What to do when a LG character needs to do an evil act


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*rolls eyes*

Or from entirely social interactions, EXP is entirely in the purview of the GM, and there's other ways to gain levels outside of killing stuff.


That's not the expectation though, you're expected to be having mostly combat encounters.

CRB wrote:
Most encounters present combat with monsters or hostile NPCs, but there are many other types ... but the most complex encounters to build are the most common ones—combat encounters.

So it's a fairly safe bet that the people with monster killing superpowers used said powers to kill monsters more that a few times during their ascent to godlike monster killing power.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Um yeah, cultivating monster slaying power and capability from practice is a bit differenent than som faux-deep claim that a Paladin's healing is powered by the blood of monsters just because it gets stronger as they level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the very least spilling the blood of monsters is a legitimate and morally safe way of unlocking higher orders of power for lawful good characters. I don't know about literally powering their healing (that was hyperbole / jest )

Although bathing in the blood of sentient beings can restore negative levels as well. Also not an evil act apparently. (Dragon's blood)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is neither a legitimate (if your GM doesn't give EXP for it or doesn't use EXP at all) nor morally safe way ("it's Evil, so it's okay for me to kill/mutilate it" is a very fast way to find yourself not being Good).

The Dragon situation is interesting and has been debated before, always a fascinating topic


Don't people carry round wands of infernal healing?

Silver Crusade

Evil people.

Shadow Lodge

If you've already determined that it is moral to kill someone, I don't think it's an evil act to also use their death to save a life.

Dragoncrafting aside, the game does generally apply the "evil" tag to most mechanics that involve some sort of physical consumption of unwilling sentients to gain power (see Blood Drinker and Cook People) so it would be consistent to say using the dagger on a sentient creature would also be an evil act (note one evil act isn't usually enough to turn you evil). If you don't buy that argument - I personally don't - there's also a slippery slope argument, which might be compelling to Lawful types, that by allowing people to profit from the deaths of their enemies you encourage them to be quicker to condemn others to death, which ultimately leads to evil. So I would definitely expect a LG character to be uncomfortable with such an action, but ultimately there shouldn't be severe consequences. Maybe lingering bad dreams and some sort of religious purification ritual (short of a full Atonement). If you want to stress the sinister nature of the item, the character could hear whispers for some time afterwards urging them to commit more acts of violence.

Of course, if you're talking about sacrificing someone who wasn't already condemned to death - or worst of all an innocent - then it's definitely an evil act and potentially a pretty bad one. However, I would generally suggest against adding extra moral complications to this situation. It's already an interesting enough roleplaying situation and I don't see a lot of value in putting a player in a situation where they have to choose between having a character they envisioned as heroic commit a severely evil act, or losing that character.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

This is what roleplaying is all about. Force your PC to decide to become a monster, sacrifice an innocent creature to save himself at the expense of his beliefs in, or kill himself before he becomes a monster rather than allow any innocents die on his account.

Build the drama. Let the other players have their says. Let them roleplay the scene, 2 of them holding down the sacrifice, one of them pressing the Heartripper into his hand, pleading with him to do it, the party needs him, the world needs him, etc, as he ponders if he will still be someone the world needs as he kills the goodness inside him along with the innocent creature to save his worthless life.

Worthless? Maybe, that is what atonement is for. Or maybe you strip his Warpriest powers forever because he chose to go on living another day and sacrifice the principles he used to say were more important than life itself. Watch him roleplay a character who has fallen from grace, either to descend into deeper evil, or to go on living as best he can the life of a good man, diminished in status, but still a good man. That is what roleplaying is all about.

Or maybe the Warpriest will be pressing the blade into the Barbarian's hand begging he kill him--to Gallagher his head with an Earthbreaker, maybe--before the transformation is complete. Maybe, if your PC sacrifices himself to save others, you can bring him back or save him at the last minute. Classic stuff, but make your PC feel like he lost his character.

I'd be careful about this - not everyone wants things to get this dark in every game they play.

I've played in a variety of campaigns with a range of tones. In one, two PCs died trying in vain to save an orcish infant. In another, the Paladin of Sarenrae saved her older son's murderer from Hell only to have her younger son captured and cannibalized by an undead cult. In a third, the main point of dramatic tension was whether the party would figure out that the ranger was secretly a changeling. In a fourth, when the party cleric got turned into a vampire it was played for comedy.

Personally I find the high drama campaigns can be draining, and if I'm not mentally prepared for those scenes it's very uncomfortable for me. When one of the lighter campaigns briefly put my character's daughter in danger I had to confirm OOC with the GM that he wasn't actually planning on raising the stakes that much - we rescued her handily and it turned into recurring squabbles between a rebellious teenager and an overprotective parent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Evil people.

Spells of a particular alignment are a factor for a priest but what is a destined bloodline sorcerer who was good woke up one day to find he can cast infernal healing.

Fine he says I'll just never use it
That day a boy in the village falls, hits his head
He is bleeding out on the floor
You can cast infernal healing no need for infernal blood he's a sorc he doesn't need the material component.

Option one 1) save child's life, is he evil now?
Option two 2) watch child die on the floor .... sounds more evil to me

How is that different than if said character saved their friends life with a wand of the same?

If you think it's meta bullshit to use protection from evil to fiddle your alignment then saying using infernal healing makes you evil seems an awful lot like a double standard to me.

And if you can use infernal healing to heal I don't see why using the dagger in question to heal you after killing an evil creature is anymore evil.


Rysky wrote:

That is neither a legitimate (if your GM doesn't give EXP for it or doesn't use EXP at all) nor morally safe way ("it's Evil, so it's okay for me to kill/mutilate it" is a very fast way to find yourself not being Good).

The Dragon situation is interesting and has been debated before, always a fascinating topic

The GM isn't following the rules if they are not awarding XP for killing/defeating monsters. You explicitly get exp for doing that action. there's a reason every monster has and XP value in their stat block.

And as I already pointed out it is the expectation that you will mostly be fighting monsters to obtain exp and loot. That is not an exception but the norm. It's even outlined as such in playing the game

The game even describes itself as such:

Playing the Game:
As your character goes on adventures, he earns gold, magic items, and experience points. Gold can be used to purchase better equipment, while magic items possess powerful abilities that enhance your character. Experience points are awarded for overcoming challenges and completing major storylines. When your character has earned enough experience points, he increases his character level by one, granting him new powers and abilities that allow him to take on even greater challenges.

Challenges are defined as being primarily expected to be combat based. So the game even says straight up you kill things and take their treasure to get better at killing things.

Given that Lawful Good characters are expected to be able to participate in such a game (see both paladins and good aligned clerics are expected to be playable classes) you cannot reasonably say killing monsters (especially evil monsters) would penalize Good characters.

So given the text of the game i stand by my assertion that it is game legitimate and morally safe to kill evil things when playing Pathinfder.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Firewarrior44 wrote:
A lawful good character can kill evil creatures without repercussion, yes. They can also take all their things without repercussion. At least moral repercussion.

And based on that argument, a paladin can walk through Absalom, enjoying the scenery while simultaneously openly slaying peasants that register as evil when he uses detect evil on them. Without any fear of falling.

My guess is that at most tables, that's not the way games are run. So obviously most players seem to assume that killing evil creatures comes with some limitations. This topic is even hinted at in the adventure itself at several points when the PCs have to choose to kill or not to kill "evil" creatures and actually get rewarded for not doing so.

Chromatic Durgon <3 wrote:
Also you're inventing to support your argument nothing about the language in the dagger implies it must be a sentient humanoid.

Not inventing, extrapolating from the information in the adventure. And I'm fairly sure that the dagger's main function in this adventure is as a story tool, not as a failsave mechanism in case someone gets kissed by the Vargouille. We're also talking Nicholas Logue here, so I wouldn't totally deny that he might have foreseen that something like that could come up (I mean he's nearly as creepy as Pett, after all), but I'm also pretty sure that he was counting on the existence of that item raising some moral questions answered.

But yeah, that's my interpretation and you can totally dismiss it if you want to.

Firewarrior44 wrote:
Question is using Dragonhide armor also evil? It's the fashioned skin of a once sentient creature after all.

I have to admit that so far I didn't think about this, mainly as I can't remember this kind of armor ever coming up in any game I participated. I'm fairly certain that a paladin played by me would never use such an armor for exactly the same reason you named. Most other people would probably have no qualms about it and it probably would register as neutral, not as evil. I don't think that I would make any alignment changing fuss about it, as it is a traditional fantasy archetype.

On the other hand, slaying that lawful good gold dragon over there just because you want to make an armor out of it's scales would probably be pretty unexcusable in my games.

The Exchange

And just as an aside: Found the spell Enemy's Heart in the advanced race book. Necromantic, evil spell from the cannibalism subdomain. So at least now we're sure about what the designers think about doing such a thing to sentient creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:


And based on that argument, a paladin can walk through Absalom, enjoying the scenery while simultaneously openly slaying peasants that register as evil when he uses detect evil on them. Without any fear of falling.

My guess is that at most tables, that's not the way games are run. So obviously most players seem to assume that killing evil creatures comes with some limitations. This topic is even hinted at in the adventure itself at several points when the PCs have to choose to kill or not to kill "evil" creatures and actually get rewarded for not doing so.

That's unlawful and a straw man

Murdering defenceless villagers because you can =/= sacrificing an evil being to save a good one.

Chromatic Durgon <3 wrote:
Also you're inventing to support your argument nothing about the language in the dagger implies it must be a sentient humanoid.

Not inventing, extrapolating from the information in the adventure. And I'm fairly sure that the dagger's main function in this adventure is as a story tool, not as a failsave mechanism in case someone gets kissed by the Vargouille. We're also talking Nicholas Logue here, so I wouldn't totally deny that he might have foreseen that something like that could come up (I mean he's nearly as creepy as Pett, after all), but I'm also pretty sure that he was counting on the existence of that item raising some moral questions answered.

But yeah, that's my interpretation and you can totally dismiss it if you want to.

I mean a wizard can make a magic missile wand with the sole purpose of blasting annoying pigeons that coo outside your window all day. Doesnt mean it wouldn't work on people.

Similarly no reason anywhere in the rules or text to believe the knife would work on people but not pigeons.

Silver Crusade

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Evil people.

Spells of a particular alignment are a factor for a priest but what is a destined bloodline sorcerer who was good woke up one day to find he can cast infernal healing.

Fine he says I'll just never use it
That day a boy in the village falls, hits his head
He is bleeding out on the floor
You can cast infernal healing no need for infernal blood he's a sorc he doesn't need the material component.

Option one 1) save child's life, is he evil now?
Option two 2) watch child die on the floor .... sounds more evil to me

How is that different than if said character saved their friends life with a wand of the same?

If you think it's meta b!$~!*%& to use protection from evil to fiddle your alignment then saying using infernal healing makes you evil seems an awful lot like a double standard to me.

And if you can use infernal healing to heal I don't see why using the dagger in question to heal you after killing an evil creature is anymore evil.

Infernal Healing is Evil (outside of the components) because it has the [Evil] type. Using Eschew Materials doesn't make the spell suddenly be not Evil outside of homebrewing by your GM.

In regards to your example it's not a double standard because it's not meta, you did an Evil act to save someone (Good act) so they hopefully cancel out, as opposed to metagamimg by going will my character is two evil ticks down so I'll have them cast this certain spell comepletely unrelated to what's going on and for absolutely no other reason than to move their alignment two ticks towards good.


So if evil act = spell
Good act = save person cancels out how does

Kill even being in dungeon = good act
Use freaky dagger = apparently evil act
Save good life = good act

Not at the very least do the same?

Silver Crusade

Firewarrior44 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

That is neither a legitimate (if your GM doesn't give EXP for it or doesn't use EXP at all) nor morally safe way ("it's Evil, so it's okay for me to kill/mutilate it" is a very fast way to find yourself not being Good).

The Dragon situation is interesting and has been debated before, always a fascinating topic

The GM isn't following the rules if they are not awarding XP for killing/defeating monsters. You explicitly get exp for doing that action. there's a reason every monster has and XP value in their stat block.

And as I already pointed out it is the expectation that you will mostly be fighting monsters to obtain exp and loot. That is not an exception but the norm. It's even outlined as such in playing the game

The game even describes itself as such:

** spoiler omitted **

Challenges are defined as being primarily expected to be combat based. So the game even says straight up you kill things and take their treasure to get better at killing things.

Given that Lawful Good characters are expected to be able to participate in such a game (see both paladins and good aligned clerics are expected to be playable classes) you cannot reasonably say killing monsters (especially evil monsters) would penalize Good characters.

So given the text of the game i stand by my assertion that it is game legitimate and morally safe to kill evil things when playing Pathinfder.

it is not.

All you have voiced so far are not expectations, they are assumptions.

You do not explicitly get EXP for killing stuff unless the GM says so. You only get EXP because the GM says so, not because you assume you should.

I don't use EXP at all in games so my players don't get any closer to leveling just by killing things, and it's entirely possible for them to level without killing a single thing.

"you cannot reasonably say killing monsters (especially evil monsters) would penalize Good characters."

I never claimed anything of the sort.

Silver Crusade

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

So if evil act = spell

Good act = save person cancels out how does

Kill even being in dungeon = good act
Use freaky dagger = apparently evil act
Save good life = good act

Not at the very least do the same?

Killing an Evil being is not inherently a Good act.

Saving yourself isn't an aligned act at all.


Rysky wrote:

Killing an Evil being is not inherently a Good act.

Saving yourself isn't an aligned act at all.

Killing an evil person to save a good one is I would say a good thing.

The fact that you happen to be the good person doesn't change that in my opinion. Self preservation isn't evil.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Killing an Evil being is not inherently a Good act.

Saving yourself isn't an aligned act at all.

Killing an evil person to save a good one is I would say a good thing.

The fact that you happen to be the good person doesn't change that in my opinion. Self preservation isn't evil.

It's not Good either. You do not get to declare the alignment of something just because it benefits you. I'm drinking the last potion to save myself (a good person) so I committed a good act. I stole that persons food to to feed myself so I wouldn't starve so I committed a good act. I killed that person who tried to kill me so I committed a good act. No and no and no.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that the player regards it as an opportunity for interesting roleplaying.

I would definitely say that ritually cutting out and consuming the heart of a sentient being is an unequivocally evil act, but that doesn't mean the character who does it is consumed by evil.

Hopefully other moral dilemmas will present themselves in the future: Just keep in mind that in a world where the gods sometimes manifest their will, those who face difficult moral decisions may be rewarded for their choices.


Rysky wrote:

It's not Good either. You do not get to declare the alignment of something just because it benefits you. I'm drinking the last potion to save myself (a good person) so I committed a good act. I stole that persons food to to feed myself so I wouldn't starve so I committed a good act. I killed that person who tried to kill me so I committed a good act. No and no and no.

To make those comparisons contextually relevant

I didn't drink the last potion in case an evil person needed it later and died. As a result I turned into a monster my friends had to put down, but at least I'm not evil which apparently saving myself would make me. My god much prefers this.
I didn't steal an evil persons food and then had my friends kill me so I didn't stave to death and turn into a twisted horrible undead creature. But at least I didn't take that evil person food, that would have been really bad. My god would have been so disappointed.
I died rather than defending myself against an evil creature, rather than kill said creature because that would be evil. My god would much rather their good worshippers died than saved themselves by killing evil, after all they didn't give me the powers of a holy crusader to use them.
I died rather than use a magical dagger made with none aligned magic to save myself by killing something evil with it and then my friends had to kill the monster I became. Because using the dagger was evil.

Pharasma replies: wow good people really don't value their own life at all do they, I wouldn't have sent them to an evil outer plane for any of those things. Lol.

oh no wait that last one was not an example that's literally what we've apparently decided this player has to do lest he become evil. After all we all know doing one bad deed out weighs a life of good.

Silver Crusade

Those aren't relevant. The only thing they are are spurious nonsense.

Self preservation is not aligned. If you try to survive it is not Good, but is not automatically Evil either just because it is not Good. Things can be unaligned, it's not just Good or Evil.

Killing someone and eating their heart is leagues different than drinking a potion (unaligned), eating their lunch (petty evil, small e), defending yourself against them if they attack you (unaligned) At no point have I claimed that defending yourself or drinking a potion is Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Those aren't relevant. The only thing they are are spurious nonsense.

None of its nonesense it's all your examples but with the added details of the good person dying as a result of their refusal to act, rather than harm an evil person. And as a result forcing your allies to kill a monster that comes into being as a result of your inaction.

Those details are the details which make this question debatable your examples are irrelevant if you ignore them.

Quote:


Self preservation is not aligned. If you try to survive it is not Good, but is not automatically Evil either just because it is not Good. Things can be unaligned, it's not just Good or Evil.

you're again ignoring the bit about wilfully letting yourself die through inaction a quite relevant detail.

Quote:


Killing someone and eating their heart

You're making the thing you kill a person and again excluding their alignment.

Furthermore eating a heart isn't evil on its own.

Ox heart is a peruvian dish. Is every pervuvian whose ever eaten anticuchos evil? I don't think so. If they killed the ox themselves would that change anything? I'd say that to say yes was hypocritical.

Quote:


is leagues different than drinking a potion (unaligned), eating their lunch (petty evil, small e), defending yourself against them if they attack you (unaligned).

It's very hard to respond when your making up that, well, nonsense.

I'm going to go ahead and say no it is not leagues different.

It isn't nonesense, If you'd rather insult people's arguments than dispute them by all means but it's not very classy.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Killing an evil person to save a good one is I would say a good thing.

The Act of killing is never a good thing. It's that simple. It is the ultimate disrespect of life, and as we know from the Core rules, being good means respecting life.

Does that mean that killing makes you automatically evil? No it doesn't because "not being good" doesn't automatically equals to "being evil".

Also there's a big difference between killing an evil person that actively tries to stop you from saving a good one (as in: killing those kobolds thta try to stop you from saving the children) and killing a person (even if it's an evil one) just for your own sake. Especially if that involves murdering that person in cold blood after it has been made helpless. And especially when another option would be to sacrifice yourself so as to protect other people from the curse you have fallen under.

You can obviously do it and live with the consequences which might, depending on the GM include alignment shifts and the need to atone for that deed. But to do it all the while claiming that "actually what I did was a really good thing to do" is certainly not a stance fitting for a character claiming to be lawful good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread lost me at good "needs" to do evil.


WormysQueue wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Killing an evil person to save a good one is I would say a good thing.
The Act of killing is never a good thing. It's that simple. It is the ultimate disrespect of life, and as we know from the Core rules, being good means respecting life.

Ragatheil says high, Vildeis says high, Iomadea says high. Vildeis pretty much exclusively runs around the outer planes killing shit, one of her domains is destruction she is lawful good.

The biggest insult to life is traditionally undead.

Quote:


Does that mean that killing makes you automatically evil? No it doesn't because "not being good" doesn't automatically equals to "being evil".

Also there's a big difference between killing an evil person that actively tries to stop you from saving a good one (as in: killing those kobolds thta try to stop you from saving the children) and killing a person (even if it's an evil one) just for your own sake. Especially if that involves murdering that person in cold blood after it has been made helpless. And especially when another option would be to sacrifice yourself so as to protect other people from the curse you have fallen under.

I'm pretty sure most people in this thread aren't assuming the player hunt down a random evil person but rather simply use the dagger on the next thing they have to fight in the dungeon. Which again does t have to be a person.

Coup de grace have never been evil and still aren't.

Again people seem to think good people have to kill themselves through inaction rather than kill an evil creature in their path, lest they are automatically evil and their god hates them. It's simply not true at all.

Quote:


You can obviously do it and live with the consequences which might, depending on the GM include alignment shifts

The very suggestion that a good aligned person given basically the powers of a holy warrior by a god would change alignment and in doing so lose the favour of their god for killing something evil is ridiculous.

What did the god think, oh yeah, totally here have some powers, but if you use them to save your own life, I'm done with you, the order of importance is
Innocent people and allies loves
Evil people lives
Yours. That is completely insane to me. It's just player punishing catch 22 illogical.

Quote:


and the need to atone for that deed. But to do it all the while claiming that "actually what I did was a really good thing to do" is certainly not a stance fitting for a character claiming to be lawful good.

No of course their stance is, I'd rather die than use this none aligned knife on an evil creature than save my own life. To which the good god replies, quite right too. You must kill evil creatures, unless doing so would only save your life, in which case die, your life is worthless.

Yep checks out to me.

No wait, that's false, one does not have to martyr ones self to be a good person


To put this another way

Man in the wild is starving to death, their is no edible vegetation, he sees an animal. Kills the animal. Eats the animal.

He is evil, a truly good person would starve to death. That is insane to me but it gets better. A more accurate story would be.

Man in the wild is starving to death, their is no edible vegetation, he sees something one can empirically say is evil. Kills said evil thing with god given powers, which was given to aid in the killing of evil. Eats evil thing. He is evil now and his god is mad at him. He should have let the evil thing live and die himself, that would be what his god wanted.

How can you possibly say this is a reasonable argument?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Ragatheil says high, Vildeis says high, Iomadea says high. Vildeis pretty much exclusively runs around the outer planes killing s%$!, one of her domains is destruction she is lawful good.

Well let's see. Ragathiel fights against the legions of Hell (pretty irredeemably evil) and his Crimson Templars are equally trained to do so. Nonetheless, he teaches that "mercy is a virtue reserved for (only) those capable of accepting redemption

Iomedae takes a similar stance against the demon forces, but she is also the goddess of honor and nowhere is she teaching that" if it's evil, just kill it already".

And Vildeis, again, fighting irredeemable evil in the Outer planes.

So all your namedropping proves nothing.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure most people in this thread aren't assuming the player hunt down a random evil person but rather simply use the dagger on the next thing they have to fight in the dungeon. Which again does t have to be a person.

Well, you get the dagger at the end of the dungeon. Which basically comes down to nothing having been left to fight in the dungeon. If you want to go the animal route, more power to you, in my game that will not be an option because I'm convinced that it's against the intent of the item. Oh, and the clock is ticking, so you might not have much choice whom to sacrifice. But hey, there's the brave, selfless midwife from the hatchery whose life you spared before and who rewarded you with helpful information as a reward. Still, she might register as evil, so it's an easy choice, right?.

Quote:
Coup de grace have never been evil and still aren't.

Yeah, I know, the "weapons aren't evil" argument. And like every other weapon or attack, they can be used to commit an evil act. Taking someone prisoner or beating him into submission with the explicit intent on killing him after he became helpless, well, I guess that Iomedae will be very proud of you. Soooo honorable.

Quote:
Again people seem to think good people have to kill themselves through inaction rather than kill an evil creature in their path, lest they are automatically evil and their god hates them. It's simply not true at all.

I admire your inclination to hyperbole. No one said that they would become autmatically evil and get hated by their gods. Also, you don't just kill a creature, you sacrifice it (which by the way, poses the question, do the good gods actually accept sacrifices, it's too long that I read the relevant stuff on that topic, so I can't remember having read something like that. So if they don't to whom goes the sacrifice?)

Oh and noone says that they need to kill themselves through inaction. But if the only option to save themselves is to commit an evil act (I know, you disagree on that, but I still see it that way), a LG character might be better off sacrificing his own life than to act against the foundation of his beliefs. And, you know, Vildeis loves Martyrs.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
How can you possibly say this is a reasonable argument?

Well I actually don't see any need to defend an argument that you totally made up and that I never made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:


Well let's see. Ragathiel fights against the legions of Hell (pretty irredeemably evil) and his Crimson Templars are equally trained to do so. Nonetheless, he teaches that "mercy is a virtue reserved for (only) those capable of accepting redemption

especially if in showing Mercy the Templar allows themselves to die thats bonus points right? right? right...

after all, only evil people value their own life.

Quote:


Iomedae takes a similar stance against the demon forces, but she is also the goddess of honor and nowhere is she teaching that" if it's evil, just kill it already".

And Vildeis, again, fighting irredeemable evil in the Outer planes.

So all your namedropping proves nothing.

there are evil things on the material plane, my name dropping proves that gods are more than happy to go out of their way to find and kill evil and are explicitly good, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Quote:


Well, you get the dagger at the end of the dungeon. Which basically comes down to nothing having been left to fight in the dungeon.

well find something else evil then the players should have 24 hours minus how long it takes to clear the rest of the dungeon, it really shouldn't take 24 hours to check with the village to find out what monsters/creatures/bandits have been causing them trouble.

Quote:
If you want to go the animal route, more power to you, in my game that will not be an option because I'm convinced that it's against the intent of the item. Oh, and the clock is ticking, so you might not have much choice whom to sacrifice.

no yes of course the intent was to trap players in a catch 22. Mwahahaha I am the great and powerful DM and you my friend can lose your powers or die everything else is evil! mwahahaha.... fun.

after all its not like keen edge works on animals....

Quote:
But hey, there's the brave, selfless midwife from the hatchery whose life you spared before and who rewarded you with helpful information as a reward. Still, she might register as evil, so it's an easy choice, right?.

And you think I'm the one making up arguments?

Quote:


Yeah, I know, the "weapons aren't evil" argument. And like every other weapon or attack, they can be used to commit an evil act. Taking someone prisoner or beating him into submission with the explicit intent on killing him after he became helpless, well, I guess that Iomedae will be very proud of you. Soooo honorable.

Oh right so take them prisoner and then sit their and die? yeah Iomadea would definitly prefer her worshipers to do that. Said no-one ever. Except you apparently.

Quote:


I admire your inclination to hyperbole.

I'm not being hyperbolic, that's genuinely my impression of your opinion on the subject, based on your posts.

Quote:


No one said that they would become autmatically evil and get hated by their gods.

yeah, you did actually. Me quoting you now

Quote:
depending on the GM include alignment shifts and the need to atone for that deed

Alignment shift from good for a single act, forced alignment shift through evil act to me.

Atonement implies god is mad at you to me.

Quote:


Also, you don't just kill a creature, you sacrifice it (which by the way, poses the question, do the good gods actually accept sacrifices, it's too long that I read the relevant stuff on that topic, so I can't remember having read something like that. So if they don't to whom goes the sacrifice?)

the dagger has no god, you don't have to sacrifice the animal to a god for this to work, its simply scarified so that you may live. Which is again apparently evil according to you and others in this thread and any good person would be better of just letting themselves die (the starving to death example)

Quote:


Oh and noone says that they need to kill themselves through inaction.

according to you their god and their alignment does. Why don't you stick to your guns about that? or did you not mean it all?

Quote:


But if the only option to save themselves is to commit an evil act (I know, you disagree on that, but I still see it that way), a LG character might be better off sacrificing his own life than to act against the foundation of his beliefs.

killing an animal to eat = fine

killing an animal to save yourself from turning into a monster = Evil

that is literally what you're saying. Because you say to do otherwise would be to act against the foundation of their belief, said foundation = good, acting against good = evil.

so once again,
killing to eat = fine
killing to save from turning into monster = evil
killing evil creatures = fine
killing evil creature and in doing so saving your own life = evil
Leave evil alive and let self die = what Iomadea would want her warrior to do

is this not what you think? because its what you're saying.

Quote:


And, you know, Vildeis loves Martyrs.

pretty sure she'd kill the thing to save her own life.

Quote:


Well I actually don't see any need to defend an argument that you totally made up and that I never made.

First of all when exactly did your name become People? I didn't know that was your name, because you seem to think by people I explicitly mean you. Maybe you recognize your arguments in what I'm saying after all?

let us look at some of your arguments shall we

Quote:
The Act of killing is never a good thing. It's that simple. It is the ultimate disrespect of life, and as we know from the Core rules, being good means respecting life.

you feel that killing is the opposite of good then? because good is respecting life and killing is in your words the ultimate disrespect. Therefore killing is evil as evil is the opposite of good. Pretty simple inference there. You say you think otherwise but your own argument contradicts you

unless you think doing the exact opposite of good is unaligned?

their was also that bit about acting against the foundation of their belief. Said foundation being good, therefore killing evil to save own life is again, evil.

Quote:


there's a big difference between killing an evil person that actively tries to stop you from saving a good one (as in: killing those kobolds thta try to stop you from saving the children) and killing a person (even if it's an evil one) just for your own sake

the implication being that killing an evil person to save your own life is evil, so again we return to the argument, a good person given powers to fight evil by a god, should let themselves die rather than use those powers to save themselves. Doing otherwise would in your opinion justify not only an alignment shift but Atonement.

Quote:
depending on the GM include alignment shifts and the need to atone for that deed

implication, by using your god given evil slaying powers, to slay evil, you have displeased the god that gave the evil killing powers.

that is your logic. I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm just reading what your write and telling you what I'm getting from it.

I'm afraid to say it but that is the only conclusion I can draw from your posts. So you didn't make those arguments that you don't feel the need to defend yourself against, but your argument has the same exact conclusion.

Holy warrior empowered by god to kill evil, should allow themselves to die rather than use the powers given by their god to kill evil, because doing so would in fact be evil and require atonement. Requiring atonement because the god is displeased. To clarify the god who gave you your powers, was displeased by you using them on evil (their intended target) to not die. Conclusion, your god would rather you die than kill evil things.

was this not the intended implication of your argument? because its the only inference I can make based on reading through it several times.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So here's my question.

A LG adventurer is hunting down an evil mass murderer who she knows to be unrepentant and who she believes it is morally justified to kill. She locates the murderer's hideout, kicks down the door, and...

...kills the murderer without making any attempt to take him prisoner.

...knocks the murderer out and brings him back to town for execution, because she believes that the people have the right to take revenge upon their tormenter.

...knocks the murderer out, performs last rites, and then personally executes him, because she believes that it is important for even evil creatures to be properly prepared for the afterlife.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for that of her cohort, who was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for her own, since she was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

In which of these situations do you think that the adventurer has done something wrong?

WormysQueue wrote:
Well, you get the dagger at the end of the dungeon. Which basically comes down to nothing having been left to fight in the dungeon. If you want to go the animal route, more power to you, in my game that will not be an option because I'm convinced that it's against the intent of the item. Oh, and the clock is ticking, so you might not have much choice whom to sacrifice. But hey, there's the brave, selfless midwife from the hatchery whose life you spared before and who rewarded you with helpful information as a reward. Still, she might register as evil, so it's an easy choice, right?

Are you sure that the player is going to be OK with you intentionally putting them in a more morally difficult situation than is necessary?


WormysQueue wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Would it not be possible to get the character back to town and have remove disease cast on them?

Having taken a look at the map, I'm not sure if it is. Given that the party has to conquer what is mostly difficult terrain, chances are that wouldn't make it in the 24 hours they have in the very best case.

Vidmaster wrote:
Technically if your gonna sacrifice a pig you shouldn't eat it after just burn it up completely otherwise your no strictly sacrificing it your just making breakfast.
Historically speaking, sacrificing animals often included eating (parts of) the flesh afterwards. Just take a look at the muslim Eid-al-Adha (Sacrifice feast) where this is the expected practice until today.

Hmm interesting. If your gonna eat the pig igther way what are you really sacrificing? Oh well people are weird. go figure.

Shadow Lodge

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Hmm interesting. If your gonna eat the pig igther way what are you really sacrificing? Oh well people are weird. go figure.

I'm not an anthropologist, but I believe the idea is that it served as a form of wealth redistribution. Everyone in the community would get some of the pork from the sacrifice, but the wealthy people were doing most of the sacrificing (at least of large animals) so you ended up with rich people essentially sponsoring sacrificial feats for the whole community. Smaller sacrifices like pigeons kept the priests fed.


Interesting. Some could call it sacrifice some could call it charity.


Children are evil creatures.
Is saving children an evil act?


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Children are evil creatures.

Is saving children an evil act?

*See baby orc argument for non-answer*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IF AM POSITING THAT CHILDREN AM EVIL CREATURES, THEN SAVING CHILDREN AM EVIL ACT, AND THEREFORE BARBARIAN SMASH CHILDREN.

HOWEVER, CHILDREN AM NOT CASTY, THEREFORE BARBARIAN NOT SMASH CHILDREN.

EVEN WHEN CONSIDERING FROM STANDPOINT OF ONLY TRUE ALIGNMENT QUESTION, 'SHOULD BARBARIAN SMASH,' THIS ALIGNMENT QUESTION AM PRETTY CRAZY BE THINKING OVER. IF AM ALWAYS CONSIDERING ALIGNMENT REPURCUSSIONS OF ACTIONS, THEN AM NEVER DOING ANYTHING. AT THAT POINT, ALIGNMENT-HAVER MIGHT AS WELL BE DEAD.

BARBARIAN JUST DO WHAT FEEL RIGHT AT END OF DAY, EVERYTHING ELSE AM DIRTY FIAT.


To be fair he is CS chaotic smash ^^^^


AM BARBARIAN wrote:

IF AM POSITING THAT CHILDREN AM EVIL CREATURES, THEN SAVING CHILDREN AM EVIL ACT, AND THEREFORE BARBARIAN SMASH CHILDREN.

HOWEVER, CHILDREN AM NOT CASTY, THEREFORE BARBARIAN NOT SMASH CHILDREN.

EVEN WHEN CONSIDERING FROM STANDPOINT OF ONLY TRUE ALIGNMENT QUESTION, 'SHOULD BARBARIAN SMASH,' THIS ALIGNMENT QUESTION AM PRETTY CRAZY BE THINKING OVER. IF AM ALWAYS CONSIDERING ALIGNMENT REPURCUSSIONS OF ACTIONS, THEN AM NEVER DOING ANYTHING. AT THAT POINT, ALIGNMENT-HAVER MIGHT AS WELL BE DEAD.

BARBARIAN JUST DO WHAT FEEL RIGHT AT END OF DAY, EVERYTHING ELSE AM DIRTY FIAT.

children can be casty tho... i just played a child who had access of spells up to some 4th level spells every day and with some harder to obtain resources up to level 9, also she had daggers, the party was equally concerned for my safety and terrified at what i could do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:

IF AM POSITING THAT CHILDREN AM EVIL CREATURES, THEN SAVING CHILDREN AM EVIL ACT, AND THEREFORE BARBARIAN SMASH CHILDREN.

HOWEVER, CHILDREN AM NOT CASTY, THEREFORE BARBARIAN NOT SMASH CHILDREN.

EVEN WHEN CONSIDERING FROM STANDPOINT OF ONLY TRUE ALIGNMENT QUESTION, 'SHOULD BARBARIAN SMASH,' THIS ALIGNMENT QUESTION AM PRETTY CRAZY BE THINKING OVER. IF AM ALWAYS CONSIDERING ALIGNMENT REPURCUSSIONS OF ACTIONS, THEN AM NEVER DOING ANYTHING. AT THAT POINT, ALIGNMENT-HAVER MIGHT AS WELL BE DEAD.

BARBARIAN JUST DO WHAT FEEL RIGHT AT END OF DAY, EVERYTHING ELSE AM DIRTY FIAT.

children can be casty tho... i just played a child who had access of spells up to some 4th level spells every day and with some harder to obtain resources up to level 9, also she had daggers, the party was equally concerned for my safety and terrified at what i could do.

OH.

IN THAT CASE, YES. BARBARIAN SMASH CHILD.


Weirdo wrote:

So here's my question.

A LG adventurer is hunting down an evil mass murderer who she knows to be unrepentant and who she believes it is morally justified to kill. She locates the murderer's hideout, kicks down the door, and...

...kills the murderer without making any attempt to take him prisoner.

...knocks the murderer out and brings him back to town for execution, because she believes that the people have the right to take revenge upon their tormenter.

...knocks the murderer out, performs last rites, and then personally executes him, because she believes that it is important for even evil creatures to be properly prepared for the afterlife.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for that of her cohort, who was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for her own, since she was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

In which of these situations do you think that the adventurer has done something wrong?

None of them.

Although I think the last rites one sets a dangerous president. Sometimes you're in a time crunch and won't be able to perform last rights, does that mean you can't kill your opposition in a time crunch?


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

So here's my question.

A LG adventurer is hunting down an evil mass murderer who she knows to be unrepentant and who she believes it is morally justified to kill. She locates the murderer's hideout, kicks down the door, and...

...kills the murderer without making any attempt to take him prisoner.

...knocks the murderer out and brings him back to town for execution, because she believes that the people have the right to take revenge upon their tormenter.

...knocks the murderer out, performs last rites, and then personally executes him, because she believes that it is important for even evil creatures to be properly prepared for the afterlife.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for that of her cohort, who was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for her own, since she was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

In which of these situations do you think that the adventurer has done something wrong?

None of them.

Although I think the last rites one sets a dangerous president. Sometimes you're in a time crunch and won't be able to perform last rights, does that mean you can't kill your opposition in a time crunch?

no time for last rites to busy murder hoboing like most adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

So here's my question.

A LG adventurer is hunting down an evil mass murderer who she knows to be unrepentant and who she believes it is morally justified to kill. She locates the murderer's hideout, kicks down the door, and...

...kills the murderer without making any attempt to take him prisoner.

...knocks the murderer out and brings him back to town for execution, because she believes that the people have the right to take revenge upon their tormenter.

...knocks the murderer out, performs last rites, and then personally executes him, because she believes that it is important for even evil creatures to be properly prepared for the afterlife.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for that of her cohort, who was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

...knocks the murderer out and performs a magic ritual that will exchange the murderer's life for her own, since she was mortally injured while travelling to the murderer's hideout.

In which of these situations do you think that the adventurer has done something wrong?

None of them.

Although I think the last rites one sets a dangerous president. Sometimes you're in a time crunch and won't be able to perform last rights, does that mean you can't kill your opposition in a time crunch?

no time for last rites to busy murder hoboing like most adventures.

More like Big bad is going execute important NPC X, use terrible spell Y but we can't go stop him till we perform his evil henchmans last rights. Or my god will be mad with me.

Again returning to this weird logic people seem to think gods have whereby they'd rather you give an evil dude his last rights than save an innocent/stop a really bad thing happening.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Chromatic, While I do believe those examples you gave were nonsensical I did realize that line was overly hostile and so I edited it out of the original post, my apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
@Chromatic, While I do believe those examples you gave were nonsensical I did realize that line was overly hostile and so I edited it out of the original post, my apologies.

So proud^^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
@Chromatic, While I do believe those examples you gave were nonsensical I did realize that line was overly hostile and so I edited it out of the original post, my apologies.

Thanks kewl, I know you're a nice person, I lurk the LGBTQ thread sometimes.

they still aren't nonesense, (¬‿¬)

Silver Crusade

:3

In my opinion, comparing drinking a potion you bought or stealing a turkey sandwich to killing a person for the sole purpose of eating their heart is nonsensical.

This argument keeps going back to the fact that you're only dealing in extremes, and that every action has equal weight. Something is Good and if it is not, it is Evil. Which is simply not true. Whether because the action itself balances out or is simply unaligned there are Neutral options.

Kill an animal to eat, Neutral.

Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.

Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you and you killing them in self-defense is neither Good nor Evil.


Hmm I wonder how close defining good and evil actions as selfless and selfish comes to summing up evil and good actions. Ill put some thought into it.


Rysky wrote:

...

Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.
...

Isn't cannibalism not inherently Evil? I seem to recall that there are examples of creatures who practice (ritual?) cannibalism but are just plain neutral.


Snowblind wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.
...
Isn't cannibalism not inherently Evil? I seem to recall that there are examples of creatures who practice (ritual?) cannibalism but are just plain neutral.

Hmm do they hunt and kill sentient creatures to eat or is it more of a convenience thing?

51 to 100 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What to do when a LG character needs to do an evil act All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.