|
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."Misinterpretation of the Torag Code, whether intentional or accidental has probably led to more Paladin falls than Iomedae's own strict standards.
Key item in that line is "My people's enemies. You are not in your homelands. No one here is threathening your dwarfhold, so it's in most cases, a severe reach AT BEST, to qualify anyone in this scenario as "your people's enemy."
Being a Paladin of Torag is not an excuse to be a LG murderhobo which pretty much describes your "diplomacy".
In short, your DM handled you with kid gloves.
I always thought you had to actually kill something to be considered a murderhobo, not just yell out a bunch of empty threats.
Personally, I think his GM was overly harsh, considering the only reason this situation went down the way it did was because of a series of bad rolls, to the point where it all became a big charlie foxtrot.
What if the character had rolled a "1" on an attack roll and the GM ruled that he mistakenly killed a party member or bystander. Alignment change for that? I just don't think alignment change should result from bad dice rolling, there has to be intention to purposely do harm.
More than that, it sounds like the GM was actually interested in forcing just this sort of drama. Which does not bode well for the table in general.
Personally, I think his GM was overly harsh, considering the only reason this situation went down the way it did was because of a series of bad rolls, to the point where it all became a big charlie foxtrot.
What if the character had rolled a "1" on an attack roll and the GM ruled that he mistakenly killed a party member or bystander. Alignment change for that? I just don't think alignment change should result from bad dice rolling, there has to be intention to purposely do harm.
Ah, I remember the D&D 3rd Edition days when a bad archery roll did shoot a party member by mistake. I hated that. Yet I never saw it affect the alignment of a character.
Though I view the way Grumbaki's inquisitor handled the crowd as Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good, I agree with HeHateMe that one Lawful Neutral act is not enough to change an alignment.
More than that, it sounds like the GM was actually interested in forcing just this sort of drama. Which does not bode well for the table in general.
As a GM, I love forcing moral decisions, such as does the party ally with the evil guy who is also opposing the very evil BBEG? The situation with the crowd, in contrast, seems more like the GM letting the dice run the game: bad Diplomacy rolls prevented the easy solution to the infected flowers, so do you have a plan B? Grumbaki's plan B was try an Intimidate check instead. It was a desperate act, perhaps caused by the impression that the GM had set the DC to sway the crowd high, so the inquisitor needed his highest social skill bonus.
The GM deserves some blame. Other solutions, such as a Bluff check ("The flowers are poisonous!"), a Steal maneuver (I grab the flower away from the child), a Sense Motive check (Why do these townsfolk value the flowers?), a Perception check (I glance at the dead cultists to see if they hold proof of my claim, like an unholy symbol.), or another Diplomacy check (I go to the child and drop down to my knees. I tell her with tears in my eyes that the flower is very dangerous and would hurt her, so would she please give it to me? Can I roll for Diplomacy again?), would jump to mind only if the GM is willing to work with the party to find a way to make this event a clean victory over the cult rather than a partial victory of stopping the cult but not the plague. The GM gave a warning about the Intimidate that a child was in the crowd, but did not mention anything that suggested another solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is not always nice.
It should however, be at least somewhat distinguishable from evil.
Good is not always nice.It should however, be at least somewhat distinguishable from evil.
It is distinguishable. He failed to kill the child. So poor at being evil.
Its a bit too late in this regard, but whenever I'd play in a game, especially if I was thinking Paladin (or in this case LG), I'd have a discussion with the GM beforehand to see what their view was, and whether mine was compatible with it. If not, I'd just go with something else. Because in a sense or practical reality, we can give you examples of what we think is appropriate LG behavior, or even support the OP's position, but if their GM disagrees, it becomes kind of moot.
Some GMs don't care, some really do. When I'd Gm I was pretty flexible, if you were good and did an act that would make an evil guy snark about how good you were, its still ok. If you were good and the evil guy was now awe inspired by your evil act, yeah, not so good.
|
I'd say that threatening innocents and especially children is, absent mitigating factors, an evil act.
Depending on the ethical system, the fact that your end goal is a significant good might make this a nonevil act, or just make it somewhat less evil.
In any case, it shouldn't be enough to change your alignment outright, especially since it wasn't your first resort. Alignment describes your typical behavior; good characters are allowed to occasionally do evil things, especially when under pressure.
Glad you're satisfied with the outcome.
Gnomes and halflings can intimidate just as well as a towering giant, and it isn't because the gnomes and halflings are using enormous weapons to back up their checks.
There is a -4 penalty for trying to Intimidate someone larger than you. Intimidation isn't all or even mostly about physical threat, but it helps.
This is how I interpret good vs neutral vs evil. For simplicity I am going to ignore law vs chaos.
Alignment is determined by actions with three components: intent, method and result. Typically method outweighs intent which outweighs results in importance but they all contribute.
Good characters are consistently good in all three: intent, method and result. They are your classic heroes like superman. A hero will only kill as a last resort. A good character will not weigh up the pros and cons of killing, they will try every other option first. It is not always easy to be good.
Neutral characters are mostly good but will justify a small amount of evil for what they consider to be a greater good. For example: they may have good intentions and employ suspect methods (like killing) to bring about a good result (greater good). The vast majority of people are neutral. The classic anti hero like batman is neutral.
Evil characters have no interest in being or doing good. Generally speaking they are bad in intention, method and result. They don't care about the consequences to others as long as it doesn't impact themselves. This is obviously the alignment of your classic villain.
There is no 'get out of jail free card' with alignment. Difficult circumstances are not an excuse to act out of alignment, this is when true alignment is revealed.
Only the character's own actions count. The evil done by others is not the responsibility of a good character. Also, there has to be a genuine choice. Being surrounded by only good options does not make an evil character good and vice versa.
My expectation as GM is that alignment is up to the players to manage. By that I mean it is up to the player to maintain or change alignment depending on their own assessment of their intent, method and results. I will provide my input but I expect my players to be mature enough to decide for themselves. So for example if a lawful good character does something evil the character should either atone or switch alignments. I don't require that Paladins be lawful good, I prefer the way Paladins are handled in 5e, but I do expect them to be consistent and stick to their own code of conduct.
Back to the opening post: it sounds to me that if they are in the habit of employing "dwarven diplomacy" to combat evil in the world then they should be lawful neutral instead of lawful good. I think it was the right move for the player to change their own alignment. So I say: "well played!!"
Thank you all for this discussion. It's been a fascinating read! Really clears up a lot (though not all) of my pathfinder morality questions (nailing down alignments is hard...)
To be a bit more clear I suggested changing to lawful neutral just to cut off any morality debate. And because it seemed much easier to not get into an argument anytime I tried anything that wasn't lawful stupid. I'll also say that this was pathfinder society where gms always change. This one was a great guy who really helped me out with rules and my build, I hold nothing against him.
A follow up question though: how many of you discuss with your gms how they see alignment and the like before a game? And this talk of falling, in pathfinder society what power does a GM actually have when it comes to enforcing your alignment?
The innocents were already in danger due the fact they had disease infected flowers in their possession. I think that allowing a person to contract a possibly fatal disease when you can prevent it is the evil act. Letting Timmy run around with a flower that is not only going to kill him, but also kill multiple other people is not a good act. If Timmy does not want to give up the flower you take it from him and dispose of it. If he tries to run away you chase after him and forcibly take the flower from him. Using excessive force would be an evil act, but using enough force to get the job done is fine.
You could argue that you should try and talk the people into giving up the flowers before resorting to other means. But everyone seems to be ignoring that the original poster stated that he did in fact try to use diplomacy and failed. He then tried to intimidate them into doing the right thing and also failed. Only at that time did the party resort to actual force. So what was the player supposed to do? Let Timmy keep the infected flower? Also note that it was the hunter not the inquisition who actually resorted to violence. It seems to me that what people are saying is that failing a diplomacy roll, and then trying to still act is evil.
The innocents were already in danger due the fact they had disease infected flowers in their possession. I think that allowing a person to contract a possibly fatal disease when you can prevent it is the evil act. Letting Timmy run around with a flower that is not only going to kill him, but also kill multiple other people is not a good act. If Timmy does not want to give up the flower you take it from him and dispose of it. If he tries to run away you chase after him and forcibly take the flower from him. Using excessive force would be an evil act, but using enough force to get the job done is fine.
You could argue that you should try and talk the people into giving up the flowers before resorting to other means. But everyone seems to be ignoring that the original poster stated that he did in fact try to use diplomacy and failed. He then tried to intimidate them into doing the right thing and also failed. Only at that time did the party resort to actual force. So what was the player supposed to do? Let Timmy keep the infected flower? Also note that it was the hunter not the inquisition who actually resorted to violence. It seems to me that what people are saying is that failing a diplomacy roll, and then trying to still act is evil.
I agree regarding the flowers, it was murdering of the cultists that was the evil deed. A lawful good character would not have killed as a first resort. How this would normally play out in our group is the PCs would challenge the cultists to explain themselves, it may escalate to a fight from there but at least the villagers would know who the good guys are! The way it played out in the opening post has one group giving out flowers and the other group murdering them without warning. Is there any wonder their diplomacy check failed? I think the GM was generous to even allow one.
I find it weird that some posters have ignored the effect of cold blooded murder on alignment and focused on the intimidation check.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Book of Exalted Deeds
"Good is not nice, polite, well-mannered, self-righteous, or naive, though good characters may be some of these things."
Yeah, there exists a chaotic good elven deity of tradition, who believes only elves are worthy as worshipers. So, while racism isn't good. Good can still be racist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree regarding the flowers, it was murdering of the cultists that was the evil deed. A lawful good character would not have killed as a first resort. How this would normally play out in our group is the PCs would challenge the cultists to explain themselves, it may escalate to a fight from there but at least the villagers would know who the good guys are!
I'm not going to say your group is having BadWrongFun, but please be aware that your opinion on this is going to be extremely different than others', and no one is the definitive authority on what an alignment is or means.
The party witnessed cultists committing murder. Sure, it wasn't quick murder, it was slow, painful, spreading murder.
Not to bring "real life" into this (so how about an episode of Criminal Minds or Agents of SHIELD or something instead), but if we were talking about a psychotic scientist unleashing an engineered Spanish flu into the general public, and the FBI showed up, shot him in the head, and then demanded immediate obedience from the public nearby for quarantine without bothering to be "nice" and explain themselves to the audience first, that's *not* evil. *NOT* acting puts even more innocent lives in peril. It gives the scientist the chance to escape, take hostages, or kill others.
In a magical fantasy world, take that risk and multiply it. The cultists could have easily begun mass channeling negative energy - and that's only one example.
Lawful Good does not equal nice. As posted above, *from* Pathfinder, Lawful Good can be cruel and ruthless. Lawful Good does not equal Paladin: not every LG person has to follow a Paladin's Code (far from it, most don't.) And even *Paladins* can belong to the Hellknights, one of the most ruthless organizations in Golarion. Furthermore, we're talking about an Inquistor, a class that - BY DESIGN - is built to break rules in the pursuit of higher goals.
You're in the clear, here, OP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
personally I don't believe in 1-action alignment changes unless it's extreme or drastic. A lawful good Paladin who, for an unknown reason, decides that today is they day he randomly burns down an orphanage or slaughters everyone in his path gets the alignment-change. But 1 action of threatening people for their own good in an attempt to stop a bigger problem isn't worthy of an alignment change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I dont see any issues really. Intimidate, especially only after a single event, is not grounds to change alignment.
Oh no! The Inquisitor theatened a child for his own good. I guess everyone's parents are evil.
@ Torbyne,
There are good people in wars, watch the movie Schindler's List for an example.
The point i was going for was that under your statement that a Lawful Good person can not attempt to kill as a first response or to stop someone from killing another than pretty much all soldiers and police would be prohibited from being good. I believe your statement is too black and white to work in practice. Or that in such a setting there would be a bare handful of Lawful Good people in existence.@ Torbyne,
There are good people in wars, watch the movie Schindler's List for an example.
I think you missed the part where I said there has to be a genuine choice before you can classify an action as morally good or bad.
For a good person killing is a last resort, sometimes good people still have to kill because no other option is open to them.
Killing evil doesn't make you good. The devil who kills his superior to climb the rungs of power is not good.
By the way I agree that lawful good is not a common alignment. I view it as an extreme alignment that would be hard to maintain. The majority are neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh Neutral Good is the best good anyways.
Do Good without all the hangups of law and chaos.
My take on this:
General question: No, that's not strictly outside the bounds of Lawful Good, as an isolated incident and/or a moment of poor judgment on the character's part. I'd frown on a LG character regularly handling things in such a fashion. Threatening innocents should be very much a last resort, and the first course of action should ideally have been something else. Mass enchantments, Diplomacy over Intimidate, trying to scare them WITHOUT the threat of death, etc. The character's actions were not LG, but not so severe (alone) as to merit an alignment change.
Specific instance: I don't think your GM was in the wrong to change your alignment, because I get the impression it was NOT an isolated incident, and as you indicated, the character was already acting more LN.
Threads like this are why all my characters are Neutral. The big issues with the alignment system from my perspective are: 1) Criteria for which actions belong to which alignment are entirely subjective; no two people can seem to agree on what each alignment is supposed to be. 2) Alignments force players to roleplay a vague set of ethics/morals instead of an actual CHARACTER.
I despise the alignment system, it seems to cause more arguments in gaming groups than all other Pathfinder rules/systems COMBINED.
Meh Neutral Good is the best good anyways.
Do Good without all the hangups of law and chaos.
Worse than LG because you lack convictions and honor. Worse than CG because you lack flexibility or a dedication to freedom. Or more likely just different.
Trying to frame NG as 'more good' always felt really silly to me.
Then again, so does the insistence by some in this thread that Good can't be practical or intelligent either.
NG is better than LG in one way: NG characters are much less likely to cause inter-party conflict than LG characters.
Threads like this are why all my characters are Neutral. The big issues with the alignment system from my perspective are: 1) Criteria for which actions belong to which alignment are entirely subjective; no two people can seem to agree on what each alignment is supposed to be. 2) Alignments force players to roleplay a vague set of ethics/morals instead of an actual CHARACTER.
I despise the alignment system, it seems to cause more arguments in gaming groups than all other Pathfinder rules/systems COMBINED.
Our group only encountered our first alignment dispute within the last couple years with a player that was a brand-new addition to our group.
We've been playing together for close to 20 years now, and have had characters of *every* alignment at some point (yes, even a notable - and, if you can believe it, beloved - Chaotic Evil barbarian.)
And we've never had a dispute over alignment in all that time, in a group of something like a dozen people.
@ Gulthor,
I am glad you don't have alignment arguments at your table. I am not surprised since you define them so broadly as to make them meaningless. If lawful good characters can be characterised as: "cruel and ruthless". I am not sure how anyone could tell what alignment you are portraying at any given time.
Personally, I don't like the alignment system, I would rather have something like Pendragon's system of virtues, but if I am playing in a game like Pathfinder that has alignments then I would like for them to actually mean something.
Edit: I did not mean to imply you are doing it wrong, I think your way is a good way of handling what is an incoherent concept if you actually follow the alignment rules as written.
It seems a bit absurd to call them 'meaningless' merely because he can find more than one way of expressing a given alignment. Alignments have nuance. They're broad brushes that can hold a variety of character concepts without being incongruous or pointless just because there's variety in there.
Also you should make up your mind between the backhanded compliments and 'did not mean to imply you are doing it wrong', because they look silly put in the same post with each other.
It was not a backhanded compliment. The CRB uses the word: "ruthless" to describe chaotic evil. A different Pathfinder book says that lawful good (supposedly the extreme opposite alignment) can be described as "ruthless". It is an incoherent system that is contradictory and is therefore meaningless. Gulthor's table resolves the contradiction differently to me, both ways are valid, That is the point.
I don't care, but other people might, so you probably shouldn't go around calling people silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad you don't have alignment arguments at your table. I am not surprised since you define them so broadly as to make them meaningless. If lawful good characters can be characterised as: "cruel and ruthless". I am not sure how anyone could tell what alignment you are portraying at any given time.
Whoa, there. You haven't played at our table, and I can assure you that they're very distinct. The CE barbarian I mentioned? He *was* Chaotic and Evil. He was vicious, destructive, and delighted in the suffering of those he fought. But when not in combat, he loved nature, and art, and beauty, and quiet moments. He surrounded himself with handmaidens, and killed them if they became "impure" in his sight. He was most assuredly CE. He was also likely modeled, in some part, after the angel Islington, from Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere."
And speaking of angels, may I present Ragathiel, whose daily obedience requires you to sacrifice an evil or chaotic person in his name. He's a Lawful Good Archangel of Wrath and Vengeance. Who requires a daily sacrifice of a living, sentient being. A CN street urchin who stole bread to feed his family? Lawbreaker. Fair game to sate Ragathiel's vengeance.
Now, we've had LG characters all over the spectrum. Loving, kind, gentle, merciful, altruistic, compromising, uncompromising, righteous, wrathful, vengeful, hateful. The litmus test is whether or not they are objectively Good and Lawful, irrespective of their personality or demeanor.
The OP's inquisitor is objectively Good and Lawful, even if he's rough, mean, and abrasive.
EDIT: And the alignment dispute that did recently occur was because a relatively new player wanted to play a CN barbarian (which was *not* a warning sign for our group, as we've had many successful CN characters over the years) but began playing her in a very clearly CE way, and we called the player out on it, and ruled that the character was not CN.
My take on this:
General question: No, that's not strictly outside the bounds of Lawful Good, as an isolated incident and/or a moment of poor judgment on the character's part. I'd frown on a LG character regularly handling things in such a fashion. Threatening innocents should be very much a last resort, and the first course of action should ideally have been something else. Mass enchantments, Diplomacy over Intimidate, trying to scare them WITHOUT the threat of death, etc. The character's actions were not LG, but not so severe (alone) as to merit an alignment change.
Specific instance: I don't think your GM was in the wrong to change your alignment, because I get the impression it was NOT an isolated incident, and as you indicated, the character was already acting more LN.
Lawful alignments are quite willing to impose their views on others even if they are not willing. So saying the lawful good character cannot use intimidation before exhausting literally every other option is kind of silly. Lawful alignments are also not that interested in freedom that is a chaotic hang up. Lawful societies have rules and punishments for breaking those rules. How is this any different than making a law that says if you steal you will be put in prison, and if you resist any force necessary to take you will be used to apprehend you?
You are also advocating the use of magic to impose your actions on another person as being less evil that threatening a person. I would say that using magic to force someone to do something is a lot worse than using intimidate. Many people think that using magic to control someone’s mind is actually very evil.
Also note that the original poster did in fact try all other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a bit absurd to call them 'meaningless' merely because he can find more than one way of expressing a given alignment. Alignments have nuance. They're broad brushes that can hold a variety of character concepts without being incongruous or pointless just because there's variety in there.
Also you should make up your mind between the backhanded compliments and 'did not mean to imply you are doing it wrong', because they look silly put in the same post with each other.
It was not a backhanded compliment. The CRB uses the word: "ruthless" to describe chaotic evil. A different Pathfinder book says that lawful good (supposedly the extreme opposite alignment) can be described as "ruthless". It is an incoherent system that is contradictory and is therefore meaningless. Gulthor's table resolves the contradiction differently to me, both ways are valid, That is the point.
I don't care, but other people might, so you probably shouldn't go around calling people silly.
Don't be silly. Swoosh didn't call you silly, just absurd. Absurd and Silly are totally different alignments, to think they are the same is absurd. The Silly alignment is Ruthless, while the Absurd alignment is Ruthless. There, you see? They are complete opposites!
My take on this:
General question: No, that's not strictly outside the bounds of Lawful Good, as an isolated incident and/or a moment of poor judgment on the character's part. I'd frown on a LG character regularly handling things in such a fashion. Threatening innocents should be very much a last resort, and the first course of action should ideally have been something else. Mass enchantments, Diplomacy over Intimidate, trying to scare them WITHOUT the threat of death, etc. The character's actions were not LG, but not so severe (alone) as to merit an alignment change.
Specific instance: I don't think your GM was in the wrong to change your alignment, because I get the impression it was NOT an isolated incident, and as you indicated, the character was already acting more LN.
Lawful alignments are quite willing to impose their views on others even if they are not willing. So saying the lawful good character cannot use intimidation before exhausting literally every other option is kind of silly. Lawful alignments are also not that interested in freedom that is a chaotic hang up. Lawful societies have rules and punishments for breaking those rules. How is this any different than making a law that says if you steal you will be put in prison, and if you resist any force necessary to take you will be used to apprehend you?
You are also advocating the use of magic to impose your actions on another person as being less evil that threatening a person. I would say that using magic to force someone to do something is a lot worse than using intimidate. Many people think that using magic to control someone’s mind is actually very evil.
Also note that the original poster did in fact try all other options.
Nice strawman you got there, but I didn't say the lawful good character couldn't use intimidation before exhausting literally every other option. I said threatening to kill people shouldn't be a LG character's usual Plan A. I, in fact, said intimidation in and of itself was a perfectly valid method to have handled the situation.
Also, the OP isn't that clear. I couldn't tell how much had been tried first at what time, and how much of it was his character or other PCs. Furthermore, I was making a general statement. The OP asked if threatening crowds of people, including children, with a crossbow was not-LG. I answered that it was not-LG but doesn't warrant an alignment shift, unless done repeatedly. That's all.
As far as the mind control thing, by the rules and the intention of the setting, it's not evil. Many people can think that, but there are a lot of enchantments that don't have the Evil descriptor. I do think some of them should, notably Murderous Command, but the point is, very few do. Charm Person? Not evil. Suggestion? Not evil. Dominate Person, not evil. You're free to disagree, but it's not just my opinion you're disagreeing with. Kinda hard to argue that I'm wrong for agreeing with the game itself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the mind control thing, by the rules and the intention of the setting, it's not evil. Many people can think that, but there are a lot of enchantments that don't have the Evil descriptor. I do think some of them should, notably Murderous Command, but the point is, very few do. Charm Person? Not evil. Suggestion? Not evil. Dominate Person, not evil. You're free to disagree, but it's not just my opinion you're disagreeing with. Kinda hard to argue that I'm wrong for agreeing with the game itself.
Just because they don't have [Evil] next to them doesn't mean that using them willy nilly isn't evil. Just not inherently evil.
After all, Fireball isn't [Evil], but chucking it around the town square on market day certainly would be.
It's also been explained several times by several Paizo staffers that Mengkare probably isn't Lawful Good, no matter how gold a dragon he is. (Though I think "monsters of LG" Is a more interesting way to handle the character, personally.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dominating someone into doing good deeds is something Archons would probably approve of.
Not from their description -
As creatures of law and good, archons seek order, justice, and the protection of the weak against the depredations of the strong. They believe in transformation from within, whether through wholesale, systematic change of governance or personal epiphany.
Domination is pretty much the opposite of "transformation from within".
These[Archons] virtuous outsiders prefer to motivate mortals to act with honor and integrity rather than righting mortal wrongs themselves, believing the cause of righteousness is best served by enlightening creatures to make just choices. and cast off their own shackles of evil. This makes future temptations easier to resist and plants the seeds of spiritual deliverance. Thus, most archons take a subtle hand in their interactions with mortals, taking special pleasure in bringing solace and reprieve to those who are wholly unaware of their presence.
What makes you think that they'd be okay with dominating people to do 'good'?
As far as the mind control thing, by the rules and the intention of the setting, it's not evil. Many people can think that, but there are a lot of enchantments that don't have the Evil descriptor. I do think some of them should, notably Murderous Command, but the point is, very few do. Charm Person? Not evil. Suggestion? Not evil. Dominate Person, not evil. You're free to disagree, but it's not just my opinion you're disagreeing with. Kinda hard to argue that I'm wrong for agreeing with the game itself.Just because they don't have [Evil] next to them doesn't mean that using them willy nilly isn't evil. Just not inherently evil.
After all, Fireball isn't [Evil], but chucking it around the town square on market day certainly would be.
All I'm trying to say is that I think a simple Mass Suggestion of "drop the flowers" would be a sufficiently LG solution in this case.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preconceptions of Law, I suppose.
I'm wrong. THank you for pointing those things out.
Meh - I think a lot of alignment arguments on the law/chaos axis come from Gygax using the term "Law" when he didn't mean actual laws. I think that "Discipline" or "Order" would likely be a better fit.
All I'm trying to say is that I think a simple Mass Suggestion of "drop the flowers" would be a sufficiently LG solution in this case.As far as the mind control thing, by the rules and the intention of the setting, it's not evil. Many people can think that, but there are a lot of enchantments that don't have the Evil descriptor. I do think some of them should, notably Murderous Command, but the point is, very few do. Charm Person? Not evil. Suggestion? Not evil. Dominate Person, not evil. You're free to disagree, but it's not just my opinion you're disagreeing with. Kinda hard to argue that I'm wrong for agreeing with the game itself.Just because they don't have [Evil] next to them doesn't mean that using them willy nilly isn't evil. Just not inherently evil.
After all, Fireball isn't [Evil], but chucking it around the town square on market day certainly would be.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it sounds like you're speaking in the hypothetical while Grumbaki is describing an experience he had while playing at the table, you know?