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.
Coercion is different than oppression, as oppression requires an *unjust* and *abusive* use of force. So your proof is flawed.
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.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others"
By the above Pathfinder definition of Evil and what seems to be your interpretation of it, nearly everything a typical adventurer does is Evil.
A Paladin of Sarenrae tells a mass-murderer "Repent or Die". She is using coercion, which you equate to oppression, and thus she has committed an Evil act. Context and justification don't matter. The Paladin falls from grace.
A party of good-aligned adventurers attack a Giant lair, slaying the vicious evil monsters who have been laying waste to the countryside. They have all killed others, committing multiple evil acts. Now all neutral, they continue their inevitable descent into evil.
A good party is guarding a caravan, which is attacked by bandits. The party defends the caravan, careful not to actually kill any of the bandits, capturing them and healing them of their wounds after the battle. They have still hurt others, and thus are behaving in an evil fashion.
The party Witch single-handedly takes out a thieves' guild that has been terrorizing a city. He charms, slumbers and otherwise hexes and spells them into submission, capturing them and turning them in to local authorities. He physically hurts or kills no one, but is still committing evil, because he is using magic to steal their free will and thus engaging in coercion and oppression.
If you ask me, none of the above examples are actually Evil, and thus we might want to consider a more nuanced view of what evil is.
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.
Coercion is different than oppression, as oppression requires an *unjust* and *abusive* use of force. So your proof is flawed.
Google says coercion is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
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.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others"
By the above Pathfinder definition of Evil and what seems to be your interpretation of it, nearly everything a typical adventurer does is Evil.
A Paladin of Sarenrae tells a mass-murderer "Repent or Die". She is using coercion, which you equate to oppression, and thus she has committed an Evil act. Context and justification don't matter. The Paladin falls from grace.
A party of good-aligned adventurers attack a Giant lair, slaying the vicious evil monsters who have been laying waste to the countryside. They have all killed others, committing multiple evil acts. Now all neutral, they continue their inevitable descent into evil.
A good party is guarding a caravan, which is attacked by bandits. The party defends the caravan, careful not to actually kill any of the bandits, capturing them and healing them of their wounds after the battle. They have still hurt others, and thus are behaving in an evil fashion.
The party Witch single-handedly takes out a thieves' guild that has been terrorizing a city. He charms, slumbers and otherwise hexes and spells them into submission, capturing them and turning them in to local authorities. He physically hurts or kills no one, but is still committing evil, because he is using magic to steal their free will and thus engaging in coercion and oppression.
If you ask me, none of the above examples are actually Evil, and thus we might want to consider a more nuanced view of what evil is.
And thus we reach the great truth of Pathfinder: Every act is evil. The only thing that separates the good from the evil is a delusion.
But really, what makes something 'good' in Pathfinder is a declaration of intent. What makes it 'evil' is also intent. And the only time you have to look past 'intent' is when you are dealing with Paladins and all the rules lawyers come flooding in with their complaints, arguments, justification, and other excuses for bad behavior.
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.
Coercion is different than oppression, as oppression requires an *unjust* and *abusive* use of force. So your proof is flawed.
Google says coercion is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
Who's definition are you trying to use?
Exactly. Compare it to oppression where the words *abusive* and *unjust* appear.
It's a chaotic act, but not evil. Now, what the blackmail requires can push it to good or evil. In the Dresden Files, Harry Dresden has blackmailed several of his enemies, all in order to protect Chicago or some little piece of it. Is he Chaotic? Oh, very much. Is he Evil? Not at all, he's very likely Chaotic Good.
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.
Coercion is different than oppression, as oppression requires an *unjust* and *abusive* use of force. So your proof is flawed.
Google says coercion is "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
Who's definition are you trying to use?
Exactly. Compare it to oppression where the words *abusive* and *unjust* appear.
And once again Google says Oppression is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
"a region shattered by oppression and killing"
synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation, enslavement, exploitation; More
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation, enslavement, exploitation; More
mental pressure or distress."
Coercion is unjust treatment or control. aka forcing something to obey your wishes. Blackmail is a subset of Coersion, in which you are using threats of exposing secrets to make the subject obey. Blackmail also is carried out over a long period of time, fitting both the first and second definition.
And Blackmail fits the 3rd definition as well, by applying mental pressure and distress you gain control over the subject of blackmail via threats to revealing secrets.
If you want to fight my argument based on definitions, you might want to give a source for your definitions instead of just making assertions without providing any evidence. It just feels like you're making stuff up to suit your argument instead of trying to prove it.
May I just say that blackmail only works if the party being blackmailed refuses to own up to what they're being blackmailed for? So trying to exert control through blackmail doesn't always work. Because honestly, I for one am completely unblackmailable, because I have nothing to hide, and the things I inadvertently hide anyways, would probably benefit me to be out in the light. A guilty conscience I have None of >.>
"Good: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Therefore the "Good" Paladin is making the personal sacrifice of doing something questionable, in order to help others.
To say
Blackmail > Coercion > Oppression > Evil
is akin to saying
Killing Evil Creature > Killing > Evil
Blackmail, in theory, would be a Chaotic act, or an act that is against the law. But that would only be assuming you're in an area where Blackmail is actually an illegal act.
"Good: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Therefore the "Good" Paladin is making the personal sacrifice of doing something questionable, in order to help others.
To say
Blackmail > Coercion > Oppression > Evil
is akin to saying
Killing Evil Creature > Killing > Evil
Blackmail, in theory, would be a Chaotic act, or an act that is against the law. But that would only be assuming you're in an area where Blackmail is actually an illegal act.
It is easier to defend that killing isn't an evil act than trying to defend Blackmail as a non evil act.
Animals kill things. Plants kill things. Things often kill other things simply to survive. Murder is as much about breaking societal bonds so much as the actual killing. Soldiers involved in war aren't accused of murdering other soldiers, everyone involved expects one side to kill the other side. Duels aren't considered murder, both participants expect to risk their life in a duel. But when someone suddenly attacks another that isn't expecting such violence, that is clearly murder.
Blackmail is threatening to reveal information that the victim doesn't want spread around. There is no natural analogy for this act. This only happens in a civilized setting where one person needs to keep a secret and is willing to give up possessions or perform acts to maintain this secret. Not matter how you want to sugarcoat it, this is an act of oppression, and in Pathfinder definitely evil.
May I just say that blackmail only works if the party being blackmailed refuses to own up to what they're being blackmailed for? So trying to exert control through blackmail doesn't always work. Because honestly, I for one am completely unblackmailable, because I have nothing to hide, and the things I inadvertently hide anyways, would probably benefit me to be out in the light. A guilty conscience I have None of >.>
Blackmail doesn't have to work to be blackmail. The attempt of negotiating a deal is blackmail. If the person being blackmailed thinks the perp is asking for more than the secret is worth, negotiations fall through and then perp can either walk away or carry out their threat. Often blackmailers don't reveal the information because it isn't worth the hassle. But if the blackmailer is sufficiently angered, they will reveal the information in a bizarre attempt to gain revenge for their failed blackmail attempt.
Blackmail takes lots of forms. "Don't tell mom." "If you tell anyone about this, I'll blab about that." "If anyone finds out about this, I'll implicate you as well." "Remember that time you screwed up? I need you to take a shift for me." "I know about your girlfriend, if you don't want your wife to know you'll work this weekend." If they don't ask for a lot, you don't even question it.
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?
These would be great examples for cases where the real-world answer and the in-game answer could be, and I would argue should be, different.
("Should" because in-game morality being consistent, coherent, and predictable across tables is more important than any given player agreeing with it.)
But really, what makes something 'good' in Pathfinder is a declaration of intent. What makes it 'evil' is also intent. And the only time you have to look past 'intent' is when you are dealing with Paladins and all the rules lawyers come flooding in with their complaints, arguments, justification, and other excuses for bad behavior.
"intent" justifying any action is absolutely untenable in a setting with objective alignment; I don't take it into account in the slightest. If you're organising a revolutionary group to overthrow a government, you're still organising, and at my tables that's a Lawful act whatever the objective.
I get the feeling that most people objecting to strong descriptive alignment are worried about being dinged towards Chaotic or Evil rather than towards lawful or Good more than I am in the habit of doing, as a DM.
It's a chaotic act, but not evil. Now, what the blackmail requires can push it to good or evil. In the Dresden Files, Harry Dresden has blackmailed several of his enemies, all in order to protect Chicago or some little piece of it. Is he Chaotic? Oh, very much. Is he Evil? Not at all, he's very likely Chaotic Good.
Spoilers for Dresden Files up to book 12:
Spoiler:
This is a character whose author has confirmed that when he said the world could burn so long as he saved his daughter, he meant it absolutely and literally. Now, when I read someone saying something like that, I identify with the world, being as me and my people are all part of it. So to my mind, that's the point where Harry's general Chaotic nature goes irrevocably over the edge into Evil.
(Him ending that book by committing genocide doesn't help either.)
But really, what makes something 'good' in Pathfinder is a declaration of intent. What makes it 'evil' is also intent. And the only time you have to look past 'intent' is when you are dealing with Paladins and all the rules lawyers come flooding in with their complaints, arguments, justification, and other excuses for bad behavior.
"intent" justifying any action is absolutely untenable in a setting with objective alignment; I don't take it into account in the slightest. If you're organising a revolutionary group to overthrow a government, you're still organising, and at my tables that's a Lawful act whatever the objective.
I get the feeling that most people objecting to strong descriptive alignment are worried about being dinged towards Chaotic or Evil rather than towards lawful or Good more than I am in the habit of doing, as a DM.
But the whole thing becomes moot in the end. Alignment is a plot device and a poorly worded mechanic that isn't really intended to hold players back from enjoying themselves. A lawful good wizard who burns down a whole village of 'evil' Norgorber worshipers who were raising a crop of nightshade to sell considers himself to be morally justified. Never mind that he's just brutally murdered an entire village of helpless people with 4 fireballs. He feels he has done a good deed, and this act won't shift his alignment unless the GM dictates it so.
This isn't even an edge case. Lots of adventurers burn down goblin, kobolt and orc villages without blinking twice. Change the race and it suddenly becomes a good act? Or an evil one? Sure, Paladins would need to atone, but normal adventurers? Nope. Alignment is a weak guideline that most players don't even think about except in the vaguest of terms.
But the whole thing becomes moot in the end. Alignment is a plot device and a poorly worded mechanic that isn't really intended to hold players back from enjoying themselves. A lawful good wizard who burns down a whole village of 'evil' Norgorber worshipers who were raising a crop of nightshade to sell considers himself to be morally justified. Never mind that he's just brutally murdered an entire village of helpless people with 4 fireballs. He feels he has done a good deed, and this act won't shift his alignment unless the GM dictates it so.
If I am the GM, it sure as heck will. And that much would be made clear from the beginning of the campaign.
Quote:
Alignment is a weak guideline that most players don't even think about except in the vaguest of terms.
If I want to run a game where alignment might as well not be there, I will run a game without alignment (which I do a fair bit); if I am playing in a universe which has a defined objective morality, it will be enforced and enforced hard. This isn't about preventing players from enjoying themselves, it is about adding another dimension of roleplaying challenge and complexity to the game, and while I appreciate that this is not how everyone likes their escapism, I also appreciate that it's there for those of us who do like it.
It's a chaotic act, but not evil. Now, what the blackmail requires can push it to good or evil. In the Dresden Files, Harry Dresden has blackmailed several of his enemies, all in order to protect Chicago or some little piece of it. Is he Chaotic? Oh, very much. Is he Evil? Not at all, he's very likely Chaotic Good.
Spoilers for Dresden Files up to book 12:
** spoiler omitted **
As if we needed another reason why alignment is a stupid concept.
2a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution
Definition of coerce:
transitive verb
1 : to compel to an act or choice
was coerced into agreeing
abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2 : to achieve by force or threat
Definition of intimidate:
transitive verb
: to make timid or fearful : FRIGHTEN
especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats
So, Blackmail is to coerce by threat. Coerce is to compel by threat. Intimidate is to compel by threat.
Therefore Intimidate is just as evil of an act as blackmail!
Definition of contract:
1a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties
especially : one legally enforceable
If he breaks the contract, he'll be sued.
Even a contract is in and of itself a form of coercion/blackmail. "If he breaks the contract, he'll be sued." It is a threat that something will happen if you do not abide to what was agreed.
So draw up a NDA type contract that stipulates the terms that you would blackmail for. If the party agrees and signs, you simply have a legal NDA. if the other party does not agree to it, then there is no NDA and you can do whatever you were going to threaten blackmailing them with.
HOWEVER this avoids actually threatening them with Blackmail!
The only way the victim can free themselves from Blackmail is to refuse to pay.
They can publish the information themselves.
Historically, this is how Dr. Martin Luther King responded when the FBI (under orders from J. Edgar Hoover) attempted to blackmail Dr. King. The FBI had gone to great lengths to record Dr. King having sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife. The FBI attempted to blackmail Dr. King into backing off from his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War. FBI threatened to tell his wife about his sexual escapades if he did not comply.
Dr. King responded by telling his wife, Coretta Scott King, everything. Dr. King continued to speak out in opposition to that war. FBI presumably responded by upping the ante. No more Dr. King. While the accusation that FBI arranged Dr. King's assassination is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, a careful, reasonable, thorough investigation leaves little doubt and a recent court case by the King family (whose results were squelched in the media) found the same.
P.s. Sorry I missed publishing this on Martin Luther King day in USA, which ended 38 hours prior to writing this.
P.P.s. A scholarly examination of the Snopes reviews on this topic may reveal some carefully crafted mildly misleading information. It's sort of a taboo topic. Sorry to interrupt our fantasy world with real History. Back to Golarion ...
In a practical manner this is something you should discuss with the group you play with and the GM. As it's a moral topic opinions will vary. Ethically it depends on your local laws and if someone is motivated to bring it to court (life is filled with petty wrongs that never come to light). There are a lot of factors and situations to consider.
On the Forums *here*, there's not a lot of social consequence to saying silly or offensive stuff and some argue for the sake of it. So you need your peer group to lead to a decision or general opinion so that the discussion will have some impact.
In the game world it can simply depend on the Alignment of the actor, as it is assumed that Evil creatures do Evil things for unknown Evil reasons.
So it can be helpful to try to bin the act within the Alignment system based on Morals[G-N-E] and Ethics[L-N-C].
After all that - the basic game consequence is a creature's Alignment shifting which has little mechanical impact but has broader consequences in Roleplay and a creature's story/plot roles in the game.
Blackmail involves threatening to reveal sensitive or damaging information about someone unless they comply with certain demands, ranging from financial payments to performing certain actions.
In the UK, blackmail is making an unwarranted demand, with menaces.
(Or at least it was when I did my law degree, some time last century.)
The "unwarranted" bit is to cover "reasonable" demands from people in authority.
"Menaces" could be pretty much anything (not just revealing information) but very much does not include the threat of legal action (which is the only threat UK solicitors are allowed to make).
Considering the age of this thread and the number of times that it has been spam-necroed (three that I have flagged) perhaps the moderators should go ahead and lock it?
