For example, killing goblins is not an evil act because goblins are evil and it is not evil for a good creature to kill evil things.Erm... no. Goblins are alive. Good involves a respect for life. You can't kill them just because they're goblins. You should try and bring them to a better way of life.
Not in Pathfinder. You can kill as many evil creatures as you want in Pathfinder and get away with it.
For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
Emphasis mine. Notice the special mention that goblins are an innately evil race.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conversations work better if you don't omit information. What you quoted is from Quandary section of Champions of Purity. The part you bolded has the character thinking it "might" be the best (the book, from the pov of the character says might, not can). Not that is, and the books doesn't say so. That's why it's in the Quandary section.
It also isn't calling Goblins innately evil, it's the theoretical character in question making an assumption and trying to rationalize what to do.
If you kill someone (who is not an outsider or undead but even then their are exceptions) just because they're evil, I.e. Just because they exist, then you are not Good, you're Evil, and a Pyscopath at that.
Conversations work better if you don't omit information. What you quoted is from Quandary section of Champions of Purity. The part you bolded has the character thinking it "might" be the best (the book, from the pov of the character says might, not can). Not that is, and the books doesn't say so. That's why it's in the Quandary section.
It also isn't calling Goblins innately evil, it's the theoretical character in question making an assumption and trying to rationalize what to do.
If you kill someone (who is not an outsider or undead but even then their are exceptions) just because they're evil, I.e. Just because they exist, then you are not Good, you're Evil, and a Pyscopath at that.
What you may fail to understand is that the section I quote gives a possible circumstance under which a PC can kill a goblin (and a child at that) and still remain good. Bend over backwards trying to justify it however you want, but it remains as a valid option for a good character. It doesn't matter if it's the most good, because the idea that you can kill something unprovoked and still be considered good is a stretch in the first place.
Evil creatures and monsters are XP bags, they have been since Gygax times. It's assumed you'll be killing them, and wantonly at that, because otherwise the game fails to work. Hell, Gorum, the god of war for the sake of war is Neutral. He literally propagates death and destruction on a large scale for no other reason than to do so.
It's high-fantasy, killing bad things is good.
|
|
Conversations work better if you don't omit information. What you quoted is from Quandary section of Champions of Purity. The part you bolded has the character thinking it "might" be the best (the book, from the pov of the character says might, not can). Not that is, and the books doesn't say so. That's why it's in the Quandary section.
It also isn't calling Goblins innately evil, it's the theoretical character in question making an assumption and trying to rationalize what to do.
If you kill someone (who is not an outsider or undead but even then their are exceptions) just because they're evil, I.e. Just because they exist, then you are not Good, you're Evil, and a Pyscopath at that.
What you fail to understand is that the section I quote gives a possible circumstance under which a PC can kill a goblin (and a child at that) and still remain good. Bend over backwards trying to justify it however you want, but it remains as a valid option for a good character.
Evil creatures and monsters are XP bags, they have been since Gygax times. It's assumed you'll be killing them, and wantonly at that, because otherwise the game fails to work. Hell, Gorum, the god of war for the sake of war is Neutral. He literally propagates death and destruction on a large scale for no other reason than to do so.
It's high-fantasy, killing bad things is good.
No, what you quoted is a situation in where a person tries to rationalize/justify their actions.
And Gorum is Chaotic Neutral God of violence and battle, not murder. In fact killing non-combatants is one of the sure ways to absoluteky piss him off.
Pathfinder is very much not high fantasy, and in no way provides means to easily justify being a murder hobo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Neutral is actually the alignment I choose for my character in progress Dungar Stonecracker the Dwarven Armored Hulk (Barbarian).
"I'm Drunk, I'm pissed, who wants and asskicking?"
He isn't doesn't really give a shat about good and evil, but doesn't go around murdering people, nor does he go off on a pointless quest because some hoity toity Cleric told him to.
He's generally nice and follows most laws, unless he gets stonefaced drunk, then he might get in trouble for a variety of reasons. But if your nice to him he'll reply in kind, especially if you buy him a beer or a dozen.
If said person gets in trouble with a gang of thugs just as Dungar is stumbling out of said bar, he's more then happy step up in their defense to repay his debt to them, besides any "good" excuse to kick someone's ass is a happy bonus for him.
Conversations work better if you don't omit information. What you quoted is from Quandary section of Champions of Purity. The part you bolded has the character thinking it "might" be the best (the book, from the pov of the character says might, not can). Not that is, and the books doesn't say so. That's why it's in the Quandary section.
It also isn't calling Goblins innately evil, it's the theoretical character in question making an assumption and trying to rationalize what to do.
If you kill someone (who is not an outsider or undead but even then their are exceptions) just because they're evil, I.e. Just because they exist, then you are not Good, you're Evil, and a Pyscopath at that.
What you fail to understand is that the section I quote gives a possible circumstance under which a PC can kill a goblin (and a child at that) and still remain good. Bend over backwards trying to justify it however you want, but it remains as a valid option for a good character.
Evil creatures and monsters are XP bags, they have been since Gygax times. It's assumed you'll be killing them, and wantonly at that, because otherwise the game fails to work. Hell, Gorum, the god of war for the sake of war is Neutral. He literally propagates death and destruction on a large scale for no other reason than to do so.
It's high-fantasy, killing bad things is good.
No, what you quoted is a situation in where a person tries to rationalize/justify their actions.
And Gorum is Chaotic Neutral God of violence and battle, not murder. In fact killing non-combatants is one of the sure ways to surely piss him off.
Pathfinder is very much not high fantasy, and in no way provides means to easily justify being a murder hobo.
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good. This section does not even insinuate that the good character may have acted against his ideals. In fact, his good ideals where what lead him to commit the killing in the first place.
What the hell does it matter if Gorum advocates murder or not? The wanton destruction of life and property that inevitably occurs in wartime can hardly be considered Neutral unless, again, we bend over backwards justifying things. Just because you didn't want any non-combatants to die doesn't free you from the fact that you knowingly committed an act which would cause the death of said non-combatant.
Pathfinder is high fantasy. All undead are evil. All Non-PC goblins are evil. All Non-PC Orcs are evil. All Non-PC Drow are evil. All Non-PC Duergar are evil. Evil and good are inherent to a creature, so much so that they can be detected. For the cost of only a 5th level spell slot a character can remove the moral consequences of pretty much any of their actions. An entire class is based on finding and killing evil things. The PCs are rarely, if ever, even introduced to a situation where they can do something wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good.
Er, no. The minimum requirement to be good is rather explicitly for the Game Master to believe that your actions are good.
What you just wrote bears even less resemblance to anything coherent or honest than is normal in alignment threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good. This section does not even insinuate that the good character may have acted against his ideals. In fact, his good ideals where what lead him to commit the killing in the first place.
What the hell does it matter if Gorum advocates murder or not? The wanton destruction of life and property that inevitably occurs in wartime can hardly be considered Neutral unless, again, we bend over backwards justifying things. Just because you didn't want any non-combatants to die doesn't free you from the fact that you knowingly committed an act which would cause the death of said non-combatant.
Pathfinder is high fantasy. All undead are evil. All Non-PC goblins are evil. All Non-PC Orcs are evil. All Non-PC Drow are evil. All Non-PC Duergar are evil. Evil and good are inherent to a creature, so much so that they can be detected. For the cost of only a 5th level spell slot a character can remove the moral consequences of pretty much any of their actions. An entire class is based on finding and killing evil things. The PCs are rarely, if ever, even introduced to a situation where they can do something wrong.
All Drow too? I've so far thrown away those old conventions I find it almost fantasy racism to call them as a race evil with no gray areas. Hate me from bringing them up but I do love Blizzard for at least taking the time to explain WHY they were evil instead of pulling a Tolkien and saying "they're evil and sod the reasons why".
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good.Er, no. The minimum requirement to be good is rather explicitly for the Game Master to believe that your actions are good.
What you just wrote bears even less resemblance to anything coherent or honest than is normal in alignment threads.
Again, the section I quoted above put forward the case as a possible solution for a good character in that given situation. I could care less what a specific game master may think. Table variance will always exist. The point is that this is an action that a good character can take to resolve the situation. That alone should be enough to tell you that alignment is an abstraction.
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good. This section does not even insinuate that the good character may have acted against his ideals. In fact, his good ideals where what lead him to commit the killing in the first place.
What the hell does it matter if Gorum advocates murder or not? The wanton destruction of life and property that inevitably occurs in wartime can hardly be considered Neutral unless, again, we bend over backwards justifying things. Just because you didn't want any non-combatants to die doesn't free you from the fact that you knowingly committed an act which would cause the death of said non-combatant.
Pathfinder is high fantasy. All undead are evil. All Non-PC goblins are evil. All Non-PC Orcs are evil. All Non-PC Drow are evil. All Non-PC Duergar are evil. Evil and good are inherent to a creature, so much so that they can be detected. For the cost of only a 5th level spell slot a character can remove the moral consequences of pretty much any of their actions. An entire class is based on finding and killing evil things. The PCs are rarely, if ever, even introduced to a situation where they can do something wrong.
All Drow too? I've so far thrown away those old convention I find it almost fantasy raciest to call them as a race evil with no gray areas. Hate me from bringing them up but I do love Blizzard for at least taking the time to explain WHY they were evil instead of pulling a Tolkien and saying "they're evil and sod the reasons why".
According to their bestiary listing a Common Drow is Chaotic Evil. The entry goes into a little more about them, if you're interested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the section I quoted above put forward the case as a possible solution for a good character in that given situation.
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good.Er, no. The minimum requirement to be good is rather explicitly for the Game Master to believe that your actions are good.
What you just wrote bears even less resemblance to anything coherent or honest than is normal in alignment threads.
No, that section put forward the case as the rationalization that a specific character might offer (and might even believe) as a possible solution. There's no indication that the character's belief has any relationship to actual truth.
As Rysky put it, "conversations work better if you don't omit information." If forum rules permitted, I'd be even more blunt in my assessment.
|
|
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good. This section does not even insinuate that the good character may have acted against his ideals. In fact, his good ideals where what lead him to commit the killing in the first place.
What the hell does it matter if Gorum advocates murder or not? The wanton destruction of life and property that inevitably occurs in wartime can hardly be considered Neutral unless, again, we bend over backwards justifying things. Just because you didn't want any non-combatants to die doesn't free you from the fact that you knowingly committed an act which would cause the death of said non-combatant.
Pathfinder is high fantasy. All undead are evil. All Non-PC goblins are evil. All Non-PC Orcs are evil. All Non-PC Drow are evil. All Non-PC Duergar are evil. Evil and good are inherent to a creature, so much so that they can be detected. For the cost of only a 5th level spell slot a character can remove the moral consequences of pretty much any of their actions. An entire class is based on finding and killing evil things. The PCs are rarely, if ever, even introduced to a situation where they can do something wrong
Actually, they don't "successfully" do anything. That's why the books says "might", it doesn't specially call out approving or disproving in that example.
You seem to be equating current and modern wars with how a fantasy God of war works. Gorum is a God of combat, mass combat even. And he doesn't condone killing non-combatants. So not really seeing how someone who likes one-on-one duels or when armies battle each other directly kills non-combatants.
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't really looked.
Good and Evil are innate to Outsiders, not mortals. So saying that these races are "always" is complete and total b*~@~&&*.
Again, the section I quoted above put forward the case as a possible solution for a good character in that given situation.
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good.Er, no. The minimum requirement to be good is rather explicitly for the Game Master to believe that your actions are good.
What you just wrote bears even less resemblance to anything coherent or honest than is normal in alignment threads.
No, that section put forward the case as the rationalization that a specific character might offer (and might even believe) as a possible solution. There's no indication that the character's belief has any relationship to actual truth.
As Rysky put it, "conversations work better if you don't omit information." If forum rules permitted, I'd be even more blunt in my assessment.
"Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem"
Then follows with solutions given.
It seems clear, to my eyes at least, that all of the examples given are what a good character might do. Not a character trying to be good. But a GOOD character.
It seems clear, to my eyes at least, that all of the examples given are what a good character might do. Not a character trying to be good. But a GOOD character.
It, um, never occurred to you that some of the "solutions" are mutually incompatible? As in, not all of the rationalizations can simultaneously be true and accurate?
Actually, they don't "successfully" do anything. That's why the books says "might", it doesn't specially call out approving or disproving in that example.
You seem to be equating current and modern wars with how a fantasy God of war works. Gorum is a God of combat, mass combat even. And he doesn't condone killing non-combatants. So not really seeing how someone who likes one-on-one duels or when armies battle each other directly kills non-combatants.
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't really looked.
Good and Evil are innate to Outsiders, not mortals. So saying that these races are "always" is complete and total b*%&#@&*.
The section is framed that the examples given are how a good character may approach them. What point would it serve, then, to give a bunch of examples of what a non-good character would do? At no point in the section is it indicated that the character ever stops being good, because these are examples of how a good character should approach quandaries. Apparently, one way by which to approach that problem is with violence.
You seem to be holding up some exceptions as an attempt to overturn a general rule. Goblins in their bestiary entry are evil, as are Orcs. Even applying one of the Undead templates to a creature automatically Nuetral Evil.
Why is it difficult to believe that the alignment system is not designed to offer intense, realistic, moral standpoints?
|
|
Again, the section I quoted above put forward the case as a possible solution for a good character in that given situation.
A person successfully justifies their actions, because the minimum requirement to be good is to apparently believe that all your actions are good.Er, no. The minimum requirement to be good is rather explicitly for the Game Master to believe that your actions are good.
What you just wrote bears even less resemblance to anything coherent or honest than is normal in alignment threads.
No, that section put forward the case as the rationalization that a specific character might offer (and might even believe) as a possible solution. There's no indication that the character's belief has any relationship to actual truth.
As Rysky put it, "conversations work better if you don't omit information." If forum rules permitted, I'd be even more blunt in my assessment.
"Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem"
Then follows with solutions given.
It seems clear, to my eyes at least, that all of the examples given are what a good character might do. Not a character trying to be good. But a GOOD character.
And again with omitting key parts to better (and falsely) tailor your arguments.
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them-but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation?
Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself. This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature-either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
The. First. F*@%ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.
It, um, never occurred to you that some of the "solutions" are mutually incompatible? As in, not all of the rationalizations can simultaneously be true and accurate?
It seems clear, to my eyes at least, that all of the examples given are what a good character might do. Not a character trying to be good. But a GOOD character.
Again, the line "Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem" seems to imply that there are, in fact, several valid means by which to approach the situation. Unless my definition of solution is wildly different then yours. I consider it to be synonymous with "correct". As in "here are some ways that a character can approach this problem while being/staying good".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't...
I freaking love you so much right now. <3
And not to witch hunt or anything Johnny, but you strike me heavily as the "staunch traditionalist" type of Pathfinder player. Like one of those Codex worshiping chapters of Space Marines from 40k, who blindly follow every word written in the Codex Astarte without out actually thinking about the meaning before hand;
"It is the codex, it is the law, this is THE EMPEROR'S DIVINE WILL IN WRITTEN FORM, PURGE HERTICS-ragflaglfaga-!"
|
|
Actually, they don't "successfully" do anything. That's why the books says "might", it doesn't specially call out approving or disproving in that example.
You seem to be equating current and modern wars with how a fantasy God of war works. Gorum is a God of combat, mass combat even. And he doesn't condone killing non-combatants. So not really seeing how someone who likes one-on-one duels or when armies battle each other directly kills non-combatants.
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't really looked.
Good and Evil are innate to Outsiders, not mortals. So saying that these races are "always" is complete and total b*%&#@&*.
The section is framed that the examples given are how a good character may approach them. What point would it serve, then, to give a bunch of examples of what a non-good character would do? At no point in the section is it indicated that the character ever stops being good, because these are examples of how a good character should approach quandaries. Apparently, one way by which to approach that problem is with violence.
You seem to be holding up some exceptions as an attempt to overturn a general rule. Goblins in their bestiary entry are evil, as are Orcs. Even applying one of the Undead templates to a creature automatically Nuetral Evil.
Why is it difficult to believe that the alignment system is not designed to offer intense, realistic, moral standpoints?
The point? THAT's THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT SECTION IF YOU ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ IT.
In many games, playing good characters is the norm. However, some GMs like to interject ethical quandaries into the game from time to time to keep players on their toes and to test their characters' resolve-and because real life isn't always so cut and dry, why should your fanntasy campaign be? This section presents a few topics that often rear their heads during the course of play as elements for your consideration. You may want to discuss some of the following quandaries with your GM and other players. This will allow you to see where everyone stands in regard to the idea of alignment.
Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.
Speaking of Bestiary's and Alignments,
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.
Oh look, someone trying to get around smiting and talking about alignment as well!. Welp, guess everyone better go take a shot.
|
|
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't...I freaking love you so much right now. <3
Shamelessly snipping to say Dawwwww, Thankies ^w^
The. First. F%&*ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.
Ah, I see, so killing them might not be unequivocally good but certainly leaving them to the wild is?
Or, is it only that a character must take responsibility for these orphans to be considered good?
Tell me, where does the passage establish the defined line between what is good and what is not? Oh wait, it doesn't. Because this section is about quandaries that a GOOD CHARACTER will face and how they can approach them as a GOOD CHARACTER. Every example has the automatic assumption that the character is, and will continue to be, GOOD as per the Good-Evil alignment axis. I suppose, then, it follows that the next section that deals with evil and good party members, the examples for how a Paladin may act with an evil party member may, in fact, be secretly seeded with things that a Paladin shouldn't do?
And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't...I freaking love you so much right now. <3
And not to witch hunt or anything Johnny, but you strike me heavily as the "staunch traditionalist" type of Pathfinder player. Like one of those Codex worshiping chapters of Space Marines from 40k, who blindly follow every word written in the Codex Astarte without out actually thinking about the meaning before hand;
"It is the codex, it is the law, this is THE EMPEROR'S DIVINE WILL IN WRITTEN FORM, PURGE HERTICS-ragflaglfaga-!"
I ignore the alignment system when I play. I don't see the point in something that is undermined at every turn. I like Space Marines though.
|
|
The. First. F%&*ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.Ah, I see, so killing them might not be unequivocally good but certainly leaving them to the wild is?
Or, is it only that a character must take responsibility for these orphans to be considered good?
Tell me, where does the passage establish the defined line between what is good and what is not? Oh wait, it doesn't. Because this section is about quandaries that a GOOD CHARACTER will face and how they can approach them as a GOOD CHARACTER. Every example has the automatic assumption that the character is, and will continue to be, GOOD as per the Good-Evil alignment axis. I suppose, then, it follows that the next section that deals with evil and good party members, the examples for how a Paladin may act with an evil party member may, in fact, be secretly seeded with things that a Paladin shouldn't do?
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
Correct, the section is about Quandaries (do you even know what that word means?), and is putting forth how you, your group, and GM should decide on what actually is "Good" or not. The only assumptions in that section are the ones you yourself are making. Nothing in there claims these are good or the right choice, nor do they say the character in question will continue to be so after committing them. That's for the table to decide.
Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.
I'm having a hard time quoting your posts so forgive me for pulling out a specific statement.
Not that it means much, but I'd hardly call my view black and white. I simply believe that that section is meant for good characters, and for the sake of explanation of my position I'll ask you accept that for just a moment. I object that the section on advice for good characters includes a portion about killing unarmed creatures at all.
Unfortunately, it seems we're mostly talking around one another. It's probably safe to say that neither of us will budge on either stance.
|
|
I ignore the alignment system when I play. I don't see the point in something that is undermined at every turn. I like Space Marines though.And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't...I freaking love you so much right now. <3
And not to witch hunt or anything Johnny, but you strike me heavily as the "staunch traditionalist" type of Pathfinder player. Like one of those Codex worshiping chapters of Space Marines from 40k, who blindly follow every word written in the Codex Astarte without out actually thinking about the meaning before hand;
"It is the codex, it is the law, this is THE EMPEROR'S DIVINE WILL IN WRITTEN FORM, PURGE HERTICS-ragflaglfaga-!"
You're the one undermining it by claiming certain actions are always good and certain races are always evil. Which contradicts your claim that you're ignoring it as well. How about that.
The. First. F%&*ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.Ah, I see, so killing them might not be unequivocally good but certainly leaving them to the wild is?
Or, is it only that a character must take responsibility for these orphans to be considered good?
Tell me, where does the passage establish the defined line between what is good and what is not? Oh wait, it doesn't. Because this section is about quandaries that a GOOD CHARACTER will face and how they can approach them as a GOOD CHARACTER. Every example has the automatic assumption that the character is, and will continue to be, GOOD as per the Good-Evil alignment axis. I suppose, then, it follows that the next section that deals with evil and good party members, the examples for how a Paladin may act with an evil party member may, in fact, be secretly seeded with things that a Paladin shouldn't do?
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
Correct, the section is about Quandaries (do you even know what that word means?), and is putting forth how you, your group, and GM should decide on what actually is "Good" or not. The only assumptions in that section are the ones you yourself are making. Nothing in there claims these are good or the right choice, nor do they say the character in question will continue to be so after committing them. That's for the table to decide.
I object that the killing of the goblin children is even put forward as a possible solution. If you think that it is meant as advice, then I think it's stupid advice. It should be an unquestionably evil act, and the fact that it can even be considered because a creature is inherently evil or not is inane.
|
|
Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.I'm having a hard time quoting your posts so forgive me for pulling out a specific statement.
Not that it means much, but I'd hardly call my view black and white. I simply believe that that section is meant for good characters, and for the sake of explanation of my position I'll ask you accept that for just a moment. I object that the section on advice for good characters includes a portion about killing unarmed creatures at all.
Unfortunately, it seems we're mostly talking around one another. It's probably safe to say that neither of us will budge on either stance.
(no biggies, the posts get long *shrugs)
Summarized "all goblins are evil because they're goblins so it's okay to kill them, even the children" is a very deranged "black and white" view of morality and ethics.
That section points that out, the whole point of a Quandary, and makes your group ask "What is right?"
It doesn't tell you which is right, or if any of them are. It asks you to think, and choose for yourself.
|
|
I object that the killing of the goblin children is even put forward as a possible solution. If you think that it is meant as advice, then I think it's stupid advice. It should be an unquestionably evil act, and the fact that it can even be considered because a creature is inherently evil or not is inane.The. First. F%&*ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.Ah, I see, so killing them might not be unequivocally good but certainly leaving them to the wild is?
Or, is it only that a character must take responsibility for these orphans to be considered good?
Tell me, where does the passage establish the defined line between what is good and what is not? Oh wait, it doesn't. Because this section is about quandaries that a GOOD CHARACTER will face and how they can approach them as a GOOD CHARACTER. Every example has the automatic assumption that the character is, and will continue to be, GOOD as per the Good-Evil alignment axis. I suppose, then, it follows that the next section that deals with evil and good party members, the examples for how a Paladin may act with an evil party member may, in fact, be secretly seeded with things that a Paladin shouldn't do?
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
Correct, the section is about Quandaries (do you even know what that word means?), and is putting forth how you, your group, and GM should decide on what actually is "Good" or not. The only assumptions in that section are the ones you yourself are making. Nothing in there claims these are good or the right choice, nor do they say the character in question will continue to be so after committing them. That's for the table to decide.
What if you don't have enough food to feed them till you get them somewhere to take care of them? What if they're sick and slowly dying already?
Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.I'm having a hard time quoting your posts so forgive me for pulling out a specific statement.
Not that it means much, but I'd hardly call my view black and white. I simply believe that that section is meant for good characters, and for the sake of explanation of my position I'll ask you accept that for just a moment. I object that the section on advice for good characters includes a portion about killing unarmed creatures at all.
Unfortunately, it seems we're mostly talking around one another. It's probably safe to say that neither of us will budge on either stance.
(no biggies, the posts get long *shrugs)
Summarized "all goblins are evil because they're goblins so it's okay to kill them, even the children" is a very deranged "black and white" view of morality and ethics.
That section points that out, the whole point of a Quandary, and makes your group ask "What is right?"
It doesn't tell you which is right, or if any of them are. It asks you to think, and choose for yourself.
The point of that summary was to be absurd. The reason I brought it up is because I believe it is something that the game reinforces it. The reason I believe the game reinforces it is because it is a statement given by the game on behalf of a good character. In this case whether or not the statement is correct is inconsequential, because I have problems with the very statement itself.
|
|
The point of that summary was to be absurd. The reason I brought it up is because I believe it is something that the game reinforces it. The reason I believe the game reinforces it is because it is a statement given by the game on behalf of a good character. In this case whether or not the statement is correct is inconsequential, because I have problems with the very statement itself.Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.I'm having a hard time quoting your posts so forgive me for pulling out a specific statement.
Not that it means much, but I'd hardly call my view black and white. I simply believe that that section is meant for good characters, and for the sake of explanation of my position I'll ask you accept that for just a moment. I object that the section on advice for good characters includes a portion about killing unarmed creatures at all.
Unfortunately, it seems we're mostly talking around one another. It's probably safe to say that neither of us will budge on either stance.
(no biggies, the posts get long *shrugs)
Summarized "all goblins are evil because they're goblins so it's okay to kill them, even the children" is a very deranged "black and white" view of morality and ethics.
That section points that out, the whole point of a Quandary, and makes your group ask "What is right?"
It doesn't tell you which is right, or if any of them are. It asks you to think, and choose for yourself.
If you actually stopped and think (which is the entire point of that section) you'd see that Pathfinder is doing its damnedest to not reinforce this detested mindset.
The examples given are all thoughts that would be going through a good aligned person's head if they came across that scenario. ALL of there thoughts.
What if you don't have enough food to feed them till you get them somewhere to take care of them? What if they're sick and slowly dying already?I object that the killing of the goblin children is even put forward as a possible solution. If you think that it is meant as advice, then I think it's stupid advice. It should be an unquestionably evil act, and the fact that it can even be considered because a creature is inherently evil or not is inane.The. First. F%&*ing. Paragraph after the quandary and before the one you keep championing.Ah, I see, so killing them might not be unequivocally good but certainly leaving them to the wild is?
Or, is it only that a character must take responsibility for these orphans to be considered good?
Tell me, where does the passage establish the defined line between what is good and what is not? Oh wait, it doesn't. Because this section is about quandaries that a GOOD CHARACTER will face and how they can approach them as a GOOD CHARACTER. Every example has the automatic assumption that the character is, and will continue to be, GOOD as per the Good-Evil alignment axis. I suppose, then, it follows that the next section that deals with evil and good party members, the examples for how a Paladin may act with an evil party member may, in fact, be secretly seeded with things that a Paladin shouldn't do?
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
*head* *desk*
Correct, the section is about Quandaries (do you even know what that word means?), and is putting forth how you, your group, and GM should decide on what actually is "Good" or not. The only assumptions in that section are the ones you yourself are making. Nothing in there claims these are good or the right choice, nor do they say the character in question will continue to be so after committing them. That's for the table to decide.
In regards to what I think is required in the real world? You cannot kill them. You cannot offer me a scenario in which killing them is good. I have some minimum obligation to help them, but beyond that I cannot be wronged unless I somehow choose to make their situation worse. To help, or at least to do no harm.
What does the Pathfinder alignment system require of my character? Well, the section we've been quoting gives some examples.
The point of that summary was to be absurd. The reason I brought it up is because I believe it is something that the game reinforces it. The reason I believe the game reinforces it is because it is a statement given by the game on behalf of a good character. In this case whether or not the statement is correct is inconsequential, because I have problems with the very statement itself.Because a deranged black and white view of alignment is, well, deranged, and while the 9 grid isn't exactly realistic it is still far more flavorful and fluid then you give it credit for.I'm having a hard time quoting your posts so forgive me for pulling out a specific statement.
Not that it means much, but I'd hardly call my view black and white. I simply believe that that section is meant for good characters, and for the sake of explanation of my position I'll ask you accept that for just a moment. I object that the section on advice for good characters includes a portion about killing unarmed creatures at all.
Unfortunately, it seems we're mostly talking around one another. It's probably safe to say that neither of us will budge on either stance.
(no biggies, the posts get long *shrugs)
Summarized "all goblins are evil because they're goblins so it's okay to kill them, even the children" is a very deranged "black and white" view of morality and ethics.
That section points that out, the whole point of a Quandary, and makes your group ask "What is right?"
It doesn't tell you which is right, or if any of them are. It asks you to think, and choose for yourself.
If you actually stopped and think (which is the entire point of that section) you'd see that Pathfinder is doing its damnedest to not reinforce this detested mindset.
The examples given are all thoughts that would be going through a good aligned person's head if they came across that scenario. ALL of there thoughts.
I do not think one can be a good person while simultaneously considering such things. Therefore I say that the alignment system is an abstraction, and that it is not meant to be taken seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shamelessly snipping to say Dawwwww, Thankies ^w^And seriously? Have you even read any of the books? There are PLENTY of non-evil Undead, and even more non-evil Orcs and Goblins spread throughout Paizo products. There is also a non-evil Drow that I'm aware of. Not sure about Duergar because I'm not really that interested in them so I haven't...I freaking love you so much right now. <3
I'm just happy to be among like minded people who agree while Tolkien set the foundation for the modern fantasy genre that some of the dated tropes need to be left behind.
Bearded female Dwarves, and always evil mook races among them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alien races that are biologically not human can have innate behavioral considerations which would not fit in the box called 'good'. They are, in fact, alien mindsets not humans in rubber forehead costumes. So I have no philosophical trouble with the potential existence of inherently evil - or inherently good - races. It is just how the mechanics of their mind physically and chemically works.
Reminds me of how Shoddy Cast explained the motivations of the Daedric Princes from the Elder Scrolls series. How "good" and "evil" are in fact mortal concepts, and as immortal all powerful beings they have no restrictions to such mortal definitions.
But mortals are not stone like gods are, we are clay in manner of speaking, molded by the world around us and what we experience in life. Orcs are mostly a savage cruel race of warmongers, but it's only because every Orc born is born into that world around them, they grow up to become "evil" because that's what everyone around them is, and how they are raised to be themselves.
Take a baby orc and raise him in a place where he taught value for life and respect for elders and that outright war is a last resort and you won't end up with an "evil" Orc. Sure some of the primal rage might come out now and again but humans can be just as compulsive sometimes, it's very much a 90% nurture 10% nature split.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. You can have it be that way. But there is absolutely no reason a mortal race could not have hard coded biological evil nature. Certain behaviors that are just instinctual that fit on the evil spectrum. There is absolutely no reason that every mortal race will experience the same entire moral spectrum as humans or have the same middle set point by nature, even if raised by those who are 'good'.
They are not humans in rubber forehead and ear prosthetics.
Aren't they? Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls, Drow and many more are classified as "humanoids" which implies numerous similarities. I firmly believe nurture holds more sway then nature in cases of sentient, free thinking creatures.
In there world the difference between an Orc and Human is no wider then the difference between a Caucasian and a Asian in our world. Riddle me this; If I took the phrase "All Orcs are evil because they are Orcs" and replaced Orcs so it now said "All Arabs are evil because they are Arabs", does that seem right to you?
A few... "closed-minded" people and groups might agree with that statement, but most of us will say "Of course not! That's stupid, bias and racist." But replace Arabs with Orcs again and everyone will say; "Well they are Orcs now, so it's different..."
But is it different? I don't think so.
{. . .}
I'm just happy to be among like minded people who agree while Tolkien set the foundation for the modern fantasy genre that some of the dated tropes need to be left behind.Bearded female Dwarves, and always evil mook races among them.
What's wrong with bearded female Dwarves?
(By the way, bearded female humans can be found on very rare occasion -- I one works at the same institution where I work, although in a different department. It's presumably a mutation -- who says that such a mutation couldn't be common in the Dwarven population?)
Also, different Humanoid races (technically, they should really be called species and sub-species, depending on interbreedability) are definitely more different than different Human races on Earth -- the different different aging rates and different abilities should be proof enough.
One good example of LN is Javert...A LN character is similar to above except that they always look to 'balance the books' as they go along. A week spent curing disease and feeding the homeless demands a week of burglary and thuggery. This is the law of neutrality and thus active.Couldn't disagree more.
The LN you described above actually is closer to the (also misguided) description of True Neutral found in 2nd edition, where the party druid was likely to join a band of gnolls if the party outnumbered/overpowered them in order to "maintain the balance." (What? So glad they fixed that nonsense.)
No, an alignment with a Neutral aspect is simply solely focused on the one alignment component that they do have.
In the case of Lawful Neutral, that means pure, rigid, unbending adherence to the law. LN is the RAW Rules-Lawyer of the alignments: "I don't CARE if it makes no sense or makes the ability worthless/unusable, this is the Rules Forum, and that's how it's worded!"
Look at the Inevitables (the LN outsiders) or the Hellknights. Strict, draconian adherence to law - Law as its own morality. That's Lawful Neutral. If you're familiar with the MtG Ravnica setting, the Azorius guild is another excellent LN organization...
Sorry, hope that didn't come across as too preachy, but LN in particular tends to be one of my favorite alignments.
Javert is probably my favorite character of all time. In the book, he was born to a prostitute and scoundrel in prison. As a Bastard, he knew he couldn't be a part of society, so he decided he had to either work against it, or wholeheartedly support it in the backgrounds. Upon the law he found purpose, and rose above the scum he was born to. When he discovers that Law is not mutually good, and criminals are capable of good... I would consider Jean Valjean Neutral Good, and a perfect example at that. Only cares about helping people, breaking the law when it's an obstacle, but only then. (In the book he even shoots enemy soldiers helmets off to scare them away).
So I like the book... I think it inspired DnD alignments, at least partially. The back of the core rulebook credits it for inspiration.
{. . .}
I'm just happy to be among like minded people who agree while Tolkien set the foundation for the modern fantasy genre that some of the dated tropes need to be left behind.Bearded female Dwarves, and always evil mook races among them.
What's wrong with bearded female Dwarves?
(By the way, bearded female humans can be found on very rare occasion -- I one works at the same institution where I work, although in a different department. It's presumably a mutation -- who says that such a mutation couldn't be common in the Dwarven population?)
Also, different Humanoid races (technically, they should really be called species and sub-species, depending on interbreedability) are definitely more different than different Human races on Earth -- the different different aging rates and different abilities should be proof enough.
Different? Yes. By a significant margin? No, I think not. And life span equates very little. I mean Parrots outlive many other species of avians are they "alien" or "utterly different" for the reason of long life? What about giant tortoises? Are they alien to other shorter lived reptiles?
All mortal fantasy races have the same goals, to survive, reproduce and thrive. Each race has different ways they seek to accomplish these goals. Those "evil" races rarely take the time to consider their actions, they are "good" in their own eyes, surviving, thriving as they can do.
^Parrots are definitely of different species than other birds. Not only that, they constitute a different order, consisting of 3 superfamilies, each containing several genera, each of which may contain multiple species.
Likewise, giant tortoises are of different species than other reptiles (even other turtles), consisting of 2 genera (+ at least 1 extinct genus), each of which may contain multiple species.
Earth used to have multiple species (or at least sub-species) of hominids (= Humanoids, to an approximation, if you don't count some of the more distant types such as Lizardfolk and Grippli), although all but 1 are now extinct (in part due to the actions of the remaining species -- if such activities could be sufficiently suppressed, humanity could speciate, including developing variants with different lifespans and abilities).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Javert is a pretty spectacular character, and his story is the most moving to me of the entire work. In terms of alignment, his conflict with Valjean is a perfect demonstration of how neutral good and lawful neutral can clash with horrific consequences. I've even taken a shot at putting Javert together mechanically in Pathfinder - he works out great as a daring champion order of the scales cavalier with automatic bonus progression.Javert is probably my favorite character of all time. In the book, he was born to a prostitute and scoundrel in prison. As a Bastard, he knew he couldn't be a part of society, so he decided he had to either work against it, or wholeheartedly support it in the backgrounds. Upon the law he found purpose, and rose above the scum he was born to. When he discovers that Law is not mutually good, and criminals are capable of good... I would consider Jean Valjean Neutral Good, and a perfect example at that. Only cares about helping people, breaking the law when it's an obstacle, but only then. (In the book he even shoots enemy soldiers helmets off to scare them away).
So I like the book... I think it inspired DnD alignments, at least partially. The back of the core rulebook credits it for inspiration.
I always see him as an Inquisitor. Kind've easy, but in the book he was a total badass. Criminals would rather beg on their knees than dare to shoot at him, and he is calm and collected, even at gunpoint. Maybe a Sanctified Slayer focused on intimidate... I also love the book because it is the perfect example of Lawful Good. (At least what it should be). Enjolras is fighting for the people, no matter the odds, to create a fairer government that listened to them. Gavroche as Chaotic Good just liked to screw with authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think someone who considers killing goblin children would be evil or neutral because of such a thought - we don't really control our thoughts as tightly as many may believe, and all kinds of things can cross one's mind. A good person can have terrible thoughts, but the question is not "what are you thinking?" but "would you act upon it?" And for a good person, the answer would be "no."
Saying that a good person would never think bad thoughts basically means that temptation is impossible, and we know that isn't true. To take an example from literature - both Gandalf and Galadriel were tempted to take The One Ring, and are arguably both good characters. If they were simply incapable of having those thoughts then the dramatic value of Frodo offering the ring to them is lost.
If they decide not to act on it despite both opportunity and temptation then they have decided it is 'not acceptable' no?I don't think someone who considers killing goblin children would be evil or neutral because of such a thought - we don't really control our thoughts as tightly as many may believe, and all kinds of things can cross one's mind. A good person can have terrible thoughts, but the question is not "what are you thinking?" but "would you act upon it?" And for a good person, the answer would be "no."
Saying that a good person would never think bad thoughts basically means that temptation is impossible, and we know that isn't true. To take an example from literature - both Gandalf and Galadriel were tempted to take The One Ring, and are arguably both good characters. If they were simply incapable of having those thoughts then the dramatic value of Frodo offering the ring to them is lost.
Yes. I saw a post earlier in the thread in which someone said a good person would never have that thought, and I disagree, hence my post. I wasn't arguing they'd do such things or find them acceptable.