I think that a lot people never played the D&D module, Rahasia B7...
first I have ever heard of it
What about defense of others?Self defense is actually a pretty Neutral action. If you attack a bear (who has no concept of good nor evil), it will defend itself.
Defending others (so long as they themselves are not attempting to harm other innocents) is a Good action.
In my view fighting to defend others is fraught with moral consequences but it is something a good hero would strive to do. Part of the fun and challenge of playing a good hero like a Paladin is negotiating through the minefield of moral dilemmas that arise. When I play a good character some principles I keep in mind are:
1) Fight only in self defence or when those I defend are in immediate danger. No pre-emptive strikes.
2) Use minimum force to achieve my goal. Kill only as a last resort.
3) Be merciful, it is not my job to issue punishments, only to remove danger.
4) Encourage non-violent solutions to problems.
5) Make sure those I defend condone my actions.
6) Making allies is better than defeating enemies.
7) Be careful to identify the real villains.
8) Everyone is responsible for their own actions. There is no guilt by association.
Sounds very Jedi-like. Which is probably what a Paladin should be striving for anyway, and the highest form of Good. I still have to ask where the Paladins who are not required to show mercy or accept surrender fall in your view?
Also, do you have similar lists for defining Neutrality and/or Evil?
What ratio of Good to Neutral to Evil sentient beings to you subscribe to in your games? Your description of Good leaves room for only a narrow sliver of people, IMO. How much Neutrality is there in the world and how do you define it? How much true Evil is there?
IMO, the ratio is: small number of Good, huge number of Neutral, small number of Evil. Do you use the same ratios for actions: small number of actions actually count for Good, most actions people take are ultimately Neutral, and a very few wholly corrupt actions that are truly Evil?
I could see a reasonable argument for small number of Good, small number of Neutral, huge number of Evil. Usually an, "if you're not with us, you're against us," type argument. Which, according to SW Episode III, is actually more Sith-like.
I'm curious how you see the ratio.
It comes down to play style preference. Alignments are not much specified and for just about any act I perceive as evil there will be a large number of players claiming it is 'chaotic'.
That said I am a little confused about what 'possible' wartime means ?
Also: evil =/= murderers, in that light without further information it seems rather brutal / excessive.
@ Shadowlord
Neutral would be the most common by far, followed by alignments one step away and the most extreme alignments being comparatively rare.
If I had to quantify the ratio probably something like 10000:100:1 for Neutral : 1 step : 2 steps away. However adventures tend to go to the kinds of places that attract extreme alignments. In terms of the afterlife, most souls are neutral or one step away and usually are either reincarnated or reside in the boneyard or otherwise take no part in the power struggle for control of the multiverse. It is rare for them to return as outsiders so that in the afterlife the ratio of alignments balance out much more closely.
@ Shadowlord
Neutral would be the most common by far, followed by alignments one step away and the most extreme alignments being comparatively rare.
If I had to quantify the ratio probably something like 10000:100:1 for Neutral : 1 step : 2 steps away.
I am pretty sure we agree on this. However, I want to clarify what you mean by "one step away" and "two steps away." There is only Good - Neutral - Evil on the G vs E scale. Are you using a sliding scale with a step on each side of Neutral before you reach full Good or full Evil?
However adventures tend to go to the kinds of places that attract extreme alignments.
Agreed.
In terms of the afterlife, most souls are neutral or one step away and usually are either reincarnated or reside in the boneyard or otherwise take no part in the power struggle for control of the multiverse. It is rare for them to return as outsiders so that in the afterlife the ratio of alignments balance out much more closely.
I'm, unfortunately, not very familiar with Golarion's afterlife lore.
|
In terms of the afterlife, most souls are neutral or one step away and usually are either reincarnated or reside in the boneyard or otherwise take no part in the power struggle for control of the multiverse. It is rare for them to return as outsiders so that in the afterlife the ratio of alignments balance out much more closely.
In Golarion JJ said there's no "power struggle for control of the multiverse". Some deities have next to no followers and are more powerful than other deities. In Golarion a god's power has nothing to do with the amount of souls it entices into its realm. Having followers is useful to a god only to the extent of what he/she wishes to accomplish on the prime material plane (i.e. lots of followers in Golarion allows them to shape Golarion, i.e. Asmo-Cheliax)
One could make the case that it helps certain gods to have more souls as it enlarges their armies on the Outer Planes (i.e. the machine of Hell is engineered to produce badass devils, so that benefits Hell and the machinations of Hell's rulers, but it has no bearing on the power/stats of individual deities within Hell) Souls are currency: more of them means that plane gets more currency, but some gods and entities have no need for currency.
We are getting pretty far off topic. What I meant by steps is lawful neutral is one step from neutral and lawful good is two steps from neutral. Alignments like lawful good are comparatively rare in my version of D&D/Pathfinder style games. I don't think that matches with Golarion canon precisely. For example according to the inner sea world guide most countries have non-neutral alignments, Cheliax being lawful evil for instance. I take that to mean that the ruling elite are lawful evil, the majority are still neutral. I am not aware of any rules for spontaneous reincarnation in Parhfinder but it happens in my games as a natural process.
@ Shadowlord
Neutral would be the most common by far, followed by alignments one step away and the most extreme alignments being comparatively rare.
If I had to quantify the ratio probably something like 10000:100:1 for Neutral : 1 step : 2 steps away. However adventures tend to go to the kinds of places that attract extreme alignments. In terms of the afterlife, most souls are neutral or one step away and usually are either reincarnated or reside in the boneyard or otherwise take no part in the power struggle for control of the multiverse. It is rare for them to return as outsiders so that in the afterlife the ratio of alignments balance out much more closely.
You have a completely different idea of how common alignments are than I do. I see the alignments as being roughly evenly distributed, with true neutral being maybe a 50% increase over the others.
The assumptions I make in my game are that the defenders of civilisation tend to be good, the builders of civilisation tend to be neutral and the destroyers evil.
There must be substantially more builders than destroyers and there needs to be at least parity between defenders and destroyers otherwise civilisation collapses. I don't see how civilisation could survive, let alone flourish, if demons are the most numerous. Adventurers tend to go where there are localised imbalances, like the Worldwound, but in the grand scheme demons are a small minority.
The assumptions I make in my game are that the defenders of civilisation tend to be good, the builders of civilisation tend to be neutral and the destroyers evil.
There must be substantially more builders than destroyers and there needs to be at least parity between defenders and destroyers otherwise civilisation collapses. I don't see how civilisation could survive, let alone flourish, if demons are the most numerous. Adventurers tend to go where there are localised imbalances, like the Worldwound, but in the grand scheme demons are a small minority.
Your error there is thinking that destroyers have to wreck the day of defenders and builders. Au Contraire, when a destroyer is surrounded by other like themself, the best target for them is the other destroyers, both to satisfy their destructive desires and to prevent the others from doing the same. Anything else happening would require demons cooperating as a group for the benefit of the whole, which is about as antithetical as you can get from the pule malevolent chaos that demons are comprised of.
We are getting pretty far off topic.
I know. I'm just still interested in how you see alignment and the general population. I can send questions in PM if you'd prefer.
So for the tactical party who kill sleeping bad guys; do you see them as being Neutral or Evil overall? If you see them as Evil, do you really feel that preemptively neutralizing an Evil enemy puts them in that 1 out of 10000 category of Evil? If you see them as Neutral, how are they Neutral? Do they do enough Good in the world that committing this act (which you feel is Evil) doesn't swing them all the way to Evil? So they just balance out at Neutral?
So, there are essentially three components of this occurrence to be considered.
1. The act
2. The intention of the agents
3. The circumstances
1. Killing bad guys = ridding the world of evil. In a world where good and evil are VASTLY more black and white than our own world, this is surely "good", right?
2. Usually important, but interestingly not what's being considered here. So, we'll leave it alone.
3. The circumstances. Now, the circumstances are that the (evil!) enemy was sleeping, and that this somehow alters a good act (ridding the world of evil) into an evil one. Why? Because the evil characters weren't given a chance to defend themselves? That may not be honorable, but one could argue that it is more good not to give evil any chance to continue to spread, but rather to end it's existence as soon as possible.
And as stated above, evil and good are much more clear and distinct in pathfinder than in our world. In our world it's difficult to imagine someone who does evil things without some warped sense of thinking that what they're doing is good, but rather does it just because they hate life and all good things. In pathfinder, beings like that exist, and are classified as "evil". I'm no moral relativist, by any means, but we must be careful not to impose the reality we live in, and it's morality, on a reality (albeit a fictional one) that operates differently in its morality.
@ Snowblind
Where I come from it is impolite to start a conversation with: "Your error there...".
We are getting pretty far off topic.I know. I'm just still interested in how you see alignment and the general population. I can send questions in PM if you'd prefer.
So for the tactical party who kill sleeping bad guys; do you see them as being Neutral or Evil overall? If you see them as Evil, do you really feel that preemptively neutralizing an Evil enemy puts them in that 1 out of 10000 category of Evil? If you see them as Neutral, how are they Neutral? Do they do enough Good in the world that committing this act (which you feel is Evil) doesn't swing them all the way to Evil? So they just balance out at Neutral?
I don't use PM, and it seems we are back on topic anyway.
I think in the case of the opening post their actions are typical of the antihero. The antihero is the kind of character who sometimes commits evil acts in order to achieve what they believe is a greater good. I think this is consistent with the neutral alignment, so if I were the GM the PCs would shift towards the neutral alignment. A good aligned character is more like a true hero, who promotes goodness with every action and does not resort to evil in order to achieve good outcomes.
So, there are essentially three components of this occurrence to be considered.
1. The act
2. The intention of the agents
3. The circumstances1. Killing bad guys = ridding the world of evil. In a world where good and evil are VASTLY more black and white than our own world, this is surely "good", right?
2. Usually important, but interestingly not what's being considered here. So, we'll leave it alone.
3. The circumstances. Now, the circumstances are that the (evil!) enemy was sleeping, and that this somehow alters a good act (ridding the world of evil) into an evil one. Why? Because the evil characters weren't given a chance to defend themselves? That may not be honorable, but one could argue that it is more good not to give evil any chance to continue to spread, but rather to end it's existence as soon as possible.
And as stated above, evil and good are much more clear and distinct in pathfinder than in our world. In our world it's difficult to imagine someone who does evil things without some warped sense of thinking that what they're doing is good, but rather does it just because they hate life and all good things. In pathfinder, beings like that exist, and are classified as "evil". I'm no moral relativist, by any means, but we must be careful not to impose the reality we live in, and it's morality, on a reality (albeit a fictional one) that operates differently in its morality.
I am not sure whether you have read through the whole thread. It was revealed later on that the game was played according to 5th edition D&D rules. In that system the detect evil equivalent does not pinpoint who is evil, it only reveals that there is evil somewhere in the area.
@Boomerang Nebula
Okay, I missed that, and I apologize. But, my point was larger than that, & I think it still remains. The point I was trying to make, though perhaps I failed, is that it is the act itself that is good or evil (or neutral), and not the circumstances. Either the act is good, and the circumstances can make it less or more so, or the act was bad, evil, etc, and the circumstances make it less or more so. But, the circumstances do not change it from a good act to an evil act. Some acts are intrinsically good or evil, and nothing, no extraneous circumstance, changes that.
@Boomerang Nebula
Okay, I missed that, and I apologize. But, my point was larger than that, & I think it still remains. The point I was trying to make, though perhaps I failed, is that it is the act itself that is good or evil (or neutral), and not the circumstances. Either the act is good, and the circumstances can make it less or more so, or the act was bad, evil, etc, and the circumstances make it less or more so. But, the circumstances do not change it from a good act to an evil act. Some acts are intrinsically good or evil, and nothing, no extraneous circumstance, changes that.
Very gracious of you to apologise, it shows you are person of great integrity. I tend to agree that the nature of the act itself outweighs other considerations like intent.
@Boomerang Nebula
Well thank you. I'm new, but even so, I hope being able to apologize when I've made a mistake is something I do not grow out of with my time here.
OK, I only read about six hundred posts before jumping to the end; forgive me if I touch on something brought up in the last two-hundred-and-something posts.
RD: How is it you ALWAYS spawn these threads? Is it deliberate, or are you under a curse? ;)
Anyway.
Given the 5E Divine Sense =/= Detect Evil, the entire premise is flawed ab initio; if we grant that it DID work that way, I wouldn't quibble at CDG sleeping foes. The MISSION seems awfully wrong, but that instance shouldn't give alignment problems to anyone, imo. Depending on the oath of the paladin, there could be issues requiring atonement -- but I'd have to go reread the oaths to be sure of even that.
Was it nice? Would I want these guys hanging around my cult compound -- AHEM -- I mean, manor house? No, and no. But I don't think it's inherently evil to kill; that it was from stealth is neither here nor there.
RD: How is it you ALWAYS spawn these threads? Is it deliberate, or are you under a curse? ;)
Neither. I just happen to be from Florida.