Is blackmailing someone an evil act?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I would say so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Compared to shred him with a sword, burn him with a fireball or breaking his skull with a warhammer?, blackmailing is probably tame for what a PC normally does anyways. Evil or non-evil probably depends on who you are blackmailing, what do you want to accomplish and what do you make the blackmailed person to do. It's seems like a chaotic act, though.


While there are worse things that can be done to a person blackmailing them is an evil act. Even if you are blackmailing someone over doing something evil, it is still an evil act. If you see someone do an evil act and blackmail them, you are now an accessory to their crimes. You are willingly covering up what they did for your own profit.

If you saw something worth blackmailing someone and decided you did not want to get involved that could be considered a neutral act. But once you have involved yourself and blackmailed the person you now share part of the blame for the deed. I suppose if you were to blackmail someone for doing a good deed and the blackmail did not profit you, and you were forcing the target to do a good deed it might not be considered evil. But I cannot really imagine that happening.


Suppose a paladin could stop a villainous ruler from doing something evil by blackmailing them. Would doing that still be an evil act?

Silver Crusade

Morality is relative. Posit the following situation.

You were lawfully compelled to testify under oath in court. You publicly disclosed indisputable evidence that certain powerful figures had secretly committed atrocities and falsely blamed them on an unpopular minority. You also possess other evidence of financial misdeeds, which you were not asked about in court, the release of which would cause the moneylenders' guild to confiscate wealth from the families of these evil powerful figures.

The powerful figures whose evil deeds you exposed are struggling to maintain their power. They have also sent bands of hired killers to murder you, your entire extended family, and pretty much everyone you know.

You blackmail the powerful figures. So long as you and yours are allowed to live and go about your business, then the financial secrets will stay secret. Should you die then the financial evidence will be released to the moneylenders' guild.

You are clearly committing blackmail. Is this an evil act?


The answer is always 'yes.'


Kimera757 wrote:
Suppose a paladin could stop a villainous ruler from doing something evil by blackmailing them. Would doing that still be an evil act?

Suppose the paladin could stop him by burning his house down while the ruler slept. Or poisoning the well. Would they still be evil acts?

Two wrongs don't make a right.


More a weak and foolish act than an evil one. You are trusting the honor of your evil foes, who are wealthy enough to hire assassin groups, when you have it in your power to cripple their resources. It is also complicity after the fact in hiding their financial misdeeds, which may well be evil depending on what the actual misdeeds were. You are also helping to keep evil people in power, which is also rather evil. The corruption/evil of blackmail may sometimes be the lesser evil, just not this time.


A paladin attempting to blackmail someone will usually become an ex-paladin. In most cases blackmail will be considered evil. Even if for some reason it is not considered evil it would be considered dishonorable.

In the case Magda Luckbender proposes I would say that by allowing the evil people to remain in power you become partially responsible for their misdeeds. While I would consider this an evil act it would probably not be enough to shift a characters alignment. It would however be enough to cause a paladin to fall for several reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes. Blackmail is an evil act (but not an Evil or EVIL act).

Basically you are intentionally covering up someone else's misdeed(s) and using that as a threat to coerce them into doing something they would not normally do.


If we expand Blackmail to cover examples where the leverage someone has over someone else is merely embarrassing, rather than illegal or immoral, and the extent of the favor asked in exchange for keeping quiet is minor, I wouldn't say it's evil.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we expand Blackmail to cover examples where the leverage someone has over someone else is merely embarrassing, rather than illegal or immoral, and the extent of the favor asked in exchange for keeping quiet is minor, I wouldn't say it's evil.

Let's take a corner case, and push it a little further, now let's use this as the basis of an overall argument. Blackmail is just diplomacy.


"just keep the cash going, you wouldn't want your superiors to know what your doing late at night"

scene one, a working girl blackmail a wealthy noble's servant.

scene two, the head of a charity found for the widows and orphans talking to the cardinal of an evil god's church about his habit of healing the needed and helping the elderly cross the street.

while chaotic and not lawful it is the way and purpose you use blackmail as well as the blackmail material itself that make it evil or good. same as killing people - some times it's for good and is good sometimes it's for evil and evil.(in reflect it can also be for good and evil or for evil and good.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we expand Blackmail to cover examples where the leverage someone has over someone else is merely embarrassing, rather than illegal or immoral, and the extent of the favor asked in exchange for keeping quiet is minor, I wouldn't say it's evil.

I would still hardly call that a goodly made decision. ;)

Any form of forced coercion, where you are taking away a person's choice in life, falls under a despicable morale milieu.

Are we still talking about game rules? Or is this quickly diverting into grey social paradigms?


Erpa wrote:
The answer is always 'yes.'

Not only is blackmail not always evil, it probably shouldn't be illegal, and it would often be to the benefit of the "victims" for it to be both legal and contractually enforceable.

What's the moral difference between these two scenarios?

A:

"I'm going to tell X about Y."

"No, don't, I'll give you $500 if you sign an NDA."

"Ok."

B:

"If you don't give me $500 I'll tell X about Y."

"Ok, but only if you sign a contract so I know you have an incentive to keep your word."

"Sure."

The answer is that the only moral implications depend on what X is, who Y is, and whether the disclosure of that information is itself good or evil. The blackmail element or payment for NDA are morally neutral.


Your blackmailer caved pretty easy for only $500. Oh wait, that's right, he's a blackmailer who comes back in a month and says he needs another thousand actually. You say "... But the contract!!" And he goes, sure tell everyone I broke a contract where I said I would keep your theft/infidelity/lies quiet. Pay up.

Blackmail is not a deal. Blackmail is force upon another person.

**

I don't even have a strong opinion one way or another, but I'm bored at work and enjoy posting in this.


Erpa wrote:

Your blackmailer caved pretty easy for only $500. Oh wait, that's right, he's a blackmailer who comes back in a month and says he needs another thousand actually. You say "... But the contract!!" And he goes, sure tell everyone I broke a contract where I said I would keep your theft/infidelity/lies quiet. Pay up.

Blackmail is not a deal. Blackmail is force upon another person.

Yeah, ok, you don't know what you're talking about. Go read some law journal articles about the subject to fill up your boredom.


Erpa wrote:


Any form of forced coercion, where you are taking away a person's choice in life, falls under a despicable morale milieu.

My paladin put some evil cultist in jail. Being in jail wasn't the evil cultist choice in life. My paladin fell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Erpa wrote:

Your blackmailer caved pretty easy for only $500. Oh wait, that's right, he's a blackmailer who comes back in a month and says he needs another thousand actually. You say "... But the contract!!" And he goes, sure tell everyone I broke a contract where I said I would keep your theft/infidelity/lies quiet. Pay up.

Blackmail is not a deal. Blackmail is force upon another person.

Yeah, ok, you don't know what you're talking about. Go read some law journal articles about the subject to fill up your boredom.

For fun I read through what you shared, and the economist who wrote it called blackmail between people, not business dealings, as 'moral murder.'

And I found another law paper with a Google search that argued against your linked paper.

I'm trying to engage in good conversation. Have some fun.


Nicos wrote:
Erpa wrote:


Any form of forced coercion, where you are taking away a person's choice in life, falls under a despicable morale milieu.
My paladin put some evil cultist in jail. Being in jail wasn't the evil cultist choice in life. My paladin fell.

Oh you perfectly railroaded me with semantics. I'm sure the cultist didn't do anything illegal to the laws of the land, justifying why the paladin would hasten to jail him. Did the paladin coerce the cultist? Nay,I would say.


In Fallout New Vegas, there is a quest line where you have to stop a casino family from doing something shady. To help along the way, you can steal an Underboss's journal and find that he has a side gig that his bosses aren't aware of. You can use this as leverage so you can top the plot and take down the bosses.

So, you Blackmail Cachino, the underboss. In what way could this be considered an evil act? Context matters. Both the leverage being used and the ends definitely factor into whether this is evil or not.


Erpa wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Erpa wrote:


Any form of forced coercion, where you are taking away a person's choice in life, falls under a despicable morale milieu.
My paladin put some evil cultist in jail. Being in jail wasn't the evil cultist choice in life. My paladin fell.
Oh you perfectly railroaded me with semantics. I'm sure the cultist didn't do anything illegal to the laws of the land, justifying why the paladin would hasten to jail him. Did the paladin coerce the cultist? Nay,I would say.

Coercion: "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance."

The dictionary disagrees with you. Maybe your initial statement was too rigid and the problem at hand has more nuances?. Heck, every use of the intimidation skill by a paladin would require him to fall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.

Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.
Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.

Good and Evil aren't relative in the setting. Whether Good is "good" or "evil" is relative, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.
Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.

Actually yes and no, depending on what is meant with a rather trite three word provocation statement. Yes, there are various degrees of evil. Being a liar is evil, really whatever the reason. Being a torturing murderer is a greater evil. Lying to get away from said torturer is both pragmatic and a small "g" good thing, but it is still an evil thing, just a much lesser evil thing, and hopefully will prevent a greater evil. In a perfect world, convincing the murderer of the error of his ways and to never, ever to do such a thing would be a large "g" Good thing. It is also pie in the sky unlikely and a rather poor strategy. While the lie will further erode trust in one's fellows, and will make the bad guy just a little more evil, a little less likely to allow the next victim any mercy, it is still the lesser of the two evils. Those who deny lying is evil because there are are greater evils are being facile, as are the people who deny there is any qualitative/quantitative difference between different instances of evil. Either view tends to obscure and condone evil acts.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would think that blackmail is more along the chaotic and neutral sides of the alignment rather than evil. But I guess that it really depends on what you are trying to get the blackmailee to do and if you are actually going to follow through with your threats if they don't do what you want. If you aren't planning on following through with the blackmail, then it becomes a regular bluff check.

I could see blackmail working if it is in defense of others or gets the blackmailee to follow the law. I.e., You seem like a good guy who is only stealing to feed your family, so I will let you off, but don't steal from anybody anymore or I will give the police evidence of your past crimes. As opposed to, I have evidence that will put you away for life or get you executed, now break into the bank and steal all the money for me.

As far as paladins go, I doubt that minor blackmail would cause them to "fall" as long as it doesn't become a pattern of behavior. Of course, morality is subjective and ultimately decided by the whim of the GM.


Daw wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.
Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.
Actually yes and no, depending on what is meant with a rather trite three word provocation statement. Yes, there are various degrees of evil. Being a liar is evil, really whatever the reason.

1. A paladin lies bleeding out after defending her home from daemons. She killed many who came in the front door, but didn't see or hear those who came in the back and ate her children, dooming their souls to Abbadon. There are no plausible resources to heal the Paladin, raise her after her death, or save the souls of her children.

With her last words, seconds before the light fades from her eyes, she asks if her children are safe.

What do you tell her? Is lying to her, sparing her a painful, soul wrenching truth, one that might cause her to forsake her own faith before death, evil? Is telling her the truth good?

2. You are a guest at someone's home because you were invited by the husband. The busy, overworked wife, who usually just microwaves stuff, generously attempts to make something with ingredients on hand and a hastily found recipe on the internet.

It's awful, badly proportioned ingredients and overcooked. Shame and loathing imperfectly masked in her eyes, she asks if you enjoyed it, while her inconsiderate husband makes snide comments under his breath and stares at her in contempt.

What do you tell her? Is lying to her to spare her further confirmation of what she already knows out of kindness and respect for her generosity an evil act? Is a blunt truth that further humiliates her and gives her potentially emotionally abusive husband more ammunition a good act?


Xenocrat, Yes the lie is evil. It causes said dying Paladin to not be aware of the Truth, and perhaps prevents her from potentially performing extraordinary or even miraculous actions to prevent the evil you are "kindly" lying to obscure. "Kindness is different than Good." On your second, yes it is kinder than honest, but it either erodes their trust in you, or perhaps damages their ability to improve their cooking and thusly damages them. Hurtfully telling the truth also potentially damages them in many of the same ways. Perhaps gentle suggestions to help them improve would be the way to go.

You are still denying differences in shades of grey, and obscuring the issue. Why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Being a liar is evil, really whatever the reason.

There is nothing that implies that lie is an evil thing. Honestity and trustworthiness are ruled by the Law/chaos axis. To lie is a chaotic act not a evil act.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

All of civilization exists because of various levels of blackmail and coercion. Ergo, one could make the argument that it is Lawful.

To put it in as simple a form as I can, "Work, or you don't eat" is about as blackmail as blackmail gets.


Nicos,
A lie is an attack damaging a persons perception of reality. It may also be chaotic for the same reasons. Are you arguing a thing can't be both chaotic and evil?


Daw wrote:

Nicos,

A lie is an attack damaging a persons perception of reality. It may also be chaotic for the same reasons. Are you arguing a thing can't be both chaotic and evil?

Oh, a lie can be evil. But you are not saying that, you are saying that lying is always an evil act no matter what, and I disagree. It is you that should show in what part of the description of alignment you base your affirmation as I already mentioned in what part of the text I'm basing my statement (Honestity and trustworthiness are ruled by the Law/chaos axis)

The section of the alignment that talk about lies fall under the law/chaos thing. There is no mention of a prohibition to lie in the neutral good or chaotic good description, compared to the lawful good description.

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word..."

It doesn't say

"Good characters tell the truth, keep their word..."

In conclusion, to lie is a chaotic act. Whether it is evil or not depends on other considerations.


Nicos,

A lie may, in some instances, be very much a lesser evil, but it is a corruption of the truth.

People in the forums often equate Chaous being solely both corruption and change, Iwill agree that a lie is chaotic, I will not agree that it is not also, to a degree, evil.

While you are not explicitly stating it, you are arguing from an absolutist position, tacitly denying degrees of evil. I do not agree with your overall conclusion. You are, of course, allowed your own opinion on the strengths of you arguments.


Daw wrote:

Nicos,

A lie may, in some instances, be very much a lesser evil, but it is a corruption of the truth.

Corruption of the truth is not anywhere mentioned in the description of that good and evil, so I don't see where are you coming from.


I would say morality is NOT relative in Pathfinder or DND (at least in the sense people normally mean when they say that morality is relative), the reason being a creature's alignment is a measurable, objective quality like mass or electric charge. HOWEVER, the moral status of various acts is often unclear, due to a combination of the rules being pretty vague most of the time (only a few acts are explicitly said to be evil in the rules) and the DMs personal ideas about morality invariably playing a part.


Even if morality is not "relative" in a setting where a magic stick can tell you whether or not anything you point it at is evil, I would say that moral principles nonetheless do depend on the particulars of the situation they are applied in.

So we can't say things like "blackmail is evil" because in a case where you are blackmailing some underling to help you bring down the big boss (who is evil) it probably is not. Promising the princess that you won't reveal her indiscretion if she helps get important people to attend your garden party probably is not evil either.

I mean, the purpose of alignment in a game like this is to get players to interrogate their characters internal justifications and rationalizations for their actions. So at most when a character does something that is, in the GM's opinion, a violation of their alignment, a GM should ask "why does your character, a [alignment/philosophical position] think doing [whatever] is justifiable?" If they provide any answer that passes minimal scrutiny, that's fine... they thought about what they were doing and if it's okay and came up with an answer.


Ravingdork wrote:
To put it in as simple a form as I can, "Work, or you don't eat" is about as blackmail as blackmail gets.

And a growing segment of the global populace argue that that is also evil, so I'm not sure how that helps clarify the issue.


Daw wrote:

Xenocrat, Yes the lie is evil. It causes said dying Paladin to not be aware of the Truth, and perhaps prevents her from potentially performing extraordinary or even miraculous actions to prevent the evil you are "kindly" lying to obscure. "Kindness is different than Good." On your second, yes it is kinder than honest, but it either erodes their trust in you, or perhaps damages their ability to improve their cooking and thusly damages them. Hurtfully telling the truth also potentially damages them in many of the same ways. Perhaps gentle suggestions to help them improve would be the way to go.

You are still denying differences in shades of grey, and obscuring the issue. Why?

I’m educating those capable of being educated.

“Truth is good” is just as dumb as saying “cutting people is evil.” Politicians and surgeons know that the purpose and outcome is what matters.


Daw wrote:

Nicos,

A lie is an attack damaging a persons perception of reality. It may also be chaotic for the same reasons. Are you arguing a thing can't be both chaotic and evil?

Heart surgery is an attack damaging a persons body. Is it evil?


Daw wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.
Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.
Actually yes and no, depending on what is meant with a rather trite three word provocation statement. Yes, there are various degrees of evil. Being a liar is evil, really whatever the reason. Being a torturing murderer is a greater evil. Lying to get away from said torturer is both pragmatic and a small "g" good thing, but it is still an evil thing, just a much lesser evil thing, and hopefully will prevent a greater evil. In a perfect world, convincing the murderer of the error of his ways and to never, ever to do such a thing would be a large "g" Good thing. It is also pie in the sky unlikely and a rather poor strategy. While the lie will further erode trust in one's fellows, and will make the bad guy just a little more evil, a little less likely to allow the next victim any mercy, it is still the lesser of the two evils. Those who deny lying is evil because there are are greater evils are being facile, as are the people who deny there is any qualitative/quantitative difference between different instances of evil. Either view tends to obscure and condone evil acts.

Are lies evil? I can accept that lies are chaotic. Truth seems to be Lawful more than good. After all, both lies and truth can hurt people. What makes a lie or the truth good or evil is intent. Using either to hurt someone is bad. Harm is evil, correct? If either are used to provide comfort, solace, or show compassion is that evil? I think not.

Truth and lies are along the Lawful/Chaotic axis, not Good/Evil.


blahpers wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
To put it in as simple a form as I can, "Work, or you don't eat" is about as blackmail as blackmail gets.
And a growing segment of the global populace argue that that is also evil, so I'm not sure how that helps clarify the issue.

Well since their counter argument is “feed me or I’ll have you killed or imprisoned” I think we can safely dismiss their moral judgements.


Ravingdork wrote:

All of civilization exists because of various levels of blackmail and coercion. Ergo, one could make the argument that it is Lawful.

To put it in as simple a form as I can, "Work, or you don't eat" is about as blackmail as blackmail gets.

How is that blackmail? Blackmail is a threat where the perpetrator offers to keep information secret in return for goods or services from the victim. Usually the crime is ongoing with the victim being forced to pay frequently to keep the information from being exposed.

"Work, or you don't eat" isn't a secret, and it isn't coercion. That is an exchange of labor for goods. It is actually the idea on what an economy is based on. You provide labor for compensation. Like labor, compensation can take many forms. Compensation can be food, labor, goods, money, or even intangibles like knowledge, instruction, or even electronic currency.

Most people in first world economies provide labor and receive nothing tangible in return. Let that reality sink in for a while. That isn't blackmail, its a scam that everybody has to buy into for modern society to function!


Anyways, back to topic. Blackmail is the act of offering to cover up information in return for compensation. This is a threat. The victim receives no benefit from this transaction.

After the transaction has been completed, the Blackmailer is free to continue making more demands without providing any additional incentive. They can use the exact same secret and demand more compensation. The only way the victim can free themselves from Blackmail is to refuse to pay. In places where blackmail is itself a crime, the victim can even attempt to reverse the situation by gathering evidence of the blackmail having taken place and threatening to expose the crime if their demands are not met.

Blackmail is in all situations an act of coercion. The perpetrator uses a threat to get the victim to act in the way the perpetrator desires. You can cover that up as much as you like to by saying there are circumstances, but it doesn't change that the act is at its root evil.


I don't think lying is considered to always be evil. If so, shouldn't all illusion spells have the [evil] descriptor? The whole purpose of illusions is to deceive people.


Albatoonoe wrote:

In Fallout New Vegas, there is a quest line where you have to stop a casino family from doing something shady. To help along the way, you can steal an Underboss's journal and find that he has a side gig that his bosses aren't aware of. You can use this as leverage so you can top the plot and take down the bosses.

So, you Blackmail Cachino, the underboss. In what way could this be considered an evil act? Context matters. Both the leverage being used and the ends definitely factor into whether this is evil or not.

Both acts are evil. One is less evil than the other. Like the difference between sniping Raiders and Settlers. One is more acceptable than the other, but either way you've murdered a human being in cold blood.


Meirril wrote:

Anyways, back to topic. Blackmail is the act of offering to cover up information in return for compensation. This is a threat. The victim receives no benefit from this transaction.

After the transaction has been completed, the Blackmailer is free to continue making more demands without providing any additional incentive. They can use the exact same secret and demand more compensation. The only way the victim can free themselves from Blackmail is to refuse to pay. In places where blackmail is itself a crime, the victim can even attempt to reverse the situation by gathering evidence of the blackmail having taken place and threatening to expose the crime if their demands are not met.

Blackmail is in all situations an act of coercion. The perpetrator uses a threat to get the victim to act in the way the perpetrator desires. You can cover that up as much as you like to by saying there are circumstances, but it doesn't change that the act is at its root evil.

Your speech is not supported anywhere by the pathfinder description of alignment.


Meirril wrote:
The only way the victim can free themselves from Blackmail is to refuse to pay.

They can publish the information themselves.


Xenocrat wrote:
Daw wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.
Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.
Actually yes and no, depending on what is meant with a rather trite three word provocation statement. Yes, there are various degrees of evil. Being a liar is evil, really whatever the reason.

1. A paladin lies bleeding out after defending her home from daemons. She killed many who came in the front door, but didn't see or hear those who came in the back and ate her children, dooming their souls to Abbadon. There are no plausible resources to heal the Paladin, raise her after her death, or save the souls of her children.

With her last words, seconds before the light fades from her eyes, she asks if her children are safe.

What do you tell her? Is lying to her, sparing her a painful, soul wrenching truth, one that might cause her to forsake her own faith before death, evil? Is telling her the truth good?

2. You are a guest at someone's home because you were invited by the husband. The busy, overworked wife, who usually just microwaves stuff, generously attempts to make something with ingredients on hand and a hastily found recipe on the internet.

It's awful, badly proportioned ingredients and overcooked. Shame and loathing imperfectly masked in her eyes, she asks if you enjoyed it, while her inconsiderate husband makes snide comments under his breath and stares at her in contempt.

What do you tell her? Is lying to her to spare her further confirmation of what she already knows out of kindness and respect for her generosity an evil act? Is a blunt truth that further humiliates her and gives her potentially emotionally abusive husband more ammunition a good act?

Personally I would consider such questions to be more of a "conflict of values" (honesty vs compassion) than a good versus evil. It actually reminds me of how some of the Ultima games would have a test at the beginning where they would ask similar dilemmas in order to determine what virtue you considered was most important.


Nicos wrote:
Meirril wrote:

Anyways, back to topic. Blackmail is the act of offering to cover up information in return for compensation. This is a threat. The victim receives no benefit from this transaction.

After the transaction has been completed, the Blackmailer is free to continue making more demands without providing any additional incentive. They can use the exact same secret and demand more compensation. The only way the victim can free themselves from Blackmail is to refuse to pay. In places where blackmail is itself a crime, the victim can even attempt to reverse the situation by gathering evidence of the blackmail having taken place and threatening to expose the crime if their demands are not met.

Blackmail is in all situations an act of coercion. The perpetrator uses a threat to get the victim to act in the way the perpetrator desires. You can cover that up as much as you like to by saying there are circumstances, but it doesn't change that the act is at its root evil.

Your speech is not supported anywhere by the pathfinder description of alignment.

Well, first time that has been brought up in this entire argument. Fine, Blackmail is a form of coercion. Coercion is one form of Oppression. Ergo therefore, Blackmail is a form of Oppression, and one of the three listed acts of evil in Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

AAANDD I am really beginning to regret starting this thread to be honest

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is blackmailing someone an evil act? All Messageboards