It seems like critters require a certain intelligence before they stray from neutrality. Animals have 1-2 Int scores whereas goblins have normal 8+ Int scores. To say the goblin is evil because it knows it’s doing bad things fits with this.
The trouble is corner-cases of very low Int specimens of normally intelligent critters. Are village idiots all neutral, just the really idiotic ones or do they each get their own alignment according to their character?
is it me or should alignment rather be tied to will? I mean, we all have evil (selfish, cruel) thoughts, but we don't (necessarily) act on them.
In this case, I'd rule the act as evil. An animal's instinct would only drive it to kill out of hunger or self defense. I mean, i don't know, i think chimpanzees are known to kill each other for motives outside those two instincts (dominance, territory, etc.) Most animals are content to at least drive off competition without killing. But in this case, the PC needed an item and killed to get it. Unless the item was a doomsdaymacguffin absolutely necessary for the survival of the multiverse or whatever, is the killing really justified?
Much of this falls into gameplay, but the idea of alignment is behavior driven. Any character may be so angry at the one with the item they want to kill them, but good ones know this may not be right, lawful good ones may know it is not justified, chaotic good ones might know that killing is escalation of destroying that NPC's ability to learn from their mistakes. But the animal drive, "that's mine and I want it back so I am going to kill you", is restrained by a morals of a superior (3+) intellect and wisdom. Where an evil person would do just that (unless afraid of consequences).
Your scenario is a little thin on details, but if a mugger stole your purse and you hunted them down and killed them, that's not "good", it might not be "evil", but is certainly is not good. Now if that purse has the medicine that keeps your baby alive and it needs that dose in the next hour, extreme remedy where one life over another can make a good person take a darker path (life of a thief vs life on an innocent baby). So, each GM should have a system that clearly explains what alignment means in their world.
I always like to think alignment is a measure of your actions and not simply intentions. Contemplating killing or hoping for the death of the person who married the one you were in love with is not the measure of your actions, but if you do it - that's when you became evil. I also like to play that just because a character has this alignment factor does not automatically mean they know it or accept it. Your example character might not perceive him/herself as not being good, but they are not.
The thing about spell fantasy is there are ways to get an assessment from higher powers or from auras. Someone says your killing the thief who stole your cracker jacks was evil, may even say the gods say you are evil, but that person might just not believe/accept it. "Hey, you steal my stuff, you pay the price. Don't point at me and call me evil, the punk deserved it - you know it, I know it, your god is just wrong - I can think of a dozen of your stories where your god killed someone who wronged her. I've always been the good guy, riding the world of punks like these, so FU! I'm not evil, you're evil for lying and saying I'm evil"
But to each GM, their own terms....
Killing someone because they have something you want and wont give it to you is a pretty classic example of evil.
Animals are neutral because they don't possess the sapience to understand what good and evil are. You can't use animals as an example to justify anything except that if a creature is too unintelligent to understand what it's doing then it's probably just a neutral creature.
Undead are another exception literally "because undead".
It's no longer an issue because the PC is now dead, but to expand my understanding I want to know :
If the PC have no concept of evil or good, does that make him neutral?
Example : He need to retrieve an item from an NPC, the npc don't give it to him, he kill the NPC.Now, I know animal are consider neutral. I know that goblin are consider Evil. So in my mind, this mean that the goblin know they are doing something 'evil'.
Am I wrong, or thinking too much?
Found Smeagol's Paizo.com login.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of (the many) problems with alignment. The game can't decide if it's objective or subjective. If it's objective, then a non-sapient creature could be good or evil, depending on what it does, because intent and purpose aren't relevant. If it's subjective, then you can do anything want so long as you can justify/rationalize it to yourself and still be good/evil. And there are examples of both being 'true' in PF.
Alignment. It sucks.
|
This is one of (the many) problems with alignment. The game can't decide if it's objective or subjective. If it's objective, then a non-sapient creature could be good or evil, depending on what it does, because intent and purpose aren't relevant. If it's subjective, then you can do anything want so long as you can justify/rationalize it to yourself and still be good/evil. And there are examples of both being 'true' in PF.
Alignment. It sucks.
Even if alignment is 100% subjective, depriving a sentient creature of its life simply because it has something you want is never a non-evil act. No amount of justification will ever change that. Just because the character THINKS what they're doing isn't evil doesn't mean it isn't. The rules are actually pretty clear on that. That's like saying a Paladin could maintain their alignment and powers while killing every newborn in a town where all the citizens are enslaved and cruelly murdered by demons at the age of 16 if the Paladin convinced themselves it was a mercy to spare the children that horror. That's not how alignment works at all. Sure, there are certainly times the rules can become confusing or contradictory, but the issue presented in the OP isn't one of those times. Killing someone for a piece of gear is an evil act. Period.