| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trogdar, are you secretly Zapp Brannigan?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trogdar, are you secretly Zapp Brannigan?
I feel strangely compelled to make comments about Neutrality now. XD
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trogdar, are you secretly Zapp Brannigan?I feel strangely compelled to make comments about Neutrality now. XD
If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
Without getting political, I would point out that resistance is almost never successful without violence, the threat of violence, or severe economic consequences. While the success of movements if often attributed to the non-violent aspects, the truth is that those in power don't care about protest and resistance unless they are forced to.
Violent resistance pretty much always makes things worse before it sometimes makes them better.Gandhi?
Martin Luther King?
Apartheid Africa?
Apartheid Africa was awash in violent resistance. And while Dr. King (of whom most modern white Americans know a highly sanitised verision) deserves his due, lets not forget the importance of Malcom X and the Black Panthers.
The point is that some of the most influential individuals people in our past have championed non-violence. I'm not saying they existed in vacuum or were saintly when they were young but MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were their most powerful and persuasive when they channeled their anger through words and passive resistance. The reality is that protest requires changing the other side's mind, while violence only tends to cement their convictions.
|
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is.
It's still dishonorable => Paladin falls.
Apart from that it's part of the reason I threw the D&D alignment system out of the window a long time ago. Because there is no thing as "altruistic, protective, concerned reasons" to kill a helpless foe.
The point is that some of the most influential individuals people in our past have championed non-violence. I'm not saying they existed in vacuum or were saintly when they were young but MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were their most powerful and persuasive when they channeled their anger through words and passive resistance. The reality is that protest requires changing the other side's mind, while violence only tends to cement their convictions.
Well, I doubt that the D&D alignment system was developed with people like that in mind. It should have been, though.
As far as poisons go, I usually take into account what the poison does.
Arsenic? No-no.
Dragon bile? DEFINITELY NOT.
Drow poison? As long as you intend to subdue and not murder in their sleep, sure!
If a poison described its effects as painless and non lethal (like a poison whose Dex damage is described as more like a really strong 'high' than say, snake venom's horrific burning sensation).
Alcohol in moderation-Drunkenness leads to chaos, not the order you intend to keep.
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is.It's still dishonorable => Paladin falls.
Apart from that it's part of the reason I threw the D&D alignment system out of the window a long time ago. Because there is no thing as "altruistic, protective, concerned reasons" to kill a helpless foe.
It still depends on the context. As has been pointed out, paladins can prioritize different parts of their oath. Also, if every possible action would result in an oath violation, the least violation should generally be considered acceptable. The paladin would probably still want an atonement to get clean, but that's about the extent. So if the BBEG waking would result in a great evil, the goodness aspect would outweigh any dishonor that would result from killing a helpless opponent.
In principle it's acceptable for the only non-violation to result in the paladin's death. Typically it's a jerk move to do that to a PC paladin, though.
A Paladin always has the option of falling. It is a matter of personal choice. Choosing death over falling tells much about the Paladin's character
While I agree, that kind of sacrifice typically works better as a literary device than a game one. Like stripping all the PCs' stuff and taking them prisoner, it can have a great place in a game but should be used sparingly as it's stealing a lot of their fun toys from them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apartheid Africa was awash in violent resistance. And while Dr. King (of whom most modern white Americans know a highly sanitised verision) deserves his due, lets not forget the importance of Malcom X and the Black Panthers.Without getting political, I would point out that resistance is almost never successful without violence, the threat of violence, or severe economic consequences. While the success of movements if often attributed to the non-violent aspects, the truth is that those in power don't care about protest and resistance unless they are forced to.
Violent resistance pretty much always makes things worse before it sometimes makes them better.Gandhi?
Martin Luther King?
Apartheid Africa?
Lets also not forget that Ghandi's words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!
A Paladin always has the option of falling. It is a matter of personal choice. Choosing death over falling tells much about the Paladin's character
What if their code forbids death before dishonor? As in, it's the paladin's duty to stay alive and improve the world, even through dishonorable/out of code actions if necessary?
|
|
So if the BBEG waking would result in a great evil, the goodness aspect would outweigh any dishonor that would result from killing a helpless opponent.
I was under the impression that we were talking about any random opponent though. Let's say the goblin guard sleeping in her watchtower (which could easily be subdued and gagged so as not to be able to alarm her clan).
Now I would probably not even mind when the Paladin sneaks on the guard to slit her throat while she's sleeping. But if he slit her throat after the guard was already subdued, I really had a problem with that. And if then the player would begin to argue with "but it's the altruistic, protective blabla" my advice would probably be to look for another idiot to argue with.
Lets also not forget that Ghandi's words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!
Well, they weren't when he spoke them. Plus I'd argue that modern India unluckily has not much in common with Ghandi's ideals.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found the person who doesn't play enough Civ
So if the BBEG waking would result in a great evil, the goodness aspect would outweigh any dishonor that would result from killing a helpless opponent.I was under the impression that we were talking about any random opponent though. Let's say the goblin guard sleeping in her watchtower (which could easily be subdued and gagged so as not to be able to alarm her clan).
Now I would probably not even mind when the Paladin sneaks on the guard to slit her throat while she's sleeping. But if he slit her throat after the guard was already subdued, I really had a problem with that. And if then the player would begin to argue with "but it's the altruistic, protective blabla" my advice would probably be to look for another idiot to argue with.
I agree for random adversaries rather than existential threats. I read yours as a never rather than a typically not. So carry on. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin always has the option of falling. It is a matter of personal choice. Choosing death over falling tells much about the Paladin's characterWhat if their code forbids death before dishonor? As in, it's the paladin's duty to stay alive and improve the world, even through dishonorable/out of code actions if necessary?
I think it is a strange code that appears that likely to cause its adherents to fall. I guess a Paladin following this code would often require atonement. Why not ? It could be fun roleplay actually for the player who wants to play this kind of shadowy Paladin. Note though that staying LG might be difficult with such a code.
That is also the reason why only LN, LG and NG deities have Paladins
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's still dishonorable => Paladin falls.
Apart from that it's part of the reason I threw the D&D alignment system out of the window a long time ago. Because there is no thing as "altruistic, protective, concerned reasons" to kill a helpless foe.
There is a demon that has been called to the material plane, you and your allies have successfully knocked in unconscious and it is now helpless.
In what possible way would it be evil to remove literal solid evil from the material plane, just because it cannot fight back?
Also, I still don't understand the difference between it being helpless and you wearing armour that it cannot penetrate or having regeneration. When a level 20 fighter combats a level one warrior who is a thug in an ally, that thug may as well be helpless, is that evil?
|
|
Found the person who doesn't play enough Civ
Got me there. I'm rather a Settlers and Anno guy. I guess the only Civ I ever finished a single game with was Civ 2.
There is a demon that has been called to the material plane, you and your allies have successfully knocked in unconscious and it is now helpless.
In what possible way would it be evil to remove literal solid evil from the material plane, just because it cannot fight back?
See my comments above. We're not actually disagreeing when it comes to existential threats.
Also, I still don't understand the difference between it being helpless and you wearing armour that it cannot penetrate or having regeneration.
The one thing protects yourself, the other thing is killing without necessity. Is a police officer evil when wearing bulletproof armor? Certainly not. But killing an unarmed person without need? Very definition of evil.
When a level 20 fighter combats a level one warrior who is a thug in an ally, that thug may as well be helpless, is that evil?
It's not about the combat part. It's about the killing involved, that would make it into an evil act. That's the exact reason why Batman doesn't kill thugs just for being thugs. And Batman isn't even a Paladin.
Found the person who doesn't play enough CivGot me there. I'm rather a Settlers and Anno guy. I guess the only Civ I ever finished a single game with was Civ 2.
There was a bug in civ3, ghandi was so peaceful that when he discovered democracy the automatic reduction in warmongering rolled him over to worse than ghengis khan. He would usually nuke you after that. They carried over the behavior in some other versions as an inside joke and when he'd reach the point that would be the threat "My words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing protects yourself, the other thing is killing without necessity. Is a police officer evil when wearing bulletproof armor? Certainly not. But killing an unarmed person without need? Very definition of evil.
The issue is that when people claim in threads that killing unconscious people is evil, it basically always done in referral to situations were there Is need. In situations where if they were awake, they would attack you or alert others to attack you. In situations were either way you are going to murder the person, and not waking them up only affects whether or not you want to risk them successfully attacking or getting others to attack you.
Killing anyone without need is Evil. But when your murdering someone, whether you do it while their conscious or unconscious should not affect the ethical value of the act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with Milo. One thing I've noticed in a lot of these threads is that people seem to have severe troubles with breaking down actions to parse the values of those.
For example, when things like cannibalism comes up, people have issues divorcing the act of killing from the cannibalism itself. Which leads to people equating cannibalism with evil, but the act of cannibalism itself isn't evil, KILLING is.
Similarly, some seem to have troubles parsing the act of killing at all by trying to invent new types of killing rather than recognizing that killing is killing but may be influenced by good-aligned efforts, or parsing the circumstances that surround the act.
There is factually no moral difference between sneaking up on a goblin, winning initiative, and stabbing him in the back; killing the same goblin while he's asleep; or killing the goblin in heated combat; if the result is the same. The typical reason an adventuring party would assassinate a goblin in this manner would likely be to minimize the risk to themselves or the party.
If you were going to kill the goblin anyway, there's not really anything that's particularly good or noble about letting the goblin start screaming and alerting all the other goblins that you're coming.
Sorry eating dead intelligent creature unless it is essential to survive - I.e. an 'Alive' type scenario is evil. It isn't just the killing that is wrong. Eating people is wrong - pure and simple. Do you think it is coincidence that no culture permits eating your own people - even those that practice canibalism only do it to outsiders. This might be a result of historical religious reasons, or a subliminal need to prevent disease, or the fact that generally old people make lousy eating. Nevertheless it is a universal truth. Examples of people eating other people are universally met with horror by all moral people. This is a debate that has gone round in circles though and I doubt I will change your mind or you mine.
I do agree though once you make a conscious decision to kill something, how you go about it is more about the law/chaos axis than the good/evil. There is a difference but it is one of hnour and fairness. Bruce Willis in Diehard is Chaotic Good (possibly neutral good as he is a cop.) He kills for the right reasons, but does so in a dishonourable way. But who cares - he gets the job done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eating people is wrong - pure and simple.
Then why does it taste so right?
Also, if we weren't supposed to eat people, why are they made out of meat?
Eating people is wrong - pure and simple.Then why does it taste so right?
Also, if we weren't supposed to eat people, why are they made out of meat?
I know right, I hear we taste like pork
edit: or was it beef i can never remember
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry eating dead intelligent creature unless it is essential to survive.
1. Show me where in the game it says this.
2. There are examples of non-evil race who culturally eat intelligence creatures to a large enough extent that it is in their bestiary info paragraphs.Do you think it is coincidence that no culture permits eating your own people - even those that practice canibalism only do it to outsiders.
Not in Pathfinder, for example lizardfolk eat btoh their own kind and other sentient races.
The fact that it hasn't been codified as a rule doesn't mean it isn't true. Alignment rules are deliberately vague to allow groups to reach there own conclusions. Viewpoint on canabilism is a personal moral viewpoint.
Canibalism is wrong though for the same reason necrophilia is wrong, or sewing a corpses arms and legs in alternate places. It is an affront to dignity.
You mean not to one race in Pathfinder. Lizardfolk don't see it as an affront to dignity. Therefore as far as they are concerned it is not evil.
The fact that it hasn't been codified as a rule doesn't mean it isn't true. Alignment are deliberately vague to allow groups to reach there own conclusions.
Canibalism is wrong though for the same reason necrophilia is wrong, or sewing a corpses arms and legs in alternate places. It is an affront to dignity.
You mean not to one race in Pathfinder. Lizardfolk don't see it as an affront to dignity. Therefore as far as they are concerned it is not evil.
well since it isn't codified in a rule as evil and there is an entire race the preforms it and they are not evil for doing so why don't you go make a houserule in your own game that it is
Sorry eating dead intelligent creature unless it is essential to survive.1. Show me where in the game it says this.
2. There are examples of non-evil race who culturally eat intelligence creatures to a large enough extent that it is in their bestiary info paragraphs.Do you think it is coincidence that no culture permits eating your own people - even those that practice canibalism only do it to outsiders.Not in Pathfinder, for example lizardfolk eat btoh their own kind and other sentient races.
To be clear, Neutral Lizardfolk engage in this in Pathfinder canon. That's the important part. And not only when other food runs out, but because it'd be a waste to just bury it.
The True Neutral goddess of death may not appreciate it, but she's not allowed to send Neutral people to the lower planes just because she personally dislikes something they do. Respecting dead bodies (objects by the rules) is a Neutral thing to do, just like grilling and eating them is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that it hasn't been codified as a rule doesn't mean it isn't true. Alignment rules are deliberately vague to allow groups to reach there own conclusions. Viewpoint on canabilism is a personal moral viewpoint.
Canibalism is wrong though for the same reason necrophilia is wrong, or sewing a corpses arms and legs in alternate places. It is an affront to dignity.
You mean not to one race in Pathfinder. Lizardfolk don't see it as an affront to dignity. Therefore as far as they are concerned it is not evil.
Pathfinder Morality is absolute. It is Evil or it is not. There's no "Oh, some people don't see it that way." Those people would go to Hell anyway. but they don't, because Cannibalism is not Evil. Ever. No matter what you think of it.
Killing people is Evil, but not because you intend to eat them. It's Evil because you killed them. If you just found a dead body and decided to eat it, you've done nothing wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
remember people, meat is meat regardless of what its source it comes from and it is a sin to waste food
You mean not to one race in Pathfinder.
Alignment in pathfinder doesn't change depending on race, it is an objective force of reality. Otherwise, all races would consider themselves good and have the good alignment.
Lizardfolk don't see it as an affront to dignity.
So? Lizardfolk still eat humans, who "generally" do see it as disrepectful.
Just out of interest, where is it written that Pathfinder Morality is objective. I'm just interested in the reference?
Secondly, lizardfolk are seen as neutral. That doesn't mean that every act they do is neutral, just that their overall alignment trends towards neutral.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of interest, where is it written that Pathfinder Morality is absolute. I'm just interested in the reference?
1. the fact that the alignment section of the core rulebook and ultimate campaign has definitions of good/evil/chaos/law.
2. the fact that aligment changes your characters mechanical traits and can be measured.3. the fact that certain things are aligned to those forces regardless of the individuals personal view. eg. no matter what your philosophy is, animate dead as the evil descriptor. No matter what your philosophy is, if you're able to wield unholy weapons without penalty, your evil.
4. The fact that there are many evil races, without any sign they feel they are in the wrong. Many factions of outsiders feel they are doing the right thing, Div's for example see nothing morally wrong about getting revenge against mortals, but they are still evil.
5. The fact that alignment change is not based on what the character Thinks is good and evil, but whether there actions Are good or evil.
6. The fact you can literally walk up to creatures Made of the friggin alignments.
7. The fact you have spells that detect whether an individual is Good. Which means, it is a thing that exists.
8. The fact that Subjective Alignment is an optional rule, specifically for when "you may want to play in a world where there is no absolute good and evil."
Secondly, lizardfolk are seen as neutral. That doesn't mean that every act they do is neutral, just that their overall alignment trends towards neutral.
It's a big enough part of their culture that it was listed in their bestiary info, which means they do it relatively often. If cannibalism was Evil in pathfinder, then they would be an entire race who often commits acts that are Always Evil. Now, if you had a race who regularly murders people or tortures people, they'd be evil (eg. Ogres, drow, etc.)... So why not this race that repeatedly does evil over and over and over? Unless cannibalism isn't Evil. It might not be pleasant, and it can be considered disrespectful by some. But there is no sign it is objectively evil in pathfinder.
The closest sign there is to cannibalism being evil in Pathfinder is that cannibalism can result in undead.... But so could being killed by a trap. Or dying in the wilderness.
i think cannibalism is only evil in pathfinder if you do it for pleasure like the cult of Urgothoa does
Just to explore the idea of subjective morality a wee bit more. Yes the concepts that make up lawful good are fixed in stone and are objectively lawful good. However the perspective on each of the issues that make it up could be subjective
Lawful good Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness.
One race's sense of duty may be different to another's, one persons virtue or worthiness may be different to another's.
Chaotic Evil Core Concepts: Anarchy, anger, amorality, brutality, chaos, degeneracy, freedom, profaneness, violence
What is profane to one race may not be to another, what is brutal to one race may not be to another.
Incidentally I would classify Canibalism as degenerate behaviour which is a core concept of chaotic evil. I presume either because it is rare, or just an incidental part of lizardfolk culture it alone isn't enough to make lizardfolk chaotic evil. However I'm sure there would be chaotic evil lizardfolk who revel in canibalism. Incidentally the way finder article on lizardfolk that the PFSRD refers to, says that lizardfolk are defined by the struggle for survival first and foremost, hence them not being evil. I think we can all agree that canibalism for survivalist reasons is not Immoral.
Wait.... I just found stats for "Cannibal" in the PRD. The generic stats for a cannibal, have a non-evil alignment.
Also, as for lizardfolk culture. It's common enough to 1. Be in the bestiary entry, and 2. give them the Cannibalize boon when it comes to lizardfolk armies, and 3. the monster codex states that they see it as an disservice to the persons memory if the body does go to waste. They do it A lot.
Yeah, we can all agree that canibalism for survivalist reasons is not immoral. But lizardfolk don't do it for survivalist reasons.
Okay well the descriptions of the lizardfolk I have seen in game, in kingmaker for instance absolutely do say the lizardfolk eat sentients, for survival reasons and because meat is too precious to waste.
For the sake of ending a daft arguement I'll happily say that I am house ruling that canibalism is evil (along with many other people) and that there is some evidence (one monster race and a NPC in the GMG) that in the base game it is not.
In the same way that GMs are well within their right to ban sexualised behaviour from their tables, GMs are more than reasonable in viewing in game canibalism as depraved and offensive and therefore unsuitable for their game - within the core rules of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes individual DMs are allowed to ban certain things at their games, still doesn't make it evil
For the sake of ending a daft arguement
Admittedly, arguments like this + my immoral personality is why I don't use alignment in my settings.
Following this logic there is nothing wrong with necrophilia. Orcus would agree with you.
I believe that canibalism is profane and degenerate, particularly in a game world where bodies do actually have souls.
This is my point that while the concepts that fall within each alignment may not be subjective, the concepts themselves are. That is why we can have endless debates about what acts are evil or not because ultimately concepts of fair, virtuous, degenerate, brutal are subjective and will vary from person to person, society to society.
I don't think there is an answer but it is interesting.
Sorry eating dead intelligent creature unless it is essential to survive - I.e. an 'Alive' type scenario is evil. It isn't just the killing that is wrong. Eating people is wrong - pure and simple. Do you think it is coincidence that no culture permits eating your own people - even those that practice canibalism only do it to outsiders. This might be a result of historical religious reasons, or a subliminal need to prevent disease, or the fact that generally old people make lousy eating. Nevertheless it is a universal truth. Examples of people eating other people are universally met with horror by all moral people. This is a debate that has gone round in circles though and I doubt I will change your mind or you mine.
I do agree though once you make a conscious decision to kill something, how you go about it is more about the law/chaos axis than the good/evil. There is a difference but it is one of hnour and fairness. Bruce Willis in Diehard is Chaotic Good (possibly neutral good as he is a cop.) He kills for the right reasons, but does so in a dishonourable way. But who cares - he gets the job done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wari’_people#Cannibalism
The one thing protects yourself, the other thing is killing without necessity. Is a police officer evil when wearing bulletproof armor? Certainly not. But killing an unarmed person without need? Very definition of evil.
I've never seen anyone suggest that Wearing armor to protect yourself is evil.
I HAVE seen 'fall threads' claim that it is DISHONORABLE to be claim such a great advantage. People who try to claim that it's dishonorable for a Paladin to fight an ordinary evil person with Adamantine Full Plate +5 and a blazing Holy sword, when they don't have NEAR that kind of gear...
It's a stupid pointless argument... but it has been made. It's the difference between committing an Evil act... and something that is merely 'dishonorable.' It's why I hate seeing people drag out the 'honorable' concept into these. We can USUALLY agree on something that's flat out evil... but honor is such a personal code that it's hardly universal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wari’_people#Cannibalism
Evil b@5£}?ds! Lol.
I stand corrected. There are 7 villages who think this is acceptable.