|
There are many adventures where the actions of the party can have lasting effects on NPCs.
If the actions of a character or the party causes an NPC to lose their innocence, should this be considered an evil act?
Examples of a lost of innocence would be actions or the results of the party's actions that causes a traumatizing experience for NPC/s.
Or actions that results in an NPC's alignment turning from good or neutral to evil.
I don't see why you can't figure this out yourself.
"Loose their innocence" is very vague. It is insufficient to make any conclusion from.
Specfics are quite important.
In any event, if the PCs are not intentionally causing it, it is not likely an evil act on their part.
No it isnt and i wont ever consider it so.
Now whatever action that caused said loss of innocence , be it killing...
That might be evil.
PCs wont be held against killing an evil necromancer in front of children and thus making them lose their innocence if they did it to save them from captivity.
Since 'loss of innocence' typically means that you cause the suffering of another person, as well as encourage them to commit actions that are, in and of themselves, evil.... then yes, yes I would probably be evil.
Telling a kid santa isn't real? Not enough damage to be evil. Mostly just jerkish.
Encouraging that kid to stab the mall santa that has been fooling him all these years? Yeah, pretty evil.
|
|
Let's go with with an example...
1)Say a child ask the party to save his parents who have gone missing. Party discovers parents have been turn to vampire spawns and proceeds to slay parents in front of child, after deciding that finding a means to save the parents is too much trouble or costly.
2) Same as above, but decides to kill of parents, as the party don't know of any means to turn parents back to humans or were forced to while in self defence.
How would you rule is both of this situations?
I'm asking cos I want to be sure that if I do encounter such a situation in an adventure path or module, I know the appropriate answer.
Also everyone thinks differently on the same topic. See blue/white dress as an example.
Are you acting primarily and intentionally to make them lose their innocence?
If so, then yes.
Nope. Just wanting to make sure I got every possible outcome covered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telling a kid santa isn't real? Not enough damage to be evil. Mostly just jerkish.
Personally, I think that lying to kids (i.e. claiming "Santa" exists) is what is actually jerkish.
I'd say there's two cases we're talking about here.
1) You're intentionally causing someone suffering for it's own sake. Evil.
2) You're pursuing some other legitimate goal, and the person does not have reasonable objections. For instance, making a guy kill a chained up zombie. Perfectly fine, if you're training him to defend the village. Not so fine if that dude is the librarian, and there's no real danger, you're just the kind of weirdo who likes to create undead and lock them up in his basement.
Telling a kid santa isn't real? Not enough damage to be evil. Mostly just jerkish.Personally, I think that lying to kids (i.e. claiming "Santa" exists) is what is actually jerkish.
Well, the problem there is we are again talking about damage caused.
I mean...santa is just a pleasant little legend that you encourage kids to believe in. It isn't exactly a bluff check against a guard so you can steal everything that isn't nailed down here. It isn't a bluff to get the party to retrieve mcguffin that would let you kill all life.
It is a simple misdirection meant to inspire wonder in small children. They lose nothing from it.
The only problem I see here is that paladins can't do it, and that is because they have their own independant honor code that makes their powers run off of how well they can match the image of a paragon of virtue.
So at worst...it is chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question sets off my Organized Religion Baggage alarm.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One version of loss of innocence-- Letting the a child learn there are bad things out there and that they must be dealt with, whether it be the fact that your parents got turned into vampires, there is war or global warming or whatever and that they must be prepared to deal with them.
Seems like a good act or perhaps neutral to me. To me it is the sign of a mentor who is an adult rather than a 40 year old child.
Another version of loss of innocence--
Teaching and encouraging a kid to take action that violates their innocence. Things like encouraging prejudice against groups not like you. Teaching someone to enjoy cruelty and the pain of others and to inflict it.
That is an evil act.
Innocence means you are unaware of something. Ignorance means you are aware of something, but disregarding that awareness (from the root 'ignore'). So, every time you tell someone something they legitimately weren't aware of, you cause "loss of innocence".
The fundamental problem is that, in the Pathfinder system, Good and Evil aren't subjective, abstract concepts with relative meaning. Good and Evil are tangible forces, as real for Pathfinder as Electromagnetism is for us. Consequently, it's hard to address issues like this because, for us, it's loads of grey area whereas, in Pathfinder, it's as simple as electric polarity (in theory, anyway). The thing that mucks up the whole process is when we try to impose "real-world" philosophy into a system that is predicated on the notion that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are tangible forces strong enough to fuel or dampen concrete actions.
Altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings. That is how Good is defined in Pathfinder. And, moreover, it is an energetic force that permeates the Celestial planes. Angels aren't just "good", they are made of Good. Active strives are what is important here. If the character is actively pursuing altruism, respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings, then those are good actions. If he happens to do those things, but by happenstance and not by deliberate pursuit of those goals, then...Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
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.
I think you just settled it: just like how you cant tell the spin of an electron until you measure it, you can't tell if something is evil until you look at its specific case. Okay everyone go home, the GMs win.
|
No there are no modules, now you know why.
See the thread on the ape who was sad at his master's death and took his body and ran and how upset the players were.
It's not something that mixes well with Pathfinder or any D&D variants. It wasn't really made for these questions, which is why we have the 9 alignments as external, concrete aspects of beings.
in other words
Only Pharasma Knows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telling a kid santa isn't real? Not enough damage to be evil. Mostly just jerkish.Personally, I think that lying to kids (i.e. claiming "Santa" exists) is what is actually jerkish.
Honestly, I was more traumatized finding out that Pluto isn't actually a planet, than finding out that Santa isn't real.
Honestly, I was more traumatized finding out that Pluto isn't actually a planet, than finding out that Santa isn't real.Telling a kid santa isn't real? Not enough damage to be evil. Mostly just jerkish.Personally, I think that lying to kids (i.e. claiming "Santa" exists) is what is actually jerkish.
Damaging great figure's reputation and telling lies to the world (IT IS A PLANET IT IS IT IS IT IS!). Yes, those astronomer are evil.
Innocence means you are unaware of something. Ignorance means you are aware of something, but disregarding that awareness (from the root 'ignore'). So, every time you tell someone something they legitimately weren't aware of, you cause "loss of innocence".
The fundamental problem is that, in the Pathfinder system, Good and Evil aren't subjective, abstract concepts with relative meaning. Good and Evil are tangible forces, as real for Pathfinder as Electromagnetism is for us. Consequently, it's hard to address issues like this because, for us, it's loads of grey area whereas, in Pathfinder, it's as simple as electric polarity (in theory, anyway). The thing that mucks up the whole process is when we try to impose "real-world" philosophy into a system that is predicated on the notion that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are tangible forces strong enough to fuel or dampen concrete actions.
Except, continuing your metaphor, you can also have 'no polarity' or even 'neutral polarity' in Pathfinder as well. There is certainly plenty of room for moral grey in the pathfinder universe: there's an entire middle plane dedicated to moral choices neither good/evil or law/chaos (neutrality), with its own exemplars. Not every action needs to be dictated or judged by the extremes. Nor does the system force every action to be judged separate from intent. Nothing in the polar nature of DnD alignment prevents those subtle interactions, it simply codifies those interactions as something that does, concretely, exist.
Let's go with with an example...
1)Say a child ask the party to save his parents who have gone missing. Party discovers parents have been turn to vampire spawns and proceeds to slay parents in front of child, after deciding that finding a means to save the parents is too much trouble or costly.
This one skirts close to evil, but again it depends. What's 'too much trouble or costly'? A third level party might not have access to a 50,000 gp diamond if it's part of the 'cure' for vampirism (whatever that might be). But if it's just 'make vampire gargle holy water to rinse out evil' and they're too cheap to spring the 25 gold for that, that's another thing.
2) Same as above, but decides to kill of parents, as the party don't know of any means to turn parents back to humans or were forced to while in self defence.
There's a guide to whether a paladin falls somewhere that would count this as NOT being evil. If you failed your Spellcraft check on that Wand of Cure Vampirism, or weren't able to find it until you got to the next town two days later ... you did what you had to do with what you had.
|
|
@Qaianna,
Do you have a link to the Paladin Guide?
I'm trying to better understand the class, both as a GM and as a player.
There is also a player playing a paladin in my group and I want to help her (and myself) understand what is considered good or evil actions for her character.
This one skirts close to evil, but again it depends. What's 'too much trouble or costly'? A third level party might not have access to a 50,000 gp diamond if it's part of the 'cure' for vampirism (whatever that might be). But if it's just 'make vampire gargle holy water to rinse out evil' and they're too cheap to spring the 25 gold for that, that's another thing.Let's go with with an example...
1)Say a child ask the party to save his parents who have gone missing. Party discovers parents have been turn to vampire spawns and proceeds to slay parents in front of child, after deciding that finding a means to save the parents is too much trouble or costly.
What if the child is present at the encounter, begging (in tears) the party to save his parents, only to have the party goes "Well, let's just kill the parents, we can just diplo the kid later."
How would you act as the GM, if the above is your party's responds in such a situation?
What if the child is present at the encounter, begging (in tears) the party to save his parents, only to have the party goes "Well, let's just kill the parents, we can just diplo the kid later."How would you act as the GM, if the above is your party's responds in such a situation?
Kill the vampire spawn, now the parent's souls are saved. And the kid learned a valuable lesson. Don't ask me what lesson, just agree with me here.
@Qaianna,
Do you have a link to the Paladin Guide?
I'm trying to better understand the class, both as a GM and as a player.There is also a player playing a paladin in my group and I want to help her (and myself) understand what is considered good or evil actions for her character.
It's at Zenith Games.
This one skirts close to evil, but again it depends. What's 'too much trouble or costly'? A third level party might not have access to a 50,000 gp diamond if it's part of the 'cure' for vampirism (whatever that might be). But if it's just 'make vampire gargle holy water to rinse out evil' and they're too cheap to spring the 25 gold for that, that's another thing.Let's go with with an example...
1)Say a child ask the party to save his parents who have gone missing. Party discovers parents have been turn to vampire spawns and proceeds to slay parents in front of child, after deciding that finding a means to save the parents is too much trouble or costly.
What if the child is present at the encounter, begging (in tears) the party to save his parents, only to have the party goes "Well, let's just kill the parents, we can just diplo the kid later."
How would you act as the GM, if the above is your party's responds in such a situation?
In that case, it's still a fine line. Why are they going that route?
Moral questions are said to have 'grey areas', but I personally believe that it's not as much 'grey area' as it is 'please be more specific'. 'Diplo the kid later because if we talk now the monsters eat the bard next round' isn't evil ...
"Refusing to take the GM's drama-bait" is at worst a Neutral act, not an evil one.
|
|
@Qaianna,
Do you have a link to the Paladin Guide?
I'm trying to better understand the class, both as a GM and as a player.There is also a player playing a paladin in my group and I want to help her (and myself) understand what is considered good or evil actions for her character.
It's at Zenith Games.
This one skirts close to evil, but again it depends. What's 'too much trouble or costly'? A third level party might not have access to a 50,000 gp diamond if it's part of the 'cure' for vampirism (whatever that might be). But if it's just 'make vampire gargle holy water to rinse out evil' and they're too cheap to spring the 25 gold for that, that's another thing.Let's go with with an example...
1)Say a child ask the party to save his parents who have gone missing. Party discovers parents have been turn to vampire spawns and proceeds to slay parents in front of child, after deciding that finding a means to save the parents is too much trouble or costly.
What if the child is present at the encounter, begging (in tears) the party to save his parents, only to have the party goes "Well, let's just kill the parents, we can just diplo the kid later."
How would you act as the GM, if the above is your party's responds in such a situation?
In that case, it's still a fine line. Why are they going that route?
Moral questions are said to have 'grey areas', but I personally believe that it's not as much 'grey area' as it is 'please be more specific'. 'Diplo the kid later because if we talk now the monsters eat the bard next round' isn't evil ...
Thanks for the link. I'm going to sent it to my player.
To better phrase the above situation, the question would be "Should characters be affected by the behavior/responds of their players?"
Basically, if players behave or respond in a mean or evil manner in a situation where their characters act in a neutral (evil-leaning) manner, should the player be factored into the results of the situation?
How far do we separate the player from their characters?
To better phrase the above situation, the question would be "Should characters be affected by the behavior/responds of their players?"
Is there any way to separate the two then? A PC is wholly animated by their player. But while the player dictates the actions of the PC, it's the PCs that has to "live" with the consequences of their actions. The players and their motivations are entirely "off screen".
should the player be factored into the results of the situation?
Only if the player also shares in the XP. ;)
|
Innocence means you are unaware of something. Ignorance means you are aware of something, but disregarding that awareness (from the root 'ignore'). So, every time you tell someone something they legitimately weren't aware of, you cause "loss of innocence".
Innocence can mean lacking knowledge, but no definition of ignorance is similar to this. Ignore and ignorant share a root, but they both mean 'to not have knowledge of' (In = not; gnarus = to know). The 'to not pay attention to' meaning of ignore is (relatively) modern.
As for the OP, I would say that it depends on motives. Doing something that inadvertently causes the loss of innocence may not be, while intentionally attempting to inure someone to the evils of reality is probably evil.