| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect part of the point is that the target of the actions, and the circumstances surrounding the action, do matter.
Cultists of Droskar (I believe that's who these guys followed?) are fundamentally horrible people who believe they have the right and duty to enslave everyone in the world who doesn't follow their god, that it is within their power to inflict that upon.
Claiming that the acolytes are innocent means you're disregarding what the heck these guys are.
Hell, let me give an even more extreme cultist example.
A devout follower of the demon lord Kostchtchie will ritually murder at least one woman (ideally a spellcaster) once a month. A really powerful one would gladly do so every single day as part of his demonic obedience.
So such a person has been ritually murdering (or at least participating in the murder of) at least twelve people a year, and if he's "lucky" he's gotten to kill much more than that.
Would you seriously consider such a person to be "innocent" while he happens to be asleep?
All your points are totally reasonable.
If the PCs had evidence that these cultists had committed such extreme crimes then that would be different. No such evidence was put forward in the opening post, but there is solid evidence (effectively a full confession) that the PCs committed a horrible crime. So if we hold the PCs to the same standard as NPCs then the reasonable conclusion is that the PCs are acting in accordance with evil and are therefore of evil alignment.
I am not sure why anyone is disputing that, but I do have several different theories and I am trying to establish which one of those, or whether a new alternative I have not considered yet, is correct.
1) A character's alignment is defined by their actions.
2) Related to point 1) thoughts do not count, only actions. Therefore evil intent detected via a detect evil spell does not automatically mean the creature itself is evil.
Having thoughts and having Intent are different things. Active Evil Intent does ping Evil. For instance, you can be convicted of a crime if you have Intent, but not for having thoughts.
3) Evil is defined as: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient . Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
You are leaving out the part of the rules that caveats the part you are quoting. If you read this by itself it sounds like ANY hurting, oppressing, or killing of anyone is Evil. That would make for a lot of Evil PCs. Luckily the rules have another section that further define what Evil and Good are:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Yes, your Alignment is determined by actions. But you're wrong in thinking that killing is inherently Evil. Killing is only Evil when you are killing the innocent. On the other hand, defending the innocent is always Good. So, what's Neutral:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Everything in between, like killing or destroying Evil.
Based on these three assumptions and the information provided in the opening post, the PCs are clearly evil.
Only if you ignore half the Alignment rules for Good vs Evil. Killing is only Evil if you're extinguishing innocent life.
You are claiming that the PCs are not evil. I believe the disconnect is that you are using a different set of assumptions.
The disconnect is that a lot of people think killing is Inherently Evil. The rules say no such thing. There tend to be disconnects when rules are ignored or overlooked.
One of these seems to be that in war times normal morality does not apply. Another one seems to be if you are given a mission by a good authority figure then normal morality does not apply to you.
No. Killing is either inherently Evil or it isn't. The rules, if you read the entire section as a whole, state that Evil acts are those perpetrated against innocent life. Good acts are those to aid or in defense of innocent life. So where does killing your Evil enemy fall? Square in the middle, it's Neutral territory.
The alignment rules are guidelines which provide some examples to clarify the differences between alignments.
They are not a comprehensive set of rules that defines exactly what good, neutral or evil creatures do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PCs had evidence that these cultists had committed such extreme crimes then that would be different.
The cultists detected as Evil. Thus killing them is a Neutral act because they are NOT innocent. Evidence of crimes is a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
(effectively a full confession) that the PCs committed a horrible crime.
Crimes are determined by Law not morality. What the PCs did was slay Evil cult acolytes. Then they mutilated dead bodies which, while gruesome, is not Evil. It's probably not socially acceptable, or legal, but that is the realm of Law vs Chaos. Nothing they did was against innocent life.
So if we hold the PCs to the same standard as NPCs then the reasonable conclusion is that the PCs are acting in accordance with evil and are therefore of evil alignment.
They are held to the same standard; the rules.
I am not sure why anyone is disputing that, but I do have several different theories and I am trying to establish which one of those, or whether a new alternative I have not considered yet, is correct.
Is one of those theories that the rules don't actually say destroying Evil is an Evil act?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are refusing to admit that the PCs are evil, let's look at a slightly different scenario.
NPC: Please help us honourable Paladin.
PC Paladin: What seems to be the trouble?
NPC: Our village is beset by evil. Evil I tells ya.
PC Paladin: That's terrible! What did they do?
NPC: A group of ruffians has snuck into a house in the village and killed everyone in their sleep. And to make matters worse they defiled the bodies.
PC Paladin: Well, did you know killing is not inherently evil? I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation. Sorry I can't help, be on your way humble peasant.
GM: What the hell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing a Vampire evil?
I mean, it's rare to see them being slain, when they are not asleep.
In D&D it usually isn't. In Vampire The Masquerade that question is a lot more interesting.
For those who are refusing to admit that the PCs are evil, let's look at a slightly different scenario.
NPC: Please help us honourable Paladin.
PC Paladin: What seems to be the trouble?
NPC: Our village is beset by evil. Evil I tells ya.
PC Paladin: That's terrible! What did they do?
NPC: A group of ruffians has snuck into a house in the village and killed everyone in their sleep. And to make matters worse they defiled the bodies.
PC Paladin: Well, did you know killing is not inherently evil? I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation. Sorry I can't help, be on your way humble peasant.
GM: What the hell?
Ah yes, because that's clearly what went down.
Innocent villagers = Evil cultists and vice versa.
The alignment rules are guidelines which provide some examples to clarify the differences between alignments.
The guideline is that Evil is perpetrated against the innocent. Good is done in defense or support of the innocent. And the Neutral might not actively kill innocents, but they might not defend them either. Killing an Evil enemy fits very well in that Neutral territory.
They are not a comprehensive set of rules that defines exactly what good, neutral or evil creatures do.
EVERYTHING that is inherently Evil is explicitly spelled out in the rules. Spells that are Evil say so in the description. Actions that are inherently Evil, like torture, explicitly say so. CDG is not defined as inherently Evil, therefore it is not. So when is using a CDG Evil? When it extinguishes innocent life.
For those who are refusing to admit that the PCs are evil, let's look at a slightly different scenario.
NPC: Please help us honourable Paladin.
PC Paladin: What seems to be the trouble?
NPC: Our village is beset by evil. Evil I tells ya.
PC Paladin: That's terrible! What did they do?
NPC: A group of ruffians has snuck into a house in the village and killed everyone in their sleep. And to make matters worse they defiled the bodies.
PC Paladin: Well, did you know killing is not inherently evil? I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation. Sorry I can't help, be on your way humble peasant.
GM: What the hell?
You still seem to be ignoring the rules. Unless the villagers were Evil, killing them was an Evil. It says so pretty explicitly in the Alignment rules.
What isn't Evil is for the adventurers to go into the ruffians camp and do the same thing to them. Because destroying Evil isn't an Evil act. It may still be a problem for a PF Paladin, but that's only because it's rather Chaotic.
|
1) A character's alignment is defined by their actions.
Absolutely.
2) Related to point 1) thoughts do not count, only actions. Therefore evil intent detected via a detect evil spell does not automatically mean the creature itself is evil.
This is where you lose me and presumably some of the others- if someone is evil aligned, they have, as per 1), committed evil acts. It's a stretch for the PCs to assume they are good despite overwhelming evidence via detect evil that they are not.
3) Evil is defined as: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient . Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
So, as per 1) and 2), these cultists have a very, very high likelihood to have no compassion for others, having hurt/killed/oppressed others in the past and, due to their presence in the cult, are very likely to continue.
One of these seems to be that in war times normal morality does not apply.
I would think the same thing if this wasn't during wartime.
Another one seems to be if you are given a mission by a good authority figure then normal morality does not apply to you.
Again, I would think the same thing if it was given by an evil NPC. Nothing about the scenario surrounding the event has any influence on the event's morality, besides the immediate and obvious details.
I would like to know what assumptions you and Rynjin are actually basing your argument on.
I would like to think I'm not assuming anything, but if I am it's that innately evil NPCs are the same as wild animals.
For example, walking through a forest your party is attacked by wolves. You are in their home, invading on their territory. Would you consider it evil if you found these wolves sleeping and you killed them to remove the threat before it became imminent?
For those who are refusing to admit that the PCs are evil, let's look at a slightly different scenario.
NPC: Please help us honourable Paladin.
PC Paladin: What seems to be the trouble?
NPC: Our village is beset by evil. Evil I tells ya.
PC Paladin: That's terrible! What did they do?
NPC: A group of ruffians has snuck into a house in the village and killed everyone in their sleep. And to make matters worse they defiled the bodies.
PC Paladin: Well, did you know killing is not inherently evil? I'm sure there is a perfectly logical explanation. Sorry I can't help, be on your way humble peasant.
GM: What the hell?
Ah yes, because that's clearly what went down.
Innocent villagers = Evil cultists and vice versa.
You missed the part where I said they were slightly different. Nowhere did I say innocent villagers are equivalent to evil cultists, you have jumped to two wrong conclusions.
Now that you are back in the thread perhaps we can resume where we left off. Why don't the PCs have to follow your moral standards in order to stay good?
There are actually TWO ways to get an alignment. One as mentioned is by doing enough ACTS of that alignment to warrant a change in the GMs eyes. The other is to have that alignment assigned during the creation process based on how the creator feels the character's morals or ethics stack up against the chart.
So yes a villager that pings evil is NOT guaranteed to have committed any crimes at all, BUT is certainly predisposed to committing crime given the right opportunity. HOWEVER it IS EVIL to murder someone based on crime they might commit in the future. By strict definition they are innocents until they commit crime.
Looking at the acolytes killed in their sleep however it can be argued their two orders are at war. And it is neutral to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they committed crime or not. It may be chaotic to slay enemies in their sleep, but not evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are actually TWO ways to get an alignment. One as mentioned is by doing enough ACTS of that alignment to warrant a change in the GMs eyes. The other is to have that alignment assigned during the creation process based on how the creator feels the character's morals or ethics stack up against the chart.
So yes a villager that pings evil is NOT guaranteed to have committed any crimes at all, BUT is certainly predisposed to committing crime given the right opportunity. HOWEVER it IS EVIL to murder someone based on crime they might commit in the future. By strict definition they are innocents until they commit crime.
Looking at the acolytes killed in their sleep however it can be argued their two orders are at war. And it is neutral to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they committed crime or not. It may be chaotic to slay enemies in their sleep, but not evil.
I find it weird that declaring war redefines actions that are considered evil outside of war to such an extent that they are considered good or at least neutral within war. What you are saying is that in order to perpetuate the most horrendous evil all you need to do is declare war and everything is fine.
I find it weird that declaring war redefines actions that are considered evil outside of war to such an extent that they are considered good or at least neutral within war. What you are saying is that in order to perpetuate the most horrendous evil all you need to do is declare war and everything is fine.There are actually TWO ways to get an alignment. One as mentioned is by doing enough ACTS of that alignment to warrant a change in the GMs eyes. The other is to have that alignment assigned during the creation process based on how the creator feels the character's morals or ethics stack up against the chart.
So yes a villager that pings evil is NOT guaranteed to have committed any crimes at all, BUT is certainly predisposed to committing crime given the right opportunity. HOWEVER it IS EVIL to murder someone based on crime they might commit in the future. By strict definition they are innocents until they commit crime.
Looking at the acolytes killed in their sleep however it can be argued their two orders are at war. And it is neutral to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they committed crime or not. It may be chaotic to slay enemies in their sleep, but not evil.
Your all twisted and wrong in your interpretation.
Killing enemy combatants is neutral rather than evil... ALL other evil remains evil, such as torture. Killing enemy soldiers is a form of self defense. And NO it takes a government of sorts to declare war, such as the leaders of two religious orders.
@ CN_Minus
I started quoted your post, but it made my response too long, so sorry if some of this sounds out of context.
Regarding detect evil. As I said in a previous post addressed to you, if detect evil is infallible then that's a different story. Then I would agree that you have overwhelming evidence. Some of the responses in this thread that speak about how various GMs handle detect evil and some of the rules within the Pathfinder game subvert the effective use of detect evil. In which case a good character doesn't have the luxury of simply annihilating enemies who detect as evil without any other evidence. You seem like a reasonable person so I think you would agree on this point.
Regarding the example of the wolves, my good characters would not attack the wolves unless attacked first. But I accept the arguments made by other people (in a different thread) that some animals don't count as sentient and so I think a good character has reasonable justification to attack the wolves and that would be consistent with their alignment in most cases. However, the goal of the good character is to remove the danger, their goal is not to kill the wolves. If they have a way of dealing with the wolves (like scaring them off) then that is the preferred strategy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the opening post the PCs had the option of knocking out and tying up the dwarf cultists. They did not. They killed because that was what was convenient, it was not out of necessity and it was not based on a morale premise. They then defiled the bodies, I am waiting to hear an explanation as to why that is not an evil deed.
Your all twisted and wrong in your interpretation.
Killing enemy combatants is neutral rather than evil... ALL other evil remains evil, such as torture. Killing enemy soldiers is a form of self defense. And NO it takes a government of sorts to declare war, such as the leaders of two religious orders.
Edit: for some reason the quote function wasn't working properly.
Why is torture inherently evil? That idea seems to be a common theme in this thread.
Torture is part of the training for secret service operatives and special forces in Western countries. Back when I was in the army it was even part of the training program for conventional forces. I'm talking proper torture: stress positions, abuse, beatings, sleep deprivation, abuse for hours and days.
If I was in a prison camp and the choice was being tortured until rescued or being killed immediately, I would take the torture every time, sure there is a risk you might die anyway, but it is better than being dead.
Why is torture, which is temporary pain, so evil and yet killing, which is permanent (except for very rare circumstances) so much better?
|
|
Regarding detect evil. As I said in a previous post addressed to you, if detect evil is infallible then that's a different story. Then I would agree that you have overwhelming evidence. Some of the responses in this thread that speak about how various GMs handle detect evil and some of the rules within the Pathfinder game subvert the effective use of detect evil. In which case a good character doesn't have the luxury of simply annihilating enemies who detect as evil without any other evidence. You seem like a reasonable person so I think you would agree on this point.
Do GMs really tend to add a random element to "detect x" spells a lot? If it's generally a successful spell (90% success rate), then I stand by what I said. If the success rate is lower (<60%), then I could see your side much more clearly.
That said, if it comes down to whether or not a spell like detect evil, having a 100% chance to alert on evil (for any reason), then it's unreasonable to say any given member of this cult if innocent. In the end, it comes down to whether they were innocents or enemies, and evil characters in a cult clearly are, especially so in war time, even though it being wartime doesn't matter much here.
Do GMs really tend to add a random element to "detect x" spells a lot? If it's generally a successful spell (90% success rate), then I stand by what I said. If the success rate is lower (<60%), then I could see your side much more clearly.That said, if it comes down to whether or not a spell like detect evil, having a 100% chance to alert on evil (for any reason), then it's unreasonable to say any given member of this cult if innocent. In the end, it comes down to whether they were innocents or enemies, and evil characters in a cult clearly are, especially so in war time, even though it being wartime doesn't matter much here.
I don't know of anyone who adds a random element. What I meant was the spell detect evil also registers evil intents as being evil. So a neutral or good character who intends to perform an evil act will temporarily detect as evil. I don't remember "evil intent" being defined in the rules so it is probably left to GM discretion. For some groups they may rule it creates too much hassle so they rule that detect evil always works.
There are also various magic items, spells and abilities that block or mislead the spell.
You missed the part where I said they were slightly different. Nowhere did I say innocent villagers are equivalent to evil cultists, you have jumped to two wrong conclusions.
Now that you are back in the thread perhaps we can resume where we left off. Why don't the PCs have to follow your moral standards in order to stay good?
I've explained it to you. Other people have explained it to you. If you haven't gotten it by now, you're either being deliberately obtuse, or are exasperatingly dense.
Either way, I don't see any value in explaining to you why killing your evil enemies is not evil again.
You missed the part where I said they were slightly different. Nowhere did I say innocent villagers are equivalent to evil cultists, you have jumped to two wrong conclusions.
Now that you are back in the thread perhaps we can resume where we left off. Why don't the PCs have to follow your moral standards in order to stay good?
I've explained it to you. Other people have explained it to you. If you haven't gotten it by now, you're either being deliberately obtuse, or are exasperatingly dense.
Either way, I don't see any value in explaining to you why killing your evil enemies is not evil again.
There is no need for petty insults.
You supplied an explanation that is self contradictory and removes all blame from the PCs regardless of what they do, but that same explanation can be applied to the NPCs to jump directly to execution with a flimsy justification.
However, if you don't want to discuss it further that's fine, I won't comment further.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yes a villager that pings evil is NOT guaranteed to have committed any crimes at all, BUT is certainly predisposed to committing crime given the right opportunity. HOWEVER it IS EVIL to murder someone based on crime they might commit in the future. By strict definition they are innocents until they commit crime.
Real Life: Intent to commit an act is convictable. You can be guilty of intent.
In PF: To Detect Evil, actively Evil Intent is as good as having committed the act. You have the plan in place and are likely in the initial stages of executing that plan.
Also, the Acolytes were sleeping. I would say it's impossible to have Active Evil Intent while sleeping, which by default means they pinged Evil because of past Evil acts.
They are not innocents in the context of the PF Alignment rules. Those rules are contextually talking about someone who is not corrupt or Evil. The Good vs Evil description is not referring to a legal definition, innocent of crime.
Just wanted to throw this in here: It's totally possible to have two good-aligned factions go to war against one another.
How might that affect your views of deeds carried out during wartime?
|
|
I don't know of anyone who adds a random element. What I meant was the spell detect evil also registers evil intents as being evil. So a neutral or good character who intends to perform an evil act will temporarily detect as evil. I don't remember "evil intent" being defined in the rules so it is probably left to GM discretion. For some groups they may rule it creates too much hassle so they rule that detect evil always works.
There are also various magic items, spells and abilities that block or mislead the spell.
Are there enough spells, items, and abilities to make it likely that detect evil would fail on such a grand scale to provide reasonable information?
I may get into the roleplaying aspect more than others, but my characters generally don't know much about the specifics of spells they've never encountered or used. As a good character in the party, I would trust the paladin's spell because I trust my teammates. It's not even about whether they are evil, though they almost certainly were. It's about whether it's reasonable for your character to believe they are evil, making them dangerous enemies to be disposed of.
Just wanted to throw this in here: It's totally possible to have two good-aligned factions go to war against one another.
How might that affect your views of deeds carried out during wartime?
That seems to be staggeringly unlikely, but if by some horrible series of events that were to come to pass you can bet that neither society will stay good for long.
I expect if they were genuinely good nations and they stayed that way, there would be a bunch of posturing before they both realised they were being silly and the diplomats would quickly find a resolution before even a single shot was fired.
I would say killing an enemy (who would otherwise not count against your alignment) would not be an evil act.
IF you could have reasonably taken them captive, but chose not to for convenience, I would say that is a minor chaotic act.
I don't know of anyone who adds a random element. What I meant was the spell detect evil also registers evil intents as being evil. So a neutral or good character who intends to perform an evil act will temporarily detect as evil. I don't remember "evil intent" being defined in the rules so it is probably left to GM discretion. For some groups they may rule it creates too much hassle so they rule that detect evil always works.
There are also various magic items, spells and abilities that block or mislead the spell.
Are there enough spells, items, and abilities to make it likely that detect evil would fail on such a grand scale to provide reasonable information?
I may get into the roleplaying aspect more than others, but my characters generally don't know much about the specifics of spells they've never encountered or used. As a good character in the party, I would trust the paladin's spell because I trust my teammates. It's not even about whether they are evil, though they almost certainly were. It's about whether it's reasonable for your character to believe they are evil, making them dangerous enemies to be disposed of.
The ring of mind shielding is a must for evil characters. It costs 8,000gp and prevents your alignment from being detected by anything. There are also spells to prevent alignment detection and the prestige class master spy has an ability that is really awesome and can even give a false alignment.
I don't think there are many ways to get false positives. Two ones I remember off the top of my head are:
The spell infernal healing makes you appear evil while it is in effect.
Having actively evil intentions makes you appear evil even if that is not your normal alignment (as per the description of the spell).
What I meant was the spell detect evil also registers evil intents as being evil. So a neutral or good character who intends to perform an evil act will temporarily detect as evil. I don't remember "evil intent" being defined in the rules so it is probably left to GM discretion.
See my post above.
There are also various magic items, spells and abilities that block or mislead the spell.
This is a very unfortunate byproduct of being a spy. Sometimes you get killed along side the enemy you are infiltrating. But this is a corner case and not at all central to whether a CDG is inherently Evil or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You find the idea of a LG and CG Faction going to war unlikely?
That depends: do you mean proper good as in have respect for life? Or do you mean delusional good where people murder each other when convenient?
Why is torture inherently evil? That idea seems to be a common theme in this thread.
Because there are rules that say torture is Evil.
Torture is part of the training for secret service operatives and special forces in Western countries. Back when I was in the army it was even part of the training program for conventional forces. I'm talking proper torture: stress positions, abuse, beatings, sleep deprivation, abuse for hours and days.
That sounds like the resistance training a soldier might receive to prep them for being captured behind enemy lines. None of that is considered torture.
If I was in a prison camp and the choice was being tortured until rescued or being killed immediately, I would take the torture every time, sure there is a risk you might die anyway, but it is better than being dead.
1. If a soldier were actually captured, they'd be getting a LOT worse than what they may have receive in training. They'd be subject to actual torture.
2. IMO, torture is considered inherently Evil because it is so deeply corrupting to the torturer, no matter who he's doing it to or how Evil they are. Just my opinion though, I didn't write the rule.
Why is torture, which is temporary pain, so evil and yet killing, which is permanent (except for very rare circumstances) so much better?
Because in a game where heroes are combating Evil, it wouldn't make much sense for the objective alignment system to include killing Evil as an Evil act.
Or do you mean delusional good where people murder each other when convenient?
Murder is a subjective, legal term you're applying to an Objective system for determining Good vs Evil. They killed Evil NPCs.
I suspect part of the point is that the target of the actions, and the circumstances surrounding the action, do matter.
Cultists of Droskar (I believe that's who these guys followed?) are fundamentally horrible people who believe they have the right and duty to enslave everyone in the world who doesn't follow their god, that it is within their power to inflict that upon.
Claiming that the acolytes are innocent means you're disregarding what the heck these guys are.
Hell, let me give an even more extreme cultist example.
A devout follower of the demon lord Kostchtchie will ritually murder at least one woman (ideally a spellcaster) once a month. A really powerful one would gladly do so every single day as part of his demonic obedience.
So such a person has been ritually murdering (or at least participating in the murder of) at least twelve people a year, and if he's "lucky" he's gotten to kill much more than that.
Would you seriously consider such a person to be "innocent" while he happens to be asleep?
It isn't so much a question of the target's guilt or innocence but the behavior of the attacker. Let me answer your question with a question: what's the difference between killing an enemy in their sleep, and human sacrifice?
I know for a fact the latter is considered evil in PF. What is the difference that makes killing a sleeping foe ok?
(please do not take this as personal or hostile or whatever, I'm trying to see if there is a difference I'm missing. If there isn't, then it answers your question.)
Human sacrifice is generally the ritual killing of an innocent person in service to an Evil being.
Example:
Lamashtu: (Deific Obedience) Sacrifice an unwilling living creature in the name of the Mother of Monsters. Draw the process out to inspire the maximum terror and suffering in your victim. The death blow you deal should be savage and destructive—do not grant your sacrifice a clean death. Once the creature is dead, remove one of its bones and sharpen it to a point. Use the bone to cut yourself deeply enough to leave a scar. Leave the sacrificed creature’s mutilated form in the open where scavengers may devour it or travelers may see it and know of Lamashtu’s power. Gain a +1 natural armor bonus to your AC.
So you're sacrificing an unwilling subject, with no regard for whether or not they're innocent. And you are meant to draw out the process, inflicting as much pain and terror as possible = torture, which is always inherently Evil.
Killing an Evil NPC in their sleep is not a violation of an innocent person, nor does it involve torture, and it is not in service to an Evil being.
Now here's a question for you. If CDG were mean to be inherently Evil, why doesn't any rule in PF say so? Every instance of inherent Evil is labeled as Evil somewhere in the description.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The arguments for killing helpless Evil enemies being an Evil act have overwhealmingly been arguments of: 1. Killing helpless enemies is always Evil, 2. It's murder, or 3. It's a war crime. All of these arguments are either legal arguments (which belong in a Law vs Chaos debate), subjective arguments (which don't belong in an objective system), or both.
Explanations of each point 1-3:
1. If killing helpless enemies is Evil in an objective system, then it must always be Evil for everyone. This means that any society with capitol punishment is an Evil society. Every executioner is Lawful Evil. Every ship's captiain who executes munineers is an Evil person. Any legal execution carried out by anyone is a Lawful Evil act. The only difference between a PC carrying out a CDG and a sanctioned executioner carying out a CDG is Law. Law has zero bearing on whether something is Evil or not. So if it's Evil for the PC it MUST also be Evil for the sanctioned executioner. On the other hand, if you would claim that a CDG against an Evil NPC is not Evil for an executioner, it CAN NOT be Evil for the PC. The only difference is in the realm of Law vs Chaos.
2. Murder is not only a legal term (Law vs Chaos), it's also a subjective term that we apply to certain kinds of killing in order to determine whether it's legal or not. However, in an objective system, killing is killing. The minute you say "that's murder" you are applying a subjective legal term to an objective system for determining Good vs Evil. Killing is killing and it is either inherently Evil or it is not. If it is inherently Evil then every form of killing (murder, execution, self-defense, hunting, etc...) is Evil. On the other hand, if it isn't inherently Evil, there must be some way to determine when killing (objective killing / all forms of taking another life) qualifies to be Evil, and when it does not. That method of determination is the Alingment rules. The objective way of determining when killing is Evil (all forms of killing) is by who is being killed. If they are innocent (not Evil) then any form of killing, debasing, harming, or oppressing them is an Evil act.
3. War crime is also a legal, subjective term. Refer back to 2. Now, a lot of war crimes describe things that are inherently Evil, like various forms of torture. But unless you are causeing undue suffering to the living, as stated above, killing is killing. It is not objectively Evil. What makes it Evil or not is who you are killing. If they are innocent, it's Evil. If they aren't innocent, it isn't Evil. With innocent, according to the Alignment entry and Paladin code, contextually refering to innocence in general, as in not corrupt. This is not the legal term innocent, as in innocent of a crime (which belongs in a discussion of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil).
In an Objective Alignment system, an action is an action, no matter who does it or why. The thing that makes it different is WHO the action is against. (Inherently Evil acts are Always Evil, even if perpetrated against an Evil creature for a Good or Neutral purpose.)
For instance: Robinhood is Chaotic Good, because he steals from the corrupt ritch, and he passes that wealth to the oppressed innocent. However, the NE thief who commits the same base actions (stealing and redistributing whealth) is NE because of who he steals from and who it benefits. He generally steals from the oppressed innocent, and redistributes that wealth to himself and his guild.
In the exact same way, killing is killing. Any particular methods of killing are subjective, the objective action is still killing. What makes it Evil vs Neutral is WHO you are killing.
|
The arguments for killing helpless Evil enemies being an Evil act have overwhealmingly been arguments of: 1. Killing helpless enemies is always Evil, 2. It's murder, or 3. It's a war crime. All of these arguments are either legal arguments (which belong in a Law vs Chaos debate), subjective arguments (which don't belong in an objective system), or both.
Explanations of each point 1-3:
1. If killing helpless enemies is Evil in an objective system, then it must always be Evil for everyone. This means that any society with capitol punishment is an Evil society. Every executioner is Lawful Evil. Every ship's captiain who executes munineers is an Evil person. Any legal execution carried out by anyone is a Lawful Evil act. The only difference between a PC carrying out a CDG and a sanctioned executioner carying out a CDG is Law. Law has zero bearing on whether something is Evil or not. So if it's Evil for the PC it MUST also be Evil for the sanctioned executioner. On the other hand, if you would claim that a CDG against an Evil NPC is not Evil for an executioner, it CAN NOT be Evil for the PC. The only difference is in the realm of Law vs Chaos.
2. Murder is not only a legal term (Law vs Chaos), it's also a subjective term that we apply to certain kinds of killing in order to determine whether it's legal or not. However, in an objective system, killing is killing. The minute you say "that's murder" you are applying a subjective legal term to an objective system for determining Good vs Evil. Killing is killing and it is either inherently Evil or it is not. If it is inherently Evil then every form of killing (murder, execution, self-defense, hunting, etc...) is Evil. On the other hand, if it isn't inherently Evil, there must be some way to determine when killing (objective killing / all forms of taking another life) qualifies to be Evil, and when it does not. That method of determination is the Alingment rules. The objective way of determining when killing is Evil (all...
1) I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral. Other than that, I agree.
For the most part, I agree. Once you bring in subjective terminology to justify evil actions, the subject becomes which evils society deems necessary. I would still argue that that doesn't make those evils anything other than evil, but, other than the claim that who you are killing matters, I agree with most of it.
Also, I would argue that Robin Hood is Chaotic Neutral. He steals that which belongs to others (disregard for the well-being of others - Evil) and helps those in need (regard for the less fortunate - Good), generally outside the realm of the law (Chaotic).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torture = always evil is pretty simple - torture is an act of cruelty. Even when "justified."
A good character who performs torture should feel awful about it.
A good character who performs torture regularly (and/or without remorse) is going to stop being good very quickly.
Killing isn't necessarily an act of cruelty, though it could be. There's an enormous difference between slitting someone's throat and, say, vivisecting them.
Re: killing a sleeping v. sacrifice - the former is neutralizing a threat before it can do harm.
The latter is, well, literally offering a mortal life to make your god happy, often done in a way that can be mildly described as brutal and agonizing - the person being a threat usually has no bearing on their death, and it may desirable that they be no threat at all. (For example, cultist of Kostchtchie is expected to spend at least an hour killing the victim, with the ideal method involving impalement or crushing with ice.)
Heh.
Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.
They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.
So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.
The evil man will gladly drag the act out. The good man just wants it over with =P
That seems to be staggeringly unlikely...Just wanted to throw this in here: It's totally possible to have two good-aligned factions go to war against one another.
How might that affect your views of deeds carried out during wartime?
Oh really?
All it would take is something as simple as a lack of necessary resources. Perhaps they possess rival faiths that see each other as mutually exclusive? Or maybe they got drawn into a larger war against one another, not because of their own actions, but because of what others did--others with which they have political alliances.
Those things (or any number of other likely circumstances) can EASILY and LIKELY make hardened enemies out of the best of people.
Oh war between good groups can happen... but "deeds carried out during wartime" is awfully vague. Soldiers killing each other in armed conflict is neutral. The alignment violations of specific war crimes needs to be more specific. Indeed the very need to go to war needs to be pretty clear for two good groups to have at it.
The arguments for killing helpless Evil enemies being an Evil act have overwhealmingly been arguments of: 1. Killing helpless enemies is always Evil, 2. It's murder, or 3. It's a war crime. All of these arguments are either legal arguments (which belong in a Law vs Chaos debate), subjective arguments (which don't belong in an objective system), or both.
Explanations of each point 1-3:
1. If killing helpless enemies is Evil in an objective system, then it must always be Evil for everyone. This means that any society with capitol punishment is an Evil society. Every executioner is Lawful Evil. Every ship's captiain who executes munineers is an Evil person. Any legal execution carried out by anyone is a Lawful Evil act. The only difference between a PC carrying out a CDG and a sanctioned executioner carying out a CDG is Law. Law has zero bearing on whether something is Evil or not. So if it's Evil for the PC it MUST also be Evil for the sanctioned executioner. On the other hand, if you would claim that a CDG against an Evil NPC is not Evil for an executioner, it CAN NOT be Evil for the PC. The only difference is in the realm of Law vs Chaos.
This is not necessarily the case, otherwise there would be no such thing as Lawful Neutral.
LN people don't believe in good and evil, so have no trouble commit an evil act (so long as it isn't chaotic) without shifting alignment - so long as they are not consistently committing evil acts, or never committing good acts as well. I had a LN Cavalier who became ruler of a nation...who would've condoned all of those things, worked with LE groups, he would've even okay'd torture - but at the same time did a lot of good as well, built free housing, personally defended the realm, opened his court to all manner of petitioners, etc.
Doing evil doesn't instantly make you evil, in fact it might never make you evil as long as your first instinct isn't towards evil.
1) I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral. Other than that, I agree.
On a fresh reading after having slept, I can see why you would think I was arguing that those acts are LE. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that on the Good vs Evil scale, in an objective system, an action always caries the same karma no matter who carries it out or what laws are on their side. Law has no bearing on what is Good or Evil. That's why there's a whole side of the Alignment scale devoted to Law vs Chaos.
I absolutely agree that these are NOT Evil acts. What I was trying to emphasize was that, since they are not Evil for the executioner, they must also not be Evil for the PC in the field. A legal proceeding does not make any difference in how Good or Evil an action is, only how legal it is. I also don't believe killing enemies is necessarily a Good act. I totally agree that it's in the very large territory of Neutral.
I would still argue that that doesn't make those evils anything other than evil, but, other than the claim that who you are killing matters, I agree with most of it.
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this. But who you are killing does matter. In an objective system it has to matter because killing is always killing. Motive, intent, reasoning, and justifications are all subjective. The only objective way to determine if killing is Evil or Neutral is to look at the target of the action. Also, the rules say that the target matters:
Alignment: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Paladin Code: Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Also, I would argue that Robin Hood is Chaotic Neutral. He steals that which belongs to others (disregard for the well-being of others - Evil) and helps those in need (regard for the less fortunate - Good), generally outside the realm of the law (Chaotic).
Doing something without regard for the well-being of others is in the broad realm of Neutral. The Neutral guy doesn't go out and slaughter innocents, but he also doesn't necessarily care too much what happens to them:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
However, Robin Hood actually does care what happens to the people in every depiction I remember seeing. And since you already stated that helping those in need is Good, I agree, I still say Robin Hood averages out to CG.
...
This is not necessarily the case, otherwise there would be no such thing as Lawful Neutral.
I think you also misunderstood me. I am not actually arguing for it to be an Evil act. Only that killing is killing. That base action is either objectively Evil, and thus is Evil every time for everyone, or it is not objectively Evil, and then there must be a discriminating factor to determine when it's Evil and when it's not.
Luckily the rules provide a discriminating factor: innocent life.
Personally I believe that the base act of killing falls squarely within the realm of Neutral. It is only when the act is perpetrated against innocent life that it becomes Evil. I don't think there are any (or maybe very, very few) instances of killing being a Good act. So yeah, I think all the examples I posted are actually LN, not LE. I was just trying to make a point. But I think it came off a bit like I was arguing that killing was objectively Evil.
1. If killing helpless enemies is Evil in an objective system, then it must always be Evil for everyone. This means that any society with capitol punishment is an Evil society. Every executioner is Lawful Evil. Every ship's captiain who executes munineers is an Evil person. Any legal execution carried out by anyone is a Lawful Evil act. The only difference between a PC carrying out a CDG and a sanctioned executioner carying out a CDG is Law. Law has zero bearing on whether something is Evil or not. So if it's Evil for the PC it MUST also be Evil for the sanctioned executioner. On the other hand, if you would claim that a CDG against an Evil NPC is not Evil for an executioner, it CAN NOT be Evil for the PC. The only difference is in the realm of Law vs Chaos.
The bolded part is what I was trying to emphasize.
LN people don't believe in good and evil, so have no trouble commit an evil act (so long as it isn't chaotic) without shifting alignment - so long as they are not consistently committing evil acts, or never committing good acts as well. I had a LN Cavalier who became ruler of a nation...who would've condoned all of those things, worked with LE groups, he would've even okay'd torture - but at the same time did a lot of good as well, built free housing, personally defended the realm, opened his court to all manner of petitioners, etc.
I think we agree. Like I said, I think killing is a Neutral act, unless you are ending innocent lives, in which case it's Evil. I also think that Neutral covers a very large territory. The description of Neutral even says they can simply walk away from someone in need. Which makes sense, as the Alignment rules also say defending the innocent is a Good act. Too much of that and the LN guy will find that he is LG.
Doing evil doesn't instantly make you evil, in fact it might never make you evil as long as your first instinct isn't towards evil.
I agree that perpetrating an Evil act doesn't instantly make you shift alignment to Evil. Although you would probably temporarily read as Evil to a Detect Evil spell if it was cast on you in that moment. The rules even say that few people are completely consistent. I think that each Good act and each Evil act are a tick mark in their respective directions on the scale. Some tick marks will be bigger than others. And I think it's easier to become Evil than to shift up to Good. Similarly to how the Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and SW the Old Republic games slide alignment. You can slide up and down along the Good vs Evil scape pretty freely and still be Neutral.
However, if you are consistently doing Good or Evil acts you will end up on that side of the scale no matter what your attitude, guilt level, or first inclination is. That's how I would explain someone who "thinks" he is a decent person, but is really a complete monster. Or someone who has a high level of guilt and self loathing, perhaps over uncontrollable impulses (never acted upon) which he feels are Evil; or perhaps actions committed in the past which he tries every day to redeem himself from. That guy would not Detect as Evil, he might even Detect as Good, although he might view himself as wholly corrupt.
...To these paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark knights—their own purity is not as important as delivering justice...
The 5e Oath of Vengeance Paladin probably does not have much issue with killing sleeping evil cultists.
In fact, some of their tenets seem to be really okay with it..
- ...Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil...
- Fight the greater evil
- No mercy for the wicked
- By any means necessary
- Restitution
Also, there is still a lot of talk about laws and crimes. Good/Evil is not related to Law/Chaos and crimes.
If a person willing joins/participates in a cult known to be evil or does evil/commits evil acts is, by association, evil; even if they do not ping that way initially. It will only be a matter of time that their choice will alter their alignment. This alone, sets up the main argument: innocent or not. The cultists were not innocent and therefore their deaths at the hands of the party was not an evil act.
Killing the cultists in their sleep is murder, same as it would be if they were awake, or if they were awake and armed. There is mitigating circumstances that can be applied (self-defense or in the party's case, lawful sanction). But this is case of law and not good/evil.
- Like I mentioned before:
- Killing Mother Teresa is murder and evil.
- Killing Hitler is murder and not evil (maybe even good).
- These statements are true whether you murder them in their sleep or whether you kill them while they are inside a tank.
|
|
1) I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral. Other than that, I agree.On a fresh reading after having slept, I can see why you would think I was arguing that those acts are LE. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that on the Good vs Evil scale, in an objective system, an action always caries the same karma no matter who carries it out or what laws are on their side. Law has no bearing on what is Good or Evil. That's why there's a whole side of the Alignment scale devoted to Law vs Chaos.
I absolutely agree that these are NOT Evil acts. What I was trying to emphasize was that, since they are not Evil for the executioner, they must also not be Evil for the PC in the field. A legal proceeding does not make any difference in how Good or Evil an action is, only how legal it is. I also don't believe killing enemies is necessarily a Good act. I totally agree that it's in the very large territory of Neutral.
I would still argue that that doesn't make those evils anything other than evil, but, other than the claim that who you are killing matters, I agree with most of it.I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this. But who you are killing does matter. In an objective system it has to matter because killing is always killing. Motive, intent, reasoning, and justifications are all subjective. The only objective way to determine if killing is Evil or Neutral is to look at the target of the action. Also, the rules say that the target matters:
...Alignment: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Paladin Code: Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.
Is drinking water a Good action or an Evil action?
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.
If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.
I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.
|
|
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.
I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.
Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.
As to drinking the water, is drinking water, specifically THIS water, healthy for you? Are you treating your body well by drinking it? If so, then it is Good. It supports your ability to function well, and shows respect for your body.