Ashiel that is because you are trying to reduce a concept that is only slightly mechanical in its function into something purely mechanical. Alignment is about philosophy, morality and personal outlook and there a many ways of skinning this cat. There are literally dozens of interpretations of alignment. There have been whole books devoted to the concepts in some editions; every DMG I have read contains at least a few pages discussing the different approaches; there are endless threads debating alignment impacts.
Trying to say that it is very simple and we should just follow the rules is like looking at F1 racing and saying just drive faster.
Except that many arguments are based on good and evil from real-life which are subjective rather than Good and Evil of Pathfinder which is objective and observable and has specific rules for it. It is faulty to use an argument like "Well I would say this person is good in real life", when that is incorrect by this games rules and stance on alignment.
Not being evil = good!
This is not what the rules say. They have descriptions of good and evil that are not negations of each other. In a sense they're mirror images, but the descriptions of good are active, just like the descriptions of evil. Evil kills/exploits. Good protects/respects.
An evil immortal wizard locked on a demiplane where he's fed but doesn't do anything else won't eventually become good. I believe that he won't even become neutral unless he has a change of heart, but that's a different conversation that I don't want to dig up again.
PCs are unlikely to be the kind of bystanders that are neutral by default, but that's one version of the alignment. It can represent not going either way rather than a balancing act (whether deliberate or not).
That's what Ashiel and I have been trying to explain to The Sword. Ash just misplaced the exclamation mark.Not being evil = good!This is not what the rules say.
Thanks... If only I had come back here 5 minutes ago so I could hide my shame. :-)
Good requires the absence of evil, evil does not require the absence of good.
A good character who protects villages from evil monsters, helps the sick but kills anyone with blue eyes could not be considered a good aligned a character.
An evil character who enslaves innocents, slaughters the meek but loves old people and helps look after them on feast days could easily still be considered evil.
Acts that turn a person to evil are murder, enslavement, theft, lying, profiteering etc. They require physical acts.
The only action turning a person to good is altruism, i.e an action that benefits someone else at a net cost to yourself. Other than that virtues are seen as resisting evil: chastity, temperance, patience, etc.
There are real questions as to whether acts can ever be truly altruistic unless nobody else knows what you have done.
D&D alignment, particularly for characters overwhelmingly trends towards evil rather than the other way. When it happens from evil to good, it almost always involves the renouncement of evil acts first and foremost e.g. The vampire who only drinks animal blood.
You are correct that not being good does not mean you are evil. Neutrality exists.
However, Neutrality is either the result of actively distancing yourself from morality or a specific intention to maintain a balance it is very rare because people generally have opinions.
You are correct that good requires the presence of good, but it also requires the absence of evil.
What is the alignment of the priest who spends all day long healing the sick and wounded at risk to himself, but selects a few patients a month without friends or family for 'special treatment' that involves dissecting them while still alive before disposing of their bodies?
You may argue that he is neutral because he performs a mixture of good and evil acts, I would say that he is evil. The good act does not wash out the bad. To coin another GOT quotation. If an onion is half rotten it is a rotten onion.
Good requires the absence of evil, evil does not require the absence of good.
(Willing to do evil acts) -> Not (Good)
Therefore,
(Good) = Not (Not (Good)) -> Not (Willing to do evil acts)
The implication doesn't go the other way, so you would have to provide further evidence that
Not (Willing to do evil acts) -> Good
I don't believe such evidence exists because I don't believe that implication is true.
Edit: before anyone brings it up, I'm simplifying things considerably. A good character can be willing to minor evil acts if their aggressiveness toward doing good is otherwise sufficient. The way this balances out isn't clear in general and is part of the GM's responsibility to adjudicate how alignment works in cooperation with the players.
A good character who protects villages from evil monsters, helps the sick but kills anyone with blue eyes could not be considered a good aligned a character.
I don't see how you could possibly describe such a character as "a good character" in the first place.
There are many PCs that consider themselves good and then do occasional evil acts because it is in their own self interest.
Sure, but they have to worry about sliding into neutral, not evil. By the time a character has gotten to the point where "kill anyone with blue eyes" is a reasonable choice, they're about 10 miles past good, you see?
Edit: The way I conceive of the alignment system, all the characters think they're lawful good. They're convinced they're choosing all the best option for all the right reasons. It's the player who reads the alignment entry on the stat block and plays the character appropriately.
My point is that it is not possible for a good character to do evil things as anything other than a mistake (which arguably isn't evil) and still be considered good. This doesn't apply to the reverse.
It is because our sense of morality is based on a series of injunctions and imperatives and the injunctions are always given more weight than the imperatives in the way society reacts to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While some of those PCs deserve their good designation because they are good people with flaws, many are only good because PCs get wider berth than the cosmology would typically allow.
Also, you keep saying that people "consider themselves good". I don't see that as typically relevant. Many evil characters consider themselves good people who are willing to make the tough decisions or have an "ends justify the means" type attitude.
It is a fair point. you can think your are good whilst still being evil. In some circumstances.
I'm not sure what minor evils you are referring to in your previous post. What is a minor evil? Stealing from the collection plate? Beating your partner? I'm not sure what act we would consider evil that would allow a person to remain good.
If there are examples that don't leave someone firmly in the neutral camp I would be interested.
There are however many examples of the reverse, evil people who can still do good, while remaining undoubtably evil.
It is a fair point. you can think your are good whilst still being evil. In some circumstances.
I'm not sure what minor evils you are referring to in your previous post. What is a minor evil? Stealing from the collection plate? Beating your partner? I'm not sure what act we would consider evil that would allow a person to remain good.
If there are examples that don't leave someone firmly in the neutral camp I would be interested.
There are however many examples of the reverse, evil people who can still do good, while remaining undoubtably evil.
I'm mostly thinking of non-violent offenses that still clearly cause harm to the victimized. If Robin Hood keeps some of his ill-gotten gains, he might still be good. If Superman skimmed some money from the bank job he shuts down in order to maintain his lifestyle, I'd still probably call him good. Those are cases where it could be part of the character's routine behavior and still not overwhelm the good they do.
There's also instances where a character could snap and do something out of their character. Batman beating the Joker to within an inch of his life would be an example of this. If he started doing that to all the criminals, he'd fall into more neutral to evil ground like the Punisher. That might be what you meant by "mistake" but what's important here is he knew it was wrong but decided to do it anyway. If that's infrequent enough and a result of extreme circumstances it's not enough for me to question his alignment.
I agree on the second point. By mistake I mean something you look back on and say I shouldn't be doing that and making a conscious attempt not to do. I guess a bit like the hulk. Rather than looking back and saying it was justified I would do the same again if I had to.
Robin Hood is stealing from people who have already stolen and oppress from the poor. He is a freedom fighter given the title outlaw. The barons and the church have gotten rich by taxing the people Robin Hood gives it back to. That isn't an evil act.
If superman skimmed money from bank jobs, to pay for a New York flat then I would absolutely consider him neutral. If the police skimmed money of drugs busts we would consider them corrupt. I always presumed that's why Clark Kent had a job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Robin Hood is stealing from people who have already stolen and oppress from the poor. He is a freedom fighter given the title outlaw. The barons and the church have gotten rich by taxing the people Robin Hood gives it back to. That isn't an evil act.
Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it to. It's always a form of harm or oppression of someone, even if the effect isn't strongly felt by the victim. Robin Hood stealing can't actually be good, so every time Robin Hood was stealing, he was doing something that was bad.
However, the reason Robin Hood is typically considered the iconic chaotic good character (though according to PF alignment he'd actually be Neutral Good) is because of all the other GOOD things that Robin Hood was doing alongside stealing. During his thefts he was being Alruistic, putting his own life in danger for other people. He was acting out of a Concern For the Dignity of Sentient Beings, and he was Protecting Life.
So in much the same reason a Paladin can continue to be a Paladin after running another living creature (such as an orc) through with a sword, Robin Hood continued to be Good despite doing some evil things with regularity. Which is how alignment is described to work, since it represents your general persuasion and notes that characters aren't always entirely consistent with their alignments.
Robin Hood was frequently doing a bad thing for a greater good, just like when a Paladin kills something for Paladin reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel that is because you are trying to reduce a concept that is only slightly mechanical in its function into something purely mechanical. Alignment is about philosophy, morality and personal outlook and there a many ways of skinning this cat. There are literally dozens of interpretations of alignment. There have been whole books devoted to the concepts in some editions; every DMG I have read contains at least a few pages discussing the different approaches; there are endless threads debating alignment impacts.
Trying to say that it is very simple and we should just follow the rules is like looking at F1 racing and saying just drive faster.
No, it's more mechanical than not. The only thing alignment affects at all is purely mechanical. It doesn't affect how your character acts, it responds to it. It only affects mechanics. I really don't care how many DMGs or books from outside sources you've read, I only care about what the rules actually say.
Every post you have made in the past two pages is a standing testament to how little you actually know or understand about the alignment system as it frequently and without fail directly contradicts what the alignment system says, including publicly using the wrong definitions for alignments.
Why should I, or anyone else, view any of your posts as anything worth listening to when you're not even talking about the same subject?
While stealing from an autocratic tyrant who taxes his client serfs into starvation may be wrong legally (lawfully) it is categorically not evil. You are conflating evil with wrong, they are two totally separate things. I consider spitting chewing gum on the floor to be wrong, I do not think it is evil.
I am making the point that there is more to alignment, good and evil, philosophy and outlook. Than whether or not you are affected by holy smite. I'm exploring the concept of what actions make a person evil, good or neutral and how that works in practice. You have already said you feel that this irrelevant because the player decides, the discussion can be as simple as that if you want it to be. However the multiple posts on the page suggest that not everyone thinks it is that simple. As this is the player discussion section not the rules section my comments are for anyone who wants to explore the concept of evil and actions in more detail. IMHO this is essential to any discussion about playing a redemptive character (Vampire, Ghoul or otherwise) in a RPG
If you don't like my posts Ashiel, ignore them.
Paladins don't stay good because killing orcs is an evil act but they are doing it for the greater good.
If they are killing the orcs to protect innocents and save lives then the act itself isn't evil.
Shooting someone who is attacking you with a machete is not an evil act. It is self defence.
You seem to have a very broad definition of evil.
No, it's more mechanical than not. The only thing alignment affects at all is purely mechanical. It doesn't affect how your character acts, it responds to it. It only affects mechanics. I really don't care how many DMGs or books from outside sources you've read, I only care about what the rules actually say.
Every post you have made in the past two pages is a standing testament to how little you actually know or understand about the alignment system as it frequently and without fail directly contradicts what the alignment system says, including publicly using the wrong definitions for alignments.
Why should I, or anyone else, view any of your posts as anything worth listening to when you're not even talking about the same subject?
I quote from the Pathfinder Games Mastery Guide.
"Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it's merely a two letter description, while for others it's a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game."
It goes on to say...
"Alignment is summarised on page 166 of the Core Rulebook but the interpretations are endless, and ultimately lie with you as the GM at a mechanical standpoint and with your players in how they define their characters morality".
To be clear Ashiel I quote these passages not to shut down your treatment of alignment but to make it expressly clear that my opinion on alignment is absolutely as valid an interpretation of the rules of Pathfinder as anyone else's. I ask you to you read pages 68 and 69 they offer several interesting points of view on using alignment in the Pathfinder game, as good as I have seen in the DMGs of the other 5 incarnations of the game I have played.
...Why is it that the people that are so insistent on this alignment bent are also the same people who are ignoring how alignment actually works in the first place?
Not being evil = good!
This is why we can't have a conversation. Some of us are using the actual alignment rules based on what they, y'know, say. Then there's the whole other side who's A-OK with making up random stuff and arguing like it somehow means something.
Well, carry on. >_>
As someone who is hardline pro-undead-not-all-being-evil, even I have to disagree with this.
Most people would consider themselves good people, that doesn't mean their alignment necessarily good.
Some people with low self-esteem or guilt on their shoulders might consider themselves bad people, that doesn't mean their alignment is necessarily evil.
Someone who considers themselves a decent person can still cross the road when they see the victim of a mugging and keep on walking, ala the Good Samaritan. In fact, the Good Samaritan is a perfect 3 alignment story.
The Samaritan is good aligned, he intervenes despite the possibility the bandits might still be around. He does the right thing.
The Bandits are evil, they've left a man dying in the street for his coin.
Those that pass by and did nothing are neutral, not evil, because there was a possible risk to them, if they'd rifled through his wallet first that'd be evil, as they'd be willing to interact with him just for their own benefit.Another example of a neutral person (Turning NG at the end)? Scrooge. Scrooge doesn't overcharge rent or foreclose because he hates people, but because they owe him money, he doesn't hurt people because he enjoys it but because they had a deal and the other person broke it. Their problems are not his problem, his problem is that they owe him money.
And then, in the story someone shows him just how much this attitude can harm others and he dedicates his life to the world, so that others can live in comfort and
Dah, ignore me, I didn't realize they meant !good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I quote from the Pathfinder Games Mastery Guide.
"Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it's merely a two letter description, while for others it's a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game."
It goes on to say...
"Alignment is summarised on page 166 of the Core Rulebook but the interpretations are endless, and ultimately lie with you as the GM at a mechanical standpoint and with your players in how they define their characters morality".
To be clear Ashiel I quote these passages not to shut down your treatment of alignment but to make it expressly clear that my opinion on alignment is absolutely as valid an interpretation of the rules of Pathfinder as anyone else's. I ask you to you read pages 68 and 69 they offer several interesting points of view on using alignment in the Pathfinder game, as good as I have seen in the DMGs of the other 5 incarnations of the game I have played.
That still doesn't change the fact in some of your arguments you have stated things that are directly opposite to the games viewpoint on how alignment works. There is a degree of ambiguity, but some arguments that have been made are simply not fitting with how alignment functions in Pathfinder.
And I am open to discussing that in a thread. I approve of philosophy that encourages finding truth through discussion. Not unlike the Greeks of old. In the meantime can we at least agree that there isn't cannon-divine-right-of-roleplayers-mechanic regarding alignment.
I think I probably haven't communicating my earlier arguments regarding good being the absence of evil very well. I've tried to refine that I'm later posts with the idea of it being very difficult to support a good alignment if intentionally committing evil acts while the reverse isn't true. I don't find the Robin Hood example persuasive.
It's important because while an evil alignment doesn't require a repudiation of good acts, a good alignment absolutely does require a repudiation of evil acts.
To be clear my comments are for people who believe actions need to reflect alignment. Not to antagonise those that don't. As a gaming group that has made a conscious decision to ban evil alignment as devisive, it is not enough for us to adopt Ashiel's preferred option of players determining actions independently of alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important because while an evil alignment doesn't require a repudiation of good acts, a good alignment absolutely does require a repudiation of evil acts.
I haven't seen this. I mean, look at the robin hood example that was mentioned. There are good aligned thieves. Adventures commit the evil act of premeditated murder regularly, but they retain their good alignment because they are only doing it for good purposes such as protecting people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins don't stay good because killing orcs is an evil act but they are doing it for the greater good.
If they are killing the orcs to protect innocents and save lives then the act itself isn't evil.
You literally just said the same thing. Killing things is definitively evil in Pathfinder. Altruism, protecting life, and the dignity of sentient creatures is definitively good in Pathfinder.
When a Paladin kills a foe, it is typically done to minimize the threat of danger that orc poses to himself or others. If done in self defense, you are doing evil to do a good (killing vs protecting life). If done in the defense of another, you are doing evil to do more good than evil (killing vs altruistically protecting life).
This is literally doing evil for the greater good by definition. It's also pretty cut and dry for how to handle things in a game that by its nature involves killing lots and lots of things.
Shooting someone who is attacking you with a machete is not an evil act. It is self defence.
See above. It's not evil because you are doing good while doing so. You are killing (+evil) while protecting life (+good), net result is a wash. Now if the Paladin killed the orc because he wanted to take his stuff (+evil, but no +good) then the Paladin just biffed.
You seem to have a very broad definition of evil.
On the contrary sir, my definition of evil is in fact very small, and yet it parses most anything that can get brought up. It's the Pathfinder definition of evil, which is what we're actually talking about.
Evil = Hurting, oppressing, killing.
Good = Altruism, protecting life, upholding the dignity of sentients.
This is why it works as a morality system. Is what you're doing progressing more evil or good in your doing it? This is why you can very easily have characters that have the same alignments but don't see eye to eye on much of anything and may even come into conflict with each other, because even though they may be the same alignment their personal philosophies and outlooks can be drastically different from one-another.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, while we're here, I'd like to point out that there isn't any act that is defined as evil in the alignment rules at all. Some specific game mechanics may call themselves out as being evil acts (rarely), but the alignment rules detail no evil acts.
Because few, if really any, acts are innately evil. There are qualities of action that are defined as good and evil, but sometimes those qualities mix in a given action, such as in the case of self defense (where you are killing to protect your life) where the act itself wouldn't be evil and wouldn't be good, it's just an act.
This is why the alignment system of Pathfinder is both simple and fairly robust after you block off the outside influences. You can take the exact same action that is performed and with only a few additional questions asked, discern whether the game considers it to be aligned.
Action = Paladin Kills Orc
Why?
To take his stuff = Evil (killing is evil).
Self defense = Neutral (killing is evil, protecting life is good).
Defending others = Good (killing is evil, protecting life is good, altruism is good)
Paladin hates orcs = Evil (killing is evil, oppression is evil)
Grant the dying orc a painless death = Neutral (killing is evil, concern for dignity is good
Wasn't hard at all.
It also means that sometimes good characters may make hard decisions that even other good characters may disagree with, but won't suddenly stop being good people.
Hypothetical example...
A Paladin is confronted with a difficult decision. A thirteen year old boy has become afflicted with a magical disease that will cause him to go mad and die in a few days, at which point he will rise into a monster and spread the magical disease to others. There's no means by which the Paladin or anyone who he can reach will be able to reverse the process.
The Paladin, begrudgingly, slays the boy to halt the magical affliction and burns the body for good measure. He likely curses the responsibility, and others might surely angrily insist that there must have been some other way. Perhaps the Paladin questions his own worth, perhaps he bitterly curses the one behind the affliction.
In any case, he killed somebody. That's evil. But he did it for a lot of good reasons. At the very least, it's neutral, but that doesn't mean people have to like it.
Do you guys think paladins ever seek atonement before they've fallen, just to redeem themselves within the church?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you guys think paladins ever seek atonement before they've fallen, just to redeem themselves within the church?
It's heavily implied that they might. I guess it would depend on the Paladin and if they're associated with a church or religion at all.
|
Base don the behavior of nightshades and sceaduinars - both beings of living negative energy - I think its fair to say that negative energy carries with it overwhelming negative emotions. (To Star Wars it up, negative energy probably has a lot in common with the Dark Side of the Force.)
It's also worth keeping in mind that negative energy hurts. Even a mild dose of it can instantly kill a normal human.
So becoming a lich amounts to both trading out your life force in exchange for running on undiluted hatred and hunger, and also setting yourself on fire forever.
The effects on your mental state may not be entirely desirable =P
Edit: Also, IIRC from Undead Revisited and Classic Horrors Revisited, most undead exist in a state of hunger-fueled agony that only subsides while they're chowing down on mortals.)
Spiritualists further shed some light on the situation. A spiritualist's phantom is literally a spirit who's clawed their way out of the negative plane (and undeath) and into the ethereal plane. And to a one phantoms all are fueled by negative emotions. Why? Because those are the type that tie a person strongly to the mortal world. A person who died feeling loved and content doesn't linger on. They don't get pulled into the negative plane. Instead they probably passed on to the various heavens.
So you're would be lich is now fueled by hate, lust, or some other neg emotion. How long before they give into their baser nature (which now dominates their being) and begin preforming evil acts?
|
|
It's a method to provide easy moral justification to kill without any other reason than their existence. If you're running a simplistic game where the good guys wear white and the bad guys are ostentatious and puppy kicking evil, then undead are always evil works great. If you want to tell a more complex story, ignore any "always evil" undead or otherwise, in favour of characters that have depth and personality instead of just a (stereo)type.Yknow i tried to set this down but its a little trolly to refer to games with absolute good and absolute evil as simplistic. I'm relatively certain few games have had the complexity of the one where my GM ran 3 separate parties/campaigns as champions of good, evil, and neutrality on a simultaneous timeline whether they pull the grey area alignment thing or not.
Not everyone is into navel gazing and 20 minute discussions over whether or not to try to talk antagonists down in their games.
I ran a GURPS campaign centering on time travel, and questions of morality once. yeah, feel free to shudder over GURPS. I do. Anyway the players came from modern times in a world where there had never been a world war 1 or 2. A world where a VERY evil succubus had ruled first europe, then eventually most of the world with an iron fist. She finally was assassinated in the 1850's, after five centuries of rule.
While she ruled she was Evil. She ruthlessly put down any attempts to depose her. Step out of line, and your entire family was killed in a very gruesome and public manner. But she was a serious patron of the arts and of science. Under her reign philosophy flourished, medicine advanced quickly, and technology advanced too (in most areas). When the Austrian noble was assassinated it didn't spark World War 1 because at that point in time the world as a whole was still use to not joining in the 'minor' conflicts of others.
The campaign then followed a group of players who travel back in time to 1260ad while chasing after a group of terrorists. The terrorists had a plan to change history by preventing that succubus from ever rising to power. Towards this end they kidnapped an (at the time) innocent child with plans to torture said child until she breaks, then sell her into slavery. Clearly an evil act, but could one also not claim that preventing the succubus from gaining power is a good act?
The party eventually rescued the kid, but after an agonizing debate decided to kill her. They return to their own time, only to find OUR world. A world where genocide occurs all too often. One of children starving in the streets, and where Hitler gassed millions for the crime of being Jewish.
This raised a fascinating debate both in-character and out of game of the morality of the situation. Which was the greater evil, letting this child grow up to become THE dictator of the world? Letting her kill billions over the course of five centuries? Or killing her and allowing a world where the holocaust occurred? A world where the United States of America destroyed two cities in nuclear fire? (in their timeline they'd lived in the United Dukedoms of America) Was it worth having a sadistic ruler for five centuries if the alternative is that aids and cancer are world wide epidemics?
In the end the group decided to return to the past and spare the child, yet they also left someone behind to teach the child a more moral path. Even so, nobody was brave enough to travel back to their home time period to see the results of this change to their past. They were afraid to learn the full cost of their actions.
Such campaigns are rare. But when you can truly get the players thinking while still telling an action packed and engaging story, it's worth it.
Alignment cannot be straightforward and simple and then b iextremely complicated...
Your initial definitions of good and evil are simplistic
"Evil = hurting killing or oppressing" this is not a solid bases for deciding whether something is evil.
Taking someone's tooth out hurts them, it isn't evil
Soldiers sometimes have to kill, it isn't evil
Vets put animals down it isn't evil
Farmers produce meat it isn't evil
Some rights need to be controlled/oppressed I.e. hate speech it isn't evil to do so.
Instead applying the label of Evil to an act requires a consideration of
- what a person does
- what their intentions were at the time
- the justification they had for doing it.
It is a three part test that can be applied to any action. The various nuances of this test allow many combinations of wicked acts.
An action isnt evil until all three parts of the test are satisfied. You seem to think that the action is evil Inherantly but that isn't the case. I'm happy to have a conversation about what is the nature of evil.
|
|
In the Pathfinder world setting, Good and Evil is that strait forward.
Even if it wasn't, there's still acts that are evil regardless of how you justify it. Walking up to a child who's just walking down the street and chopping their head off is going to be an evil act no matter how you justify yourself.
Or to put it another way, the lesser evil is still evil.
Your example fulfills the criteria of the three part test.
- They did the act
- There is no indication that they had anything other than the intention of doing the act
- There is indication of a justification for the act.
If the child was a rakshasa in disguise, the PC knows but know one else does. It fails part three. The killer isn't evil
If the killer is dominated by an evil wizard and has no control over their actions it fails part two. The killer isn't evil.
The word evil is sometimes used to indicate things that are wrong. I.e. Money is the root of all evil. But we mean bad things, we don't actually mean that people who have or want money are evil per se.
the existence of obviously evil or good acts does not negate the fact that the vast majority of acts are more complicated than that. All three parts of the test must be completed.
|
|
The child is a rakshasa in disguise, but is just walking down the street. Just walking up and chopping the head off would be an evil act. For all you know, that child was merely walking to the market to buy something at momma's request. While the majority of rakshasa are evil, just attacking them on sight without proof of wrongdoing isn't the actions of a good person. Similarly, while goblins are generally evil menaces, just wiping out a goblin tribe because it exists isn't the actions of a good person.
Now, if that goblin tribe was in fact killing farmers and travelers (which is probable if the tribe's near population centers) and the party managed to track them back to the tribe's village that's a whole nother story. But if you just stumbled upon a goblin tribe in the middle of nowhere and attack because "hey, they're goblins!" then that's probably a step towards your alignment changing.
I'm working on a homebrew campaign that definitely touches on the shades of gray in morality. There's still Heroes and Villains, it's still an epic conflict between Good and Evil. But it'll also touch on the middle ground regularly. Even the first adventure will do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment cannot be straightforward and simple and then b iextremely complicated...
I didn't say complicated, I said it was encompassing. It's a simple and effective system for determining overall morality based on key alignment definitions. Its simplicity is actually it's greatest strength because it doesn't get bogged down in minutiae.
Your initial definitions of good and evil are simplistic
Yet effective.
"Evil = hurting killing or oppressing" this is not a solid bases for deciding whether something is evil.
You'll need to explain why, because I'm not going to take your word for it, especially when it goes against what alignment actually says.
Taking someone's tooth out hurts them, it isn't evil
Why'd you take the tooth? Did you do it to help them get it out (altruism)? Did you do it because there's a bounty on teeth (no redeeming qualities, yeah it's evil)?
Soldiers sometimes have to kill, it isn't evil
It very well can be. Being a soldier isn't a license to kill without moral consequences. If your justification for killing is "because I was told to", you may develop severe itching and greater than mild irritation when exposed to holy smite.
Vets put animals down it isn't evil
Mercy killings were already covered above. Killing animals for the lulz is totes evil though.
Farmers produce meat it isn't evil
Promoting the life and well being of sentient creatures.
Some rights need to be controlled/oppressed I.e. hate speech it isn't evil to do so.
Out of the concern for the dignity of sentient creatures and what-nots. Again, oppressing itself is evil but you're oppressing to prevent oppression of others in an attempt to improve the quality of life of people.
Which is why this is an efficient and simple method. It accounts for both whats and whys and allows you to weigh things pretty handily. The vast majority of the things you say aren't evil...aren't. They're most likely neutral unless something weird is going on. But if something weird IS going on, it's easy to resolve because the alignment system actually works (when certain people aren't shoveling loads of other stuff into it).
Instead applying the label of Evil to an act requires a consideration of
- what a person does
- what their intentions were at the time
- the justification they had for doing it.
It is a three part test that can be applied to any action. The various nuances of this test allow many combinations of wicked acts.
What's your point? I just noted that the alignment system already does this. A certain thing (such as killing) can be an innate manifestation of evil, but it's not in a vacuum. I literally posted a thing explaining that motivations and circumstances are major determining factors in whether or not a character is actually acting evil, or good, or otherwise. Because of this, I'm not sure what your counterpoint is...because it doesn't counter anything I've said.
An action isnt evil until all three parts of the test are satisfied. You seem to think that the action is evil Inherantly but that isn't the case. I'm happy to have a conversation about what is the nature of evil.
Please read my posts before you respond to them.
Also, while we're here, I'd like to point out that there isn't any act that is defined as evil in the alignment rules at all. Some specific game mechanics may call themselves out as being evil acts (rarely), but the alignment rules detail no evil acts.
Because few, if really any, acts are innately evil. There are qualities of action that are defined as good and evil, but sometimes those qualities mix in a given action, such as in the case of self defense (where you are killing to protect your life) where the act itself wouldn't be evil and wouldn't be good, it's just an act.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it to. It's always a form of harm or oppression of someone, even if the effect isn't strongly felt by the victim. Robin Hood stealing can't actually be good, so every time Robin Hood was stealing, he was doing something that was bad.
Those mental gymnastics must be painful.
Robin Hood, despite the line "robbed from the rich" didn't actually "rob" from anyone.
Technically he was returning goods and items that were taken via an unlawful order.
So in much the same reason a Paladin can continue to be a Paladin after running another living creature (such as an orc) through with a sword,Killing in Pathfinder isn't evil. Please stop insinuating it is. It's not.
Murder is evil.
Killing is not.
There is no subjective morality in Pathfinder.
Well, technically, when you look at history the only reason Robinhood did what he did was because he challenged a guardsman to an archery contest using a pheasant (I think) as the target. And won, which annoyed the guard. But HEY, the now dead animal just happened to be in the kings forest. He was still stealing though, which is a criminal act.
Yes he got pardoned when Richard the Lion Hearted returned from the crusades. And yes folklore says he was giving what he stole to the poor. But his main motivation was that his arrogance and unthinking archery challenge got him branded as a criminal, so he was forced to steal to get by.
Oh and Hwalsh, I'm starting to think we're arguing the same point but from different directions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those mental gymnastics must be painful.
Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it to. It's always a form of harm or oppression of someone, even if the effect isn't strongly felt by the victim. Robin Hood stealing can't actually be good, so every time Robin Hood was stealing, he was doing something that was bad.
I've barely stretched. It's not particularly straining to repeat what the rules say and show examples of using those rules.
Robin Hood, despite the line "robbed from the rich" didn't actually "rob" from anyone.
Technically he was returning goods and items that were taken via an unlawful order.
Depends on the version I suppose. In every version of Robin Hood I've ever been privy to, King Richard's younger brother, Prince John, was the authority and lawful ruler in his brother's stead during his absence, and abused his authority by taxing the snot out of the people.
Hence why Robin Hood was an outlaw. He was going against the law, because it was lawful order than took the taxes, in the same way it's lawful order for you to pay your income taxes anywhere, but the taxation was unfair and unjust.
But if your version is the basis for our discussion, it matters not, because Robin never stole anything in the first place so the entire point of bringing up Robin Hood stealing was moot.
So in much the same reason a Paladin can continue to be a Paladin after running another living creature (such as an orc) through with a sword,Killing in Pathfinder isn't evil. Please stop insinuating it is. It's not.
Murder is evil.
Killing is not.
There is no subjective morality in Pathfinder.
You're 100% right. There is no subjective morality, it's objective, and killing is a defining aspect of evil. Killing is evil in Pathfinder. It's just the way it is. Whether killing is an evil ACT in Pathfinder is far less absolute, because the act of killing something can just as easily be altruistic, or protecting of life, or out of concern for the dignity of others.
Now so we don't get into an argument over semantics, there is no difference between killing and murder beyond the circumstances. The alignment system takes those circumstances into account, hence why a killing that is in self defense (generally not considered murder) is likewise not evil (for reasons mentioned above).
However, killing is and of itself a trait of evil and if you're not not somehow killing in a way that is also good, then you're going to be doing evil. For example, if you go out and shoot some animals to kill them just for the fun of it, you're being evil. You're not killing them to promote any aspects of good so you're only promoting aspects of evil.
Sorry sport hunters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those mental gymnastics must be painful.
Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it to. It's always a form of harm or oppression of someone, even if the effect isn't strongly felt by the victim. Robin Hood stealing can't actually be good, so every time Robin Hood was stealing, he was doing something that was bad.
I've barely stretched. It's not particularly straining to repeat what the rules say and show examples of using those rules.
Robin Hood, despite the line "robbed from the rich" didn't actually "rob" from anyone.
Technically he was returning goods and items that were taken via an unlawful order.
Depends on the version I suppose. In every version of Robin Hood I've ever been privy to, King Richard's younger brother, Prince John, was the authority and lawful ruler in his brother's stead during his absence, and abused his authority by taxing the snot out of the people.
Hence why Robin Hood was an outlaw. He was going against the law, because it was lawful order than took the taxes, in the same way it's lawful order for you to pay your income taxes anywhere, but the taxation was unfair and unjust.
But if your version is the basis for our discussion, it matters not, because Robin never stole anything in the first place so the entire point of bringing up Robin Hood stealing was moot.
Ironically there's 3 general versions regarding Robinhood. There's the folk tale, there's the Prince of Thieves movie (good movie IMO), and then there's the historically accurate version. Because Robinhood did actually exist. While it's true that in all versions Prince John was unjustly taxing people into the ground, the motivations of Robin of Locksley changes from version to version. Be it Justice (the folk tale), Vengence (the movie), or merely being forced into the role of outlaw by his own arrogence(history).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You got it very much incorrectly. You are making the incorrect connection that killing is wrong... It isn't. Killing isn't an action in and of itself.
Try:
Action = Paladin Kills Orc
Why?
To take his stuff = EvilThis is:
Paladin murders Orc. Murder = Evil
Murder has nothing to do with alignment. Murder is a law term, or means a brutal or violent killing. Going by the definition and all. This semantic bickering is pointless. The end result is the same.
Self defense = Neutral (killing is evil, protecting life is good).
Incorrect, otherwise killing any target that tries to fight back would be non-Goods/evil.
How do you figure?
Self defense is neither good nor evil. It, like murder, is an action. Killing isn't a thing.
Yes, an action that's best considered Neutral because of how alignment works.
Defending others = Good (killing is evil, protecting life is good, altruism is good)
No. Killing in and of itself isn't evil.
You have to prove that it isn't. Your words mean nothing to me when the actual alignment rules note killing as an aspect of evil. You have no authority above the actual game rules and I won't humor you as if you did.
Defending others is good. By your logic a Paladin would fall for this as evil, even a little, is evil and thus a Paladin would always have to non-lethally deal with enemies.
As noted before, there are no good or evil acts defined in the alignment rules. Instead, the aspects of those alignments are defined and it is up to the GM to (as consistently as possible) determined how individual actions weigh in.
Paladins don't fall for committing Neutral acts.
Paladin hates orcs = Evil (killing is evil, oppression is evil)
His hatred has no bearing. If it's only due to his hatred then its murder. See above.
Murder doesn't mean what you think it means. Murder is a legal term. Even if it was perfectly lawful to kill any orc who crossed your path (and may very well be in a Pathfinder setting) but the killing is still evil in this case.
Grant the dying orc a painless death = Neutral (killing is evil, concern for dignity is good)
Uh no. Just. No.
Ring around the rose-y~!
Murder = Evil
So paladins who do premeditated murder against evil dictators is evil?
|
|
Murder = EvilSo paladins who do premeditated murder against evil dictators is evil?
It would depend greatly on just how the paladin went about taking down the evil dictators.
Are they rallying the people and leading a revolt to depose the evil dictator? That's probably an act of Good.
Did they boldly assault the Evil Dictator's fortress with a handful of trusted allies? That's again probably an act of Good, it would depend on the motive for why they preformed the assault.
Did they sneak in undetected then poison the evil dictator during a meal? That's probably an evil act, and definitely going to cause the paladin to fall due to the deliberate use of poison.
Did they sneak in undetected, then plunge a dagger into the Evil Dictator's heart while he slept? Oh yeah, that's an evil act. Even if you did it with noble intentions, it's still an evil act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did they boldly assault the Evil Dictator's fortress with a handful of trusted allies? That's again probably an act of Good, it would depend on the motive for why they preformed the assault.
Did they sneak in undetected then poison the evil dictator during a meal? That's probably an evil act, and definitely going to cause the paladin to fall due to the deliberate use of poison.
Did they sneak in undetected, then plunge a dagger into the Evil Dictator's heart while he slept? Oh yeah, that's an evil act. Even if you did it with noble intentions, it's still an evil act.
Wait a second there. Why is "Murdering him and risking the lives of my allies and possibly causing the deaths of guards who are just doing their jobs" more good than "Murdering him and not risking the lives of anyone but the evil dictator." ?
That's idiotic. Also please note Sneak Attacks are not evil in PF nor is poison.
I think we're getting entirely off the original topic.
But, I also think Good-Evil is being mixed up with Lawful-Chaos.
Stealing isn't an evil act in and of itself, its a chaotic one, you're breaking the law, if you do it to feed Timmy the Orphan it can be good, if you stab a dude for baked beans its probably evil.
Same for murder/assassination
Rally the peasantry in a mass revolution and fight the evil duke before all to show that justice is justice and you cannot free a country with a blade in the dark? Pretty lawful, since you're abiding to a code of honor.
Stab a dude in the rear with a red hot poker after waiting in his toilet for 3 days? Moderately Chaotic since you're playing by no ones rules.
Robin Hood is basically the archetypal example of CG. Good because he only preys on villains, Chaotic because he bows not to the command of law, but to the man he respects.
G-E is about who you do it to and your reasons.
L-C is about how you do it to and your views on society.
More importantly, bringing it back to the undead and the original thread of conversation, by canon the fey and the undead are two sides of the same coin, the fey being the patchwork of unformed souls, hodge-podged together and given life by the animus of the first world and the undead being the dark inversion of souls, born of the end of life.
And yet the fey run the full alignment spectrum, you think they'd be mostly good aligned being more alive and filled with positive energy than mortals.
|
|
Again, depends on WHY you're attacking his fortress of evil. Is he preparing to sacrifice innocents, and your party is assaulting in an attempt to rescue those innocents? Act of good. Are you doing so simply because you can? Probably an act of evil. He is (probably) the lawful ruler of the area after all. Are you doing so because Gosh Darn It, you want that fortress for yourself? That's definitely an act of evil.
Sneak attacks aren't evil. Using poison is arguably evil (and WILL cause most paladins to fall), killing someone in their sleep with no provocation (or even with provocation) is an act of evil. Do it too often and the GM would be perfectly justified in telling you your alignment has slipped from Good to Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using poison is arguably evil (and WILL cause most paladins to fall)
Actually the paladin's code of conduct is proof it's not evil. Since you automatically fall if you willingly commit an evil act, and then it says later "in addition you cannot do things that are considered dishonourable like lying or using poison." This means that while using poison is considered dishonourable it is not evil, because otherwise it would not be mentioned as it would already be included in the first part of the code of conduct.
killing someone in their sleep with no provocation (or even with provocation) is an act of evil.
Generally when a party of Good adventures are doing premeditated murder, there is provocation... They don't need to provoking you at the exact moment you kill them for it to not be evil.
Also, I sincerely do not understand why killing someone in their sleep is more evil than killing someone while they are awake. Your killing them either way and with the same motivation either way, one is just less likely to risk other peoples lives and increases the chance for the person being killed to have a peaceful death rather than a drawn out combat where they suffer through pain. Killing someone in their sleep should be considered the more Good act.