-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sloanzilla
Not really. I can believe in an axis of order vs. chaos and an axis of altruism vs. selfishness as a somewhat viable way of looking at life and not believe that means specific species are only worth killing. I fail to see any mandatory link between the two whatsoever.
I wish there was some additional option with the one peaceful troll. He seemed so disappointed. And even the troll boss seemed to imply that they do what they do because they don't have an option.
You misunderstand.
It is valid to state, as a point of view, that IF an alignment is evil, and IF a race is of that alignment, THEN as an opposed alignment, there is no alternative to conflict.
It is equally valid, as a point of view, that possibly not every member of any given race have the same alignment - or alternatively, that some form of peaceful coexistance is possible even between CE and LG.
But the alignment system wasn't invented or put in the game to be some sort of grey zone. It's there to justify that the good slaughter the evil indiscriminately, and take their stuff.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Your argument is weak and nonsensical. You even argue yourself that redemption is possible. Alignment isn't just a series of hats to fight over. It's shorthand for core philosophies, and that is itself plenty enough to provide reason for conflict between alignments. And frankly, by your argumentation a Archon should be stabbing both Devils and Eladrins. Where in actuality they engage in intense philosophical debates with the Eladrin, and save the stabbing for the Devils.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maryring
Your argument is weak and nonsensical.
Thank you for your valuable insights.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Another patch has arrived:
Quote:
Non-Aasimar characters could select Wings as a feat after 10th level. Resolution: only Aasimars can select the Wings feat now.
I hope you guys had your fun with this.:smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sloanzilla
I wish there was some additional option with the one peaceful troll. He seemed so disappointed. And even the troll boss seemed to imply that they do what they do because they don't have an option.
What additional option do you want? I told him that I tried to make peace and he saw how his king reacted, he said yeah, I guess you're right, told the other trolls he wasn't going to fight, and left.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Do you maybe have to talk to the king first?
I basically got "well, since you are wandering around killing us- I guess here we go, but we will bury you instead of eating you."
Even the king had some sort of resigned to his fate comment.
"It is valid to state, as a point of view, that IF an alignment is evil, and IF a race is of that alignment, THEN as an opposed alignment, there is no alternative to conflict.
It is equally valid, as a point of view, that possibly not every member of any given race have the same alignment - or alternatively, that some form of peaceful coexistance is possible even between CE and LG."
I do not consider those two sentences to have equal merit. Or at least, in the instance of the first, the alignments could simply be replaced with any tribal label with a mandatory opposition to the opposing tribe.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sloanzilla
Do you maybe have to talk to the king first?
I basically got "well, since you are wandering around killing us- I guess here we go, but we will bury you instead of eating you."
Even the king had some sort of resigned to his fate comment.
I don't know, I never tried any of the other dialogue options that didn't lead to "I'm the king of the borba, and I'm here to see your king." So I always talked to Hargulka before seeing him again, and it gave me the option to tell him that I tried to do this peacefully, which he'll accept. You still have to fight the other trolls he's with, though.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sloanzilla
"It is valid to state, as a point of view, that IF an alignment is evil, and IF a race is of that alignment, THEN as an opposed alignment, there is no alternative to conflict.
It is equally valid, as a point of view, that possibly not every member of any given race have the same alignment - or alternatively, that some form of peaceful coexistance is possible even between CE and LG."
I do not consider those two sentences to have equal merit. Or at least, in the instance of the first, the alignments could simply be replaced with any tribal label with a mandatory opposition to the opposing tribe.
'Any tribal label' is not a system built into the rules. There are no 'Protection From Tribal Label' spells, no 'Smite Tribal Label' class abilities.
Thus, from the intricate systems built around alignment, my point is valid. If you believe in alignment, then LG all but forces you to fight evil at any chance you get. Of course alignment is utter rubbish, but that's another discussion.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Alignment is a metaphysical concept particular to the D&D multiverse, and as such of course doesn't apply to the real world. In the multiverse, however, Alignment isn't just an opinion, it's objective and observable truth. Because it's so remote from the real world, we have trouble agreeing on what it really means.
For instance, someone I know suggests to think of Alignment as nothing more than team markers. Good or Evil, green sash or purple, all the same - it just determines which spells affect you and which don't. Personally, I detest this approach.
I find Alignment much more appealing as a game concept if you view it as objective morality.
Let me put it this way: in _our_ world, most people think of themselves as "Good". Like crime bosses who order three executions before breakfast and then happily attend sunday mass and pray to Mother Mary to protect their family and are convinced they'll all go to heaven.
In a D&D world, the crime boss would be under no such delusion. He would be entirely aware of himself being Evil, but he'd find nothing wrong with that, because he considers Evil to be the superior morality. He won't pretend to be Good to the outside world, either. Hell, if you had a democratic state in a D&D world you might have Good and Evil parties. (And conversely for Lawful and Chaotic, but I think G/E is easier to visualize.)
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Alignment is a metaphysical concept particular to the D&D multiverse, and as such of course doesn't apply to the real world. In the multiverse, however, Alignment isn't just an opinion, it's objective and observable truth. Because it's so remote from the real world, we have trouble agreeing on what it really means.
For instance, someone I know suggests to think of Alignment as nothing more than team markers. Good or Evil, green sash or purple, all the same - it just determines which spells affect you and which don't. Personally, I detest this approach.
I find Alignment much more appealing as a game concept if you view it as objective morality.
Let me put it this way: in _our_ world, most people think of themselves as "Good". Like crime bosses who order three executions before breakfast and then happily attend sunday mass and pray to Mother Mary to protect their family and are convinced they'll all go to heaven.
In a D&D world, the crime boss would be under no such delusion. He would be entirely aware of himself being Evil, but he'd find nothing wrong with that, because he considers Evil to be the superior morality. He won't pretend to be Good to the outside world, either. Hell, if you had a democratic state in a D&D world you might have Good and Evil parties. (And conversely for Lawful and Chaotic, but I think G/E is easier to visualize.)
The White Hat/Black Hat approach to alignments. I like it - even if I never use it myself. I use alignments in the way they're used in Eberron, where you can be a LE paladin, no sweat, so long as you work towards the goals of your faith, even if you only think you're doing what god wants you to do.
I like my grey zones. I like that even the most hardened villain considers himself basically a good guy forced to make difficult or harsh decisions. The kind of guy who has convinced himself 'they forced my hands', or 'power is the only thing those people respect', or 'I had no choice but to kill them all'. And, as you say, then they go to church, sing the psalms with all their heart, and know for a fact that god loves them, and they'll go to heaven for sure!
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
IMO, there are two types of alignments – there’s the “what color is your jersey, protection from X” mechanical component, and then there’s the “basic summary of how you behave as a person,” component. It’s when those two branches conflict that you have issues.
A chaotic evil orc has every right to sit in a bar and quietly have a drink. If a paladin walks into the bar and detects the orc, IMO, he or she should not feel any compulsion to attack that orc, unless there is some sort of evidence indicating a law has been broken. Yet smite evil would work just fine on that orc, while it would not work on the chaotic neutral halfling robbing the place blind upstairs. Yet, a paladin smiting the orc, in my world, would not be behaving as a lawful good person should behave. A person actually behaving lawful and good should simply not be interested in attacking someone who is minding his or her own business, no matter what jersey is worn. “Detect evil” should indicate a general disposition, not a specific history of lawbreaking or a license to kill.
Putting it another way, the mechanical component to the alignment system should generally defer to the roleplaying element, even if it does become clunky at times.
I actually think the second component of the alignment system, the basic summary of how you behave, is not a wholly terrible system for analyzing how different people may behave…but only if the mechanical side isn’t given priority.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
I have little issue with how the game is presenting the alignment issue. I might not agree with some of the choices completely, but I can see how each of them can be reasoned to represent a certain side of the alignment they are listed. The game system is the GM/DM and unlike a real GM/DM & Player interaction, you don't get to argue with this one about it.
I, too, hesitated when I saw that the Lawful Good option was to attack the goblins/kobolds/trolls and kill them, but then I paused and reflected on why I hesitated. I didn't agree with it. But that was the problem "I didn't agree with it." Me, in real life. I wanted to punish those directly involved with the evil deeds and help those seeking a better way transition into a new way of life. I wanted to talk it out, get to the bottom of the issue, and resolve it as peacefully as I could. But that was MY instinct. Not my character's instinct. Not based on the mechanics and guidelines for the world in which I was adventuring in. I wasn't playing myself in this world. I was playing an avatar that held up the rule of Law and Good, Community and Protection, and there was innocent blood soaking the ground that called for justice. My personal, real life, feelings had no place to interfere in that (though I could do so if I wanted to, it is a game after all).
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Perhaps the disconnect then is the lawful aspect of the equation. The neutral good and chaotic good options are often ones that a reasonably decent person, living in 2018, might pick. A jump from neutral good to lawful good should not mean you turn into an unforgiving warmongering psychopath- because justice.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sloanzilla
Perhaps the disconnect then is the lawful aspect of the equation. The neutral good and chaotic good options are often ones that a reasonably decent person, living in 2018, might pick. A jump from neutral good to lawful good should not mean you turn into an unforgiving warmongering psychopath- because justice.
Law - and justice - goes hand in hand with punishment. I've yet to see a Lawful Good option that punishes the innocent. And punishing the guilty, while indeed unforgiving and arguably harsh, does not suddenly turn you into a "warmongering psychopath".
Redemption may be Good, but it's not necessarily Lawful. And as a wise man said, it is not for everyone.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
there was innocent blood soaking the ground that called for justice
Talking about the Sycamore area in particular, whose innocent blood are we talking about, exactly, that would warrant genocide?
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Alignments control behaviour, that's the problem. Having an Evil component to your alignment basically means you're going to kill someone - actually, you're propably going to either start a war, or try to achieve world domination, or summon some evil god to crush us all.
That's why it's justified for Good alignments to slaughter entire populations: It's basically self defense.
That's the essence of the oldest and dumbest alignment 'dilemma' ever thought up: What does the paladin do with the orc child. Right now, he's innocent, but in just a few years, he'll be a raiding, murdering psychopath. So the only way to protect those future victims is to kill the child now.
Alignments control behaviour, and intelligence be damned. No action, no matter how obviously idiotic or detrimental to oneself, is ever too stupid if you're Evil. Evil, Chaotic Evil in particular, literally means you're supposed to murder your way out of any problem - and never mind other avenues available, because it's simply not Evil enough to manipulate or bully. Frankly, I think all editions of the game specifically describe CE as murdering psychopaths.
This game too, btw, has a whole string of 'oh, I'm evil, so I suppose I'll just murder everyone for no damned reason.'
No reason my rant against alignments in general should be relevant for anyone else, but there it is =D
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Talking about the Sycamore area in particular, whose innocent blood are we talking about, exactly, that would warrant genocide?
I was not talking about the Sycamore area in particular, or any specific event in particular, at that point. Maybe more of the overall issues with trolls and other particular nasties that had attacked my Barony. And the genocide comment is arguable, if a bit on the exaggerated side to invoke an emotional response to the situation. Justice is blind and deaf, dealing out punishment to suit the crime. Mercy and vengeance are the weapons of emotion.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kaptin Keen
That's the essence of the oldest and dumbest alignment 'dilemma' ever thought up: What does the paladin do with the orc child. Right now, he's innocent, but in just a few years, he'll be a raiding, murdering psychopath. So the only way to protect those future victims is to kill the child now.
Not innocent, he's still Evil alignment after all. Defenseless though, at least against a party of adventurers.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Driderman
Not innocent, he's still Evil alignment after all. Defenseless though, at least against a party of adventurers.
Guilty of what, though? He's too young to have done anything Evil (it's my example, so I get to define that). But he's guilty of having an Evil alignment. But can you really be guilty of something you're born into?
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
That's really the long and short of it. If simply registering as "Evil" on a Detect spell is enough for a death sentence, simply because your alignment indicates that you _might_ actually hurt someone, someday, somewhere, then yeah, you live in a "Kill on sight" world. And afaik that's indeed exactly what the alignment system was introduced for -- to communicate to the player they needn't have moral qualms about killing sentient beings for no real reason.
But the world has changed, and most players today don't want that kind of game anymore. Among other things we hold the "innocent until proven" principle very high, which makes it "difficult" to punish someone for something they didn't even do (yet). So if you want to keep the alignment system but _not_ use it as an excuse to kill on sight, you need to come up with different rules that permit some form of co-existence.
Yes, CE is almost certainly too toxic and psychopathic to ever find a place in a civilized society. Although less extreme interpretations are possible. In the extreme case, maybe, "fights for a good cause but will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve that goal; doesn't mind condemning their own soul to ultimately vanquish a particular threat".
Lawful Evil is far less problematic. You can be LE all your life and commit evil deeds without ever making yourself vulnerable to the law. You can be a lawyer that uses the legal system to protect criminals from punishment, for instance. If you know the show Lucifer, that's exactly what defined Charlotte Richards before she reformed. So, do you think it's acceptable to kill such a lawyer as soon as she pings on your Detect Evil?
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Narkis
Law - and justice - goes hand in hand with punishment..
Except it doesn't.
There is a thing called restitution and the debate between repressive (punitive) law/ideas and restitutive law/ideas is an old one. Many very smart lawyers, philosophers and other deep thinkers have have, to no avail, tried to resolve it ever since.
Here is a link to someone that can explain some of it a lot better than I do. It also touches upon the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Narkis
Redemption may be Good, but it's not necessarily Lawful. And as a wise man said, it is not for everyone.
Depends on the law and your ideas of order and legal systems. See my first comment.
Here is a little food for thought. Quality law making foresees many possible outcomes of human interactions and situations.
In essence, it accounts for all the seemingly chaotic things and puts them in easier to handle categories typically by breaking down the problem into, well, easier to handle bite sized chunks which can be tackled by the law(s).
The Law is very much able to prioritize and forgive certain offenses so long as there were done in the service of a tangible greater good. (This is necessary or otherwise a lot of very heroic or otherwise good and useful things people do would be straight up legally impossible. That includes stuff like the use of force, lethal or otherwise, in self-defense)
Often in applying law, you actually have several options, so in German law, the intents of the law package is written down first and if you are unsure what to do, you go back to the beginning and check the intent(s). That way you can have actions that, in certain situations might be technically correct (aka lawful) if one ignores context, but is clearly incorrect (aka unlawful) if one checks the clearly spelled out intents of the law package as written. (Pretty smart, isn't?^^)
To put it in a form that is actually useful to players, quality lawmaking makes a box into which the chaotic people can be safely put while trying to take as little away as possible as the system recognizes the value of these chaotic people and movements.
PS: Due to me studies I had to learn the German legal system (It was surprisingly fascinating, one would think Law is a boring subject, but no. It is very interesting and useful to boot. To be perfectly frank, what I had learned there is something that should be taught in high schools. It is not actually that difficult and it would greatly help the general population.)
Also, my best friend is a legal expert and damn she is good at it, so I may have a bit of advantage on the subject.^^
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Yes, CE is almost certainly too toxic and psychopathic to ever find a place in a civilized society. Although less extreme interpretations are possible.
In my view, CE (or it's real world equivalent) is an amoral opportunist: Someone who will make the snap decision to do something, based solely on whether or not they can get away with it. What social or moral or legal boundary is being crossed isn't relevant, only: Is this interesting for me, and is the benefit worth the risk.
Close so sociopathy, but not quite - you can be this way and be a productive member of society.
It's really bad if a leader is like this. I could point to a whole slew or real world examples, most of them thankfully in their graves now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Lawful Evil is far less problematic.
And this one is obvious. Yes, anyone who makes a living actively looking for loopholes in laws and regulations, ruining other peoples lives for profit - is Lawful Evil.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kaptin Keen
Alignments control behaviour, that's the problem. Having an Evil component to your alignment basically means you're going to kill someone - actually, you're propably going to either start a war, or try to achieve world domination, or summon some evil god to crush us all.
No, alignment *describes* behavior, along with inclination. Nor does the behavior need to be dramatic. If you have an Evil alignment, you have a willingness, an inclination, and an existing pattern of behavior of hurting others to advance your own interests, but it need not be physical, violent acts of harm, nor even necessarily illegal. Price gouging, everday acts of racism, particularly cynical and underhanded politicking--all can be deeply evil without justifying smite-on-sight, for example.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Slaughtering every subhuman because of their race is also lawful evil and thus shares the law part with a paladin.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Serenity
No, alignment *describes* behavior, along with inclination. Nor does the behavior need to be dramatic. If you have an Evil alignment, you have a willingness, an inclination, and an existing pattern of behavior of hurting others to advance your own interests, but it need not be physical, violent acts of harm, nor even necessarily illegal. Price gouging, everday acts of racism, particularly cynical and underhanded politicking--all can be deeply evil without justifying smite-on-sight, for example.
I agree. It is an inclination to a specific personal viewpoint. How it manifests is what an actual lawful good character should be concerned about.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Serenity
No, alignment *describes* behavior, along with inclination.
Yes - precisely. Except that's just not the case. That's what I loathe about alignments: It's not an inclination, a tendency - it's an absolute. If you happen to have an E component, Smite or Protection from Evil works on you. It's simply not the way it's described in the books, and it's not how it's used in the game.
Maybe it is in your game. And in my game, there are no alignments.
But the intention of the guys who wrote the books and made the game was not to make a flexible system.
Anyways, that's my opinion, and this is a Pathfinder: Kingmaker thread, not yet-another-alignment-thread. So I rest my case with this.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Orcs aren't inherently evil; it's entirely viable to take that presumably now orphaned orc child and adopt yourself or arrange for adoption. The idea that you have to kill their children is... messed up, let's just leave it there.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
I suppose the thing is that in D&D and Pathfinder, alignment is both objective and mechanical and as such, you are evil until proven otherwise. So yes, you can technically play a race that is Evil but raised by [demihuman race] to not be so, but unless something actively pulls a creature from the alignment imposed upon it by the Monster Manual (or equivalent source), the creature is evil until otherwise proven.
So sure, the Orc child is pitiful and defenseless for armed adventures, but it is still inclined towards evil deeds and bashed the head of one of it's broodmates the other day because in fantasy roleplaying, that's how alignment works.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade Paladin
Orcs aren't inherently evil; it's entirely viable to take that presumably now orphaned orc child and adopt yourself or arrange for adoption. The idea that you have to kill their children is... messed up, let's just leave it there.
That is absolutely true. In old FR lore, an ancient wizard succeeded in raising a red dragon to become Lawful Good. An Orc child is a piece of cake compared to that.
-
Re: Pathfinder: Kingmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade Paladin
Orcs aren't inherently evil; it's entirely viable to take that presumably now orphaned orc child and adopt yourself or arrange for adoption. The idea that you have to kill their children is... messed up, let's just leave it there.
They could very well be inherently evil. The thing is in settings like Pathfinder or Forgotten realms the gods are real and they are very active in influencing the world. The races that are evil are usually evil because they've been cursed by a good/neutral god, or corrupted/created by evil gods. That kind of influence can create additional obstacles that are probably insurmountable by the majority of the race. That orphaned orc may very well turn out evil despite a persons best efforts to raise them to be good.
It may be the case in these worlds that the orphaned orcs more often than not turn out evil when taken in by good families. If that's so then the lawful good approach would very likely be to take the safest bet for your society as a whole and simply kill the child. However a chaotic good person would probably take the child in because there's a chance, maybe a small one, that this orc may be special.