| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made it generic enough.
The lies we tell ourselves...
:D| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orange could be gaining a huuuuuuuuuge win Tuesday night! If Orange wins Tuesday, Orange could keep on winning until Orange gets sick and tired of winning! (Or until Blue defeats Orange).Evil beat evil and a source of good is destroyed...but if that new evil goes on to beat all the other evils and continues doing all the things that he was doing when he was a good guy, is it really a loss in the grand scheme?It is a tragic loss for the side of Blue. Orange gains a new pawn.
Orange won tonight! Orange won by so much that Red decided to drop out of the Color Race, leaving Orange the presumptive winner of the Red-ish nomination process.
At the same time, Blue was defeated in an upset by Extra-Blue. Blue still leads Extra-Blue overall due to previous victories by Blue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orange could be gaining a huuuuuuuuuge win Tuesday night! If Orange wins Tuesday, Orange could keep on winning until Orange gets sick and tired of winning! (Or until Blue defeats Orange).Evil beat evil and a source of good is destroyed...but if that new evil goes on to beat all the other evils and continues doing all the things that he was doing when he was a good guy, is it really a loss in the grand scheme?It is a tragic loss for the side of Blue. Orange gains a new pawn.Orange won tonight! Orange won by so much that Red decided to drop out of the Color Race, leaving Orange the presumptive winner of the Red-ish nomination process.
At the same time, Blue was defeated in an upset by Extra-Blue. Blue still leads Extra-Blue overall due to previous victories by Blue.
MAKE ANDORAN GREAT AGAIN
When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good.What if Evil sacrifices its values. Is that good?
Depends on what values it's sacrificing. If it's ridding itself of the last few restraints on it's behavior, it's probably becoming more evil.
Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.
The truly good character probably views the options left behind as false or flawed options, but rejecting them because of your good outlook absolutely means it's a restraint on your behavior.
If your view is that the ends don't justify the means and there are evil means that could achieve your ends, how is that not restraining your behavior?
Not if the ends I am going for will be lost by using those means. It is not a matter of "I want that thingie, but I can't murder the guy who has it because then I would not be good", it is "I want that thingie, but if I murder the guy who has it, then the end result is not one I want. Let's see if I can come to an agreement with him, maybe we can both be happy with the results."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
I'm glad somebody understood what I was saying.
|
|
I'm glad somebody understood what I was saying.Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
:3
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
Again, "I'm not gonna do that, it would be bad" and "I'm not gonna do it because I don't want to" are in fact two different things.
As for your example, no, I don't assume that if I see LE on something's sheet. I think they tend to think of themselves and like when the rules suit them. There's plenty of examples of LE who are kind and/or charitable.
Being an Alignment doesn't preclude you from taking actions of other Alignmnets.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
Again, "I'm not gonna do that, it woudo be bad" and "I'm not gonna do it because I don't want to" are in fact two different things.
As for your example, no, I don't assume that if I see LE on something's sheet. I think they tend to think of themselves and like when the rules suit them. There's plenty of examples of LE who are kind and/or charitable.
Being an Alignment doesn't preclude you from taking actions of other Alignmnets.
They are actually the same thing. The descriptor "bad" is absolutely meaningless if I don't want to do bad things.
Alignments are descriptors. No one thinks "I really want to do that, but I'm CG", they think "I really want to do that, but... Don't I believe in freedom? In helping others? Wouldn't that be tyranny? I could... But I won't. I'll remain true to myself."
Moral anguish is not comparing an action against a fixed mechanical standard, it's more about comparing passing whims to stated beliefs. A CG person could enslave someone else or engage in senseless slaughter... If it became a common thing, tough, they wouldn't be CG anymore.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
>Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
O my, how wrong you are. I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that there are only 9 models of deep personal beliefs? With every person fitting into one or another? I can come up with a character who is lawful evil AND an avid supporter of charities, if you want. Or Good, but tortures prisoners in some cases.
Alignment is, at best, a very rough estimate of how an interaction with a character would go, but it is so rough as to be pretty much meaningless. "John's mother died of cancer, and he swore to become a doctor and find a cure, so that other kids won't have to suffer as he did" tells you a lot about a character. "John is strongly Good, moderately Lawful" doesn't.
I'm glad somebody understood what I was saying.Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
I find myself imagining a character (ok, it's Superman, but that's not important) who basically always shows mercy. Usually it's just his normal behavior. His general goodness is essentially hard-coded in his personality.
Once in a while, he gets really angry. Someone shows extreme disregard for the people he cares about and he unleashes more pain on that someone than he normally would. He stops himself because his friend (I'll pretend it's not Batman, but it totally is) reminds him that's not who he is. He was doing something but was reminded of his morals (from which his good alignment flows) and he stops. From my perspective, that amounts to him having restraint related to his good alignment.
If he snaps and actually deliberately kills someone, that's probably an indicator of him losing some of his particular brand of goodness. If he decides that certain people aren't worth his mercy, he might be ultimately correct, but he loses some of his shiny goodness.
And yes, I have been rewatching old superhero cartoons...
|
|
Again, "I'm not gonna do that, it woudo be bad" and "I'm not gonna do it because I don't want to" are in fact two different things.
As for your example, no, I don't assume that if I see LE on something's sheet. I think they tend to think of themselves and like when the rules suit them. There's plenty of examples of LE who are kind and/or charitable.
Being an Alignment doesn't preclude you from taking actions of other Alignmnets.
They are actually the same thing. The descriptor "bad" is absolutely meaningless if I don't want to do bad things.
Alignments are descriptors. No one thinks "I really want to do that, but I'm CG", they think "I really want to do that, but... Don't I believe in freedom? In helping others? Wouldn't that be tyranny? I could... But I won't. I'll remain true to myself."
Moral anguish is not comparing an action against a fixed mechanical standard, it's more about comparing passing whims to stated beliefs. A CG person could enslave someone else or engage in senseless slaughter... If it became a common thing, tough, they wouldn't be CG anymore.
You'll note I didn't use bad in the second instance. Again, "I don't want to do this because it's bad" and "I don't want to do that because it'd be a waste of time and I have other s%++ to do".
Look at like this.
Killing someone is an Evil act.
Not killing someone is not a Good act.
Saving someone is a Good act.
Not saving someone is not an Evil act.
Are you saying that there are only 9 models of deep personal beliefs? With every person fitting into one or another? I can come up with a character who is lawful evil AND an avid supporter of charities, if you want. Or Good, but tortures prisoners in some cases.
Alignment is, at best, a very rough estimate of how an interaction with a character would go, but it is so rough as to be pretty much meaningless. "John's mother died of cancer, and he swore to become a doctor and find a cure, so that other kids won't have to suffer as he did" tells you a lot about a character. "John is strongly Good, moderately Lawful" doesn't.
Saying that alignment describes (or is a descriptor of) your personal beliefs and attitudes, etc. doesn't mean that it fully describes it or that everyone of the same alignment shares those beliefs.
Just like I can describe someone as tall, medium-height (is there a better word for this?), or short and that doesn't tell you whether that tall person is gangly or looming. Whether that short person is waifish or stocky. Even if I added a weight descriptor for "heavy" "medium" or "light", that wouldn't tell me whether the heavy person was obese or ripped. Whether the light person was emaciated or lean.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
>Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
O my, how wrong you are. I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that there are only 9 models of deep personal beliefs? With every person fitting into one or another?
Not really. I'm saying that those nine alignments are descriptors of general trends in deep held beliefs. You cannot find a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, nor you can find an Evil character who thinks everyone has certain fundamental rights. Alignments are descriptors.
Again, "I'm not gonna do that, it woudo be bad" and "I'm not gonna do it because I don't want to" are in fact two different things.
As for your example, no, I don't assume that if I see LE on something's sheet. I think they tend to think of themselves and like when the rules suit them. There's plenty of examples of LE who are kind and/or charitable.
Being an Alignment doesn't preclude you from taking actions of other Alignmnets.
They are actually the same thing. The descriptor "bad" is absolutely meaningless if I don't want to do bad things.
Alignments are descriptors. No one thinks "I really want to do that, but I'm CG", they think "I really want to do that, but... Don't I believe in freedom? In helping others? Wouldn't that be tyranny? I could... But I won't. I'll remain true to myself."
Moral anguish is not comparing an action against a fixed mechanical standard, it's more about comparing passing whims to stated beliefs. A CG person could enslave someone else or engage in senseless slaughter... If it became a common thing, tough, they wouldn't be CG anymore.
You'll note I didn't use bad in the second instance. Again, "I don't want to do this because it's bad" and "I don't want to do that because it'd be a waste of time and I have other s&*% to do".
Look at like this.
Killing someone is an Evil act.
Not killing someone is not a Good act.Saving someone is a Good act.
Not saving someone is not an Evil act.
All I'm saying is that "because it's bad, and I don't do bad things" is a perfectly valid reason for the "I don't want to do that" phrase. That's... Pretty much what alignment is. "Good" describes a character who, most of the times, will choose to act in good ways and avoid the bad ones even if they are very convenient or pleasing.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
As a matter of fact, one of the most prominent Lawful Evil characters in my overarching campaign *does* believe in being charitable and kind to strangers. And despite being very good at it, hates violence. And has an almost pathological sense of feeling responsible for everything and everyone. But make no mistake, despite the kindness and the fact that they would probably be considered a "good" person in our world, the character is definitely both Lawful and Evil.
|
|
All I'm saying is that "because it's bad, and I don't do bad things" is a perfectly valid reason for the "I don't want to do that" phrase. That's... Pretty much what alignment is. "Good" describes a character who, most of the times, will choose to act in good ways and avoid the bad ones even if they are very convenient or pleasing.
I never said it wasn't.
I just said it's not the only reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.
I prefer myself White Wolf's Humanity scale, where your Humanity is defined by the line you draw in the range of actions you would choose.
Humanity Rating Moral Guideline
10 Selfish thoughts
9 Minor selfish acts
8 Injury to another (accidental or otherwise)
7 Theft
6 Accidental violation (drinking a vessel dry out of starvation)
5 Intentional property damage
4 Impassioned violation (manslaughter, killing a vessel in frenzy)
3 Planned violation (outright murder, savored exsanguination)
2 Casual violation (thoughtless killing, feeding past satiation)
1 Utter perversion or heinous acts
0 No moral values. Must sleep, must feed, must kill
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lucky they fixed up that system with alternate progressions like the Path of the Beast. :-)
Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.I prefer myself White Wolf's Humanity scale, where your Humanity is defined by the line you draw in the range of actions you would choose.
Humanity Rating Moral Guideline
10 Selfish thoughts
9 Minor selfish acts
8 Injury to another (accidental or otherwise)
7 Theft
6 Accidental violation (drinking a vessel dry out of starvation)
5 Intentional property damage
4 Impassioned violation (manslaughter, killing a vessel in frenzy)
3 Planned violation (outright murder, savored exsanguination)
2 Casual violation (thoughtless killing, feeding past satiation)
1 Utter perversion or heinous acts
0 No moral values. Must sleep, must feed, must kill
I always had a problem with the upper levels of this scale. "Selfish thougths" are only evil in a particularly hardline Kantian version of morality. I do agree it an elegant system, tough.
Being aware of what all you could possibly do and choosing not to do it because you don't want to is very different than not doing something because "Well I'm [insert alignment here] so I can't".Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.Strongly disagree with you.
A Good person, a person who is Good, doesn't do certain things. This doesn't mean that they are foolish. This doesn't mean that they aren't aware of them. A Good person knows that they could cheat or use underhanded tactics to gain a benefit, but won't.
To be Good is to be aware of what you *could* do then choose not to do it.
But why did the person choose not to do the something?
I'm assuming it was because it ran counter her deep held beliefs about her own personality and the world.
Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
Let's turn this around. No one looks at a character with a "LE" in their sheet and thinks "Well, this is a gu who desperatly wishes he could be charitable and kind towards strangers but is forbidden by his alignment". They think "this guy probably believes being charitable and kind is a weakness".
>Which is exactly what the alignment system is a descriptor of.
O my, how wrong you are. I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that there are only 9 models of deep personal beliefs? With every person fitting into one or another?
Not really. I'm saying that those nine alignments are descriptors of general trends in deep held beliefs. You cannot find a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, nor you can find an Evil character who thinks everyone has certain fundamental rights. Alignments are descriptors.
...Again, "I'm not gonna do that, it woudo be bad" and "I'm
>You cannot find a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, nor you can find an Evil character who thinks everyone has certain fundamental rights.
Challenge accepted.
>Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>Fundamental rights are a generally regarded set of legal protections in the context of a legal system, where such system is itself based upon this same set of basic, fundamental, or inalienable rights. Such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction.
Enter Todd the Horrible. He is the king of Gibbblewargle, a country taking up a large part of the continent of WippleWopple. He looks like your average Tyrant:taxing every citizen to the limit, filling cities with pollution from unregulated industry, funding military and weapons research, closing down museums and libraries due to budget cuts.
During his reign, poverty amongst the people has skyrocketed. Only soldiers and their families live decent lives, while oppressing the rest of the population. Rebelions are brutally crushed(often by Todd personally, he is a high-level wizard), with rebels being publicly hanged to scare others. Public executions are quite popular in general.
Sure sounds like an Evil guy with no regard for fundamental rights of others, right? Hold that thought.
In actuality, Todd's situation is not as simple as it seems. You see, 2 years ago(when his reign begun, pretty much) he was approached(well, more like ambushed) by a demon. That demon told him that, in exactly 3 years, an unthinkable horror from beyond the veil of time and space would come out and destroy everything on this world...
...unless Todd managed to gather an army strong enough to repel it. Demon proceded to cast a spell on Todd that prevented him from being able to tell anyone about this new threat, either directly or indirectly, and flew off. Todd later checked demon's story in various ways, and it checked out.
So now Todd is doing everything in his power to gather an army big enough to combat this horror from beyond etc etc. It breaks his heart to hang those rebels, but what can he do? He can't afford a civil war, and maybe, just maybe, it would scare others enough that they wouldn't try. He would love to help the poor out and reduce the pollution in the cities, but that costs money, money he can't afford to spend-it all goes into making a stronger army. He regards fundamental human rights quite highly, but ultimately, he thinks that everyone being alive one year from now is worth more than their rights in the present.
Since(I think) actions in pathfinder are judged by their immediate consequences, not what the person in question thought was going to happen or what would happen down the line, Todd would ping as "Holy s**+ so Evil, kill it with holy water" if scanned with Detect Evil. But his moral core is not Evil. If anything, I would say that it is quite Good.
Now, where is my cookie?
Bonus points to anyone who can guess the plot of which game I used as a basis.
As for a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, read something about Mother Teresa that wasn't written by her fan.
...Wasn't the whole point of that game that you could accomplish your goal without being a dick, it was just harder?
A better example is a more standard "Trains run on time" villain. Like Dr. Doom.
Generally speaking areas under his control are prosperous and the people are happy, if a bit restricted. The heroes generally agree that if Doom were running the world, it would be a better place.
Of course, he's willing to cheat, murder, and steal to gain that sort of control, and doesn't care who he hurts in the process. Because he is Doom, and h is better than you, and if you don't recognize that you're too dumb to live.
...Wasn't the whole point of that game that you could accomplish your goal without being a dick, it was just harder?
It was impossible without questionable tactics like abusing time mechanics they use for property renting returns.
Hey, real estate mogul till beats tyrant.
I always had a problem with the upper levels of this scale. "Selfish thougths" are only evil in a particularly hardline Kantian version of morality. I do agree it an elegant system, tough.Good isn't a restraint on behavior. I would strongly question the "good" of people who see it as such.I prefer myself White Wolf's Humanity scale, where your Humanity is defined by the line you draw in the range of actions you would choose.
Humanity Rating Moral Guideline
10 Selfish thoughts
9 Minor selfish acts
8 Injury to another (accidental or otherwise)
7 Theft
6 Accidental violation (drinking a vessel dry out of starvation)
5 Intentional property damage
4 Impassioned violation (manslaughter, killing a vessel in frenzy)
3 Planned violation (outright murder, savored exsanguination)
2 Casual violation (thoughtless killing, feeding past satiation)
1 Utter perversion or heinous acts
0 No moral values. Must sleep, must feed, must kill
It reflects the fact that perfect Humanity is something that very few people reach. The table can also describe Humans that are more monstrous than the average vampire.
A better example is a more standard "Trains run on time" villain. Like Dr. Doom.
Generally speaking areas under his control are prosperous and the people are happy, if a bit restricted. The heroes generally agree that if Doom were running the world, it would be a better place.
Of course, he's willing to cheat, murder, and steal to gain that sort of control, and doesn't care who he hurts in the process. Because he is Doom, and h is better than you, and if you don't recognize that you're too dumb to live.
That would be a strictly worse example, since Doctor doom is neither Good while hurting others, or Evil while actually having moral values, so it wouldn't satisfy the challenge.
Hey, real estate mogul till beats tyrant.
Yes, if you have the TARDIS, you can accomplish the goal without being a dick. Unfortunately, Todd doesn't have it.
*snip*Nope. Still evil. Ends don't justify means.
And jackpot. Evil character who thinks everyone has certain fundamental rights does exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*snip*Nope. Still evil. Ends don't justify means.
The ends always justify the means. If they don't, you have chosen either the wrong ends or the wrong means.
Means can't justify themselves. Ends do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The man of superior virtue is not conscious of his virtue,
And in this way he really possesses virtue.
The man of inferior virtue never loses sight of his virtue,
And in this way he loses his virtue.
Therefore, only when Tao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise.
When virtue is lost, only then does the doctrine of humanity arise.
When humanity is lost, only then does the doctrine of righteousness arise.
When righteousness is lost, only then does the doctrine of propriety arise.
Now, propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder...
*snip*Nope. Still evil. Ends don't justify means.The ends always justify the means. If they don't, you have chosen either the wrong ends or the wrong means.
Means can't justify themselves. Ends do.
Ends never justify the means. You can't, for example, say, "I will kill anyone who I see that pollutes. Pollution hurts the planet, therefore killing polluters helps the planet, therefore helps everyone on the planet, therefore it is good."
You were protecting a village. You were legitimately in life threatening danger. You are pretty much 100% in the clear. Nobody would legitimately challenge it.
That looks like an "end" to me. Good needs to justify itself just as much as the next alignment. And the only thing that justify the "means" you use is the "end" you use them for. Means can never justify themselves.
Your "means" in the above example is not "protecting the village". That's your "ends". Your "means" is "killing the barbarian". That "means" is justified by the "ends" of protecting the village. Because the ends always justify the means. And if they don't... you chose the wrong the ends or the wrong means.
A few reasons:
1) It prevents players from doing what they want to do.
2) It limits character concepts.
3) It forces players to abide by Paizo's idiosyncratic interpretations of Good and Evil as concepts, which often conflict with GM and player interpretations of those concepts. This is to say nothing of the inherent weirdness of D&D morality, which is predicated on the notion that disreputable tomb robbers who slaughter thousands of living creatures over their adventuring career are fundamentally good, and that downtrodden creatures attempting to eke out an existence in a hostile world the only way they know how are fundamentally evil. Within such a bizarre moral universe, it's no surprise players are confused by the arbitrary restrictions the alignment system imposes.
4) Going against one's alignment is actively discouraged by RAW, even though "going against one's alignment" would often be the most interesting thing to happen in the campaign at that moment and make for a better story.
5) Absolute morality doesn't exist, and pretending that it does is, ironically, the most common justification for evil acts.
I forget, are we discussing real world morality, or D&D alignments at this point?
Regarding Mother Theresa, what she did is eye-wateringly horrible. Evil (with a capital E) is merely the beginning of it. Caring for dying people is something you do with the help of painkillers. It is not a question of money; morphine is cheap enough. There is NOTHING noble about suffering, drooling about it is flat out monstrous. So, sadly she won't serve as an example of a Good person who thinks people should suffer. She would bring tears to Urgathoa's eyes.
He doesn't though. That's the problem. He thinks that everyone has fundamental rights until those rights become problematic, at which time he discards them because they don't suit his needs.And jackpot. Evil character who thinks everyone has certain fundamental rights does exist.*snip*Nope. Still evil. Ends don't justify means.
No, he merely thinks that some rights are more important than others, mainly the right to not be eaten by a horror from beyond the veil of time and space is more important than stuff about not being oppressed, equality, and so on.
> Ends never justify the means. You can't, for example, say, "I will kill anyone who I see that pollutes. Pollution hurts the planet, therefore killing polluters helps the planet, therefore helps everyone on the planet, therefore it is good."
You do realise that "a whole bunch of people being dead" is also part of your "ends", right? You can't arbitrarily exclude some consequences from integration while leaving others, or of course you would get meaningless results.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I guess it's actually necessary to point out that the phrase "the ends justify the means" is used in relation to specific circumstances. It's not some abstract general principle. Whether it's true or not depends on what the ends and means are. Using it as an abstract absolute in relation to nothing in particular is utterly absurd.
The ends are to serve coffee, the means are money to buy a coffee maker and a trip to the store. The ends are to prevent people from littering, and the means are mass detainment camps. The ends are to stop a bizarre argument over phrase that's meaninglessly abstract without context,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except killing people can very easily turn you to Evil. Killing innocents is evil. Killing when you have the option of simply knocking off is evil. Killing as anything but a last measure is very close to the Evil end of Neutral.
No.
Unless your setting is deep in the land of unicorns and rainbows, killing should be your default option against opponents who resort to lethal force in a confrontation (thus excluding petty criminals and whatever). Sure, a hero can show mercy, on case-by-case basis. Sparing enemies who happen to still live despite their wounds after dust settles down also might - might - be admirable. Going out of your way to keep enemies alive for the sake of keeping them alive? That's just offering potential opponents the perverse incentive to use lethal force with abandon, as they can reasonably expect your first option to be disabling them non-lethally regardless of their own methods.
Similarly, there is the question of what exactly the villain did to earn the hero's opposition. Forgiveness is all fine and dandy - but again only until the point when it becomes so expected that unrepentant villains start confidently including it in their risk-benefit calculations. After crossing that point all it does is offering an incentive for atrocity.
There is also the question of how much support structure a hero has and whether he can relegate to the society the responsibility of dealing with his foes once their immediate combat capacity is removed. Catching a criminal red-handed when the courts and the penitentiary system largely work and can be expected to deal with him is one matter. Catching a criminal red-handed when neither even exist, and the only justice to be found is meted by your own sword is another. In DnD the latter is generally true.
It is certainly not Good.
It is. In fact, DnDland and by extension Golarion are structured in a way that sparing your typical enemies in your average adventure usually requires greater moral flexibility than killing them all. In fact, I've observed a couple of my players insisting that their characters are of Evil or Chaotic Neutral alignment for seemingly no other reason than their desire to avoid situations where they would be obliged to kill people they'd rather spare. Because, while they undestand the reasoning outlined above, the adventures are so flooded with unrepentant villains deserving to be put to the sword that all the slaughter begins stretching suspension of disbelief. (I do believe that most of the "poor widdle goblins/drow/serpentfolk/whatever are just doing what they can to survive!" sentiment comes from the same source.)
I mean... At the very least, you are using the energies of planes who are objectively Evil, bent on corrupting you, and dedicated to spread suffering, oppression and despair through the whole multiverse... How is that not evil?
So, I'm also draining those planes of energy and take their servants out of active duty in the process of achieving my goals? How is that not good?
Do note, I'm all for having Evil powers that should not be used due to their inherently corruptive nature or requirements of amorality. However, the first step to having such in DnD/PF is admitting that [Evil] spells and most other things that supposed to fill this niche do not actually do that. They just don't. Animate Dead does not enslave people in a torturous mockery of life like it does in its likely source of inspiration, it just makes mindless necromantic robots. Summoning demons and devils does not require you to sell your soul and is not associated with terrible risks, it actually just gives you a perfect way to dance around the issue of enslavement inherent in the Planar Binding spells, because in case of Evil outsiders your slaves deserve anything you might do to them. Casting Unholy Blight does not really make your opponents die any more painfully than casting Fireball, and there is no mechanical cost for smiting your foes with dark power. What the rules say they do and what they actually do are currently two different things.
5) Absolute morality doesn't exist,
Only absolute morality exists.
Or in other words, any morality that is not absolute is not a morality at all, but merely a set of rules of convenience. By very definition it does not have normative force. And therefore it auto-fails at the actual function of morality, that is compelling people to choose something else over their personal gain/convenience.
and pretending that it does is, ironically, the most common justification for evil acts.
The most common justification for evil acts is "I want this".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of things are evil/bad/dishonorable in D&D/Pathfinder because of fantasy tropes. Poison is almost always something only the villain would use. The heroes don't go around raising undead to fight for them. Making bargains with demons is something that evil people in fantasy stories.
So D&D in its attempt to bring it over made it objectively bad to do these things.
Some people want this fantasy in their games while others do not like the objective "This is bad..".
The intent is there<-----That most likely goes without saying.
I think that rallying against it will only make Paizo put it in more concrete terms, so it is likely better to just say "I know what PF wants, but in my games.....".
A lot of things are evil/bad/dishonorable in D&D/Pathfinder because of fantasy tropes. Poison is almost always something only the villain would use. The heroes don't go around raising undead to fight for them. Making bargains with demons is something that evil people in fantasy stories.
So D&D in its attempt to bring it over made it objectively bad to do these things.
Oh, I understand that. The problem is, DnD does so without really understanding reasons why those things are objectively bad
Bargaining with demons is what evil people do because only people who would not rather ask Heaven for help are people whose goals are too selfish and repellent. But given how Planar Binding works, using it to summon angels can be hardly different. (Conversely, enslaving sapient beings for power through binding magic and breaking their will, which is closer to how DnD demon-summoning works by rules, is also what evil people do... but when those beings are purely evil and every day they spend in servitude is a day they cannot spend trying to kill and torture everyone, arguments that enslaving demons can be ethical are not difficult to construct.)
Heroes gather living troops instead of going around raising undead, because creating puppets stripped of free will to fight for you is what a villain does.
But DnD has so many more ways to place combat puppets on the battlefield, such as Summon Monster, that this argument stops holding water - disposable minions who are extensions of a caster's will are just a part of combat tactics.
Heroes do not use poison because it is either a tool for covert assassination under the mask of friendship (if used somewhat realistically) or, at best, a way to take opponents of greater skill with you, instead of training to beat them fair and square (if applied to a blade). But in DnD poisons outside of combat are laughably ineffective and in combat your ability to use them effectively depend on your skill, in fact, potence of a creature's poison is determined by its general badassery. Moreover, there is a pile of spells that do the same thing poisons do but better, so singling poisons out looks strange in DnDland.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Challenge accepted.
[...]
Now, where is my cookie?
Nowhere.
You had to summon up three plot devices (a demon, an unspeakable horror AND a spell to prevent the king from talking about both) and you STILL couldn't give me an Evil character who believed everyone had fundamental rights.
As for a Good character who believes the weak deserve to suffer as much as they can, read something about Mother Teresa that wasn't written by her fan.
No.
You fail. Utterly.