Killing and Pathfinder Morality...

[Latrans]

Zarius wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

Zarius wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Skarm wrote:

Hi all,

I was wondering if it is an universal Pathfinder interpretation that "XXXXXX = evil"

Almost regardless of what XXXXXX is in the above sentence there is NOT a universal Pathfinder interpretation that it is evil.

In past threads just about anything and everything, no matter how egregious, has been thought to be not evil by some people. And just about anything remotely "naughty" has been thought to be evil by some people.

If you assume that everything that Paizo publishes is "official" then even Paizo's official position on alignment makes that just about any "naughty" act may make you evil and just about no EEEVVVVIIIILLL act necessarily makes you evil.

My good sir, I direct your attention to the existence of evil Outsiders, who are inherently and irredeemably evil.

I tried taht line onces and had the fiend that became CG slammed in my face

Does not work. True Outsiders (meaning non-native ones), aren't natives to the Prime Material, and don't have the ability to change their inherent nature. Dragons can, because as long-lived as they are, they are still mortals. Outsiders are not mortal. They exist as what they are.

Fallen angels are rare but they do exist. Even fewer turn truly evil and may be transformed into fiends. In theory, the reverse as well as other aligned outsiders shifting is possible.

[Lady-J]

Skarm wrote:

SlimGauge wrote:

Is there a rules question in here ?

Wheldrake wrote:

EDIT: One more thing, why on earth is this thread in the "rules" forum? Nothing in the PF rules deals with ethical questions about the morality of killing. FYI.

Well...because each time we have to decide whether or not to kill a prisoner or an enemy who surrendered, even if it is a Chaotic Evil psycho who likes to murder and kill people for fun, becomes a looong discussion in which I am always worried my DM could end up unilaterally define that my Lawful Neutral character shifted to Lawful Evil and become a NPC.

Also sometimes I have seriously the impression that my character's alignment is being "railroaded" into a Good alignment because of an apparent misunderstanding of what "Neutral" mean in the game:

So I was wondering if I have missed some more detailed rule somewhere in the manuals! :)
Skarm

why would your character become an npc just because of an alignment shift your character is still your character and no amount of killing npcs will change that, but yes it doesn't matter who what when where why or how something is killing something else, its evil if both are sentient.

[PossibleCabbage]

But let's underline the point that it is undesirable to make a rule for "complex action X is always good/neutral/evil" because doing prevents people from playing lots of different kinds of games. We can kind of do this with [evil] tags and the like on spells, but this generally refers to the type of energy channeled by the spell and less the consequences of casting it. After all, we want it to be possible that casting a fireball to be in evil act, in case the caster is aiming to burn down the combination orphanage and puppy/kitten shelter.

So if people want to play pathfinder with a set of assumptions that means everybody is going to end up evil no matter what- being a good person is only possible for hermits and saints; that is fine. I don't think there should be a rule that says you can't do that.

At my table, I assert that the game function of alignment is to get players to consider ethical and moral questions when thinking about what they are doing or should do. If someone formulates an argument for "doing [Foo] in this context is morally justifiable because of x,y, and z" which holds up to light scrutiny then they have fulfilled the purpose of alignment as far as I see it, so there's no need to punish someone for doing something right.

So things like "Killing is evil y/n?" are unreasonable and undesirable to make rules pillars, since this unreasonably limits GM/Player creative freedom and the point of the game is to tell heroic stories, not to try to navigate a minefield of potential moral breaches.

[*Thelith]

I agree. I don't want more rules to restrict options, less would be fine. Good and Evil are mechanics of the game that have been staples for a long time. It would be impossible to make hard and fast rules about everything that is Evil.

Coming into a rule forum saying all killing is Evil is not productive nor is it correct in anyway.( Even in real life I would argue..)

[PossibleCabbage]

If there is a rule (and this should be a rule like the stuff in the "Advice to the GM" section is rules). It should be something like:

"Have a conversation with your players about how we will decide what actions are morally justifiable and which are not, and come to an understanding that fulfills both:

- Appropriate for the sort of story you are intending to tell
- Mutually agreeable for all parties.

It is not necessary (or possible) to answer all ethical questions before you start, but there should be a collective understanding of what the end goal is and how we will examine unanticipated questions."

[Sara Marie]

I know its really easy to take "are there any rules for this thing" and turn it into a philosophical debate on what the rules might mean or what they should say. However, we've had quite a few "morality of killing" threads and I'm not convinced we need another, especially when it's hijacking a thread specifically asking about what the rules say. Secondly, it is never okay to pick on other community members because they play differently. You need to find another way to express your opinion on this because singling out other people in the community and telling others not to listen to them is not okay. If you cannot do that, you need to refrain from posting about it and let other people decided the merits of those posts on their own.