Watching some TV today, and the bad guy was stopping people from talking by targeting their families. He would pretty much say "You squeal on me, we torture and shoot your family". My first immediate thought was
"You don't tell me what I know, we go torture and shoot your family. Now you have nothing protecting your twisted little perfect world". To that I received an almost instantly negative reaction from everyone around me, stating how heartless and evil I was.
Then I turned around and gave them the ultimatum of "My family equates to approximately 10 close people, and its only going to shrink from there. And knowing them, they would much rather die to the hands of corruption to expel that corruption instead of at the hands of cops because I was to corrupt to do the right thing. I know for a fact I'd much rather have the mob shoot me dead and save thousands of innocent lives instead of living knowing I was only alive because thousands died to protect me".
Thinking back on it... that was rather heartless of me. But I've looked back and a lot of my actions were "Doing what is necessary" and "following orders" rather then "doing whats right" and "following the heart".
Would that mean I'm Lawful Evil? What alignment would I be?
Are you asking if it is an evil act to accept the deaths of your family to save the lives of thousands more? I wouldn't say so. I think that when your choices are reduced to a binary of bad options, you have to take the one that is less bad. I would say it's much more dubious to accept the deaths of thousands to save a few people lucky enough to be close to you.
Let me put it to you this way: Anakin Skywalker did what he did to save his wife. That doesn't make it okay.
Of course, the only really good option is the heroic "third" option. But choosing to put thousands at risk to find that third option...well, that's a complicated choice, alright.
@ Kobold Not... exactly...
I'm asking if its an evil act for me to threaten the family and loved ones of another person because the BBEG is threatening their family and loved ones.
Here is a more relevant example of why I'm asking what you think my alignment is:
-----
Person: "If I tell you, BBEG will kill my family!"
Me: "If you don't tell me, I will find, torment, torture, maim, and slaughter your whole bloodline, forcing you to watch and making sure that they know the whole reason I'm doing this to them is because you refused to tell me about BBEG's plan to kill the world. Now... about that BBEG's secret terrorist plans again?"
-----
Ask me to shoot someone for no reason, I'll most likely shoot you.
Ask me to shoot someone because they are the reason why 10 people will die if I don't, I'll most likely shoot them.
I'm not going to hurt someone without a reason, but I'll do some extremely gruesome things if I feel its the most direct way to stopping others from becoming hurt.
I think that breaks a bit from the train metaphor. Given a variety of options, you choose the one which is most likely (in your opinion) to work instead of the ones that would be more moral. I would call it Lawful Evil, yes. You have other choices. You make this one.
As a sidenote, I wouldn't be surprised if they called your bluff on that threat. "I mean, my family's apparently gonna die either way, and I can't see you spending that much effort on me while the BBEG's still trying to kill the world, so I'm gonna bet that the BBEG kills you before you get the chance. tyvmkthxbai"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What alignment were you hoping for?
Baval, they aren't committing evil acts against evil people. They're threatening to kill the family to pressure a witness into telling the truth. They're actually killing the family for a very linear and "logical" reason, which is why they're probably LE. Probably. CE and NE would both work, too.
@ Kobold - If they are the best answer I have to finding BBEG, it wouldn't be much of a bluff. (Probably go on a quest with them forced to watch with some deviation spell to visit their family if they say no).
@ Baval - I can live with that. I've been called worse. (I'm the type of guy who would push the fat guy in front of the metaphorical train to save the workers at the end of the line, and would jump in front of the train myself if no such options existed). (#Edit# Sorry... more accurately, I would most likely jump in front of the train first. If my own body wouldn't suffice, I would seek other means to stop the train. If those means pushed me to pushing someone else on the track, I would do it, but only if it were the last option taken. The witnesses obviously wont say anything because their family is in danger. If they are going to do something, they need to be coerced into doing it. #Edit#)
@ Captain - No idea... I was just curious. When I said what I said while watching the movie/series, my friends were absolutely abhorred. I was just curious what alignment that might end up being.
From a purely utilitarian perspective the choice to murder the witness's family before the big bad has an opportunity to do so so that he has no reason not to spill the beans is the right and wholly good one.
That means you're Lawful Evil.
Kobold, depends on his intent. If he just wants to scare the person, its iffy but there are kinder ways to intimidate someone, therefore hes causing undue suffering and thus I argue is still evil. If he actually would do it, then its 100% evil. (edit: which he just clarified so...)
Lawful Evil has to be just as well as evil, but since the evil taints the just its hard to make a cut off point for it. If his moral code as an evil person says that families should be punished for the acts of any of its members, hes still Lawful Evil, but remember that he has to obey that code too and that is a very dumb code for an evil person to have, as it leaves him vulnerable to punishment for things outside his control.
It's not about punishment, is the thing. It's a means to an end, and the ends justify the means—at least to this character.
If we're talking about morality, there is no one right or wrong morality, and certainly no absolute good or evil. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
If we're talking about the alignment system, it really comes down to repeated behavior.
If you were put in 100 different situations where your answer was "I kill my family to avoid x" and x included things like "Getting out of paying for a meal" or "Having to go to the store to buy toilet paper" and you're seriously and repeatedly answering "ya, I'd kill my family to avoid paying a bar tab. Seems pretty reasonable." then you might meet the pathfinder game's definition of the evil alignment.
Alignment is a sliding scale, not a toggle switch; otherwise, there would be no paladins.
Leaving behind family and survivors is an easy way to have someone come back for revenge, or have someone that could be used against you.
Thankfully, everyone that spends too much time around me inexplicably meets a terrible end, and I don't even have to do anything! So it's hardly an issue for me ;3
If that's actually true Rei, you should probably get some grief counseling.
When pushing people in front of trolleys, take care to gauge the necessity of that action. Otherwise, you may eventually forget why you're doing it and just push people in front of trolleys 'because it's right'.
A statement like "I would never hurt an innocent even if I thought it was the only way to save a much greater number of lives" is the sort of thing a Lawful Good (or maybe Lawful Neutral) person would think.
People who don't follow that philosophy are not confined to a single alignment. Someone who casually opts for "torture their children if we need the information, because it seems quicker and easier than the alternatives" is probably evil, but there are grey areas inbetween.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The right thing to do is to put the witness and his family into witness protection. Easier said than done, but no one said doing the right thing to do is easy.
Even so, it's more likely to work than your proposed plan. By threatening someone's family, all you're going to do is make them clamp up- you're no longer the "good guys" to them. In fact you're worse than the "bad guys" at that point, because you essentially betrayed their trust.
Postmonster ate my post. Anyways, no, it's not about punishment—at least, not as a motive. That's what you're sticking on. It doesn't have to be just, because the point of the punishment isn't to make them pay: it's as part of a persuasive technique. The motive for the "punishment" is simply to achieve the end—to put weight behind the threat, in essence. In other words, it's the difference between locking a thief up because "they deserve it" and locking them up so it doesn't happen again.
What matters here is the reasoning involved, and this is a choice made for practical considerations (and perhaps considerations of keeping one's word). The punishment doesn't have to suit the crime, because in the eyes of the character, the crime is irrelevant: Only results matter.
That the method would probably fail miserably is another matter, of course.
That's fair. :)
The really important questions are:
Do you have Improved Trip?
What's the fat guy's CMD?