Quote Originally Posted by DracoknightZero View Post
Like the spell of torture it doesnt have a mind of its own to do evil. Take napalm forexample its usage is to stick to something and burn, does it do evil or is it just *used* for evil?
You have inquisitor spells thats basically "tell the truth or get a zap" type of spells, wouldnt that be considered torture aswell?

In the end... what is good and evil anyway? Who is the one to claim the "right" and "wrong" in the alignment tree? What prevents a paladin from just end all evil guys because "If they have done no evil yet, they will"? So if anything we are in the end just pointing out the flaws in the sense of morality/alignment here, like Ashiels example above would the undead workforce be considered "slaves" as they are technically "brainwashed" into becomming a tool... So is the cult/colony "evil" or "neutral" or even "good" and who is to judge?

So in the end, i just feel the alignment system doesnt even make sense other than to force two or even one dimensional character and "parodies" of the alignment. A lawful good is basically described to be the "Mary sue" of alignments where they cannot do evil, and Chaotic Evil is your cartoon villian "haha destroy everything". Despite the decades of discussions in the sake of alignment i will say it loses out as "non-sensical" and merely a "NPC stat" to quickly convey in a mechanical terms what you can expect of them... for players, alignments mean nothing!
The way I look at it, I feel the alignment system - as described in alignment - is simple an elegant enough to have a good idea of what is defined as being good or evil. The alignment mechanics define good as altruism, protecting life, and concern for the dignity of others, while evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, and killing. These simple concepts are in many ways the fundamental features of what we traditionally consider good and evil, and beautifully isn't 100% black and white because of...

Neutrality.

Frequently, a character can be acting in a way that promotes both good and evil at the same time. For example, the Paladin hurts and kills as part of their very existence. However, rather than doing so for fun or profit, Paladins (and most good adventurers I'd wager) don't generally kill outside of altruism or protect another life. That's why things like self defense or battle to protect another is acceptable. It's not good persay, but it's not evil exactly, because it implies elements of both.

In much the same way a sword is made to kill, not subdue, many other weapons and tools have an innate bias towards evil. If hurting and killing imply evil, fireball is poised to be a very terrible thing. However, like the sword, most wizards aren't casting fireball simply to do so or solely for profit - at least not good or neutral wizards - it's usually in the heat of battle as they seek to minimize harm to someone or something else (including themselves). In a similar fashion, as oppression is a mark of evil, most charms and compulsions are likewise poised ready for evil, yet most would agree that using charm person to gather information without violence or to somehow promote good such as dissolving a violent situation without loss of life wouldn't be evil, yet we innately seem to dislike the idea of using a spell like charm person to magically coerce someone into loving or having sex with us. Why is this? Well, on a subconscious level we recognize the former promotes good as well while the later has no traits of altruism, protection, or concern for dignity and it's wrong.

This is one of the reasons that people struggle with the idea of torture. Realistically, torturing an bandit to make him tell you where a kidnapped victim is holds no more evil than casting charm person on them and doing the same. One is hurting, the other oppressing, but both are marks of evil. However, if looked at rationally, one is equivalent to the other and in some ways the torture could be seen as more humane than some and less humane by others depending on how highly an individual values the integrity of a creature's mind and will versus the issues of pain. Yet, like running through an evil monster with your sword, this sort of thing can simply be neutral because there are elements of both.

However, in a similar fashion, one might intend to use spells and abilities that inflict grievous amounts of pain because they see them as a lesser of two evils. Using an ability like symbol of pain which is [Evil] in Pathfinder but realistically can be used like a magical taser. Debilitating foes so fiercely that they cannot rationally continue a battle or have the will to do so, with the added benefit that no life is lost in the process. Again, elements of both good and evil when used in such a manner.

This is why many people dislike the "always" part of certain abilities - and I agree with them.

Now it's worth noting that barring some extremely odd circumstances, nothing mentioned above is going to make you Good. From attacking something with a sword to overriding or subverting the free will of another, these tools are innately slanted towards evil, but can be "refined" up to at least partially good or Neutral. That's fine, because unless all your time consists of simply roving from one area to another doing good deeds through evil means, those will likely only be a tiny fraction of who a character is. Paladins, for example, don't only kill orcs and dragons. It's generally implied that they're Paladins outside of battle as well, right?

Now it's very easy for someone to be evil without carrying a card saying they're on team evil. If you're doing any of the above things for less than good reasons you'll end up there swiftly. For example, someone who uses the same sword to run someone through for money, or tortures for their amusement, or charms someone to seduce or rob them, is doing the same things but with none of the redeeming qualities of the action. In fact, the best you can be if you're not actively doing good through other means is Neutral because at best everything you're doing is at least marred by evil. If the best you ever do is Neutral and do Evil as well, naturally you'll end up as evil. Most Neutral aligned people do both on the regular or too little of either for it to be considered their norm.

With this said, it becomes even more mind boggling that certain spells such as animate dead are viewed as innately evil since the spell shares less hallmarks of evil than fireball. The spell hurts no one, oppresses no one, and kills no one. Thus it can only stand to reason that the spell is evil purely to say that it is, a matter of one author's preferred "flavor" that stands outside the alignment system itself and truly goes against everything else implied by the laws of the world as described by the game, from alignment saying nonsentient creatures cannot be anything but Neutral to the planes themselves clearly noting that Positive and Negative energies are both dangerous and destructive and very much unaligned as the fires of the Plane of Fire are unaligned.

However, I like the fundamentals of the alignment system in that it paints a very fair picture of what good and evil is by tying it to fundamental manifestations of those things, giving you enough to spot good and evil clearly, without any social baggage. For example, in a fantasy world you might have a culture that has no problems with slavery or treating halflings a second class citizens. However, we can clearly and quickly see that if nothing else those practices are tainted by evil because of their oppression.

I think when used in this way, alignment can contain the entirety of personality concepts. It has a wide valley for lots of moral necromancers, gruff or pragmatic heroes, etc. It has enough room that you can be that good guy who's become a bit cynical and while the rest of the party is bickering over how to get the bandit to talk, walks up and says to the bandit "Look here you son of a b****. I'm asking you where your boys took those people and you're going to tell me, because if I ask and you don't, I'm going to break your finger. And if I ask again and you don't, I'm going to break another, until any inclination your whore mother had of your future as a pianist evanescence like the morning mist," for the bandit to reply "Hah! You wouldn't dare!" *snap* "Arggghh!", "That's one, now I'm going to ask again", *three fingers later* "Wrap his hands and turn him in for trial, those folks may not last the night if we don't get there soon".