Lost Omens & Moral Objectivism / Relativism

[Temperans]

I don't think that a character is evil just for having 1 bad opinion/action. Just like I don't think a character is good because they have 1 good opinion/action. That is where we differ.

To me a character that grew up swearing and not caring about what others think could very well be good. Even if they come off as a jerk. In the other hand, a person who could be described as a saint when they speak in public might very well be evil based on how they act in private.

To me alignment is not define by what you have, what others think of you, or what "presence" you have. It's based on how the character acts both in public and private. Its why I don't think there is any problem with Torag saying not to show mercy to enemies of your people; To me that says not to forgive someone who harms your family, not to kill people randomly.

[MindFl*yer98]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I would like to point out that there is an argument for neutrality in the second case. "Indifference" is pretty much the defining characteristic of neutral alignments in Pathfinder and i can absolutely see a N or CN pc refusing to feed the man and keeping their neutral status. And if there is a law against feeding the homeless, the LN can join the "fun" too. Which is another example of why the morality system in Pathfinder is unfit for reality, as everybody here would call that action "evil"

[aobst128]

So unconditional good is the only good that counts then? I think I can get that. It just might reduce a lot of heroes in media to neutral. I see "mostly good" as still good. But I would agree with your example that those 3 are evil.

Edit: probably just the 1st and 3rd

[aobst128]

If it costs nothing to help someone, it could also be argued neutral to help them. Better than not helping but neutral characters can still be friendly and helpful, they just won't go out of their way for it.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I will say that I never, ever said that individual bad actions are enough to change someone's alignment. It depends on context and on whether they continue to defend the behavior.

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. Have fun, all.

[aobst128]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I will say that I never, ever said that individual bad actions are enough to change someone's alignment. It depends on context and on whether they continue to defend the behavior.

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. Have fun, all.

I didn't think you did. But thanks for sticking around. It's been a good thread.

[Mechagamera]

personally, I tend towards alignment is what you are at the moment: sure that orc might be a loving husband, great dad, and absolutely adores his pet badger, but when the PC's run into him, he is about to kill off a halfling family and ritually defile their bodies to show off his martial prowess; at that moment, he is CE. If the PC's kill him, it is up to the courts of the Boneyard to decide what happens to his soul.

Likewise, objectively a lot of PC's are...let's be charitable and stick with jerks. But when they are (mostly) selflessly saving a village from a red dragon, they are good (ish).

[aobst128]

You have to measure how a character acts most of the time, their intentions, and the gravity of their actions to be the most accurate. The whole picture is necessary. Like a clan of gnolls might be perfectly good to each other, but the ruthless way they might treat outsiders could make them evil in the end.

[Tonya Woldridge]

I removed several posts that posed baiting questions to another user, several that harassed other posters, and those quoting the removed posts. To clarify my earlier moderation, do not invoke Nazis to make your arguments, especially when you are using them to ask baiting questions. That is hate speech and breaks the community guidelines.

[aobst128]

Well, the 3rd example is after the rejection, the evil character now treats them as the first or second character would. If it's the first one, then yeah that's evil. The second is neutral.

[aobst128]

If a priest of Lamashtu offers you some bread, say thank you or you might become their bread.

[The Raven Black]

At my table, not caring about the plight of innocent people is not Neutral. It's Evil.

Neutral is caring but not acting for whatever reason.

Good is caring and acting.

Note that the above are actions/decisions. Not people.

Good people tend to do Good actions. Evil people tend to do Evil actions. Neutral people, you cannot really say one way or another.

TBT I think alignment was originally designed as an easy 2-words description of how NPCs were likely to act.

And, of course, it is essential to remember that each and everyone of us have their own very personal definition of what Good and Evil are. And Lawful and Chaotic. And that it is not necessary to try and confront or reconcile them.

[aobst128]

The Raven Black wrote:

At my table, not caring about the plight of innocent people is not Neutral. It's Evil.

Neutral is caring but not acting for whatever reason.

Good is caring and acting.

Note that the above are actions/decisions. Not people.

Good people tend to do Good actions. Evil people tend to do Evil actions. Neutral people, you cannot really say one way or another.

TBT I think alignment was originally designed as an easy 2-words description of how NPCs were likely to act.

And, of course, it is essential to remember that each and everyone of us have their own very personal definition of what Good and Evil are. And Lawful and Chaotic. And that it is not necessary to try and confront or reconcile them.

Fair enough.

[Norade]

At the risk of being moderated again, I'm once again going to quote KC's example of people dealing with a starving homeless person. This isn't to call out KC and I don't wish KC to respond if they feel it would harm their mental health, I merely think it's a good example to use to show my own thoughts on the matter.

Quote:

The first Evil character sees a starving man on the side of the road. She goes out of her way to harm the man in some way--robbing him, killing him, cheating him, mocking him. She didn't have to do this. She is not starving to death herself. This is unambiguously evil.

I think we can all agree that this is evil.

Quote:

The second Evil character sees a starving man on the roadside. She happens to be carrying a sack full of loaves of bread. She is well-fed, and she's taking these loaves to go and feed the ducks, even though the ducks are also well-fed. She refuses to help the man, even though it would cost her literally nothing. Perhaps she thinks poor people deserve to starve, or perhaps she just doesn't want to be bothered. This is evil, albeit more passively so--and not just because she's feeding ducks bread (don't do that). She is allowing a man to die in front of her despite having the means to save him easily and casually within her grasp.

This is closer to neutral as this person could have any number of reasons for not sharing their bread. Furthermore, if this is evil most of us are evil for not doing things within our power to fight evil.

Quote:

The third Evil character sees a starving man on the roadside. She has only one loaf of bread, but she goes and shares it with him, feeling compassion for his plight. She talks to the man and comforts him, reassuring him that one day, her (evil or amoral) deity's blessings will shine upon him, as they have her. The man reacts with disgust--he's a follower of a goodly god. Upon seeing his reaction, and hearing his faith, the Evil character immediately loses all sympathy, and begins to treat him as cruelly as the first or second Evil characters would have done.

This one could be arguably a good act. Yes, this character worships a god which the person in need thinks is evil, however, without having a guide to every diety as we do, the character in question may think that this god is actually good. After all, from their perspective, they've been granted strength and asked only to do what they already saw as a moral thing to do.

This becomes evil if in the future they do as the first example would but stays potentially good if they merely ignore that one begar while preaching to others that have yet to reject them.

This example can also be flipped to the real world. A church that provides shelter but kicks people out for not following strict rules or a rehab facility doing the same. Perhaps we should offer all help unconditionally, but rarely does that actually happen. Is it evil to offer help with strings attached and to withdraw support once it's clear that your requests will not be met?

[The Raven Black]

The second does not share their bread so that they can feed ducks who do not need it.

[The Raven Black]

And the third one beats or even kills the starving man : "begins to treat him as cruelly as the first or second Evil characters would have done."

[The Raven Black]

Why a character ends up willingly hurting innocents does not change the fact that willingly hurting innocents is Evil in DnD/PF.

[Berhagen]

Scenario 2 appears to be (generally) the concept that a anyone with plenty to spare is evil (which is by global standards probably almost everyone in the US, Canada and Europe and many people outside of that as well). Now you could argue that for sure, but it is pretty stringent IMO. Even in countries with well developed social systems there are large inequalities, and the solidarity usually does not extend to the whole world. We do feed cats, dogs, etc. while people are starving etc…

Scenario 3 is far from uncommon. We have the likes of Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Theresa who are prominent examples of doing quite a lot acts that could be considered good, but still also would qualify for being evil by pathfinder terms. Many people who have strong ideals and try to do “good” limit the recipients of the “good” or let those ideals also lead to evil acts. While not as blatant as beating/killing the principles are not dissimilar.

I guess that is why the alignment system does not really work in many cases. I seem to recall a version (maybe AD&D 2nd) that had alignments like “neutral with good tendencies” etc. that at least build in some more nuance.

I know the cases by KC are more extreme but (I think) the principles apply also in less exaggerated cases.

[The Raven Black]

To me, scenario 2 is refusing to share from pure selfishness / being mean. It goes beyond having and not being able to share.

[Norade]

The Raven Black wrote:

The second does not share their bread so that they can feed ducks who do not need it.

Yet we're not given any insight as to why. They could hold a belief that their bread is too stale to give to another human. They could be so burnt out as to not have the mental fortitude needed to acknowledge the homeless person. They may simply not believe in charity at a personal level instead preferring to invest in changes at a policy level.

Without knowing why they pass them by this is a neutral act.

Quote:

And the third one beats or even kills the starving man : "begins to treat him as cruelly as the first or second Evil characters would have done."

I acknowledged that in my point:

"This becomes evil if in the future they do as the first example would but stays potentially good if they merely ignore that one begar while preaching to others that have yet to reject them."

So beating them is always 100% evil. Preaching, being rebuffed, and ignoring them for those who do take your help and follow your rules can be good if the intent behind it is good.

[Cori Marie]

Norade wrote:

This example can also be flipped to the real world. A church that provides shelter but kicks people out for not following strict rules or a rehab facility doing the same. Perhaps we should offer all help unconditionally, but rarely does that actually happen. Is it evil to offer help with strings attached and to withdraw support once it's clear that your requests will not be met?

No, this is absolutely still evil. A reminder that "not following strict rules" in the real world examples include things like being gay or trans.

[The Raven Black]

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The second does not share their bread so that they can feed ducks who do not need it.

Yet we're not given any insight as to why. They could hold a belief that their bread is too stale to give to another human. They could be so burnt out as to not have the mental fortitude needed to acknowledge the homeless person. They may simply not believe in charity at a personal level instead preferring to invest in changes at a policy level.

Without knowing why they pass them by this is a neutral act.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Not saving someone's life when it costs nothing is Evil IMO.

[PossibleCabbage]

Is "not returning the grocery cart to the cart corral in the parking lot" low grade evil?

[Norade]

The Raven Black wrote:

I guess we will agree to disagree. Not saving someone's life when it costs nothing is Evil IMO.

Does the character know this? From their perspective they see a single emaciated beggar, they may see them every day and have no reason to believe that this day sees them any worse off than the last. They may have given them bread and other support for a while, witnessed no improvement and decided to cut support for a lost cause. None of these acts are evil.

EDIT: Is a person who gives 9 times but doesn't give the 10th time evil? If there's a row of beggars is it evil to give to one and not all? Is it evil if you give to only the most pathetic beggars and not the ones that look healthy? Is it evil if you only give to the ones you feel have a chance and ignore the lost causes? Where do we draw the line at how much charity a person has to give to stay good?

[Berhagen]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Is "not returning the grocery cart to the cart corral in the parking lot" low grade evil?

Well at least chaotic. And (usually) selfish, thus indeed somewhat evil…..

[Cori Marie]

You're now adding more hypotheticals to move the goalposts of the singular example you were given.

[Kasoh]

The Raven Black wrote:

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The second does not share their bread so that they can feed ducks who do not need it.

Yet we're not given any insight as to why. They could hold a belief that their bread is too stale to give to another human. They could be so burnt out as to not have the mental fortitude needed to acknowledge the homeless person. They may simply not believe in charity at a personal level instead preferring to invest in changes at a policy level.

Without knowing why they pass them by this is a neutral act.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Not saving someone's life when it costs nothing is Evil IMO.

It cost a loaf of bread. Not nothing. You might suggest that is a miniscule cost, but people have no obligation to actively help other people. That's why doing so is Good. Not doing so is Neutral. Going out of your way to harm people is Evil.

Minding your own business isn't Evil. The neutral alignment covers a wide range of behavior that is both helpful and distasteful.

[The Raven Black]

Kasoh wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Norade wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The second does not share their bread so that they can feed ducks who do not need it.

Yet we're not given any insight as to why. They could hold a belief that their bread is too stale to give to another human. They could be so burnt out as to not have the mental fortitude needed to acknowledge the homeless person. They may simply not believe in charity at a personal level instead preferring to invest in changes at a policy level.

Without knowing why they pass them by this is a neutral act.

I guess we will agree to disagree. Not saving someone's life when it costs nothing is Evil IMO.

It cost a loaf of bread. Not nothing. You might suggest that is a miniscule cost, but people have no obligation to actively help other people. That's why doing so is Good. Not doing so is Neutral. Going out of your way to harm people is Evil.

Minding your own business isn't Evil. The neutral alignment covers a wide range of behavior that is both helpful and distasteful.

Not to me.

Good acts to protect.

Neutral cares but does not act.

Evil does not care and will not hesitate to hurt.

And in the example provided, it is stated as costing nothing : "She refuses to help the man, even though it would cost her literally nothing. "

Why change the hypotheses ?

[The Raven Black]

Norade wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

You're now adding more hypotheticals to move the goalposts of the singular example you were given.

We aren't given any context to these examples and, in any real scenario, there would be a life's worth of events before such a choice was made. If this system cannot stand up to nuance it gives no useful answers.

We are given enough context in KC's post.

Context you seem to ignore just to bash at KC's opinion while claiming you're not doing this.

Why do you change the hypotheses ?

[Berhagen]

Almost everyone in a western country has money (or time) left to give. Maybe not at minimal impact, but still. And time can be spend working more (and then donating) or volunteering.

I guess that is that also is my definition/requirement for “good”: helping at a real expense or risk to yourself. And it does (to me) not count as good if you help (mainly) those similar to you or advocate for rights of your own group. Being good requires selflessness.

Probably also why I consider by far the majority of humanity as neutral at best….

Saving someone at no cost or risk to oneself I would consider neutral. Of course that situation is incredibly rare, so often it would be (slightly) good. Still does not make the person overall good.

[The Raven Black]

Berhagen wrote:

Almost everyone in a western country has money (or time) left to give. Maybe not at minimal impact, but still. And time can be spend working more (and then donating) or volunteering.

I guess that is that also is my definition/requirement for “good”: helping at a real expense or risk to yourself. And it does (to me) not count as good if you help (mainly) those similar to you or advocate for rights of your own group. Being good requires selflessness.

Probably also why I consider by far the majority of humanity as neutral at best….

Saving someone at no cost or risk to oneself I would consider neutral. Of course that situation is incredibly rare, so often it would be (slightly) good. Still does not make the person overall good.

I agree with this. Though acting to protect the innocents is Good in my book.

But one single act of Good does not on its own a Good person make.

[Berhagen]

Consistently acting to protect innocents is good. But then that rarely comes without cost and/or effort.

[aobst128]

I get both sides of the second example. It's a good hypothetical. Personally, I think it's neutral. It's not good clearly. But for an act to be evil, active harm or ill intent is required. It might be "passive" harm. But what's interesting is you could make the case that helping the man is neutral if it doesn't cost you anything. Neutral people can still be helpful, they just don't go out of their way to do it. So the opposite should also be true.

[The Raven Black]

aobst128 wrote:

I get both sides of the second example. It's a good hypothetical. Personally, I think it's neutral. It's not good clearly. But for an act to be evil, active harm or ill intent is required. It might be "passive" harm. But what's interesting is you could make the case that helping the man is neutral if it doesn't cost you anything. Neutral people can still be helpful, they just don't go out of their way to do it. So the opposite should also be true.

Remember that Neutral people can do Good and Evil acts too.

[Temperans]

I will say that I agree not acting does not make a person evil. The person might have had a bad experience helping beggars, they might have tried to help before to no success, the bread they carry is too dry/crumbled for a person to eat.

And since we are talking about an evil character for all we know the bread is poisoned. So not giving bread then becomes a good act, that becomes evil due to feeding poison to ducks.

The examples appears to give context, but they are way to simplistic to come up with any real alignment. We don't know what the character was thinking, we don't know what god(s) they believe in so we wouldn't know what is anathema or against their believes. We don't know if there are laws against giving to the poor: Yes that type of laws are a thing in IRL countries and would make the character not giving bread LN or LE. We don't even know who the beggar is, for all we or the character holding the bread knows it could be a serial killer. I will not fault anyone for playing safe.

[aobst128]

The Raven Black wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I get both sides of the second example. It's a good hypothetical. Personally, I think it's neutral. It's not good clearly. But for an act to be evil, active harm or ill intent is required. It might be "passive" harm. But what's interesting is you could make the case that helping the man is neutral if it doesn't cost you anything. Neutral people can still be helpful, they just don't go out of their way to do it. So the opposite should also be true.

Remember that Neutral people can do Good and Evil acts too.

Right, but the act is the thing in question. Is it evil or neutral? I'd say neutral. I would rather them help the man. There's something of a gradient of neutral acts that are between good and evil. Helping is "more good" than not, but in the example, helping and not helping are neutral. Going out of the way to buy some more bread for the man would be good, and going out of the way to buy all of the bread in town so this guy can't have any would be evil. Because there's no intent behind it, they just want to feed the ducks, it's neutral.

[The Raven Black]

aobst128 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I get both sides of the second example. It's a good hypothetical. Personally, I think it's neutral. It's not good clearly. But for an act to be evil, active harm or ill intent is required. It might be "passive" harm. But what's interesting is you could make the case that helping the man is neutral if it doesn't cost you anything. Neutral people can still be helpful, they just don't go out of their way to do it. So the opposite should also be true.

Remember that Neutral people can do Good and Evil acts too.

Right, but the act is the thing in question. Is it evil or neutral? I'd say neutral. I would rather them help the man. There's something of a gradient of neutral acts that are between good and evil. Helping is "more good" than not, but in the example, helping and not helping are neutral. Going out of the way to buy some more bread for the man would be good, and going out of the way to buy all of the bread in town so this guy can't have any would be evil. Because there's no intent behind it, they just want to feed the ducks, it's neutral.

Not to me. But we are talking about our takes on alignment here. So of course YMMV. Which is why clarifying it before playing is best.

[aobst128]

The Raven Black wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

I get both sides of the second example. It's a good hypothetical. Personally, I think it's neutral. It's not good clearly. But for an act to be evil, active harm or ill intent is required. It might be "passive" harm. But what's interesting is you could make the case that helping the man is neutral if it doesn't cost you anything. Neutral people can still be helpful, they just don't go out of their way to do it. So the opposite should also be true.

Remember that Neutral people can do Good and Evil acts too.

Right, but the act is the thing in question. Is it evil or neutral? I'd say neutral. I would rather them help the man. There's something of a gradient of neutral acts that are between good and evil. Helping is "more good" than not, but in the example, helping and not helping are neutral. Going out of the way to buy some more bread for the man would be good, and going out of the way to buy all of the bread in town so this guy can't have any would be evil. Because there's no intent behind it, they just want to feed the ducks, it's neutral.

Not to me. But we are talking about our takes on alignment here. So of course YMMV. Which is why clarifying it before playing is best.

Yeah, I can't say that you're wrong. Alignment is tricky. There are examples of neutral deities that would be ok with not helping, even encouraging not helping. Groetus in particular. That's an argument for in universe alignment, although Groetus is closer to evil than neutral. I think he was meant to be the mirror of Kerkamoth. His edicts and anathemas veer pretty far into evil territory though.

[aobst128]

One of his anathemas is straight up "Spread hope" lol