Lawful Evil and being "Good"


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 132 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Kazaan wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Rule 1: There is no such thing as the "Greater Good."

The concept of the greater good is something people created so they wouldn't feel bad for doing evil things. It is a coping mechanism. Generally good people who felt bad about doing evil conjured it up as a way to justify their actions.
1) In Pathfinder, there IS an objective "Greater Good" which applies. This Greater Good is what grants Paladins power, fuels the powers of Celestial Outsiders, etc. It is a tangible force as real in Pathfinder as Electromagnetism is for us. Moreover, even if you're applying "real-world" philosophy (already a mistake), can you objectively prove that "Greater Good" isn't real? Sure, even if it IS real, people will still mistake other things FOR it; typically they mistake pragmatism for "Greater Good". But to claim that real, actual "Greater Good" is absolutely unreal based on nothing at all is very illogical.

Rule 2: Intentions don't matter.

If a Paladin does something evil they fall. It doesn't matter why. This applies universally. If an evil character does something good, regardless of why, its still good. An evil character who does too much good becomes neutral or good, much like a good character who does too much evil CAN become neutral or evil.
Intentions matter very much. Again, Good and Evil, at least in the scope of the Pathfinder game (which we are currently discussing), are tangible, appreciable, real forces. People aren't "good" JUST because of a personal decision; they are Good because their actions AND intentions resonate with the energy of Good. Paladins are sworn so strongly to Good that both their actions AND their intentions must unwaiveringly resonate with Good. But other character not so code-bound may resonate on just one side of that equation. Actually, it's more of an inequality because Action weighs a bit more than Intent, but that doesn't mean that Intent has no value. Furthermore, even if we WERE talking

...

That is cute but I disagree.

In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.

In the scope of Pathfinder everything I outlined is factual.


A paladin can do an evil action if it isn't done "willingly". There is a lot of grey area around willingly.


HWalsh wrote:
In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.

That's why a Paladin falls any time they kill. Killing is an evil act, thus they fall. No ability to justify it as in defense or, in other words, for the greater good.


Set wrote:
Yup, racism (or sexism or fantasy speciesm, or some intolerant level of nationalism or faith) is one great way to evil up an otherwise 'nice' character.

Good characters can be at least somewhat racist or no dwarf with the hatred racial would ever be able to be good. Also, no alignment discussion would be complete without mentioning the chaotic good elven deity of tradition and racism, Findeladlara.

Grand Lodge

Melkiador wrote:
Set wrote:
Yup, racism (or sexism or fantasy speciesm, or some intolerant level of nationalism or faith) is one great way to evil up an otherwise 'nice' character.
Good characters can be at least somewhat racist or no dwarf with the hatred racial would ever be able to be good. Also, no alignment discussion would be complete without mentioning the chaotic good elven deity of tradition and racism, Findeladlara.

Why would racism be evil?


HWalsh wrote:

That is cute but I disagree.

In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.

In the scope of Pathfinder everything I outlined is factual.

Yeah... no. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote instead of dismissing it out of hand, you'd realize that you are mistaking fake "greater good" for real "Greater Good". I took the time to write out the explanation so it's rather rude of you to pretend you understand it without even having taken the time to read it. It's not nearly as "cut and dry" as you've attempted to make it; you've over-simplified the matter to the point of absurdity. Good is a force in Pathfinder. People, magic, actions, etc. can resonate with that force. Paladins draw power from a very strong resonance with that force and, as such, they have a far greater burden to uphold its values than any other character who shares Good alignment. "Greater Good" is not just pragmatism or rationalization of Evil acts; Good is not pragmatic and doesn't compromise in this way. But people often will rationalize their actions and (mistakenly) call it "greater good". Thus, you have made an Equivocation Fallacy in your argument, confusing pragmatism and rationalization for actual absolutist force interactions.

Furthermore, while a Paladin falls for committing an Evil act, that is not because they are Good but because their code prohibits it. Their code is not a matter of pragmatism; it is a set of guidelines to ensure that the Paladin maintains their strong resonance with the force of Good in order to maintain his powers. A Paladin falling and losing his powers stems from losing resonance with the universal force of Good, not just because of the code itself. Just like any laws of physics, they describe how the world works, they don't define how the world works. But we're not discussing how and why Paladins fall, we're discussing matters of universal force resonance and, for that, intentions do matter.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.
That's why a Paladin falls any time they kill. Killing is an evil act, thus they fall. No ability to justify it as in defense or, in other words, for the greater good.

Except they don't always. If Killing people in self defence, or because you literally had no choice then ALL paladins would have lost their powers. And they clearly have not. Now if the killed innocents, or helpless and defenceless people who were begging for mercy, or non-hostile to the party, that would be valid grounds for a break in the paladins code and losing their powers. The paladins code is often based on the god they serve(kind of like a series of tenants that they must adhere personally must to) and it is from this we actually base the limitations of the paladins code.

Granted some of these codes can be quite floaty at times but generally speaking no good gods(even some lawful neutral gods) would be able to defend the massacre of an entire group of people without provocation.

At the same time anti-paladins can also have their own codes and ways of doing things, breaking from these is what generally causes them to 'fall', but in addition commiting a willful, selfless act of good(as in not forced upon them, or serving their own self interests) also can break whatever contract they had made with the dark powers. This is further focused in the Insinuator antipaladin, they aren't restricted to the alignment of chaotic evil(just to evil alignments in general), and only really lose their powers by either committing a willful selfless act or performing an act of violence that ultimately doesn't serve their bigger agenda(like murdering a farmer for the sake of it, rather than to allow for his rival(and your current employer) to take the land for himself to get paid). they can also suffer problems if they annoy their 'temporary outsider benefactor' too much(by breaking with the agreements they made for their powers) but that is kind of a case by case thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was Scythia's point, Eris

They were being sarcastic

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

That is cute but I disagree.

In Pathfinder there is no "Greater Good" there is just "Good" and it is from that which Paladins gain their power. If a Paladin does something evil, for any reason, then they fall. It doesn't matter if that evil action is for the "greater good" or not.

In the scope of Pathfinder everything I outlined is factual.

Yeah... no. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote instead of dismissing it out of hand, you'd realize that you are mistaking fake "greater good" for real "Greater Good". I took the time to write out the explanation so it's rather rude of you to pretend you understand it without even having taken the time to read it. It's not nearly as "cut and dry" as you've attempted to make it; you've over-simplified the matter to the point of absurdity. Good is a force in Pathfinder. People, magic, actions, etc. can resonate with that force. Paladins draw power from a very strong resonance with that force and, as such, they have a far greater burden to uphold its values than any other character who shares Good alignment. "Greater Good" is not just pragmatism or rationalization of Evil acts; Good is not pragmatic and doesn't compromise in this way. But people often will rationalize their actions and (mistakenly) call it "greater good". Thus, you have made an Equivocation Fallacy in your argument, confusing pragmatism and rationalization for actual absolutist force interactions.

Furthermore, while a Paladin falls for committing an Evil act, that is not because they are Good but because their code prohibits it. Their code is not a matter of pragmatism; it is a set of guidelines to ensure that the Paladin maintains their strong resonance with the force of Good in order to maintain his powers. A Paladin falling and losing his powers stems from losing resonance with the universal force of Good, not just because of the code itself. Just like any laws of physics, they describe how the world works, they don't define how the...

Also the element of free will does somewhat play a part in this. If say the paladin was forcibly dominated into commiting murder, the good powers wouldn't necessarily strike them down for it. They might tell him to be careful next time but they wouldn't smite him for what wasn't really his fault. he might still try his best to repair the damage done and redeem himself but the gods wouldn't necessarily make fixing things even worse.

Committing sins in ignorance, or while still of (mostly) sound mind and judgement on the other hand don't have that kind of protection on them. the gods really don't take kindly to breaking their guidelines like that, and so will pull no punches with regards to punishing the severity of the crime committed.


The paladin has to willingly commit an evil act to fall. Committing an evil act in ignorance, would probably not be considered the same as willingly committing an evil act.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
The paladin has to willingly commit an evil act to fall. Committing an evil act in ignorance, would probably not be considered the same as willingly committing an evil act.

In absolute total ignorance, that would be understandable. If they just butchered their way through an entirely peaceful community of kobolds (or some similar example) on no actual grounds, not even bothering to communicate or attempting to understand the situation(just jumping straight to the kill them monsters for the exp), without any provocation, other than maybe some random person saying 'The kobolds over there are evil, you should go kill them'... I woulds say they should have at least made certain that the person wan't simply pulling the wool over their eyes. If the Kobolds attacked them first then i could justify their actions. If the party struck first, I would not be pulling my punches on highlighting just how unheroic their action were.

I'm not a fan of GM gotcha moments. I say that if the goblin(or kobold, or any monsterous race) village sees them coming then they respond as is the case. If a bunch of warriors started walking towards me with weapons, if I was a bunch of psycho evil types(like more average normal goblins), i would throw fighters and troops at them with intent to kill. If i was not evil goblins(or kobolds, monsterous races etc.), i would have them either notice and do nothing, or send a greeting party of the most 'cultured' looking ones with no weapons to say hello...in common. Make the situation seem obvious to the party and don't try to hide things from them. If the residents of a town are intent on causing them harm, then have them do a major reveal, like poisoning their drinks or sending a group to perform an obvious malicious act on the party.


ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The paladin has to willingly commit an evil act to fall. Committing an evil act in ignorance, would probably not be considered the same as willingly committing an evil act.
In absolute total ignorance, that would be understandable. If they just butchered their way through an entirely peaceful community of kobolds (or some similar example) on no actual grounds, not even bothering to communicate or attempting to understand the situation(just jumping straight to the kill them monsters for the exp), without any provocation, other than maybe some random person saying 'The kobolds over there are evil, you should go kill them'... I woulds say they should have at least made certain that the person wan't simply pulling the wool over their eyes.

But kobolds are (lawful) evil; it says so right in the statblock. The PCs don't even need a random person to tell them that; it's written (literally) into the very rules of the universe.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

And being Evil is not a license to instantly kill someone. Especially for paladins.

==Aelryinth


Kobolds being evil is considered common knowledge in the game world. If the GM wants to make an exception to that rule then that's on them, not the Paladin player.

Aelryinth wrote:

And being Evil is not a license to instantly kill someone. Especially for paladins.

==Aelryinth

It is if they're a threat to a non-evil community, which was part of the original statement.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In any game I run, I would make certain my players understand that the likes of kobolds and goblins are not always evil. More that even those that are don't always want trouble, and if left alone wont bother anyone else. Such races can be dealt with peacefully and diplomatically without violence.


Arachnofiend wrote:

Kobolds being evil is considered common knowledge in the game world. If the GM wants to make an exception to that rule then that's on them, not the Paladin player.

Aelryinth wrote:

And being Evil is not a license to instantly kill someone. Especially for paladins.

==Aelryinth

It is if they're a threat to a non-evil community, which was part of the original statement.

For anybody still confused (or grandstanding) about what "for the greater good" means, this is it right here. Killing rationalised as being okay. Killing is evil, quite possibly the most evil act that can be performed, as it steals the most precious thing a living being has -that which makes all other things possible- (life), and destroys everything it ever chould be (future). To justify that act is only possible if you accept that evil can accomplish good. Such a basic and established rationalisation that most don't even consider it.


Scythia wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Kobolds being evil is considered common knowledge in the game world. If the GM wants to make an exception to that rule then that's on them, not the Paladin player.

Aelryinth wrote:

And being Evil is not a license to instantly kill someone. Especially for paladins.

==Aelryinth

It is if they're a threat to a non-evil community, which was part of the original statement.
For anybody still confused (or grandstanding) about what "for the greater good" means, this is it right here. Killing rationalised as being okay. Killing is evil, quite possibly the most evil act that can be performed, as it steals the most precious thing a living being has -that which makes all other things possible- (life), and destroys everything it ever chould be (future). To justify that act is only possible if you accept that evil can accomplish good. Such a basic and established rationalisation that most don't even consider it.

I cant speak fully for Pathfinder on this, but I cite the Book of Exalted Deeds which says doing evil is never an acceptable way to accomplish good, because you are admitting to the cosmos that there was no good way to accomplish your goal, and therefore evil was the superior option.

It also says that killing for justice is not evil, so long as it is motivated by justice and not vengeance. Stopping another from doing evil is always a good act, but killing them has to be the last resort, and should be done with all attempts to give mercy taken. Note too that you have to be motivated to stop someone from DOING evil, not from BEING evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Geez, way to continue the cycle of mammal-kobold violence, Scythia. It will only end when you surfacers put down your swords and let us stab you and embrace the warm light of love and peace.

The light will feel a lot like spears.


Also, id like to point out that killing is neutral in fantasy world like Pathfinder (hence why animals can remain neutral), only murder is evil.

Likewise, a persons life is not their most important commodity, nor is it the source of their future. That is their soul.

Which is why destroying a soul, not killing, is considered the most evil thing possible in Pathfinder and DnD


When I read a thread like this I'm happy that 2 of my 3 current PCs are Evil. It removes a lot of questions though honestly my NE goblin often gets accused of not being evil enough by the party’s CE Witch.

The PC who is CG is the one who leaves me with a lot of questions. As a Viking he worships Thor, who is a CG deity. Since Vikings are generally in the business of raiding settlements, killing people, and taking their stuff I struggled to understand how my PC could really be Good while also being true to the Viking theme.

I decided that he doesn’t consider slaughtering people in battles and raids to be particularly Evil since if they’re brave they’ll go to Valhalla or maybe Fólkvangr (which he feels is for those "not quite good enough” for Valhalla). I’m not sure if this sort of personal conviction really counts for much in the Pathfinder alignment system, but the DM has seemed willing to let it slide. Based on the action in the campaign I wouldn't say the PC is any more murderous than the average Good or Neutral PC though he is easily angered and prone to threatening people (max ranks in Intimidate)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You are actually correct, he's not CG.

He's killing innocents and Good people, justifying to himself that it's fine since Good People go to heaven.

With that logic, anyone can murder good people freely. Murdering evil people is bad because they go to Hell.

He's actually neutral or Chaotic Neutral, in pursuit of gold, glory and loot, and not really caring who he takes it from as he does so.

If he was Good, he wouldn't be doing the things he's doing...unless he's doing it against the evil empire, of course or in a declared state of war.

But, just raiding for loot and killing anyone who tries to stop him? CN behavior at best.
If I was the DM, I'd make a note, and he could consider himself CG, but when that Holy Word flattens him and the Agathion won't speak to him, maybe he'll realize otherwise.
Evil cleric: There's supposed to be some adventurers nearby. I'll Detect Good.
Raider: Crap!
Wizardess: you idiot thor worshipper!
Evil Cleric: Nope, no good people around.
Raider:....?
Wizardess: Oh, finally wised up, I see. Good for you!

==Aelryinth


Devilkiller wrote:


The PC who is CG is the one who leaves me with a lot of questions. As a Viking he worships Thor, who is a CG deity. Since Vikings are generally in the business of raiding settlements, killing people, and taking their stuff I struggled to understand how my PC could really be Good while also being true to the Viking theme.

Actually,... no, the Vikings aren't, any more than the Italians are generally in the business of organized crime. History has not been kind to the Vikings largely because the few monks that were plundered had better press agents than the thousands of Danish farmers.

Similarly, if you look at Thor (and the sagas he appears in), he doesn't spend a lot of time raiding settlements if any.


I'd say using a technicality to justify raiding would be a lawful thing. At least, it doesn't sound good or chaotic. Good would worry too much about the suffering they are causing. While, chaotic wouldn't feel the need for justification.

But then, I believe a majority of characters are better served by being neutral.


Morality (and therefore alignment) is considered mutable by culture in Pathfinder, by the way. The most obvious example is the fact that Lizardfolk are Neutral despite actively practicing cannibalism, an act that would automatically drop a Human's alignment southward.

Working under the assumption that Vikings tend to raid a lot of settlements (not exactly accurate as Orfamay stated but it is the cultural perception) a Viking that only engages in honorable combat with other armed soldiers and makes a point of sparing civilians could very well be considered Chaotic Good.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Melkiador wrote:

I'd say using a technicality to justify raiding would be a lawful thing. At least, it doesn't sound good or chaotic. Good would worry too much about the suffering they are causing. While, chaotic wouldn't feel the need for justification.

But then, I believe a majority of characters are better served by being neutral.

Self-serving people are definitely Neutral or Evil in alignment, so, yes, that statement is self-fulfilling!

:)

Or, as I noted above on the macro scale, taking it down:

You want all your friends, family and neighbors to be more Lawful and Good then you are. It's much easier to take advantage of people nicer and more predictable then yourself.

==Aelryinth


Raiding doesn't have to be self serving though. It could be your way of providing for your community. Which is also a lawful type of thought.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:


The PC who is CG is the one who leaves me with a lot of questions. As a Viking he worships Thor, who is a CG deity. Since Vikings are generally in the business of raiding settlements, killing people, and taking their stuff I struggled to understand how my PC could really be Good while also being true to the Viking theme.
Actually,... no, the Vikings aren't, any more than the Italians are generally in the business of organized crime. History has not been kind to the Vikings largely because the few monks that were plundered had better press agents than the thousands of Danish farmers.

Actually -- since "Viking" is technically an activity rather than an ethnic group, Vikings by definition did raid settlements, kill people, and take their stuff. Danish farmers who never went to sea would not have been considered Vikings because they never "viked".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:


The PC who is CG is the one who leaves me with a lot of questions. As a Viking he worships Thor, who is a CG deity. Since Vikings are generally in the business of raiding settlements, killing people, and taking their stuff I struggled to understand how my PC could really be Good while also being true to the Viking theme.
Actually,... no, the Vikings aren't, any more than the Italians are generally in the business of organized crime. History has not been kind to the Vikings largely because the few monks that were plundered had better press agents than the thousands of Danish farmers.

Actually -- since "Viking" is technically an activity rather than an ethnic group, Vikings by definition did raid settlements, kill people, and take their stuff. Danish farmers who never went to sea would not have been considered Vikings because they never "viked".

In a Similar manner to the golden age of piracy, the reasons your average scandinavian farmer would leave their homeland would be to escape the problems of your home (overcrowding, poor weather, bad harvests, lack of money and resources going round, or just boredum) and go find a better life as a merchent, warrior, raider, and/or explorer out in the longboats. Life of this kind was addictive, full of danger and incredibly profitable. So what you have is a societal pressure to go out viking, and a limited avenue of options otherwise.

In a similar manner to the golden age of piracy, your old life was brutally hard and fraught with peril, so you take a place in the navy. The Navy was more restrictive one the one hand, put it payed slightly more than your average job back home. But then there was the pirates, a somewhat democratic group which offered big opportunities for wealth, fame, adventure, and above all freedom from the navy. While there was the risk of death due to being an outlaw and dealing with violence on a fairly common basis, the rewards outweighed the risks. when you normal life is already on the edge of being snuffed out, you don't really have much to lose.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The existence of pirates actually brought about major reforms in the Navy.

The Navy was forced to treat its sailors better, stop conscription, pay them decently and so forth, just to stop them from defecting to the pirates who were basically all-volunteer and democratic, with much better pay and treatment.

As for raiding when you have nothing...that's at best neutral, and more likely still a Chaotic act. A Lawful society would probably try to organize trade, or formally go to war (itself a form of population control to manage resources). Raiding is basically thievery with violence, after all.
raiding to survive would be Neutral. Raiding for phat lewt would be chaotic.

==Aelryinth


We could probably have a big debate on history and etymology here, but besides being inspired by the TV show “Vikings” and popular cultural conceptions of “vikings” my PC is actually a Fighter with the Viking archetype. Paizo’s source material has this to say:

People of the North wrote:
The sagas of the northern people are filled with stories of mighty warriors sailing south to raid the peoples of warmer climes and returning with longships filled with plunder. The northerners call these warriors vikings, and their deeds are sung in the longhouses during the long winter nights. A viking strikes fear into the heart of her foes, and in battle can fly into a terrible rage. Many vikings wear the pelts of bears or wolves, drawing on the strength and ferocity of these beasts in battle. Vikings do not wear heavy armor, but are skilled at fighting with an ax or spear in conjunction with a shield.

Granted, my PC isn’t living on Golarion since the DM in that game chose to set his adventures in Mystara for some strange reason, but I’d imagine that Ostland is probably a lot like whatever northern reaches of Golarion that the vikings in the quote above hail from. Maybe a Viking on Golarion would worship Gorum and save himself the dilemma of how to be Good while also being a seafaring raider.

Perhaps the easiest way would be to ignore the flavor text above and decide “I’m not that kind of Viking!” It isn’t like the action of our campaign typically features sailing around to different towns slaughtering 1st level Commoners and taking their copper pieces. I guess that just being a CN follower of a CG deity also could have worked, but I went with CG since that’s the alignment listed for Thor. I wanted the PC to match that, especially since he took the Birthmark trait and is always offering to show people his “hammer”.

I can't think of any negative mechanical impact the PC would suffer if his alignment "slipped" to CN. It is probably in danger of slipping even worse than that since for story reasons he's wearing a daemon's skull as a helmet (magically disguised as a stereotypical "Viking" horned helmet - we know that's not considered historically accurate, but it seemed amusing). The daemon's spirit frequently urges the PC towards Evil and especially slaughter. I usually make the Will save, but one time a peasant who insulted the PC at a tavern only escaped being killed due to a nat 1 (I guess the DM figured "no harm no foul" and didn't have it affect alignment since I missed)

The helm also grants some other powers which the PC generally tries to avoid using on the assumption that it might make the spirit's power over him grow stronger. If the situation is dire or there's a chance to show off sometimes the temptation can be too great though. I'm guessing that every time I willingly use the helm's power that's probably some kind of "step towards the dark side". I'm not sure about what would happen with failed Will saves.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:

The existence of pirates actually brought about major reforms in the Navy.

The Navy was forced to treat its sailors better, stop conscription, pay them decently and so forth, just to stop them from defecting to the pirates who were basically all-volunteer and democratic, with much better pay and treatment.

As for raiding when you have nothing...that's at best neutral, and more likely still a Chaotic act. A Lawful society would probably try to organize trade, or formally go to war (itself a form of population control to manage resources). Raiding is basically thievery with violence, after all.
raiding to survive would be Neutral. Raiding for phat lewt would be chaotic.

==Aelryinth

I would argue that "raiding" is more often an evil act, depending on the circumstances. Historical instances of raiding usually led to destruction of homes, rapine, and slaughter of all those who got in the way, or for simple pleasure. Further, even if no one is killed in the initial raiding, we are still talking about the theft of things that would leads to mass starvation of the raided population.

And I generally do not buy the "we were raiding to survive" argument. Raiding is almost always done to supplement an already well-stocked land with extra plunder. After all, if a group of people can fashion swords to raid, they can fashion plowshares to plow and farm their land. If they can build raiding boats, they can build fishing boats.


Yeah, burglary and general theft from really poor people like peasants is already on the dark edge of Neutral. Outright raiding villages goes beyond that. I'm sure some people would let it slide at True, Chaotic or Lawful Neutral (depending on how wild you are about it) but I wouldn't.

I have a feeling people who say it's CN are falling into the trap of seeing Chaotic Neutral as more malicious than other Neutrals. Would you let a raider of small towns (say, the bandits from Magnificent Seven) be Lawful Neutral? I'm not saying it'd be wrong, I'm just curious. The bandits were fighting to avoid starvation, after all, but they were in that situation because they chose to enter a dangerous and difficult line of work.

101 to 132 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Lawful Evil and being "Good" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.