| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to the OP, if you are still reading this, there is no reason to have distrusted the other character. He was given a choice between two great evils and chose the lesser. Not his fault, it was a trap conversation.
Just to put some context to this. This was the closing session. The "change their alignment" was said out of game while joking around about the characters. I understand, as someone else said that talking about something, or even a single evil deed doesn't mean an automatic change of alignment. The Swashbuckler had in the past made "hard" choices. I get what you mean about "traps" though, in the other instance too -not getting into it, long story- he had no choice. It was the lesser evil or a TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...DM believes they are doing the right thing. You should kill an innocent family, to save a many more innocent families... We were having philosophical discussion with DM and other players on the matter. I suggested I'd post on the message boards so we see what others think...Well, then, it isn't a Pathfinder debate; I recommend your group take a look at Emmanuel Kant and Socrates - and then, for devil's advocate, read some Machiavelli. Don't ask us, most of us will give knee-jerk responses and then make anger-noises at each other.
(I wonder what the slaughtered family would say about the ethics of the situation. Anybody got speak with dead?)
My cleric. But he doesn't. He considers it unethical :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...DM believes they are doing the right thing. You should kill an innocent family, to save a many more innocent families... We were having philosophical discussion with DM and other players on the matter. I suggested I'd post on the message boards so we see what others think...Well, then, it isn't a Pathfinder debate; I recommend your group take a look at Emmanuel Kant and Socrates - and then, for devil's advocate, read some Machiavelli. Don't ask us, most of us will give knee-jerk responses and then make anger-noises at each other.
(I wonder what the slaughtered family would say about the ethics of the situation. Anybody got speak with dead?)
Though of note - based upon his other writings and the rest of his life, many think that Machiavelli's The Prince was actually a huge satire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can roleplay literally any alignment as a character fighting "for the greater good". From a pragmatic "big-picture-seeing" LG to a deluded CE criminal willing to commit all sorts of atrocities "for the greater good". Even an insane CN lunatic who thinks his nonsensical and meaningless actions actually have a beneficial impact on the world.
Try not to chain yourself too much. Accept the fact that you will disagree with your GM and fellow players on one aspect of morality or another. No two people on this world see every moral issue the same.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric: "You are going to do everything to protect your people, that's not a suggestion. That's a fact, I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself"
Swashbuckler: "What exactly defines everything? What is the limit in what we do?"
Cleric: "I... I really do not think there is one. As long as it is to keep your people safe I think you will do everything. Would you kill a whole family to save many many more? Yes you would. Now would you sleep at night? That's a very different question"
Swashbuckler: "Yes, I would. You are right. It's all about the people. We don't matter if we cant protect them. And yes... I could sleep at night."
This is the problem with any 'greater good' scenario. The fact that 'good' is anywhere in the discussion. There is no greater good if good is nowhere to be found. Only difficult AND oversimplified decisions.
In exactly what scenario would someone have to go in and personally kill an innocent family to save numerous others? This is a very contrived scenario. Much more often than not, when you are dealing with a 'who lives and who dies' situation, the deaths of those involved are caused by something other than your own hand.
For instance, a plague has spread and you are trying to decide how to allocate limited medical staff and supplies to be the most effective. Are you killing the family in that situation? Certainly not. And a good person isn't justifying their decisions in any way because good people are humble. They empathize with their suffering, and sacrifice their own time, energy, and sometimes lives to doing everything they can to save others.
I saw people referencing Spock's sacrifice bringing up the age old 'needs of many outweigh needs of few' argument. The problem is that in that movie, it was SPOCK that said it before he sacrificed his own life. He didn't say it while shoving someone else into that radioactive chamber. That is where the line is drawn.
When it comes to life or death, there can be no greater good where murder and coercion are in play. Self sacrifice is the only kind of sacrifice that can ever be for a greater good because it is done willingly. That is part of what defines good, valuing the lives of others more than your own life. Valuing the lives of some over the lives of others and mentally preparing yourself to personally snuff out innocent life for some 'greater cause' is nowhere near any kind of good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds a lot more like Lawful Evil to me. Hell is more than willing to sacrifice a couple of people just to keep the greater stability.
Really...who are these 'people' they refer to? Appearantly they aren't families, with wives, children, husbands, grandparents... "I can't see this forest through the trees!"
Once you are willing to sacrifice SOMEBODY, then you can sacrifice ANYBODY, and thus the 'people' are expendable. Either that, or you have a social caste system ("we can sacrifice hundreds of these commoners, but how dare you sacrifice a single noble!")
There is knowing your limits, such as not sending 100 soldiers to their death to save 10 people from 1,000,000 orcs... and then there is a willingness to just actively sacrifice others for your goals.
This person just says 'yeah, I would kill 'em'. No major qualifiers or moral quandaries (like 'they are infected with an incurable disease that automatically turns them into zombies- we should put them out of their misery before they become threats'). Nope. He is just willing to kill innocents due to some vague need.
But hey, what do I know- the 'kill em all' dwarves are apparently LG. OF course, even for a god like Torag, this sounds VERY dicey. Torag can at least say that mercy given to enemies is a disservice to the community you are trying to protect, since leaving them alone will allow them to grow, fester morally, and eat a toddler. But the guy in this story is more than willing to kill the innocents of the community. Targetting people he is supposed to protect, rather than enemies.
By these standards, all military commanders must be lawful or chaotic evil. All of them. Every time a commander orders his troops to hold a position or charge an enemy he knows some will get killed, but does it for the greater good of the country. This tactic has been used in war for thousands of years. Interesting idea to use innocent creatures as body shields and if clerics or paladins attack (or counter attack) they automatically switch to an evil alignment and lose their powers.
I had a GM do something like this to me; I had to choose which to save, a family of innocent farmers from rampaging orcs or rescue a gold dragon egg from destruction. He then asked exactly WHY I chose not to save an innocent family. I said that its terrible that I can't save everyone, but that is the human condition, and I cannot let a being with the potential to be a titanic force of good, that may live for a thousand years, die. He didn't change my alignment from NG, and this was a GM that liked to change people's alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly, didn't at one point Churchill know about an incoming raid of German bombers, but chose not to warn the targets, since the German's did not know about the system that had detected them or that it could detect them . Churchill essentially sacrificed a town of innocent people in order to protect the detection system . By your logic, Churchill was evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing an innocent wrong? Yes
Is killing an innocent always wrong? no
We can all think of a scenario in which killing an innocent is the right choice. If your not original enough enjoy
Mystic mumbo jumbo. A single pure innocent soul's life is tied to that of every single evil thing that existed ever. Killing him would eliminate every other evil to ever possibly exist past, present, future, and in all timeless spaces/nonspaces. Yes I have had a dm do this
From there it is just deciding where the line is
Refer to my earlier post on where I think that line is. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong and if so why. Note I judge morality by intent as net effect is not calculable
Thank you for pointing out that I didn't want to talk about the L/C axis. I don't. Arguments there are so dam convoluted because everyone's definitions of the 2 differ much more than the G/E axis
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HWalsh: So... what you're saying that the good thing to do is have die?!?!?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly, didn't at one point Churchill know about an incoming raid of German bombers, but chose not to warn the targets, since the German's did not know about the system that had detected them or that it could detect them . Churchill essentially sacrificed a town of innocent people in order to protect the detection system . By your logic, Churchill was evil.
And again... using what's intended as a pure gaming metric to evaluate real life... is simply silly. What you're referring to btw was the Bombing of Coventry.
In Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, James Gordon reveals a bit of soul searching about a popular theory regarding President Roosevelt and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
HWalsh: So... what you're saying that the good thing to do is have die?!?!?!
Ultimately... everyone does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do the absolute most good you can, which in this case is trying to find another option (for this specific thing, we'll say there isn't), and then killing the family to save many more innocents (maybe even sacrificing yourself) you should not have a stain on the conscious, as what you did is a good act.
Good and evil acts are not statically defined, they are based on context.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By these standards, all military commanders must be lawful or chaotic evil. All of them. Every time a commander orders his troops to hold a position or charge an enemy he knows some will get killed, but does it for the greater good of the country. This tactic has been used in war for thousands of years. Interesting idea to use innocent creatures as body shields and if clerics or paladins attack (or counter attack) they...Not really. You're confusing issuing an order that people willingly follow to intentionally killing an innocent.
The commander isn't sacrificing people by ordering a charge. He's ordering a charge. It's possible, very likely, that someone will die.
Those are two different things.
Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Massachusetts:
DEAR MADAM: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.Yours very sincerely and respectfully, Abraham Lincoln.
I think many leaders see the loss of their followers lives as a troubling sacrifice of innocence (in addition to civilian casualties that always accompany war). But the important part that I tried to imply, but didn't exactly spell out in the last half of my comment, is the intent. Personally killing innocence is incredibly rare in actual play, but allowing innocence to die isn't. Its the grief a good commander feels at the suffering his actions result in that makes him good. Its just looking at the battle as nothing more than a tactical win, that make one a pragmatic devil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing an innocent wrong? Yes
Is killing an innocent always wrong? no
Stop trying to confuse me with contradictory statements. It won't work! :p
We can all think of a scenario in which killing an innocent is the right choice. If your not original enough enjoy
** spoiler omitted **
From there it is just deciding where the line is
The line is right there at that first life.
Please note what I said in an earlier post. Self sacrifice is the only sacrifice that can be for the greater good because it is the only righteous kind of sacrifice. Killing one innocent soul to eliminate all evil is still killing for the convenience of others. The promise of eliminating all the worlds problems with a single dark deed is THE ultimate sham. I'd half expect a DM to place good players in this scenario as a villainous deception to try to get them all to stain their soul, and take the first step towards the dark side. The first step is always the most important. Then from there it just gets easier and easier to view the lives of others as a means to an end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thunderrstar: We're assuming there wasn't any other option, and yes, a good character would try as hard as they can to find another one, but there is no other option. (Because this is a hypothetical scenario)
BackHandOfFate: The problem is, if you do not kill the singular family, many more innocent families die. In my opinion YOU would be killing the multiple families JUST as much as you would be killing the singular family, regardless of how indirect that killing was. (Remember, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no 3rd option.) There is no way to avoid killing innocents, therefore morality falls to which option kills more, therefore killing the family is a good act, because it saves more people, regardless of how it would normally be an evil act, because good and evil are based on context.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The promise of eliminating all the worlds problems with a single dark deed is THE ultimate sham. I'd half expect a DM to place good players in this scenario as a villainous deception to try to get them all to stain their soul, and take the first step towards the dark side. The first step is always the most important. Then from there it just gets easier and easier to view the lives of others as a means to an end.
See; this, right here, is a dividing line that many cannot ever get across.
It is the point at which one's willing suspension of disbelief breaks, and one goes, "Nope; ain't never work that way, not even in fiction." and one cannot come to the conclusion that such a thing could ever be good: because of the persistent and abiding belief in hidden "strings attached" to <evil action>.
If one cannot accept the scenario as it functionally is, or mentally contrive a scenario that functions for the purpose of the test, then one cannot come to the "same" conclusion as another who can. Neither person is wrong - one is more rooted into reality, while the other has the ability to loosen their mindset from the universe in which we love, but neither of these are wrong. But they will crest mutually irreconcilable differences.
Much earlier, Dastis made a good post. I'll quote it.
Folks drop batman. He is such an old and varied character he could be any alignment based on when you look at him.
The characters in question are lawful and that particular axis is to convoluted to really have an argument about it. Rather than arguing C/L how about just a good/evil consideration
G: They kill the family after looking for another solution then feel deep regret
N: They kill the family and either; A. look for another solution beforehand. B. feel regret afterwards
E: They kill the family no regret no looking for other solutions
When combined with,
Interesting conversation, but alignments don't change based on what a person says they would be willing to do. What about a killer who claims to be purifying the world of evil influences and does so by murdering criminals and their families to prevent their "corruption" from spreading? Decidedly evil, despite their claims to the contrary. Similarly, if a Taldan politician were to be appointed after promising to crack down on Sarenrae worship then used their new position and its power to aid their escape they'd still be Good. Talk without action means nothing in terms of alignment - the Cleric and Swashbuckler wouldn't become Neutral until they actually commit that act.
Consider the following - this conversation changes their alignment to Neutral, then a day later they are actually faced with the situation and realize that they are unable to commit to the act. Do they change back to Good or remain Neutral? Besides believing that they'd be able to sacrifice people for some greater good, what changed? I say that their true natures were those of Good people during the conversation and afterwards. Believing that you're capable of committing to Evil doesn't make you Evil any more than believing you are capable of doing much Good makes you Good.
TL;DR - It...
This is also correct and crucial. When engaging in alignment debates with others, please note that it is easier to say you'd do something (or say you'd never do something, or cast aspersions about a particular instance) than actually do it or live through that instance.
Conversational philosophy - no matter how thorough - is no substitute for living an event.
Which brings me back to my first point way up at the top of this post: some people find some scenarios easier to imagine than others, and find different emotional responses to non-true situations based on both their internal moral compass and the ability (or lack) to sever their answer with real-world (or otherwise-informed) instances of situations or expectations.
To the OP, I can concise of several fantasy scenarios in which the morality of the choice could change. In a Pathfinder world, I find those scenarios to be less plausible than in some others... but because I can envision scenarios in which there are no other choice (most of which are neither applicable in real life or PF-world), I can easily understand people in that universe could do the same. It is not that it is something I'd ever want to do, and I'd look for any other solution. I can't say that I'd do it, either - but it's possible. I could see someone coming to a "simple" solution of, "Yeah, I'd do that, if necessary."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BackHandOfFate: The problem is, if you do not kill the singular family, many more innocent families die. In my opinion YOU would be killing the multiple families JUST as much as you would be killing the singular family, regardless of how indirect that killing was. (Remember, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no 3rd option.) There is no way to avoid killing innocents, therefore morality falls to which option kills more, therefore killing the family is a good act, because it saves more people, regardless of how it would normally be an evil act, because good and evil are based on context.
Captain, you are confusing the concept of 'good' with the concept of 'favorable'. Of course you want to save as many people as possible. That doesn't mean it's a 'good' act to murder innocent families. It just means that you've made a decision to favor the many over the few. Killing innocent people is never good. You're taking a decision that is ultimately beneficial to a large group of people and painting it as morally justified when anyone who's cracked a history book knows what that kind of thinking can lead to.
See; this, right here, is a dividing line that many cannot ever get across.
It is the point at which one's willing suspension of disbelief breaks, and one goes, "Nope; ain't never work that way, not even in fiction." and one cannot come to the conclusion that such a thing could ever be good: because of the persistent and abiding belief in hidden "strings attached" to <evil action>.
There's nothing hidden about these strings. The decision is plain to see, you are being 'forced' to commit evil with the promise of avoiding great catastrophe. It's not that I wouldn't have a character make a decision in this kind of scenario. The problem is, if this was a kind of game where this type of 'lesser of two evils, never a third option' thinking was prevalent among the DM and players, it would likely be a game I'd want to walk away from. Because the truth is, THAT is the most rigid, non compromising kind of thought process presented in this thread. I find it disappointing that my analysis comes across as rigid thinking to you. For me, suspension of disbelief belongs squarely in the 'fantasy' aspect of any game. I do not believe it should be applied to acts of good and evil to make them appear as anything other than what they are.
If one cannot accept the scenario as it functionally is, or mentally contrive a scenario that functions for the purpose of the test, then one cannot come to the "same" conclusion as another who can. Neither person is wrong - one is more rooted into reality, while the other has the ability to loosen their mindset from the universe in which we love, but neither of these are wrong. But they will crest mutually irreconcilable differences.
So, what you're saying is... If I am of the mindset to analyze and critique contrived scenarios that never present a third option, that I cannot loosen my mind enough? If 'loosening your mindset' involves somehow turning concepts of morality (which are clearly definable in said fantasy universe) on their head and saying 'Killing innocents can be a good act from a moral standpoint' then yeah count me out. Because that is ultimately what this boils down to. As I said earlier, my problem was never with these scenarios being presented in the first place. My problem was with these actions being rationalized as 'good' when all they really are is 'tactically sound' at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BackHandOfFate: You make a really good point, and I should have clarified what I meant better. I did not mean to say that it was good to kill innocents. This is a very bad situation no matter what happens. The point I was trying to make was that for the purposes of the paladin codes (Which specifically use the terms of good and evil acts, which was why I was using those terms) and maintaining good alignments saving the many by killing the few is the option that (at least if your GM is in any way good) the one that would not result in falling.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BackHandOfFate: You make a really good point, and I should have clarified what I meant better. I did not mean to say that it was good to kill innocents. This is a very bad situation no matter what happens. The point I was trying to make was that for the purposes of the paladin codes (Which specifically use the terms of good and evil acts, which was why I was using those terms) and maintaining good alignments saving the many by killing the few is the option that (at least if your GM is in any way good) the one that would not result in falling.
I disagree. Arguably the Atonement would be easy, but murdering an innocent family would be an evil act and cause a Paladin to fall. Pathfinder is set in a world of moral absolutes, not moral relativism, no matter what one's real-world outlook. (Though the entire situation would be so contrived that I'd probably walk away from the table if there was no potential 3rd option.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon's Little Helper: There should not be ANY situations where a paladin falls no matter what they do, because whether or not a paladin falls is dictated by their deity, and any deity who is a legal choice for a paladin would not condemn someone just for a situation they were placed in. If a GM is mean enough to place a paladin in a situation and then rule that they fall no matter what the paladin does they fall, the paladin's player should stop playing.
EDIT: Got ninja'd by swoosh: Yeah, my scenario is really contrived and there's not really any chance that it would actually exist with no 3rd options, but it's a hypothetical scenario, and it's fun to talk about(for me at least, if you don't think it's fun then you don't have to.)
Blame the NPC cleric's not talking about third options, not me :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BackHandOfFate: You make a really good point, and I should have clarified what I meant better. I did not mean to say that it was good to kill innocents. This is a very bad situation no matter what happens. The point I was trying to make was that for the purposes of the paladin codes (Which specifically use the terms of good and evil acts, which was why I was using those terms) and maintaining good alignments saving the many by killing the few is the option that (at least if your GM is in any way good) the one that would not result in falling.
Charon's Little Helper: There should not be ANY situations where a paladin falls no matter what they do, because whether or not a paladin falls is dictated by their deity, and any deity who is a legal choice for a paladin would not condemn someone just for a situation they were placed in. If a GM is mean enough to place a paladin in a situation and then rule that they fall no matter what the paladin does they fall, the paladin's player should stop playing.
One post on that and I'll cease and desist since I don't want to turn this into Paladin thread #5334927824323156809. Paladins don't get their powers from deities. They are empowered by a higher (non-personified) power while adhering to a code of conduct that is independent of any specific deity. Nothing in the rules states a deity can take away a Paladins powers as with a Cleric. The code is what gives them power. Break the code, lose your power. This is true regardless of if the deity they follow believes the Paladin should be shown leeway. We've all seen examples of Good aligned deities straying into dark paths... 'Clash of the Kingslayers' for example.. Paladins follow a stricter code than even most good aligned deities follow. One that doesn't allow them to utilize dark methods to achieve what they view to be righteous ends. That is all I will say on the topic. I fully understand if your viewpoint differs on this. I will say I agree with you when you say a Paladin should not be placed in any situation where they fall either way, which is why I would avoid games that include these kinds of scenarios.
Now please let us return to the topic at hand.
I believe there should be a clear distinction made between morally 'good' and tactically 'good'. Because it seems the lines have been blurred a little in this discussion. Winning at chess is tactically 'good' and also devoid of any moral implication. Saving lives is 'good' from a moral standpoint despite the tactical risks that may be involved. Damning innocent lives to save many more lives in the process (as when you sacrifice a pawn to protect the other chess pieces) is obviously the strategically sound move to make. From a moral standpoint, however, you cannot view people as pawns that you can dispose of to the benefit of others and view it as a morally 'good' decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as a non-native speaker, the first time I encountered the term "For the Greater Good", was as the motto of Gellert Grindelvald, basically Wizard Hitler in the Harry Potter novels, which has led to me beeing extremely suspicious against anyone using it as a justification.
It's also the name of a pretty memorable Villains and Vigilantes module.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torchwood: Children of Earth.
That's all that needs be said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Having everyone die is a very EVIL act, and is by NO means good. Yes, some good people might not be prepared to actually kill the singular family, such as a child or a generic commoner, but the ONLY reason someone would doom everyone is because they are evil and enjoy killing. An Anti-hero is not representative of the greater good. The are a representative of the "Greater You" (I just had to put that in there). A true hero of good should be prepared to uphold the greater good (Or the least bad) in any situation, no matter how bad it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if I should envy groups in which killing a single innocent family to save many more is a hypothetical question. Given that in my last Pathfinder campaing PCs directly endorsed a bloody purge of priesthood of Asmodeus and functionaries of the ovethrown regime with casualites approximately in six digits, manipulated an army of barbarians into fighting for them in battles which they did not expect those barbarians to survive, turned a blind eye to genocide performed by their NPC ally on the same barbarian tribes afterwards, exiled a hostile group in the direction where it was going to be wiped out... The sad thing was, that party systematically tried to help people without expecting rewards and minimize bloodshed and destruction, even rehabilitated a bunch of villains and monsters. Pathfinderland was just too brutal of a place, and ensuring any sort of lasting safety for their own people without making a lot more people die proved to be impossible.
Yes. That is why sometimes there is a need for an antihero. They are willing to do what a "hero" can't or won't. This has been a part of literature FOREVER.
If you started counting "forever" from late 19th to 20th century. Before that "antihero" was the term for a coward, a blowhard, or an apathetic misfit, people who lacked qualities to actually do anything heroic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Having everyone die is a very EVIL act, and is by NO means good. Yes, some good people might not be prepared to actually kill the singular family, such as a child or a generic commoner, but the ONLY reason someone would doom everyone is because they are evil and enjoy killing. An Anti-hero is not representative of the greater good. The are a representative of the "Greater You" (I just had to put that in there). A true hero of good should be prepared to uphold the greater good (Or the least bad) in any situation, no matter how bad it is.
I agree with you that the morally superior thing to do in this (ridiculous, contrived) situation is to murder the innocent family to save the world. That is different to the Good thing in Pathfinder - Good is a literal force in the world, things are made from Good, and it means specific things.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
It is an Evil act to 'debase or destroy innocent life' intentionally in Pathfinder. It does not matter what the ramifications of killing/not killing the innocents, it is objectively Evil. I would argue in this case that Evil does NOT mean it is morally wrong to do - but that is subjective morality, and as we got to the topic of Paladins falling and the like, we are talking about the objective morality of the Pathfinder universe.
If you were running it very strictly, I would say that the only way the Paladin would not fall is if he made every attempt to stop the negative consequences without resorting to Evil acts - that's why Paladins are Paladins. A Grey Paladin who's LN, I could see doing it without falling, maybe.
In my home games - the situation wouldn't exist, but if it somehow did, you would NOT fall and it would not be an Evil act to kill the innocents, as I dislike objective morality in general. But if you're looking at the rules as written, I think it is technically Evil.
It's just that Evil and 'horrible thing from a moral perspective' and Good and 'good thing from a moral perspective' are not the same thing in Pathfinder - not always, at least.
Rationalization has nothing to do with pure alignments.
Rationalization is a very clever way we make excuses, but they cannot prove cosmic truths to be different.
Rationalization is also fairly neutral response to a dilemma. Good tries to selflessly help everyone, no matter what happens or is it effective. Because that is its goal. Positive energy heals, no matter what. Positive energy plane heals everyone, even the wicked. And negative energy takes. Evil takes. Good gives.
But I guess this threads original point was "Are characters with alignments allowed to rationalize and still keep their alignment?".
I find a table where the answer is "No" to be very ... polarizing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HWalsh:THAT is the difference between the greater good and ends justify the means. THAT is the difference between good and lawful evil. Yes, a hero would try desperately to find another way (but this is a weird hypothetical scenario, so there is no other way. If this actually came up in a game and it wasn't a test of some sort, I would stop playing with that GM). There are no good results either way, but a hero can the batter choice, and not fall down that slippery slope, and THAT is the greater good. Like how batman doesn't ever do the stuff you mentioned above. (Well, most of the time, because batman has been written by different authors and has been portrayed lost of different ways. But most of the time he's LG.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Having everyone die is a very EVIL act, and is by NO means good. Yes, some good people might not be prepared to actually kill the singular family, such as a child or a generic commoner, but the ONLY reason someone would doom everyone is because they are evil and enjoy killing. An Anti-hero is not representative of the greater good. The are a representative of the "Greater You" (I just had to put that in there). A true hero of good should be prepared to uphold the greater good (Or the least bad) in any situation, no matter how bad it is.Your moral compass is skewed.
A real hero would never sacrifice an innocent to save people. A real hero would find another way.
There is no such thing as a greater good. The greater good is just a lie people tell themselves so they don't feel bad about doing something evil.
See, the problem is, you're approaching from the direction of, "The ends justify the means." Or "It is ok to do evil so long as there are good results."
That is a super slippery slope.
It starts like this:
"The Joker is just going to escape and kill again. Batman should kill him and end the cycle."
"That cop is on the take and took a bribe from Knuckles Mallory. Batman should kill him to send a message and weaken Knuckles' support network."
"That two bit thug is peddling crack. Batman should kill him before he infects another person with his poison."
"That guy just broke into that store. Criminals never learn, they just go to jail and become better, and more violent, criminals. Batman should kill him before he becomes a threat."
"Commissioner Gordon is trying to arrest Batman? Batman is making a difference. Gordon's been Commissioner for years and nothing has gotten better. He's part of the problem. Batman needs to take him out, for the greater good."
"Superman wants to stop Batman? That alien has interfered long enough in human affairs. Humans need to sort...
Batman is a bad example. He doesn't kill the Joker for fear of becoming evil himself, but he also saves his life countless times when it isn't necessary even though he knows he'll inevitably end up back on the streets murdering more innocents. In doing so Batman values his own moral "purity" over the lives of the civilians he claims to protect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a whole spectrum of alignments that could fall into this trap (and that's what it is, a trap). Chaotic Good tries to save the day by any means necessary, and while they will feel bad about it afterwards to the bottom of their soul, if they run out of options they might try it. Neutral alignments are able to rationalize themselves into doing it. Evil alignments don't care. Even lawful good might fall into the trap if the situation was biased against the innocent family enough (read: contrived enough)..
The only alignment I see resisting 100% is Neutral Good, but that's because I consider it "the pure Good" alignment, and they are the most likely to realize the hidden strings attached, the deeper tragedy, and the most likely to simply refuse on moral grounds (the other alignments could easily come to that conclusion, but Neutral Good is the most "in tune" with that decision).
Note that whether it's an evil act or not isn't terribly important to this point of view. For the record, based on Pathfinder objective morality I'd consider it an evil act that becomes "less evil" the more contrived the situation is, but still ultimately evil, but obviously that is subject to debate. What's more interesting is which alignments can do do it and still retain their alignment- and the answer is, just about all of them- they'll just have to deal with the fallout in a mature way that befits their alignment, and that gets harder the more "good" you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comics heroes are driven by profit, NOT morality.
Well... So are Pathfinder rules.
Paizo certainly isn't selling Pathfinder products to teach people how to tell the difference between Good and Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This should be in the OTD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your moral compass is skewed.
A real hero would never sacrifice an innocent to save people. A real hero would find another way.
I don't think that a moral compass according to which real heroes can only exist, when the villains conpspire with the author to let them, is something to be proud of.
Let's imagine two variations on the basic situation that was (and is) fairly common in history. Your real hero is in charge of a fortress, besieged by a force outnumbering his own, perhaps not enough to overrun the walls, but enough that challenging it openly in the field can only result in a swift and inglorious defeat. He either sees the civilians who have failed to escape in time chased down and cut to pieces before his gates. Or the enemy brings some hostages, executes one as painfully as they can arrange in clear view of defenders but well beyond a shot range, and threatens to do the same with the rest unless the fortresses surrenders immediately, no negotiations, no nothing that might possibly allows to stall for time and stage a rescue mission. Those are far from purely theoretical, hypothetical situations. And in the world of Pathfinder there are a lot of opponents who will do things like this for s&%&s and giggles, not even because they expect to gain something tactically.
How you expect your Good-aligned characters to stay Good (which has tangible mechanical benefits, of which Evil foes will deliberately seek to strip them) here without suiciding themselves and letting the foes have their way with people they could have protected otherwise?
And yes, yes, I know, GM would be a dick for putting PCs in anything players may possibly perceive as an unwinnable situation that would make them feel bad. Let's consider the world's consistency for a moment, not all good guys have PC aura that lets them to always win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if it comes between losing one and losing a hundred, and you have no reason to suspect an alternative exists, it's morally selfish to insist on keeping the one, or to refuse to make a choice. At that point, you're gambling. You don't gamble with other people's lives—you make a rough call.