| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi,
lets have a funnier version of alignment threads!
There are dozens upon dozens of "Is it a jerk move to have the Paladin fall from this" threads, but how about the opposite?
I wish to present 3 hypothetical scenarios in which 3 Antipaladins may or may not fall. The scenarios are all hypothetical so noone got actually deprived of their powers!
Scenario 1: Right down its mouth!
The party finds out that the massive death on the eastern front is opening a portal to the Abyss, and not just to the Abyss, to the Qlippoth regions! And effing Cyth-Suggs mouth is already sticking out! On a railway line no less!
Alas, Leah "Lady Stab-Stab" var Emrys Antipaladin/Bloodrager of Nocticula, hijacks a Russian armored train, conveniently filled with more explosives and cold Iron munitions then the party can count, and starts to pilots it, guns blazing, right into the Qlippoth Lords mouth, frantically trying to commune with her deity that she is about to die but will probably take a Qlippoth lord with her, and a new Demon Isle could be achieved if Nocticula could slay him again as he respawns.
She is literally doing a heroic sacrifice, for a world that means little to her, and while Nocticula generally speaking rewards service, nothing has been specifically promised. A sufficiently "RAW" GM could rule that she loses her powers.
Scenario 2: Accidental orphanage saviour
Paul the prepared, Antipaladin of Mammon, has long been running several illicit booze and drug networks in riddleport. One of his production facilities is, funnily enough, under one of Riddleports few "Orphanages" which the more morally good aligned party members ended up funding, and makes use of the child labor (disguised as chemistry or natural science lessons) to gain additional profit. Alas, evil snakepeople attack the Orphanage! Paul the prepared is publicly seen jumping in the ways of fireballs to protect his investments, and facing incredibly odds to allow time for the evacuation!
Unbeknonwst to him, the CN Wizard/Mutagenic Mauler who was co running the things had already evacuated the destilleries, drug ingredients, and especially the really expensive demon cocaine, leaving only the orphans ("we can always find new orphans in riddleport" being his reasoning), so Paul, who thinks he is protecting several 10K GP of his assets and equipment, is actually only protecting Orphans.
Does Paul fall? Technically, he is protecting the innocent.
Scenario 3: The Paladin code of Torag is dumb
Rorek "Smashfist", Antipaladin of Gorrum.
Gorrum can have Antipaladins, but does not have an Antipaladin code written down. He does however has Anathemas according to the pathfinder wiki Gorums Anathemas includes a prohibition on killing prisoners or surrendering foes.
Rorek had, for reasons of urgently neccessary demon removal, had to team up with a Paladin of Torag called "Bob the walking warcrime". After a battle against Demon influence Cultists, the Cultist leader yielded after a tough fight. Rorek accepted his surrender, only for Bob to try and smash the cultist leader with his Greataxe, reacting out of instinct, Rorek interposed himself between Bobs greataxe and his captive, taking a blow.
Does he fall for being a) objectively nicer then the Paladin and b) taking a fairly selfless and dangerous act?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of them seem to be something I would consider a "Good" action in the grand scheme of things. I do, however, have a fairly high standard for what I consider to be Good when compared to most people who play D&D and similar games. My standard for what constitutes an Evil action is of a lower standard. Good is supposed to be a hard standard to live up to and Evil is supposed to be something that is seductive and easy to slip into.
To be clear, as far as I am concerned everyone has moments of charity, selflessness, and benevolence. Evil people have loved ones that they'd risk their lives to protect and have things they would die for. They have beliefs that they would place themselves in harm's way for and oaths that they might find sacred. These things do not make a person Good or Evil. How they go about their fulfilling those desires, the prices they pay (or make others pay), the means by which they chose to impose their will on the universe, and the lengths they are willing to go to do so... THOSE are the indications of what alignment they resonate with.
All in all, this is just going to result in an argument of what is really Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. People have all manner of different ideas of what constitutes each. Some people don't know how to draw the line between what they believe in real life and what is represented as such in the game. Or they don't like the implications.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Code of Conduct: An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
Scenario 1: The opening of the portal to the Qlippoth realms is not in the interest of the Antipaladin and more than likely is actually going to actively interfere with those interests. Protecting your own interests is not going to cause problems for an antipaladin. This is a matter of a predator killing something that is attacking the heard it feeds on.
Scenario 2: The fact that the equipment Paul was trying to protect was already safe does not change anything. His motivation was still to protect his own property. The fact that he saved some orphans is beside the point.
Scenario 3: Like a paladin the antipaladin’s deity is the highest authority so if he is acting according to the teachings of his deity he should not fall. Nothing in the teachings of Gorrum says you cannot demand a ransom for a prisoner. That was actually a fairly common historical occurrence. This is a matter of protecting your investments.
In each of these cases the paladin has a good reason to act in the manner he did.
There is also no reason an antipaladin cannot try to build a positive reputation in a community. Doing so will often make it easier to achieve his goals. In the second scenario the antipaladin could even be funding the orphanage.
Sacrificing yourself for the cause can actually be evil, if you gamble to being rewarded and look forward to spread much more evil thanks to the reward (such as becoming an actual demon). Promises aren't necessary for a gamble, and a CE antipaladin knows better than to trust promises from a chaotic entity anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Bob the walking warcrime" is one of the funniest damned things I have ever read in relationship to gaming. I needed this today!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Bob the walking warcrime" is one of the funniest damned things I have ever read in relationship to gaming. I needed this today!
I think that describes one of the paladins in Goblins life through their eyes. Guy walks into a bar filled with orcs and the like along with a little boy they've enslaved. Slaughters them all and the last one before dying asks him to spare the child as he was kidnapped and taken against his will. The paladins response "I regret you associated with such lowly beings against your will but it has planted a seed in you that might bear fruit and lead you to sympathise with evil in the future. I will not allow that to happen. All evil even potential evil must be purged" Then kills the crying child and the scariest part is he STILL hasn't fallen. He kills a child for something they might do after being kidnapped against their will and he hasn't fallen.
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.
My view on alignment is to focus on the small scale, the short term, the localised, the personal, the intention rather than things of cosmic scale and ultimate consequences, which are impossible to measure and far too open to interpretation.
For example a good character defeats a foe in battle and shows mercy by letting them go. That is a good act, simple. Whether that foe then goes on to commit an evil act later is not relevant to the question of whether the original action was good or not. Otherwise we are left with the ridiculous situation where goods acts become impossible.
Going back to the opening post, an anti paladin would rise when they deal honestly, show mercy, show generosity etc. on purpose, in the here and now. Not after some convoluted chain of events results in some unintended goodness down the track.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.
I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite mercifull way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite mercifull way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.
Also fairly manipulative in accordance with her nature.
Minion 1: "OK look over there."
Minion 2 suspciciously: "But I heard something."
Minion 1: "Yes and if we let her pass she'll probably kill lord H#RTO#@IHEFRWi and then offer us weekends off and dental to join her above our current conditions."
Minion 2: "My what an interesting bush is over there."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite mercifull way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.Also fairly manipulative in accordance with her nature.
Minion 1: "OK look over there."
Minion 2 suspciciously: "But I heard something."
Minion 1: "Yes and if we let her pass she'll probably kill lord H#RTO#@IHEFRWi and then offer us weekends off and dental to join her above our current conditions."
Minion 2: "My what an interesting bush is over there."
Any minion that actually spots Nocticula should be a highly valued employee indeed!
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite mercifull way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.
This was AD&D 1e, back in 1986 or so. Torag was a long way off. This particular Paladin followed Osiris. To the extreme...lol
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite mercifull way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.
Interesting, that could be a good way for an anti paladin to rise. They start with small mercies, servitude is better than a horrible death, but over time become ever more merciful and minions become ever more loyal. Like a positive feedback loop. Eventually the anti paladin crosses that unforgivable line and does something positively generous.
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain Hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies' leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite merciful way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.Also fairly manipulative in accordance with her nature.
Minion 1: "OK look over there."
Minion 2 suspiciously: "But I heard something."
Minion 1: "Yes and if we let her pass she'll probably kill lord H#RTO#@IHEFRWi and then offer us weekends off and dental to join her above our current conditions."
Minion 2: "My what an interesting bush is over there."
Wasn't that a line from the Street Fighter movie? "You get PAID?!" :D
Seriously, that was one of the things that made Genghis Khan so popular; he HATED nepotism and family connections and all that other bushwa (that's what got his father killed and his family exiled into the wilderness) and was much more into meritocracy. One of his most brilliant generals, Subotai, was once one of his enemies that he showed mercy to.
And yeah, the troops under his leadership were generally treated a lot better than most were back then, even in more "civilized" areas... ;->
LB
|
|
I actually played with a guy who thought that was the right way to play Paladins. Things were out of control with that guy.I mean, Paladins of Torag do get into Judge Dread Territory, but the archetype for that would be certain Hellknight orders.
Concerning showing mercy: Nocticula herself generally wages war by assassinating the enemies' leadership, and then offering terms to their followers that are mildly better then what they would expect to get.
To an extent, that is a quite merciful way to wage war. It also conserves her resources.Also fairly manipulative in accordance with her nature.
Minion 1: "OK look over there."
Minion 2 suspiciously: "But I heard something."
Minion 1: "Yes and if we let her pass she'll probably kill lord H#RTO#@IHEFRWi and then offer us weekends off and dental to join her above our current conditions."
Minion 2: "My what an interesting bush is over there."Wasn't that a line from the Street Fighter movie? "You get PAID?!" :D
Seriously, that was one of the things that made Genghis Khan so popular; he HATED nepotism and family connections and all that other bushwa (that's what got his father killed and his family exiled into the wilderness) and was much more into meritocracy. One of his most brilliant generals, Subotai, was once one of his enemies that he showed mercy to.
And yeah, the troops under his leadership were generally treated a lot better than most were back then, even in more "civilized" areas... ;->
LB
Zangeif was fun in that movie.
target of Levitate. Sleeping on a mattress of bread dough (it baguettes the gain / ferments the rise).
Yeah, evil can do things that are ostensibly good in other people's view, but only because they don't know that person's inner motivation.
Intention is (unfortunately) important.
Training or leading a rebel army against a terribly explorative regime seems like a good thing to do, but if you're only doing it because it pays and if you run away as soon as there is a serious threat to yourself, it wasn't out of goodness that you did this.
In general, every GM should set the expectation with their group around what constitutes good and evil acts, and why, and give players opportunities to adjust their actions if it doesn't line up with a GM's expectations (ethos is really complex and even if you have a conversation on it there are bound to be scenarios where you don't see eye to eye). The most important thing is to try to be consistent in any specific game.
Not everyone will agree about a ruling, but at least if the GM tries to be consistent it can help with players expectations.
|
|
"My mother worked in a tavern." It was a peculiar thing for The Dark Knight of Bloody Fields to say, but it explained a lot of things the rest of the adventuring party could never really explain.
The egregious tipping. The dismemberment of rowdy bar patrons. Why he would pause in the middle of planning his next atrocity to make sure the Barbarian didn't wreck the rooms.
Still, the little things add up. When Baron Badguy hired us to 'collect taxes' the man who threw King Gonnadie's newborn prince into the alligator moat drew the line at setting fire to people's places of business. No leg breaking, no maiming, why it was the most gentle working over we'd ever done.
And when he threw Baron Badguy through the stained glass window at his own wedding for shorting the caterers, well, it was the kind of thing we'd come to expect.
I tried to warn the Hospitality Guild that we were not the group for the job when they wanted us to put down the unionizing efforts of the line staff, but they didn't take the hint. They did take BF's greatsword through the skull though.
It wasn't until we were approached by that priest of Fluffy Warm Goodness who wanted us to...help people? That I knew we were going to start having image problems. But we took the job and exposed the corrupt Duke who was trafficking commoners. Exposed as in hung his naked corpse on the flagpole from his castle. Still, the priestess paid us.
Passing through a city, I heard about this Champion of the People causing problems for the local aristocracy and thought we could get paid taking him out. Until I realized that when they said Champion of the People, they meant our Dark Knight.
Of course, now we've been hired to train a rebel army who has this weird idea about representative democracy that's not going to catch on, but hey, a paycheck is paycheck.
Reminds me of a manga about a demon lord who rose and promptly set about relaxing and enjoying life only to have everyone send him virgin sacrifices and heroes to slay him. He was quite willing to die as long as they treated the people like a hero should and whenever they did things like pushing aside a sacrifice as tainted he'd slaughter them. Wound up to his annoyance being in charge of a sort of democracy and thriving kingdom led by two of the sacrifices (who were very surprised the dark lord had no interest in being a dark lord).
"My mother worked in a tavern." It was a peculiar thing for The Dark Knight of Bloody Fields to say, but it explained a lot of things the rest of the adventuring party could never really explain.
The egregious tipping. The dismemberment of rowdy bar patrons. Why he would pause in the middle of planning his next atrocity to make sure the Barbarian didn't wreck the rooms.
Still, the little things add up. When Baron Badguy hired us to 'collect taxes' the man who threw King Gonnadie's newborn prince into the alligator moat drew the line at setting fire to people's places of business. No leg breaking, no maiming, why it was the most gentle working over we'd ever done.
And when he threw Baron Badguy through the stained glass window at his own wedding for shorting the caterers, well, it was the kind of thing we'd come to expect.
I tried to warn the Hospitality Guild that we were not the group for the job when they wanted us to put down the unionizing efforts of the line staff, but they didn't take the hint. They did take BF's greatsword through the skull though.
It wasn't until we were approached by that priest of Fluffy Warm Goodness who wanted us to...help people? That I knew we were going to start having image problems. But we took the job and exposed the corrupt Duke who was trafficking commoners. Exposed as in hung his naked corpse on the flagpole from his castle. Still, the priestess paid us.
Passing through a city, I heard about this Champion of the People causing problems for the local aristocracy and thought we could get paid taking him out. Until I realized that when they said Champion of the People, they meant our Dark Knight.
Of course, now we've been hired to train a rebel army who has this weird idea about representative democracy that's not going to catch on, but hey, a paycheck is paycheck.
This is great, you made my day good sir.
Intention is (unfortunately) important.I don't agree, but down that road lies unproductive alignment discourse.
Humor me for post then:
1) A man kills another man, good or evil? IMO, we have no context of the circumstances so it's hard to make a judgment at all.2) A man kills another man. The deceased was a dangerous convict who was actively threatening the safety of others and attacked the man who had been sent after him. The deceased was killed while the other man was defending himself. - In this case I wouldn't say evil, maybe good maybe lawful.
Of course, that could be untrue if the two men had some sort of personal history and the man who killed the other wanted vengeance, or perhaps he's like the character Dexter and needs to kill (and enjoys doing) but does so only against people that society will accept. That internal motivation can take something that people might view externally as being good and lawful, as something negative even if the specific act might be justifiable from the outside. I'm avoiding calling this evil, but I certainly wouldn't call it good.
3) Again a man sent to apprehend (dead or alive) a heinous criminal kills someone in the line of duty, but it's an innocent bystander. The lawman shot at the criminal and hit them, but in the shoulder and the bullet travels through and manages to hit an innocent person behind them that the lawman was unaware of the individual. They are deeply troubled by this inadvertent death. - You could definitely say this person did their job poorly, was possibly inattentive, and other potential charges but I wouldn't say that their action was evil.
What do you think?
I agree that things are objectively good or evil, but that means individuals opinions don't change it, that it is a factual and unchanging thing. I agree that should be true at any given table for any given GM.
However, that doesn't mean that whatever force in the universe narratively decides the moral value of action doesn't take into consideration the intention of the person committing the action. I suppose you could have a system of morality that doesn't, but it would feel very outputting to people so I wouldn't recommend it.
I understand your concern about people trying to justify their actions, but that's not what I'm talking about. Most classes don't care alignment and so they shouldn't be too afraid about alignment changes. Just because players may lie to you as a GM about why their character did something, that's not an issue of morality being dependent on the intention of individuals, that's an issue of people being dishonest.
As a GM, you have to make the decision, do you believe the reason the player of the character is providing? Do you think they're being disingenuous about the motivations?
I can understand why you'd prefer to avoid that issue, but I also think that can be confusing for individuals when you don't take into account the motivation for an action.
I would say I find law and chaos more prone to misunderstand, not misuse.
However, it helps if you tell your players to think of lawfulness as order instead.
My experience has been that players are more likely to do evil acts intentionally, but try to pretend that it is not. I've heard many attempts to justify it, but usually it ends up with 1 player trying justify their actions and the rest of the table not having any of it. Of course, my experience is around one particular player and I wouldn't extrapolate their actions to the world at large.
How much inadvertent good can an Antipaladin cause before their powers come into risk? Or if people are going to insist that as long as the Antipaladin means to be selfish and cruel they are not in danger of losing their powers, how long before evil powers that be come to attack the Antipaladin for all the good they end up doing?
My personal opinion here is that as long as the antipaladin is genuinely being selfish and cruel in the actions they're not at risk at of losing their powers for accidentally doing good. Again though, in my opinion intention matters.
I'm not sure exactly how one would accidentally do good when trying to do evil, but I'll assume some circuitous events wherein the antipaladin isn't directly doing good but through flukes it results in net good being done.
As long as their actions are being done with hate in their heart, they'll always have their powers. Although their mortal boss (rather than divine) might fire them for incompetency (assuming they have a boss).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic evil does not give a rat’s ass about anyone else; the only thing that matters is their own interests. So, a chaotic evil character who is worried about his actions helping someone else is not being true to their alignment. The only thing that a chaotic evil character should worry about is does this serve my own interests. If saving the world is going to be beneficial to the antipaladin then he will save the world without a second thought. What they will do is to weigh how much this benefits them and is the reward worth the risk. They can even sacrifice a short-term interest to gain a larger reward in the end.
In fact, if an antipaladin start basing his actions on avoiding doing any good more than likely his alignment is going to change to neutral evil or maybe even lawful evil and at which point he will lose his power.
See that's the problem with you thinking intent doesn't matter.
The individual is actually cruel and selfish, but the actions they take result in outcomes that are not (in the view of others) cruel and selfish. But that is not the individuals intention.
Just because someone in ineffectual in the actions, doesn't make them any less cruel in their intention.
Strongly disagree, but this is hard to talk about without having a specific scenario in mind.
However, if the antipaladin's intention is to maim, hurt, kill but his actions result in something else. It doesn't make him less evil. It might make him incompetent, but it doesn't diminish his evil nature.
Obviously you view it differently, and that's a philosophical view that we can't rectify between us.
To provide an example, I support an antipaladin being able to do things that others might think are good, like giving people money to pull them out of poverty, but only on the condition for something like infiltrating a community and pretending to be good to gain the trust of people before leading them astray ultimately.
Evil doesn't need to always be kicking a puppy. The best and most insidious, and successful evil usually set themselves up so no one knows they're evil until it's too late.
|
|
To semi-use Dexter as an example a chaotic evil character could be going around slaughtering people but due to an amazing quirk of luck and timing everyone they kill just happens to be a serial killer. They don't plan it, they don't realize its happening but to everyone else they're a hero killing those who prey on the innocents.
Chaotic evil is out for what they can get. Of all the evil alignments they are the least interested in spreading their ideals. When they do take an interest in spreading their ideals it is because spreading chaos and evil will create an environment they can exploit for personal gain, not because of some philosophical reason. A character who is interested in spreading evil for evils sake is not chaotic evil. More than likely, they are neutral evil, or maybe lawful evil.
A smart chaotic evil character will often prefer that the rest of society is lawful and or good. This gives them more opportunity to advance their own agenda. While everyone else is obeying laws and promoting the common good the chaotic evil character is taking advantage of them. Knowing that the authorities need proof before will act against gives him a huge advantage. The fact that other people will keep their word means that they are easier to betray. He may even cultivate a reputation of being an honorable and just person, while secretly gathering power and influence for his own selfish goals.
The antipaladin who is giving away wealth to anyone who asks, just to cause misery is probably neutral evil and as such an ex-antipaladin. If the antipaladin was benefiting from the misery, he would retain his chaotic evil alignment and his anitpaladin status.
It should be really easy to rise as an anti-paladin.
Think about it. You serve a chaotic evil god, the ultimate in pure selfish capriciousness. They might take away your powers because they just felt like making you suffer.
|
I mean, let me cheat and use description of alignments from deck of endless worlds because it happens to have pretty good summary xD These are technically meant to describe alignments of planetary society, but still
"Lawful Evil: Focused on loyalty, order, and tradition over freedom, dignity, and life, and view hierarchies and social contracts as means to (selfish) ends regardless of the harm done."
"Neutral Evil: Obsessed with amoral self-interest and utterly devoid of empathy or remorse, even harming others for fun."
"Chaotic Evil: Joyful in the pursuit of brutal and unrestrained conflict, destruction, greed, and hatred."
(I've noticed that when writers try to use alignment to describe individuals, they tend to much more confuse themselves with stuff like "wait is this CE or NE really" but when they use them to describe large scale patterns its actually quite consistent and accurate)
Do note that you can do "unselfish bad guys" quite easily with neutral characters. Sure evil CAN have loved ones, but evil in pathfinder isn't same as what you would understand from real life, its more sociopathic type of evil sometimes even cartoonish. In otherwords, extreme amoral selfishness is key aspect of evil alignment. (The "bad guy with noble goal but extremely horrible methods" is really atypical type of evil because they tend to be quite self delusional making them self centered in different way that trips people up about what ratio of evil actions vs good intent needed for evil alignment and not just evil leaning neutral.) So since its easy to justify any seemingly good act as selfish, easiest way to get evil champion to rise is forcing them to situation where they have to be selfless to protect their interests.
As in, if evil has loved one and they do truly unselfish act to help the loved one, that would be enough to make evil champion lose their powers even if you argue that interest of loved one is in favor of the evil doer. Because evil is selfish and evil doer's benefit should take over the loved ones's. Only case I could see this not happening is when evil champion risks nothing to help the loved one.
If the anti-paladin genuinely wants to raise an evil cohort to help them do evil things, I would view that as a long term evil act even if "not abandoning the child to death" would normally be considered good.
However, if at any point the anti-paladin wavers in their conviction to make this child an evil bastard, or permits them to approach things in a non-evil way I would say that they are committing a good act (the supposition here is that long term evil takes precedent over short term good).
In any event, I would certainly say it's uncharacteristic of evil to do something like this, but then again I think lots of evil people probably have children without becoming good.
The only reason this question is more complicated is because voluntarily doing goods act can rob evil champions of their powers, in the same way voluntarily doing evil acts can rob good champions of their powers.
Their is however an imbalance in that evil can appear/pretend to do good, especially for infiltration purposes, in order to accomplish long term greater evil. Evil doesn't need to some puppy kicking blatant psychopath at all times.
The only reason this question is more complicated is because voluntarily doing goods act can rob evil champions of their powers, in the same way voluntarily doing evil acts can rob good champions of their powers.I think this is such a hilarious chain on behavior that requires players of anti-paladins to bend over backwards to be CRPG evil.
I wonder if an anti-paladin has ever risen because they picked something up off the ground and just handed it back to someone. On the other hand, that's not a very Good act. Just a polite one perhaps.
For what it's worth I agree.
I had really hoped to see PF2 mostly eschew alignment based restrictions with classes and instead have more elaborate guidelines for champions for every deity entry. I realize they have some, but I was hoping for more.
I wonder if an anti-paladin has ever risen because they picked something up off the ground and just handed it back to someone. On the other hand, that's not a very Good act. Just a polite one perhaps.
I've been lurking in the background since I posted last, and this is one of the situations I half-mentioned but glossed over. Even Evil beings have moments of charity, politeness, loved ones they would sacrifice themselves for, oaths they would die to keep (depending on lawfulness/chaoticness, of course), etc, etc.
How they go about their fulfilling those desires, the prices they pay (or make others pay), the means by which they chose to impose their will on the universe, and the lengths they are willing to go to do so... THOSE are the indications of what alignment they resonate with.
I agree a bit with Claxon that intentions are something that should be considered when making alignment rulings, but they are not as important as the way that particular character views the world, how it works, and how they choose to navigate its myriad paths to walk. Good intentions do not outweigh the Evil action, merely soften the blow.
Mentioned earlier about what alignment it would be for one man to slay another, I would say that killing itself is almost NEVER a Good action. At best (most of the time), it is Neutral on that spectrum. It can be a Lawful action, when justified, but often it is Neutral on that spectrum. Most often, I would label it as Chaotic and/or Evil, based on the situation. Adventurers defending themselves (and not being murder-hobos) killing other things is generally a Neutral action. Attacking gathering forces of evil being intent on destruction of the innocent? Neutral, though intentions might influence the Lawfulness or Chaotic-ness of the action. Chasing off a sudden attack of monsters that threaten a town they have little close ties to, and saving a vast number of innocents? A fairly rare occurrence of a Good action when it comes to killing things.
I mentioned previously that I have a high standard for what actually constitutes a Good action, and a low standard for Evil. It is, by design, strict and generally unyielding. Players attempting to justify their actions as something that is Not-Evil, when it clearly skirts the line between respecting or disrespecting life and using others for their benefit, have a hard sell to convince me to overlook the action and label is overall as a Neutral one. Never-the-less, the universe makes note that an Evil action was performed, though diluted enough that it has no real measurable influence on their alignment ... yet.
It should be just as hard for an Anti-Paladin to rise as it is easy for a Paladin to fall. Perhaps harder. I see alignment (indirectly) as a mountain and valley issue. Gravity (Evil) pulls ever downwards, and one must have the strength not only to resist but to overcome those forces to climb.
|
|
I still maintain that key to anti-paladin to "rise" is them actually caring about something or someone beyond selfish interest. That is main reason why its much easier for paladin to fall than them to rise, because its much easier to be selfish jerk who does everything for themselves that someone who always takes others in account.