangible proof that they are correct, by most people's reckonings.
Yet in their world, the gods definitively do exist, they can definitively show (and affect!) creatures' alignments, and can apply effects that react directly to the alignment of the creature in question. To them, and for them, it is Objective. It is just as true as the fact that fireball is a 3rd level spell for wizards, that longswords are usually made of metal, and that a first level fighter is weaker than a tenth level fighter.
So how do people in-universe deal with that?
Turns out, they deal with it the same way we do - they just have extra hoops they have to jump through.
Mere knowledge that something is evil or bad is no impediment to self-rationalization. This is just as true in our world as it is in theirs.
Let me use myself as an example. I am fat. Not just a little on the heafty side, not just big-boned - I have too many lipids in my subcutaneous. I eat too much fat-laden content backed up by too many fat-digesting sugars.
This comes from several places - genetic predilection, food and drink intake (as described above), relative amounts of exercise, and current life/health situations unrelated to that one. However, the things most "at fault" are the middle two. I can rail, if I want, or rant, shake my fists at the heavens for the first and the last... but really, it's the stuff I imbibe and the stuff I don't do that's put me here. I recognize this. It's me. I chose this - maybe not on purpose, and maybe other things helped, but I did it, by my actions.
And here's the kicker: I know it's harmful. It's not a good thing for me, for my family, or for my friends. Being fat isn't good. It's not glorious. It's not pleasant. It's especially not good when someone has the ability to not be fat, simply by making different choices.
So... why do I continue to make those choices? In part, because I rationalize. I don't sit and contemplate "Why am I fat? Whatever: I'll take steps to keep me fat!" because that's stupid and bad.
No, instead, it's "Oh, I'm thirsty - hm, that looks tasty." or, "Hey, I'm hungry... yeah, I'll just grab that thing." or even, "Fun movie, I think I'll get a snack..."
Whatever it is, within the moment, by my choices, I've created situations that contribute to my overweight status.
This is the core of what "cognitive dissonance" is - it's where you've got one idea in your head, and have another in reality. I'm not being a hypocrite: I recognize that it's just as wrong for me as it is for others. But at the same time, I recognize that it is wrong for me, and, though I'm trying to change, it's haaaarrrrrrd to break those habits. Many don't care. Many don't want to change. Many don't see it as a problem. But, physically, it is. For them and for me.
(Note: this isn't to say that fat people are bad people or should feel bad. There are many, many good people of all sorts of weights, sizes, and shapes. Instead, this is to say that, if a person has the ability to be healthy, and they are not doing that, they are not doing as well as they could, and are harming their own body. This is true, whether or not they are a great, wonderful, and/or good person.)
Instantly, instantly, you have all the justification you need for being Evil. "Getting there is fun!" or "It's easier." or "It makes sense at the time." or "I try to stop, but I keep making those decisions." Even when people recognize it's wrong, they can still continue to take those actions.
But this is not the only reason for such things.
People can choose to be Evil because they think it is necessary for the "Greater Good" of the omniverse at large. Perhaps it even is - if it weren't for Asmodeus with his evil power, who knows if the gods would have been able to stop Rovagug? Plus, if Evil gods and powers didn't exist, where would the evil souls go? Heaven? How is that fair?
Regardless of what anyone says or thinks about Evil, it pays those who are it well, and it can achieve wonderful (and terrible) things. Beyond that, being Evil means that you, without a doubt, don't care what The Man (whoever that is in a given evil person's estimation) says, and are willing to go your own way. You are strong-willed, and hardened, and can do what needs to be done... whether that is for yourself, your country, your cause, or your god.
Evil is useful and powerful and allows you to do "great" things with fewer restrictions on how get there.
And then there are the crazy folk. While rational thought may well come to the conclusion in our reality that morality is Subjective, within the Pathfinder universe, only unrational thoughts create such fantasies. Those un-rational thoughts come from people who have stopped being rational. Instead, they see this heavy-handed moral system that is part of the physics of the universe as needlessly restrictive. They kick and scream and demand that their own way is right, and who refuses to accept any sort of "Authority" telling them what to do. These ultimately have a choice: either target a monolithic principal that seems the most oppressive (even "all of them"), or "serve" the concept(s) they think should be free of the "restriction" placed on it. (They could also choose to do neither, and just sit back and complain all the time.)
Either way it's a quixotic quest, at best - like attempting to defy gravity, you can only do so in short bursts when you're definitely going to re-subject yourselves to those laws shortly. And, of course, technically you've never left those laws, only entered into a place where the laws - while still active - had relatively weak influence. Like gravity when you're high enough up from a planet. Relatively weak in space, it would be extant, but just not to the power you're used to. Eventually, of course, you'll have to land or die. Forays into "beyond morality" (with the exception of the mythic power) are consistently limited.
And that's because, like gravity, it is a fundamental force of their universe. A metaphysical facet that is surely as real as their brains, and hearts.
And that's where I'll leave it, as I am literally falling asleep while typing this. I've had to delete a few paragraphs, as I've found that I'm apparently typing about pawing through straw men you've defeated with your magic and weapons to get the nougat-y center and the gold and chocolate coins they all contain. Like, I just deleted a badly misspelled paragraph about that.
Later, before I fall asleep more. ;D
Good night!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First I don't think there is a right answer per say but I want to see what people think of Lawful Good.
A group of assassins try to kill the party. One or more of them are captured in they failed assassination. Can the Lawful Good Magus take party in torture to get answers out of the attackers?
The Lawful Good Magus has a military background and Served in the Kingdoms army.
If you think he can or cant please list rules and or your opinions that support your view. Thank you.
1. All studies suggest that torture is ineffective.
2. Torture would make you the bad guys. We don't torture not for their well being but for ourselves to say something about us.
Outside of contrived situations no one nonevil should torture.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: this is directed at the secret fire, regarding objective alignment.
You are assuming that it's widely recognized that good is right and evil is wrong. If alignment works like physics, there's no reason for it to correlate any better with morality than hot and cold do.
Or, alternatively, it may indeed represent morality but no one agrees which alignment is right and which one is wrong.
Well it's obvious that a follower of Zon-Kuthon would torture a prisoner just for the sake of it.
But yet again they're all a step within Lawful Evil
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Later, before I fall asleep more. ;D
Good night!
I like you, lion, but I'm not going to make it through all that.
I would add that a fantasy universe with a "high god" who determines morality and adjudicates the questions posed in this thread would at least be a sensible solution to the problem. I believe the Hickman/Weiss cosmology of the Dragonlance setting includes such a being. Pathfinder/Golarion, however, does not, and there is a fundamental incoherence to the notion that the "evil" gods would subject themselves to the morality of the "good" ones without a very clear reason for doing so.
@Weirdo: that is a very interesting possibility. Honestly, in a world as diverse as Golarion, why wouldn't we expect radically differing moralities all competing for status as "the good"? Even if we accept that morality is in some way a physical thing (which, I admit, is strongly suggested by the existence of good/evil descriptor spells), why would it be the case that the specifics of "good" and "evil" would be immutable or conform in any way to our own beliefs?
Though again...a "high god" would resolve these questions.
You are assuming that it's widely recognized that good is right and evil is wrong. If alignment works like physics, there's no reason for it to correlate any better with morality than hot and cold do.
Or, alternatively, it may indeed represent morality but no one agrees which alignment is right and which one is wrong.
It's mainly because there is no tie between laws of physics and morality in our world, but in most 3.5/PF settings there is and this changes perspective entirely and may not be easy to immerse oneself in that frame of reference
There is one "god" above all the gods actually , it is the GM.
And he will decide what is said good and what is said evil, that is it.
To me atleast , there is no multiple views in what is good or evil in pathfinder.
I personally dont give each god a different view of what is good or evil , to me there is good and there is evil and even the gods will fit into this , not this will be changed to fit the gods, but that is me.
There wont be a evil cleric of Desna or a good cleric of asmodeus , because morality is relative. Nope , at all times these gods will represent what the book says and killing kids to sacrifice them for asmodeus , dont matter what your teachings tell you , is evil.
You can still believe you are good ofc , but on the sheet it will say LE and you will react to power and spells accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I would add that a fantasy universe with a "high god" who determines morality and adjudicates the questions posed in this thread would at least be a sensible solution to the problem. I believe the Hickman/Weiss cosmology of the Dragonlance setting includes such a being. Pathfinder/Golarion, however, does not, and there is a fundamental incoherence to the notion that the "evil" gods would subject themselves to the morality of the "good" ones without a very clear reason for doing so.
...
You seem to be assuming that Gods set what "Good" and "Evil" are. I am not 100% positive, but I am fairly sure that's not the case in Golarion. The gods are bound to objective morality just as much as mortals are. They don't get to say that whatever their particular portfolio covers is Good or Evil. It just is, no matter what they might want it to be. It's like a fundamental aspect of the universe. It's pretty much Physics. Every action corresponds to an equal and opposite reaction, and kicking puppies for fun is Evil. Just like that. If whatever a God encourages happens to qualify as Good according to the laws of the universe, then they are Good. The God tells their worshipers to bludgeon baby seals to death for giggles? Evil. Because in the fictional universe, that is Evil. Disagreeing is like disagreeing that 2+2=4. It's a fundamental axiom of the setting.
For a similar perspective,
God of Math in such a setting doesn't decide whether 2+2=4 or 5, but knows every mathematical construct that can exist, the solution of every equation, can manipulate every numerical aspect of the world and can bestow parts of these powers to its followers.
A God of sausages doesn't decide what sausages are, but can cook the best sausage ever and can control sausages
You seem to be assuming that Gods set what "Good" and "Evil" are. I am not 100% positive, but I am fairly sure that's not the case in Golarion. The gods are bound to objective morality just as much as mortals are. They don't get to say that whatever their particular portfolio covers is Good or Evil. It just is, no matter what they might want it to be. It's like a fundamental aspect of the universe. It's pretty much Physics. Every action corresponds to an equal and opposite reaction, and kicking puppies for fun is Evil. Just like that. If whatever a God encourages happens to qualify as Good according to the laws of the universe, then they are Good. The God tells their worshipers to bludgeon baby seals to death for giggles? Evil. Because in the fictional universe, that is Evil. Disagreeing is like disagreeing that 2+2=4. It's a fundamental axiom of the setting....
I would add that a fantasy universe with a "high god" who determines morality and adjudicates the questions posed in this thread would at least be a sensible solution to the problem. I believe the Hickman/Weiss cosmology of the Dragonlance setting includes such a being. Pathfinder/Golarion, however, does not, and there is a fundamental incoherence to the notion that the "evil" gods would subject themselves to the morality of the "good" ones without a very clear reason for doing so.
...
Sure...morality as physics. By the rules of Pathfinder, that seems to be the case.
It's a frankly bizarro idea and I don't see what it adds to the setting, but yeah...there it is.
For a similar perspective,
God of Math in such a setting doesn't decide whether 2+2=4 or 5, but knows every mathematical construct that can exist, the solution of every equation, can manipulate every numerical aspect of the world and can bestow parts of these powers to its followers.
A God of sausages doesn't decide what sausages are, but can cook the best sausage ever and can control sausages
Actually that is the problem with divine command theory.
Are they really the God of math if they couldn't make 2+2=5? Do they define math truths or do they just know what is true? If they only know the truth, then where did it come from?
Actually that is the problem with divine command theory.
Are they really the God of math if they couldn't make 2+2=5? Do they define math truths or do they just know what is true? If they only know the truth, then where did it come from?
Math is intrinsic to reality, we mathematicians do not strictly invent mathematical construct but rather "discover" them starting from formal logic.
Starting from the fact that in these setting deities are all-powerful but not actually omnipotent, deciding a mathematical contradiction destroys logic and everything else.
On the other hand an omniscient deity in the field is still extraordinary as we already found theorems that demonstrates we mortals cannot know everything of a consistent system
Actually that is the problem with divine command theory.
Are they really the God of math if they couldn't make 2+2=5? Do they define math truths or do they just know what is true? If they only know the truth, then where did it come from?
Math is intrinsic to reality, we mathematicians do not strictly invent mathematical construct but rather "discover" them starting from formal logic.
Starting from the fact that in these setting deities are all-powerful but not actually omnipotent, deciding a mathematical contradiction destroys logic and everything else.
On the other hand an omniscient deity in the field is still extraordinary as we already found theorems that demonstrates we mortals cannot know everything of a consistent system
Yeah no. 2+2=4 is true only in the standard math system. Under different systems it can be false (though it may not be a valid system). DnD is a universe with high order magic, it is not fully rational. Truths of our universe do not appy to other universes and it is wrong to assume another universe is bound by logic let alone mathematics under the standard system.
Note: also math is not logic. That has been disproven. Math is logical but it is not logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, there are (at a minimum) two people who can answer this question: the player and the DM. You might additionally include the other players at the table, but the player of the character and the DM are absolutely necessary.
As others have said, good and evil, law and chaos, are objective effects in the Pathfinder game. They are detectable and are used as magical qualifiers for effects (paladin smite, word of chaos, etc).
Assuming that there isn't a specific provision in the rules for how torture is defined (i.e. - unless the DMG or elsewhere says 'torture is an evil act'), you should probably use the dictionary definition for torture when evaluating it.
I just used dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) and got this definition:
noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.
So, within that context - you and your DM have to decide if torture, as defined, constitutes an Evil act. Assuming 'Yes', you would probably need to then decide what effects, if any, this evil act has on your character.
From a personal standpoint, in looking at the possible interpretations, only one part -"as a means of getting a confession or information" could be persuasive to me in not considering torture an evil act. All others seem to indicate the intentional infliction of pain for its own purpose, which few would argue is evil. But - again - this is a conversation between you and your DM, with possibly the others at your table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im a bit confued about everyone talking about lawful in this thread.
I thought you could have a personal code that you followed to the letter and that could make you lawful.
For example you could have a personal code that said you would follow a person who saved your life.
Lets say then a chaotic person saved you and thus you decided to follow him to the death.
He gives you tons of orders to break the law all the time and you do so , always keeping in mind you own code.
This would keep you lawful , since you are following your code of honor , but you would still act much like a chaotic person as far the law goes since you are obeying a chaotic person.
It's a common confusion thanks to the terminology. Lawful people like orderly systems or rules. Often they adopt the rules of a community they identify with, such as the laws of a country. Often they even respect other peoples' rules, because rules are better than no rules. But they're not obligated to follow all the rules, just the ones they identify with. They're certainly not required to follow rules that contradict their own rules.
Whether the law of the land matters to a LG magus depends on whether he identifies with or respects that authority, due to patriotism and/or military service. Even then, acting out of alignment is allowed.
Personal codes are a bit fuzzy - some believe any personal code is lawful, while others such as myself believe that a character with a personal code may lawful or chaotic depending on the content of that code. If it's two pages long and talks about duty and reliability you're lawful, if it's "an it harm none, do what thou wilt" you're chaotic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just note, even putting the inefficiency of torture aside, charm person and dominate person are both relatively easy to acquire spells in most games and would basically provide the same or better information without the need to resort to torture. So assuming the party had access to even one of those spells, there's no reason to torture the prisoner other than to be inflict suffering on him.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here, in the real world, their definition of morality is subjective - it follows the gist of the basic tenets of the broad understandings of many religions and philosophies, though simplified and lacking nuance or deep understanding - but is still, technically, subjective, as it defaults to the understandings of those who create it.
I'd argue that morality in the real world is still totally objective; it's just that, unlike in Pathfinder, our knowledge of it is imperfect. But - I'm probably getting too much into semantics there.
I'd argue that morality in the real world is still totally objective; it's just that, unlike in Pathfinder, our knowledge of it is imperfect. But - I'm probably getting too much into semantics there.
You cannot prove to me that murder is lowercase-evil.
Real world morality is subjective.
Here, in the real world, their definition of morality is subjective - it follows the gist of the basic tenets of the broad understandings of many religions and philosophies, though simplified and lacking nuance or deep understanding - but is still, technically, subjective, as it defaults to the understandings of those who create it.
I'd argue that morality in the real world is still totally objective; it's just that, unlike in Pathfinder, our knowledge of it is imperfect. But - I'm probably getting too much into semantics there.
Actually, for the record, I agree with you.
The thing you're missing in my post is the importance of the word "their" - i.e. the morality belonging to the authors is subjective to the authors and/or readers thereof as it is subject to their own understandings and interpretations/intents.
But that means nothing in terms of cosmic morality - only their own morality.
In other words, as we couldn't cast detect evil at a person, while we may well presume someone is right or wrong, it is impossible to empirically prove whether they are. Hence, "subjective" - this is entirely independent of whether or not there is an absolute standard (hence "objective") that they may or may not be held to by an outside force.
While there is sufficient proof for me, there is not enough for all people to look at it and rationally, without question, arrive at "Oh, yeah, that."
(That said, I do ascribe to an Absolute Standard... just one that I can't prove in the same way I do mathematics.)
We should probably be careful not to veer into a discussion (or slandering) of religion here, lest the thread come off the rails.
With that in mind, I'll say one more thing: the claim that morality is objective is either an empirical claim, or it is not. If it is an empirical claim, it should be demonstrable, we should expect evidence to support it, and the burden of proof should be on the theorist to provide the evidence.
If it is not an empirical claim, then we have nothing much to discuss.
We should be probably careful not to veer into a discussion (or slandering) of religion here, lest the thread come off the rails.
With that in mind, I'll say one more thing: the claim that morality is objective is either an empirical claim, or it is not. If it is an empirical claim, it should be demonstrable, we should expect evidence to support it, and the burden of proof should be on the theorist to provide the evidence.
If it is not an empirical claim, then we have nothing much to discuss.
The thing is, in the real world morality is subjective.
In Pathfinder, is is not. It's an objective. It has absolute truth.
Now, exactly what that truth is would be up to the GM, but it should be constant and consistent.
I believe that James Jacobs (creative director) has said so before. If we search around we could probably locate such statements.
You cannot prove to me that murder is lowercase-evil.
All the livings try to avoid pain and death
Murder is unneeded and avoidable death.
From there is rather immediate.
You cannot prove to me that murder is lowercase-evil.All the livings try to avoid pain and death
Murder is unneeded and avoidable death.
From there is rather immediate.
I think unneeded death is lowercase-good. You think it is lower-case evil.
Subjective.
We should be probably careful not to veer into a discussion (or slandering) of religion here, lest the thread come off the rails.
With that in mind, I'll say one more thing: the claim that morality is objective is either an empirical claim, or it is not. If it is an empirical claim, it should be demonstrable, we should expect evidence to support it, and the burden of proof should be on the theorist to provide the evidence.
If it is not an empirical claim, then we have nothing much to discuss.
The thing is, in the real world morality is subjective.
In Pathfinder, is is not. It's an objective. It has absolute truth.
Now, exactly what that truth is would be up to the GM, but it should be constant and consistent.
Or we could just change all the spells with good/evil/law/chaos descriptors to work only against outsiders, and go on with our lives.
It's not actually that hard to remove the morality-as-physics bits of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We should be probably careful not to veer into a discussion (or slandering) of religion here, lest the thread come off the rails.
With that in mind, I'll say one more thing: the claim that morality is objective is either an empirical claim, or it is not. If it is an empirical claim, it should be demonstrable, we should expect evidence to support it, and the burden of proof should be on the theorist to provide the evidence.
If it is not an empirical claim, then we have nothing much to discuss.
The thing is, in the real world morality is subjective.
In Pathfinder, is is not. It's an objective. It has absolute truth.
Now, exactly what that truth is would be up to the GM, but it should be constant and consistent.
Or we could just change all the spells with good/evil/law/chaos descriptors to work only against outsiders, and go on with our lives.
It's not actually that hard to remove the morality-as-physics bits of the system.
The thing for me at least is that I don't understand why you want to get rid of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think unneeded death is lowercase-good.
So do you think killing people without good reason is good? I'm glad I'm not your neighbor or the chance of waking up with a knife stuck in the chest would be stupidly high