|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem was, my Summoner's list of creatures he could summon was nothing but animals (which don't understand languages) and one demon. Summoning the demon would give the spell the Evil descriptor and thus make it an Evil act.... but the only reason I'd have chosen the demon anyway is that it was the only method I had of non-lethally restraining an enemy combatant! (Animals couldn't be told to capture but not kill.) In what messed-up morality does "saving the lives of the innocent" = Evil?!
I agree with you. That would be messed up. But it's not an inherent consequence of Aligned spells being Aligned acts.
I, for example, absolutely consider casting an Aligned spell a minor Aligned act. And would continue to do so under these circumstances. But in this situation, you're doing two acts: One minor Evil act (the spell), and one pretty significant Good act (saving a life).
The net Alignment effect of that combination would shift you solidly toward Good if anything.
Now, when the spell being an aligned act becomes relevant is when you're using it a lot to commit entirely Neutral acts (say, always using it even in fight because it's the most powerful creature of that level). Do that and you're starting to slip a little (though not enough to actually switch Alignments if you're still a good guy otherwise).
And it's of course relevant if you happen to be a Paladin, who aren't allowed to commit even the most minor of Evil acts. Even for the greater good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone falls in the movies, it doesn't happen after casting the fifty-third protection from good spell. Let's take an example:
Judge Claude Frollo of the Disney movie Hunchback of Notre Dame: He is far from a pleasant man from the start. He despises gypsies, indeed he sees society as at war with them. When faced with Quasimodo, he first intends to have him killed due to his deformity, but realizes he would damn himself if he did. If he did, there would be no way back. Even in his shriveled soul, there is enough good (or maybe fear of the tortures of Hell) to force him to save the child.
However, years later he meets Esmeralda. And he must have her. In the face of this need, he chooses to set fire to the city (IIRC), knowing full well the consequences of doing so for his immortal soul. The act he finally fell for was monstrous, not some little piddling thing.
Otherwise put: Everyone eventually gets one final warning, and yet they choose to ignore it.
However, I would say having lesser evil acts be routine is perfectly sufficient to make you Evil.
Dragonhunter, good acts in general don't improve your alignment if you're evil. Good vs. Evil isn't about how much good you do, it's about how much evil you don't do (the Neutral-to-Good spectrum blurs this a bit, but that's not what we're talking about). This is why saving one orphanage and burning down another doesn't even out.
I agree with you in principle, but by making the casting of spells affect your alignment directly you change that dynamic. If spells have a direct and real impact on your alignment just by the act of casting them then there is no other conclusion than you can use that to balance your alignment in a way that other actions can't. To state otherwise is to deny that spells are an aligned act or have a material affect on your alignment.
You can't have it both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frollo was definitely evil from the start. He's a Lawful Evil who's challenged and nearly becomes Chaotic or Neutral Evil by the end of it. Ultimately, though, he's able to force Esmerelda into a binary choice that matches his values: She can submit to him or she can burn. I'd say this salvages his Lawful nature. It's sort of an uplifting story of a man who struggles to maintain a basic code in the face of self-created adversity.
Yes, I know this has nothing to do with anything. I just think discussing the alignments of Disney villains is a million times more interesting than repetitive arguments about spells where we repeat the same points over and over.
I agree with you in principle, but by making the casting of spells affect your alignment directly you change that dynamic. If spells have a direct and real impact on your alignment just by the act of casting them then there is no other conclusion than you can use that to balance your alignment in a way that other actions can't. To state otherwise is to deny that spells are an aligned act or have a material affect on your alignment.
You can't have it both ways.
If we consider casting a spell to be an act aligned with its descriptor, no, we don't have to follow those rules. If we consider [evil] spells to do a tangible evil to the soul of the caster, you're right.
If we assume that an [evil] spell has an evil component we don't see—like using the soulstuff of conjured larvae, or corrupting the target in a tangible way—it's an evil act. If we assume an [evil] spell just makes us evil just 'cause, you're right.
In my games, for example, the rules on using spells to grind alignment are in place to stop that kind of abuse. It will never happen. That is because my personal house rules call for a character casting a spell with a descriptor that is contrary to their base alignment as a "moderate" infraction, while casting in according is a "minor" reward.
This seems, to me, to be an elegant solution to the question posed by this thread. Like must be met with like; you can't get into Heaven just by giving everyone you've wronged a fruit basket.
Also, in the Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide, it lists example penances for someone looking to redeem themselves from Evil, and it notes that casting a spell with the [good] descriptor is a penance one can perform — but it only works once per stage (i.e., once at Evil, once at Neutral).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a MtG card that had a beautiful take on this: Reparations. The flavour text was "Sorry I burned down your village. Here's some gold."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the discombobulation over aligned spells comes from the basically Aristotelean and Judeo-Christian idea of evil as a deviation from good, rather than a thing with its own independent existence. PF evil is the latter because PF alignment is a dualistic system. So you have this common trope of the moral temptation of power that is modelled quite well by casting evil spells being an evil act. But it seems counterintuitive that casting good spells would tempt you to the side of good, because culturally we tend to see good as what you get tempted away from, not toward. Evil is easy. Good is hard.
Kobold Cleaver: I submit that the very high standard Superman who would rather die than kill Zod isn't good at all, if not killing Zod means Zod is going to go kill other people. That's squeamishness, not good. It's an example of the fluffy Hollywood morality like "if you don't do what I say their deaths will be on your hands" and the hero actually morally agrees with that preposterous statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People, on the most part, like to assume they are good people. They like to think of themselves as better. But on the whole, they are not. And in my opinion many of those who argue so fiercely to justify in game evil actions as either non-evil or good do so because they do not want to face the idea that they are not the good person they imagine themselves to be.
Not that there is anything wrong with not being Good, most of us are Neutral, neither Good nor Evil. We do a little good, we do a little evil, but we don't go out of our way to dedicate ourselves to either. The people that do dedicate themselves, for either extreme, are very often noted for their deviation from the Neutral baseline. Good, or Evil, takes actual work and effort that most of us just aren't willing to make. Just going about your life not hurting people isn't Good, for that you'd need to go out of your way to help others CONSTANTLY. And most of us don't.
Which is fine. We're not bad people. Just not Good.
But people still, even when they do not dedicate themselves to capitol-g Good still like to assume they are big-g Good. If you ask them if they are a good person they will likely say yes. And so this translates to the characters they play. They put a G down in alignment, and then play the character based on their own personality and morals. In many ways the character is a reflection of their selves.
So now you have people taking actions in a game, actions that the game tells them are capitol-e Evil. And the player, who thinks of themselves as Good is suddenly confronted with something telling them that they are not. In a way, it can even seem as if the game is insulting them by saying they aren't good. And faced with that, they refuse to abandon their idea of their own goodness, and instead argue that the game itself is wrong, not them.
So in my opinion, that's why people get so bent out of shape over this alignment thing.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just going about your life not hurting people isn't Good, for that you'd need to go out of your way to help others CONSTANTLY. And most of us don't.
While there's some truth in most of your post, this last bit is both incorrect, and kinda toxic if examined.
See, we have lots of sample characters in Paizo's adventures, and the Good ones aren't held to nearly this high a standard. Because it's impossible. Nobody can, or should generally try to, go out of their way to help others CONSTANTLY. It's not remotely healthy or sustainable to constantly do anything selfless and take no time for yourself, and you'll damage yourself if you try to.
Now, like I said, I actually agree with the majority of the post that most people aren't Good aligned, but it's not as rare as this bit implies. Do you go out of your way to help strangers when it comes up, or do you walk away thinking 'this isn't my problem'? Most people do the latter, and that's an indication of Neutrality rather than Good. What job have you chosen and why? If it was to actively help people as much as you could, that's an indication of Good, but not the reason most people pick their jobs.
And so on. It's not necessary to try and be some sort of martyr or burn yourself out performing good deeds every single moment to be Good...but it is necessary to put in some real effort to make the world better, and not just the token effort for their friends many people put in. Time, energy, and possibly risk need to be invested in the helping of others or you're fooling yourself.
Maybe this good aligned with a capital G thing makes sense to the Abrahamic religions. I'm not sure they know what they're talking about though, so that is more likely where my issue is.
I mean, there is an objective good, but no one can access it, because even the gods fail the objectivity test in universe profoundly.
And really, the thought of a human pretending to be the objective arbiter of good as a GM is profoundly laughable. Talk about hubris.
What kind of bastard steals money from a tip jar?
In most cases, it's the man who owns the buisness. And I'm referring to restaurant owners to take a percentage of their staff's tips, not the guy who's running a one man lemonade stand.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Robin Hood was a poacher and/or thief, and used the threat of violence, but to my recollection was not a killer (depending on which fable/book/movie one recalls), and has been used as the example of Chaotic Good since he was acting to keep the populace from starving (despite lawful orders not to hunt illegally).
I actually can't think of a version where he DIDN'T kill anyone besides the Disney version where he was a talking fox. Even the Errol Flynn version did, plus a couple of classic versions I've read, including when he showed up in Ivanhoe.
But - I also can't think of one where he was a murderer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this good aligned with a capital G thing makes sense to the Abrahamic religions. I'm not sure they know what they're talking about though, so that is more likely where my issue is.
I mean, there is an objective good, but no one can access it, because even the gods fail the objectivity test in universe profoundly.
And really, the thought of a human pretending to be the objective arbiter of good as a GM is profoundly laughable. Talk about hubris.
Meh, if it was an Abrahamic thing then I would expect that Good would be based on what the Good gods approve of. Everything God wants is Good because God is Good full stop no questions asked.
A very quick google search tells me that "It's good because the universe says so" is more of a Hindu thing, if I understand the wikipedia page correctly.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.
Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.
Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.
the book says orcs are chaotic evil.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the book says orcs are chaotic evil.the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.
To quote the book:
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
So...no. Not to the extent of being born Evil so you should kill babies it doesn't.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads.
you're assuming the role of a character in a fantasy story setting. so I don't know what you mean.
and I agree that it would suck to play in a game where a gm forced players into a moral dilemma that the players aren't comfortable in. but its a hypothetical scenario that can happen in the galorian setting.
and yeah, to an extent I agree with you about paladins. but paladins are the quintessential hero revered by all, it shouldn't be easy being a paladin.
the book says orcs are chaotic evil.the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.To quote the book:
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.So...no. Not to the extent of being born Evil so you should kill babies it doesn't.
your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.
the book says orcs are chaotic evil.the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.The book also says that monster alignments are tendencies, not absolutes.
Nor does the book say your mission is "wipe out all evil".
I never stated that the book states that the heroic mission is to wipe out all evil. I said if its your goal. not your goal as defined by the book.
and okay, the book says that orcs tend to be evil. it doesn't state what makes them evil. tends to be evil implies that the majority are evil. does that mean smite evil would work on 9/10 orc babies?
anyway, I'm getting the feeling that people are missing my point. I'm not saying that what I'm saying is the ideal way to play, I'm pointing out the problems inherent in the games system.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.
It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions.
the book says orcs are chaotic evil.the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Uh...what? The book says nothing of the kind. At all.The book also says that monster alignments are tendencies, not absolutes.
Nor does the book say your mission is "wipe out all evil".I never stated that the book states that the heroic mission is to wipe out all evil. I said if its your goal. not your goal as defined by the book.
and okay, the book says that orcs tend to be evil. it doesn't state what makes them evil. tends to be evil implies that the majority are evil. does that mean smite evil would work on 9/10 orc babies?
anyway, I'm getting the feeling that people are missing my point. I'm not saying that what I'm saying is the ideal way to play, I'm pointing out the problems inherent in the games system.
I never stated that you 'have' to go out and kill evil things. I said that if that was your characters mission.
the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads.
you're assuming the role of a character in a fantasy story setting. so I don't know what you mean.
and I agree that it would suck to play in a game where a gm forced players into a moral dilemma that the players aren't comfortable in. but its a hypothetical scenario that can happen in the galorian setting.
and yeah, to an extent I agree with you about paladins. but paladins are the quintessential hero revered by all, it shouldn't be easy being a paladin.
I never said it should, but quite frankly if your primary idea of testing a Paladin is mainly this sort of thing, I have no interest in playing one in your campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally only have a problem when two specific thought processes interact:
1) If you do Evil deeds you become Evil. In particular, the Assassin is the worst offender because in order to become an "Assassin" you have to be Evil (even though there's tons of examples of Assassins in fiction that struggle with what they have to do, that live precariously on the balance between Good and Evil). Unlike Evil Spells, which slowly turn you to Evil, you just ARE evil. Flat out. But y'know what? I can live with that, given that Pathfinder has Good and Evil as cosmic constants, a guy who has performed enough Evil acts to be Evil but doesn't consider himself Evil is kinda interesting...
2) But then you have the whole idea of "you must roleplay your alignment". Now as far as I know, this isn't an official rule, but I constantly see people describe how Chaotic Neutrals, for example, are supposed to act, and it often comes up when people act in a specific way and then mention their alignment and shock and awe "you haven't been role playing your alignment". And Evil characters are pretty much assumed to all be manipulative, greedy, wicked people, when apparently all you need to be Evil is to simply have a love of summoning demons or have a profession that involves killing people, both of which I can admit are evil acts but neither will completely skew your character's personality to "always evil all the time".
My point then, is that I can deal with Evil characters being evil because of deeds, but then I'm supposed to roleplay them in a specific way because of it? I can also deal with Evil characters having to act in Evil ways from Evil motives, but having both Evil Actions making you Evil AND having Evil Alignment influence your Personality really puts a damper in my role play vibe.
Again, I don't really consider this a problem with the rules, so much as the unfortunate collision of two commonly held gameplay philosophies.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally only have a problem when two specific thought processes interact:
1) If you do Evil deeds you become Evil. In particular, the Assassin is the worst offender because in order to become an "Assassin" you have to be Evil (even though there's tons of examples of Assassins in fiction that struggle with what they have to do, that live precariously on the balance between Good and Evil). Unlike Evil Spells, which slowly turn you to Evil, you just ARE evil. Flat out. But y'know what? I can live with that, given that Pathfinder has Good and Evil as cosmic constants, a guy who has performed enough Evil acts to be Evil but doesn't consider himself Evil is kinda interesting...
On the assassin thing: For the record, you can be an assassin without having the Assassin Prestige Class. Ninjas and Slayers both have a Talent called 'Assassinate' available for example. You just need to be doing it based on some standard other than 'I'll kill absolutely anyone I'm paid to kill, because I like money.' which is the basis for the Prestige Class. Political assassination of your government's enemies? Depends on the government, but you can almost certainly manage to be at least Neutral if the government is Neutral or Good. Killing the legitimately Evil as an avenging vigilante-type? You can again, manage Neutral and maybe even Good. And so on.
2) But then you have the whole idea of "you must roleplay your alignment". Now as far as I know, this isn't an official rule, but I constantly see people describe how Chaotic Neutrals, for example, are supposed to act, and it often comes up when people act in a specific way and then mention their alignment and shock and awe "you haven't been role playing your alignment". And Evil characters are pretty much assumed to all be manipulative, greedy, wicked people, when apparently all you need to be Evil is to simply have a love of summoning demons or have a profession that involves killing people, both of which I can admit are evil acts but neither will completely skew your character's personality to "always evil all the time".
My point then, is that I can deal with Evil characters being evil because of deeds, but then I'm supposed to roleplay them in a specific way because of it? I can also deal with Evil characters having to act in Evil ways from Evil motives, but having both Evil Actions making you Evil AND having Evil Alignment influence your Personality really puts a damper in my role play vibe.
Again, I don't really consider this a problem with the rules, so much as the unfortunate collision of two commonly held gameplay philosophies.
Alignment is explicitly descriptive, not prescriptive. It is determined by your actions, it does not determine them. Period. Explicitly so, according to both the books, and the people at Paizo.
When most people say 'That's not how a CN character acts!' what they really mean, in game terms, is that if you keep acting that way regularly, it will shift your Alignment to no longer be CN (since actions shape alignment), not that you can't act that way, or that your alignment even inherently makes it less likely. Alignment dictates behavior only in the sense that past behavior dictates future behavior for real people, which is a fair bit, but can definitely be subject to changes of heart and the like.
Now, some players and GMs really do mean it the way it sounds. They, however, are factually wrong about the way that alignment is supposed to function.
I never said it should, but quite frankly if your primary idea of testing a Paladin is mainly this sort of thing, I have no interest in playing one in your campaign.the reason people debate and rebel against what the book states is a good act and an evil act is because what the book states as good and evil acts can and often does make for absolutely terrible stories. its the orc baby dilemma all over again. the book states that orcs are evil and if its your heroes mission to wipe out all evil it must then follow that you must kill every baby.Roleplaying games were never intended to be a vehicle for story writing. They're essentially designed to be four to eight hour excursions in fantasy gaming.
There may be DMs out there who want to make orc or goblin babies the central moral issue of their campaigns. Those aren't campaigns that I'm interested in playing, nor do I think that they should be the central paradigms on how you design a game whose aim is heroic fantasy roleplaying.
And quite frankly the main reason people argue these things is to look for another way to make Paladins fall. If that class had never existed, neither would most of these threads.
you're assuming the role of a character in a fantasy story setting. so I don't know what you mean.
and I agree that it would suck to play in a game where a gm forced players into a moral dilemma that the players aren't comfortable in. but its a hypothetical scenario that can happen in the galorian setting.
and yeah, to an extent I agree with you about paladins. but paladins are the quintessential hero revered by all, it shouldn't be easy being a paladin.
...its not.
your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions.
were talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
were talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies.your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions.
Literally everything in the post you responded to was either game rules, or a direct logical inference from said rules.
So...no. The rules do not in fact lead to killing orc babies as a good thing. They pretty explicitly don't.
The Alignment rules actually pretty consistent with most modern real world morality (at least, as applied in a situation like adventurers often find themselves in) if you actually read them. They're intentionally vague on the details, but the general thrust? Pretty consistent with the moral codes of most reasonable people I know.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Ninjas!
I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies.
... aaaaaaaaaactually, it's not the way it's defined - not really.
In-game morality has "killing" is associated with evil (along with hurting and oppressing); the only time it is good to kill evil is when the evil is either demonstrably implausible to change (i.e. inherently aligned) or actively trying to commit a severity of evil right now that will result in the harm of others.
Adventurers live in this dynamic, yes, but outside of very, very weird circumstances, there should never come a point at which adventurers somehow managed to slaughter an entire orc tribe and have no method of even attempting to find the babies some method of being raised into goodness.
Heck, simply conjuring a [good] celestial and going, "Look, I know you're busy and all, but you guys are immortal - please either take care of these little ones, or give me the name (or conjure for me) a celestial you'd trust to raise these guys to be good, and I'll hand 'em over with payment for services rendered." should cover most parties that ever come to that dilemma.
There may well be cases where such a thing is necessary, but those should not be common - and such fringe cases prove little other than, "Hey, look, any system of rules is breakable by men, 'cause we're jerks." rather than, "There's something wrong with this system of rules."
I mean, I could also have a trapped host of benevolent angels who've been magically wired to a doom-plague that slowly consumes the souls of local prisoners and turns them into double-HD unhallowed zombies as long as the angel remains good aligned. Do I murder the angels? Allow the people to be turned into monstrosities? In all likelihood, the correct answer is, "I cast miracle from my scroll and fix the whole stupid thing." but it's still possible for a GM to throw such terrible decisions at a party too low-level to handle it.
And then, sure, you're left with a moral quandary, but, "Slaughter the thing." isn't always the "good" option, and isn't even the default "good" option. It's a quick and easy option, sure, but not a "good" one, unless there is some other extenuating circumstance that makes it "good" - it implies respect for life, altruism, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
(Not read all of both of those today - could be interesting contradictions there.)
were talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about good and evil as the game defines them which are very different from the concept of good and evil in reality. my point is that good and evil in pathfinder are inherent unlike real life. and its because of this, you can end up with absurd scenarios where it can be the 'good' thing to kill a horde of orc babies.your quote doesn't contradict what I said. the book states they are evil but there are exceptions. them being infants isn't listed under the exceptions and is thus up to GM discretion.It contradicts that you must kill all orcs to kill all evil things. Which, as thejeff notes isn't actually something the book says you need to do either...
Indeed, most things less than 5 HD (including orcs) cannot be detected as Evil even with magic...so killing them 'for being Evil' is impossible. You can only kill them for having done (presumably Evil) stuff. Babies have not committed any crimes, and are at less than 5 HD (well, Orc babies anyway).
Killing babies because 'they might be Evil' seems pretty Evil by all reasonable definitions.
Literally everything in the post you responded to was either game rules, or a direct logical inference from said rules.
So...no. The rules do not in fact lead to killing orc babies as a good thing. They pretty explicitly don't.
The Alignment rules actually pretty consistent with most modern real world morality (at least, as applied in a situation like adventurers often find themselves in) if you actually read them. They're intentionally vague on the details, but the general thrust? Pretty consistent with the moral codes of most reasonable people I know.
what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil?
It contacts, causes, and utilizes corruption (actual tangible evil) to accomplish its stated purpose.
EDIT: Let's expand on this.
Let me put it this way.
If I could find the cure for all disease by taking a roughly equal number of people that would die from disease (regardless of their alignment, though I'd start with the nasty people to ensure it's mostly bad things done to bad guys, before I run out of those) and actively torturing them for amounts of time nearly equal to those that disease would afflict, would the cost be too high?
Mind, I'm not actually killing those people that art tortured - strictly catch and release. In a way, it would seem like I'm being (objectively) "good" in the sense that I'm saving lives and healing others.
Except, it's clearly not - it's playing moral calculus (which is not inherently evil, but can easily lean that way) and harming and degrading sentient creatures for the benefit of other sentient creatures.
Infernal Healing might well be used for good purposes, negating some of the outright evil that comes from the spell, but it explicitly also taps into infernal forces that tangibly exist in the PF omniverse that destroy, devour, and torment others - sure, most of them were evil enough to get sent there, but it also generates a recursive cycle of "Hey, look, doing bad things to others is a-okay, and a good way of doing things." while staining the person (temporarily?) with evil, as well as yourself.
... ooooorrrrrrrrr don't play it that way (I don't); it's simply enough to know that the RAI is supposed to.
On the assassin thing: For the record, you can be an assassin without having the Assassin Prestige Class. Ninjas and Slayers both have a Talent called 'Assassinate' available for example. You just need to be doing it based on some standard other than 'I'll kill absolutely anyone I'm paid to kill, because I like money.' which is the basis for the Prestige Class. Political assassination of your government's enemies? Depends on the government, but you can almost certainly manage to be at least Neutral if the government is Neutral or Good. Killing the legitimately Evil as an avenging vigilante-type? You can again, manage Neutral and maybe even Good. And so on.
Yeah, it's *kinda* an out of date complaint because of the Slayer existing (one of the many reasons I love the class), but I always took the reasoning of the Assassin needing to be evil being that Killing for Money is an Evil Act, therefore if that is to be your profession you need to be a Evil Guy. Which is problematic if I want to play a Shades of Grey type Assassin (or a Slayer that commits as many evil acts in the process as an Assassin would). In groups that are really pushing the "roleplay your alignment", it's a problem at least.
There are also however supernatural influences on alignment - from minor but cumulative things like casting aligned spells to drastic things like a cursed alignment switching object. These directly affect your alignment and should affect behavior as well - again, drastically in the case of the cursed item and much more gradually in the case of aligned spells.
Interesting perspective- I've always considered cursed items that magically change alignment to be an excuse to "unrealistically" portray an alignment due to the forced nature of the change, but never thought of casting spells in the same way. I'm not 100% sure I agree, but it's a decent justification of the supposed descent into Evil from casting evil spells.
The rest of it still runs into problems with the Assassin dilemma though- I need to have Evil written on my sheet to be an Assassin (or in the case of a Slayer of the Assassin profession, have likely killed enough people to be Evil), but that doesn't mean I'm going to be acting evil in every way- for a shades of grey assassin I might actually be a pretty nice guy when I'm off the job. So do I need to change what I've written down on my character sheet? Except it's only written down on my character sheet because I've committed a lot of Evil Acts, so I can't remove it, really. And that is essentially my quandary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In-game morality has "killing" is associated with evil (along with hurting and oppressing); the only time it is good to kill evil is when the evil is either demonstrably implausible to change (i.e. inherently aligned) or actively trying to commit a severity of evil right now that will result in the harm of others.
I agree with the rest of your post - but I'm going to have to nitpick here.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
The 'and' indicates that they have to do all 3 to be evil. If killing alone were inherently evil, it would say 'or'.
The bit about neutral confirms this, as it specifically says that they have compunctions about killing the innocent specifically. This strongly implies per 'exception that proves the rule' (about the most misused logical phrase - but correct here) that killing the non-innocent is a neutral act rather than evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rest of it still runs into problems with the Assassin dilemma though- I need to have Evil written on my sheet to be an Assassin (or in the case of a Slayer of the Assassin profession, have likely killed enough people to be Evil), but that doesn't mean I'm going to be acting evil in every way- for a shades of grey assassin I might actually be a pretty nice guy when I'm off the job. So do I need to change what I've written down on my character sheet? Except it's only written down on my character sheet because I've committed a lot of Evil Acts, so I can't remove it, really. And that is essentially my quandary.
If you murder people for a living but you give half the gold to charity & on your days off you help little old ladies across the street - you're still evil. Maybe not a cackling villain Joker style - but still quite evil.
So... working as intended.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil?
I was talking about killing orc babies being Good. Which there's no evidence of being a thing. Not every possible reason you could object to Alignment. That was my primary point there.
But if you want to talk about Infernal Healing being Evil, though, I have a simple answer:
If you use an Evil spell to save a life when there was no other way to save them, then you've performed two deeds, one minor Evil act and a major Good act. You therefore, if anything, move your Alignment toward Good.
If you had other ways to save them, why'd you use the Evil spell? Was it cheaper and more efficient? Then you're probably in a little more trouble Alignment-wise.
Who was it you saved and why? A random stranger out of charity and kindness? You're still Good (and becoming more so) then, I mean, you're saving strangers even if you're doing it a bit wrongly.
Was it a close friend because you care for them? Now we're getting into the realm where you might be in trouble. Helping your friends is a Good act...but not a very Good one. Even Evil people do it pretty regularly, after all. Still, probably evens out at Neutral at worst.
Was it an ally who you do not consider a friend purely because you needed his aid to accomplish a goal? Now we're into the realm of a Neutral act done with an Evil spell when other options were available...and a little bit Evil. Not alot, certainly not enough to change alignments, but a little bit.
And then of course there's using a Wand of Infernal Healing rather than one of Cure Light Wounds purely as a cost-cutting measure and mostly because people are down some HP, not because anyone's dying. That's choosing the Evil option out of pure expedience and saves nobody who wouldn't be saved the other way. And that's when it starts being a real issue. When you do it constantly out of expedience.
And even then, you're fine unless you're a Paladin if you're Good and heroic otherwise. Even lots of little Evil acts don't inherently make you Evil if there's a lot of Good to balance them. It's if you're playing a LN Wizard who keeps to his deals but has no real moral sense aside from that and you do this sort of thing constantly that you're on a trip to the land of Evil Alignment (LE specifically in that example).
All that seems reasonable to me. And if Infernal Healing is, say, powered by the suffering of damned souls in Hell (as befits Asmodeus having created it, and it's [evil] descriptor), or even just whispers corrupting words in one's ears while it is cast, well, then it having some effect on alignment seems very reasonable indeed.
On the assassin thing: For the record, you can be an assassin without having the Assassin Prestige Class. Ninjas and Slayers both have a Talent called 'Assassinate' available for example. You just need to be doing it based on some standard other than 'I'll kill absolutely anyone I'm paid to kill, because I like money.' which is the basis for the Prestige Class. Political assassination of your government's enemies? Depends on the government, but you can almost certainly manage to be at least Neutral if the government is Neutral or Good. Killing the legitimately Evil as an avenging vigilante-type? You can again, manage Neutral and maybe even Good. And so on.
Yeah, it's *kinda* an out of date complaint because of the Slayer existing (one of the many reasons I love the class), but I always took the reasoning of the Assassin needing to be evil being that Killing for Money is an Evil Act, therefore if that is to be your profession you need to be a Evil Guy. Which is problematic if I want to play a Shades of Grey type Assassin (or a Slayer that commits as many evil acts in the process as an Assassin would). In groups that are really pushing the "roleplay your alignment", it's a problem at least.
Actually, in my interpretation, it's only that you need to kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin.
Of course,
Alignment: Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment.
That sums up everything about assassin alignment - nothing about killing for money.
That said, if you kill just for money - without looking at the validity of the target, the reason for the assassination, or similar - you are definitely evil. But getting paid to kill someone isn't inherently a bad thing... just a dangerous line to walk.
There are also however supernatural influences on alignment - from minor but cumulative things like casting aligned spells to drastic things like a cursed alignment switching object. These directly affect your alignment and should affect behavior as well - again, drastically in the case of the cursed item and much more gradually in the case of aligned spells.
Interesting perspective- I've always considered cursed items that magically change alignment to be an excuse to "unrealistically" portray an alignment due to the forced nature of the change, but never thought of casting spells in the same way. I'm not 100% sure I agree, but it's a decent justification of the supposed descent into Evil from casting evil spells.
The rest of it still runs into problems with the Assassin dilemma though- I need to have Evil written on my sheet to be an Assassin (or in the case of a Slayer of the Assassin profession, have likely killed enough people to be Evil), but that doesn't mean I'm going to be acting evil in every way- for a shades of grey assassin I might actually be a pretty nice guy when I'm off the job. So do I need to change what I've written down on my character sheet? Except it's only written down on my character sheet because I've committed a lot of Evil Acts, so I can't remove it, really. And that is essentially my quandary.
Just killing people isn't a bad thing. Even killing lots of people. Otherwise, adventurers would be universally bad and paladins in the World Wound would be damned quickly.
In-game morality has "killing" is associated with evil (along with hurting and oppressing); the only time it is good to kill evil is when the evil is either demonstrably implausible to change (i.e. inherently aligned) or actively trying to commit a severity of evil right now that will result in the harm of others.
I agree with the rest of your post - but I'm going to have to nitpick here.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
The 'and' indicates that they have to do all 3 to be evil. If killing alone were inherently evil, it would say 'or'.
The bit about neutral confirms this, as it specifically says that they have compunctions about killing the innocent specifically. This strongly implies per 'exception that proves the rule' (about the most misused logical phrase - but correct here) that killing the non-innocent is a neutral act rather than evil.
I think you're disagreeing with a nuance that I mostly share with you.
I wasn't trying to say any killing other than that killing was evil, but rather that the only killing that could be good are the killings under the associated clauses.
(In fact, my wording "along with" was meant to include the three as a whole.)
Killing non-innocent certainly can be a neutral act (which is why animals aren't evil) - but if done with evil intent it still becomes an evil one. Effectively, it can be non-evil (and even be good in limited, specific instances), and isn't inherently evil, but killing is associated with evil.
I would not hang overmuch on the word "and" one way or the other (either to "need all three" or "only need one" - it could be read either way). :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's *kinda* an out of date complaint because of the Slayer existing (one of the many reasons I love the class), but I always took the reasoning of the Assassin needing to be evil being that Killing for Money is an Evil Act, therefore if that is to be your profession you need to be a Evil Guy. Which is problematic if I want to play a Shades of Grey type Assassin (or a Slayer that commits as many evil acts in the process as an Assassin would). In groups that are really pushing the "roleplay your alignment", it's a problem at least.
Killing for money isn't Evil, necessarily. Otherwise all mercenaries would be Evil. Especially special forces types who kill in cold blood and the like. Which they aren't. Usually Neutral or Evil? Yes. Inherently Evil? No.
Killing anyone you are paid to kill is the Evil part. If you're the sort of assassin who only kills certain categories of people ('No civilians' is a very valid code for this, for example) you could easily be Neutral, though probably not Good.
Interesting perspective- I've always considered cursed items that magically change alignment to be an excuse to "unrealistically" portray an alignment due to the forced nature of the change, but never thought of casting spells in the same way. I'm not 100% sure I agree, but it's a decent justification of the supposed descent into Evil from casting evil spells.
Powerful magic changing your Alignment is a weird exception to the rules. And super rare. It can be overcome under the right circumstances, though.
I personally don't feel like Evil spells are quite in this category. They're corrupting on a different level. Nobody forces you to cast them, you do so knowing you're calling upon the forces of Evil to achieve your magic's aim. Heck, maybe every one gives a little strength to creatures with that subtype. That doesn't outweigh a good enough reason to use one, but it definitely makes it a counsel of last resort if you don't like Evil stuff.
The rest of it still runs into problems with the Assassin dilemma though- I need to have Evil written on my sheet to be an Assassin (or in the case of a Slayer of the Assassin profession, have likely killed enough people to be Evil), but that doesn't mean I'm going to be acting evil in every way- for a shades of grey assassin I might actually be a pretty nice guy when I'm off the job. So do I need to change what I've written down on my character sheet? Except it's only written down on my character sheet because I've committed a lot of Evil Acts, so I can't remove it, really. And that is essentially my quandary.
You only change it if you retire, is the thing. Being a nice enough fellow most of the time doesn't exactly make up for multiple unjustified murders...and certainly not if you keep the job and keep killing people. That makes your continued pattern of behavior distinctly Evil.
Now, if you retire and legitimately try to be a nice guy, that's another matter. But it still requires more effort than just being superficially pleasant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, in my interpretation, it's only that you need to kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin.
Of course,
Alignment: Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment.That sums up everything about assassin alignment - nothing about killing for money.
That said, if you kill just for money - without looking at the validity of the target, the reason for the assassination, or similar - you are definitely evil. But getting paid to kill someone isn't inherently a bad thing... just a dangerous line to walk.
That's a fair point. I sorta misspoke. The part of being an assassin that is bad is the indiscriminate nature of the killing. Whether it's for money is pretty superfluous to that (though I do think that's the standard reason that members of the Class have most times).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rest of it still runs into problems with the Assassin dilemma though- I need to have Evil written on my sheet to be an Assassin (or in the case of a Slayer of the Assassin profession, have likely killed enough people to be Evil), but that doesn't mean I'm going to be acting evil in every way- for a shades of grey assassin I might actually be a pretty nice guy when I'm off the job. So do I need to change what I've written down on my character sheet? Except it's only written down on my character sheet because I've committed a lot of Evil Acts, so I can't remove it, really. And that is essentially my quandary.If you murder people for a living but you give half the gold to charity & on your days off you help little old ladies across the street - you're still evil. Maybe not a cackling villain Joker style - but still quite evil.
So... working as intended.
I'm not going to deny that, at least in the world of Golarion.
My problem is with the idea that then I have to act Evil, according to certain interpretations of the alignment system. The character could have convinced himself that he's not that bad of a guy (which explains why he gives to charities), and tries to act like a decent guy... except he still earns his money from killing other people. At the end of the day, still Evil, but he's not going to be dripping with malice in everything he does. He might even be more likely to side with heroes than villains when the coin falls, if only to try to prove to himself he's a decent human being. I'd say that's a perfectly fine thing to roleplay, but some people would object with a "you're not roleplaying your alignment" type of thing.
To be clear- I'm definitely not saying a character like this wouldn't be Evil. In fact I think it's a more fascinating character if we assume he IS Evil. It's just, in a system like what thejeff described- where evil people act in evil ways and if you aren't acting evil maybe you need to change what you have written down- that type of character would be difficult to classify.
EDIT: Nice catch, Tacticslion. So if the character killed for money but was careful in the type of jobs he took, it wouldn't necessarily be a Evil character, and maybe you couldn't make an actual "Assassin" due to class requirements but you could absolutely make a Neutral Slayer- they'd just be walking a very fine line. Good to know.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to deny that, at least in the world of Golarion.
My problem is with the idea that then I have to act Evil, according to certain interpretations of the alignment system. The character could have convinced himself that he's not that bad of a guy (which explains why he gives to charities), and tries to act like a decent guy... except he still earns his money from killing other people. At the end of the day, still Evil, but he's not going to be dripping with malice in everything he does. He might even be more likely to side with heroes than villains when the coin falls, if only to try to prove to himself he's a decent human being.
This is, indeed, a perfectly valid concept for an Evil character.
I'd say that's a perfectly fine thing to roleplay, but some people would object with a "you're not roleplaying your alignment" type of thing.
Anyone who argues that is...I'm gonna be nice and go with 'not paying attention'. A number of official adventures have Evil people who are perfectly reasonable folk when not being Evil.
To be clear- I'm definitely not saying a character like this wouldn't be Evil. In fact I think it's a more fascinating character if we assume he IS Evil. It's just, in a system like what thejeff described- where evil people act in evil ways and if you aren't acting evil maybe you need to change what you have written down- that type of character would be difficult to classify.
Absolutely. Pathfinder is pretty explicitly not such a system, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, thanks for the discussion, guys. This has been something I've been grappling with for awhile and this conversation helped me figure out how to make a few character concepts work- and how I would defend my choices if I was to play with a group that cared overly much about sticking to the alignment- and learned a few other things about the system.