Hypothetical alignment question


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

TOZ it isn't even an evil act to kill the vile villains.

Not even with intent to stop them (as if that is somehow relevant). Yeah of course it is premeditated... again it isn't relevant.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
shiiktan wrote:
Penalty for banditry is death. Lawful good inquisitor dresses like merchant, travels near known bandit hideout. Bandits attack, inquisitor kills them. This is evil?
Sure.

By this logic if a police officer disguises themselves for a sting operation, the criminals do criminal activities and get killed during the process, then the police officer is morally culpable. Which is bogus.

Like the Kersey thing above. If I go to an area frequented by violent criminals, while armed and ready to deal with violent criminals, and violent criminals attack me..its their own damn fault when they get killed.

Its like trying to say 'well, its your fault for having to shoot those people, after all (insert group of choice) shouldn't walk through (insert customary locale of opposing group) at 2am.'

The Inquisitor in the above is /trying to stop the bandits./ Of course he's going to try to present himself as their prey, that way they'll appear. If the bandits know the 16th level Inquisitor who can kill them all effortlessly is gunning for him, they'll lay low and try to attack innocents when he's not around.

And thats still far and beyond the 'I'm in the mood for homocide, lets go find some crooks,' ethos.

Shadow Lodge

Spook205 wrote:
By this logic if a police officer disguises themselves for a sting operation, the criminals do criminal activities and get killed during the process, then the police officer is morally culpable. Which is bogus.

Who is talking about morality? I'm talking about alignment.

Aranna wrote:
TOZ it isn't even an evil act to kill the vile villains.

You know better than to believe you'll get me to agree with you on this. Doing evil to evil is still evil.


TOZ it isn't evil to kill actively evil targets.

Let me try another tact... adventures frequently wander around looking to kill bad guys. In your mind this is evil... continued acts of evil will change your alignment to evil. So all adventures in your game TOZ are evil?!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
So all adventures in your game TOZ are evil?!

Only if you cling to the false dichotomy that you must be evil to do evil.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
So all adventures in your game TOZ are evil?!
Only if you cling to the false dichotomy that you must be evil to do evil.

That ISN'T what I am clinging to and you know it. I will state again: your alignment changes if you continually act in a manner of another alignment. You assert killing actively evil targets is evil. So according to you adventurers run around doing evil acts frequently. Even liberal GMs will change your alignment to evil if you run around frequently doing evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
So according to you adventurers run around doing evil acts frequently.

Not my adventurers. Maybe yours. They also do enough other acts that they don't often slide to evil.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I view this alignment system as a set of loose guidelines to help in RP and character development. Obviously if this is a PFS character then we have to have a debate about evil, but assuming it is not then the character can be any number of alignments.

One - Chaotic/Lawful. It could be either. The character is upholding the laws that the current government is failing to do. Easily argued as lawful. The character is also causing chaos and ignoring the lawful system of government. Easily argued as chaotic. And since it is so easily argued as either Neutral is just fine as well.

Two - Good/Evil. Intent, Intent, Intent. If the character is going out looking to get his rocks off murdering people, this is a pretty strong Evil act. If the character is doing it for revenge, then stops when his revenge is sated, it is probably more Neutral. If the characters end goals are Good and he takes no joy in killing then Good could easily be argued.

If played very well, I would allow a Paladin to stay Lawful/Good even when committing this act. Again, IF PLAYED WELL is the key part. Give me an impassioned story and argument about your actions I am much happier than "DUR MY ALIGNMENT TOLD ME TO DO IT".

Shadow Lodge

Agreed, Daniel.


Quote:
By this logic if a police officer disguises themselves for a sting operation, the criminals do criminal activities and get killed during the process, then the police officer is morally culpable. Which is bogus.

Actually, the cop might be morally culpable. Entrapment is a complicated issue.

So many questions in Pathfinder turn into what sound like legal arguments. Consider this:

Bob wakes up and feels like killing. He's going to go murder the first person he sees. He sees Jane and murders her. However - Jane woke up and felt like killing, too. She was going to kill the first person she saw, and Bob was the first person she saw. Did Bob commit an evil act, a good act, or neither? How would your answer change if the subjects had perfect knowledge of each other's intentions? Discuss.


aegrisomnia wrote:

Bob wakes up and feels like killing. He's going to go murder the first person he sees. He sees Jane and murders her. However - Jane woke up and felt like killing, too. She was going to kill the first person she saw, and Bob was the first person she saw. Did Bob commit an evil act, a good act, or neither? How would your answer change if the subjects had perfect knowledge of each other's intentions? Discuss.

Bob is evil - he just luckily ended up eliminating another evil person.

His only motivation was to kill, with no regards to who he killed, same for Jane.

And it's the same regardless of their awareness, since they still only chose their target based on "first person they saw"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shiiktan wrote:
Penalty for banditry is death. Lawful good inquisitor dresses like merchant, travels near known bandit hideout. Bandits attack, inquisitor kills them. This is evil?
Sure.
By this logic if a police officer disguises themselves for a sting operation, the criminals do criminal activities and get killed during the process, then the police officer is morally culpable. Which is bogus.

I thought the end goal of a typical sting operation was arrest, not assassination.

Silver Crusade

The assumption I was making in the sting operation statement was basically.

Police officer is involved in sting, attempts to make arrest, criminal goes for his weapons when the heat arrives and then gets blasted. The moral culpability here rests with the guy who pulled his weapon and attempted to kill the police, not the police officer for 'putting him there.'

And the issue of entrapment is also a legal issue. I'd make a statement that legal does not necessarilly always equate to moral.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone thinks we can discuss alignment (which is an in-game attempt to represent an objective standard of morality) and not discuss what is or isn't moral.

Still, like I said earlier, we've got multiple situations.

1.) The individual (hereafter referred to as PC) wishes to enjoy the thrill of killing someone and so goes to the bad side of town, looks for a jerk and kills him. I don't think we'd have any doubts that this is like Dexter level sociopathy and is clearly evil, I'd peg it as NE or CE.

2.) A step above 1, we have the Frank Castle PC. He goes into the bad side of town and starts blasting the crap out of people because they 'detected as evil.' Again, this is evil. This one runs the full gamut of evils (CE, NE, LE).

3.) Then there's the Paul Kersey PC. Who goes into the bad part of town ready and eager for a fight, but he's not going to initiate violence against someone, and instead waits for them to do it to him. He's the guy who sits down in the bar by the docks and puts his coins on the table and starts buying the most expensive grog on the menu. Whether or not this behavior is evil, is trickier to peg. He might be like Frank above, or he might just be trying to represent some sort of LN thing. I can see a bored, or malfunctioning Inevitable pulling this sort of crap.

4.) The Lina Inverse PC, who goes out looking for bandits so she can beat them up and take their stuff, while at the same moment with the (lesser) intention of stopping their nefarious ways. If they surrender, good, if they don't, its fun to blow them apart. She's not out to kill anybody, but she doesn't really care if the bad guys get blown apart. Lina's probably CN or CG at best, and this is where we start hitting the 'murderhobo' line and start graduating from the dodgier alignment positions. Essentially, this is like being a bounty hunter. There are bad people somewhere, doing bad things, and I get paid to stop them.

Now, none of the above are what I'd describe as good behavior, but #4 is definately closer to what I'd say could be allowed with someone with a G in their alignment, although if it was their entire behavior, I'd be more inclined to see it as Neutral.


Kelarith wrote:

Dexter is also a sociopath, and as such does not discern between good and evil, or more to the point is not influenced by them. He kills because he feels the need to, and doesn't fully understand why. The only reason he kills only criminals is because his "father" instilled the code to stop Dexter from becoming a complete monstrosity instead of the controlled one that he is.

Take that in context of what Jesterle is getting at and you see where it's totally subjective. The person that was a victim of one of the serial killers that Dexter puts down might see him as more neutral or good. The family is going to see him as evil.

Guantanamo. The soldiers trying to get information resorted to waterboarding and other forms of torture. People were appalled by that. The soldiers were acting for what they thought was the greater good. Chaotic to be sure, but from their standpoint...good.

That's why alignment is going to be as tricky as it is. Everyone is going to have a slightly different views on what's good, and where the line is drawn between it and evil. And Paizo is not going to give concrete answers on the different alignments, because they don't want to alienate anyone with an opposing view.

Lawful evil.

Shadow Lodge

phantom1592 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
jesterle wrote:

Based on the responses I have seen so far the character of Dexter would not be considered evil! Really!

In case you do not know the tv reference:

"Dexter is an American television drama series. The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system." from Wikipedia

Dexter's Evil. It partially comes down to why you kill, and Dexter doesn't kill to protect people, or make the world a better place or anything like that. He kills people because he enjoys it. His target selection is 'killers'...but that's incidental to why he kills. Hell, he's been known to make sure evidence vanished so a killer was released just so he could kill them.

In other words, different situation.

This. Totally evil all day long. Even he would admit it... ;)

Yes! Dexter even knows that he is evil, mentally damaged, broken on the inside. His only redeeming value is that he tries to focus his evil on people he thinks society will accept him killing; but still evil.

Murder is murder. The character originally described at the top of the thread; Evil. Any character in any revenge story; Evil. Bronson's character, the Punisher, does not matter. They are killing for their own satisfaction, or for revenge, and not in actual self-defense.

It is the intent of the character that determines alignment. If they go down to the bad part of town with the intent of stopping the thieves, and wind up killing them you might say CG, CN, or N. But if they go with the intent to kill; that is murder and that is evil. It is the intent of the person that determines alignment as much or more so that the result.

Liberty's Edge

Usual Suspect wrote:
Yes! Dexter even knows that he is evil, mentally damaged, broken on the inside. His only redeeming value is that he tries to focus his evil on people he thinks society will accept him killing; but still evil.

I agree completely.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Murder is murder. The character originally described at the top of the thread; Evil. Any character in any revenge story; Evil. Bronson's character, the Punisher, does not matter. They are killing for their own satisfaction, or for revenge, and not in actual self-defense.

This, I disagree with. At least potentially. It depends on why they are killing. Motivation again. Dexter's Evil not because he kills, but because most of the time he does it solely for personal pleasure. He kills bad people, sure, but he doesn't kill because he wants to stop or punish bad people, he does it because it feels good.

A vengeance seeker is likely to be Chaotic (since a Lawful person would be more likely to trust the justice system)...but not necessarily any more Evil than a professional executioner (both kill someone for crimes committed, to punish them, the only difference is the nature of the judging authority...which is a difference between Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil). And the game system bears that out with a LG Empyreal Lord of Executioners, and a CN Goddess of Vengeance.

Killing is almost never a Good act unless in direct self defense or defense of another (and not always even then), but it's far from always being an Evil one.

Usual Suspect wrote:
It is the intent of the character that determines alignment. If they go down to the bad part of town with the intent of stopping the thieves, and wind up killing them you might say CG, CN, or N. But if they go with the intent to kill; that is murder and that is evil. It is the intent of the person that determines alignment as much or more so that the result.

The intent is what matters, I agree. But the intent here isn't just to kill, it's to kill bad people specifically in order to make the world a better place and keep others from getting hurt. That's...a pretty laudable goal, with some much less laudable methods. I think it averages out somewhere around Neutral, myself.

Shadow Lodge

The Problem DMW is that the character in question is described as intending to kill in the first place. That character may be choosing as her target somebody morally questionable, but the alignment of the target does not necessarily affect the alignment of the character in question. If you go out with the intent to kill, you are evil. If you go out with the intent to stop somebody committing horrible acts, you are not necessarily evil or good.

The bizarre example of a paladin going after a baby murdering cult was used above. Well, if the paladin goes in and the cult surrenders, but the paladin just slaughters them all; evil. If the paladin takes prisoners, even after roughing up the evil cultists severely, then drags them all back to town; most probably good (depending on how much she roughs them up). Now, if the paladin goes in and the cult fights back, mow ‘em down. Don’t stop till they surrender. But don’t let them bleed out just for your own satisfaction. The LG paladin should take back as many prisoners as is reasonable to face their justice before the law. (Unless of course the law is completely corrupted as in Cheliax.)

A character’s alignment is based primarily on the character’s own motivations and actions; not on the people they encounter as they travel.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The intent is what matters, I agree. But the intent here isn't just to kill, it's to kill bad people specifically in order to make the world a better place and keep others from getting hurt. That's...a pretty laudable goal, with some much less laudable methods. I think it averages out somewhere around Neutral, myself.

Actually no. This is not a laudable goal. Stopping bad people is a laudable goal. And that may involve killing them if they resist being stopped; but if killing them is the goal that is still an evil act.

Stopping bad people = good.

Killing people when you could stop them fairly easily = bad.

Simply put, murder is still murder; even when the victim is a horrible person.

Liberty's Edge

Usual Suspect wrote:
Actually no. This is not a laudable goal. Stopping bad people is a laudable goal. And that may involve killing them if they resist being stopped; but if killing them is the goal that is still an evil act.

I disagree. Motivation matters, even in terms of something like killing. Killing the man you personally saw rape and murder a child in order to punish him for that act isn't Evil. It's not Good either, since he's not doing anything bad right now, but it's not Evil.

Usual Suspect wrote:

Stopping bad people = good.

Killing people when you could stop them fairly easily = bad.

I agree with both these statements, but the point I'm making is she both intended to and succeeded at both these goals...which evens out to a Neutral act, IMO.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Simply put, murder is still murder; even when the victim is a horrible person.

Is it Evil to kill an enemy combatant during war? I'd say no. What about as a sniper, where your target has no chance? I'd still say no. What about as a professional executioner for the state? I'd go with a definite no, there.

Context and motivation is very important in this area.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Is it Evil to kill an enemy combatant during war?

War is an ultimate evil, so yes.

Shadow Lodge

Actually, yes it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Murder is evil.

What motivates you does not change your alignment if your intent is still morally corrupt. If you are motivated by revenge for somebody's unspeakably evil acts; killing them is still evil if there is another way to punish them. Crimes of passion are still crimes. They are still moral failings.

And as a retired solder, I am offended that you take such a cheap shot. Killing enemy combatants during active combat is not murder. Killing enemies that surrender is. These are very different things and have varying motivations. Snipers taking out active combatants and legitimate targets is not evil. Snipers taking out civilians just for fun is evil. We have been forced to deal with the latter far too often in the military and it is always an ugly situation.


Usual Suspect wrote:


Actually no. This is not a laudable goal. Stopping bad people is a laudable goal. And that may involve killing them if they resist being stopped; but if killing them is the goal that is still an evil act.

Stopping bad people = good.

Killing people when you could stop them fairly easily = bad.

Simply put, murder is still murder; even when the victim is a horrible person.

It was a justified execution for their crimes. The criminals had raped and murdered innocent people. Their guilt was 100% clear and going through the legal system would have resulted in the criminals deaths just as certainly. Street thugs who attempt to kill visiting royalty do not get community service as a rule.

Killing people isn't a very nice thing to do, but good =/= nice.

In this particular case the action was neutral. Killing people who deserve to die is not evil, it is justice. The fact that Jasnah's motivation for that action was mainly to teach her student a lesson rather than to protect the innocent means it is not a good act either.

Liberty's Edge

Usual Suspect wrote:
Actually, yes it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Murder is evil.

How are you defining murder? the usual definition is illegal killing, and I'd disagree that such is always immoral or evil. Often, but not always.

Usual Suspect wrote:
What motivates you does not change your alignment if your intent is still morally corrupt.

What do you mean by 'morally corrupt'? If my intent is 'to make the world a better place' is that morally corrupt?

Usual Suspect wrote:
If you are motivated by revenge for somebody's unspeakably evil acts; killing them is still evil if there is another way to punish them. Crimes of passion are still crimes. They are still moral failings.

How is this morally different from being a state-sponsored executioner? In both cases you are killing someone to punish them for a crime, after all.

Usual Suspect wrote:
And as a retired solder, I am offended that you take such a cheap shot. Killing enemy combatants during active combat is not murder. Killing enemies that surrender is. These are very different things and have varying motivations. Snipers taking out active combatants and legitimate targets is not evil. Snipers taking out civilians just for fun is evil. We have been forced to deal with the latter far too often in the military and it is always an ugly situation.

Um...that wasn't a cheap shot. That was me making the point that in no way do I believe being a soldier makes you Evil. And that, thus, some circumstances must make killing not Evil. That's all.

And I definitely agree that the things you list here are Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Remembering a scene from a book I've read, a character basically goes looking for trouble in order kill some criminals.

She walks through a rough part of town in her finery, and when some armed thugs try their luck, she dispatches them.

Thinking about this in in-game alignment, what sort of action is this? I'm thinking CG, maybe just CN.

In order to answer this question everyone needs to agree to a few basic facts.

1: Is the act of killing something an evil act?

I believe the answer to be no. The act of killing something is neither good nor evil in itself. Almost all creatures must kill to survive. In order determine any act to be evil or good requires you to look at the reason or purpose the act is being committed.

In the example above the intent of the PC was to go looking for a situation that would allow her to kill someone. The intent here is not to bring anyone to justice, an act of vengeance, or to make the world a better place. It was to find someone to kill. The PC is looking for something to kill for his own enjoyment. The intent here is to commit murder.

Note the character from the actual book may be more complex but notin the example given.

The fact she targeted criminals is because this will make it easier to justify her blood thirsty desire.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
Actually, yes it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Murder is evil.
How are you defining murder? the usual definition is illegal killing, and I'd disagree that such is always immoral or evil. Often, but not always.

Killing somebody when you do not have to do so to defend yourself or somebody else.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
What motivates you does not change your alignment if your intent is still morally corrupt.
What do you mean by 'morally corrupt'? If my intent is 'to make the world a better place' is that morally corrupt?

Doing something like killing somebody because you want too, it makes you feel better, it is easier.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
If you are motivated by revenge for somebody's unspeakably evil acts; killing them is still evil if there is another way to punish them. Crimes of passion are still crimes. They are still moral failings.
How is this morally different from being a state-sponsored executioner? In both cases you are killing someone to punish them for a crime, after all.

A state sponsored executioner is carrying out a sentence passed down by a convening authority that has determined somebody to be irredeemable. Presumably this authority has the moral standing to make such a decision (though they may not). This is not murder, though it may be morally suspect. Execution is not a good act, and can at best be described as a necessary act.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
And as a retired solder, I am offended that you take such a cheap shot. Killing enemy combatants during active combat is not murder. Killing enemies that surrender is. These are very different things and have varying motivations. Snipers taking out active combatants and legitimate targets is not evil. Snipers taking out civilians just for fun is evil. We have been forced to deal with the latter far too often in the military and it is always an ugly situation.
Um...that wasn't a cheap shot. That was me making the point that in no way do I believe being a soldier makes you Evil. And that, thus, some circumstances must make killing not Evil. That's all.

I hope that you understand that from our point of view, this is always a cheap shot. Comparing murder to the necessary but still not good acts that soldiers must take on the battlefield is always a sure road to bad feelings. I won't even respond to TOZ's comment. Yours were obviously not intended to be offensive; but they are. We are trapped in a situation where we must trust that those in authority above us, who have been given the moral and legal authority to make the decisions, have made the right decision that these acts are necessary (that still does not make them good, only necessary). And yet we are the ones who have to live with them as we carry them out. Actions on the battlefield always leave deep scars; even when you know you are doing what must be done. And the last 13 years have shown as always, that the people above us screw up too.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And I definitely agree that the things you list here are Evil.

And that is why I respect you enough to reply. I am pretty sure though that we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree on the nuances. I have enjoyed the conversation.

The Exchange

I still love the "bring them to justice" thing. If they did something needing death why does it matter if the paladin or the royal hangman does it? Is it different if the pally has legal authority?

Liberty's Edge

Usual Suspect wrote:
Killing somebody when you do not have to do so to defend yourself or somebody else.

Okay, I'll agree to that definition. By that definition, I think murder is usually but not necessarily Evil.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Doing something like killing somebody because you want too, it makes you feel better, it is easier.

I agree. Those kinds of reasons all send you down the slippery slope towards Evil.

Usual Suspect wrote:
A state sponsored executioner is carrying out a sentence passed down by a convening authority that has determined somebody to be irredeemable. Presumably this authority has the moral standing to make such a decision (though they may not).

Forgive me for saying so, but this attitude has more to do with being Lawful than being Good. What makes the judge who sentenced someone to death morally superior to you or me?

Now, if you're killing people without sufficient evidence to convict them if you were the judge, sure, that's a problem. But we're talking someone who saw them commit the crime. Their guilt is factual. The only difference between killing them yourself and turning them over to the law is a legal one, not a moral one.

Usual Suspect wrote:
This is not murder, though it may be morally suspect.

If that's not murder, how is killing someone for all the exact same reasons (to prevent them committing more crimes, as a warning to others, etc.) murder? The fact that you're legally allowed to do it in one circumstance but not the other doesn't make one more moral than the other.

Usual Suspect wrote:
Execution is not a good act, and can at best be described as a necessary act.

Here I agree with you entirely. I'm just not sure why it needs to be legally sanctioned to be Neutral instead of Evil. Chaos and Evil are different things, after all.

Usual Suspect wrote:
I hope that you understand that from our point of view, this is always a cheap shot. Comparing murder to the necessary but still not good acts that soldiers must take on the battlefield is always a sure road to bad feelings. I won't even respond to TOZ's comment. Yours were obviously not intended to be offensive; but they are. We are trapped in a situation where we must trust that those in authority above us, who have been given the moral and legal authority to make the decisions, have made the right decision that these acts are necessary (that still does not make them good, only necessary). And yet we are the ones who have to live with them as we carry them out. Actions on the battlefield always leave deep scars; even when you know you are doing what must be done. And the last 13 years have shown as always, that the people above us screw up too.

I'm legitimately sorry if I offended. I've had moral discussions with a number of ex-military people previously, and none of them were ever offended by the mention that being a soldier was a potentially moral thing to do. Which was all I was intending to say.

And I believe TOZ is actually ex-military, which paints his comment in a somewhat different light, IMO.

Usual Suspect wrote:
And that is why I respect you enough to reply. I am pretty sure though that we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree on the nuances. I have enjoyed the conversation.

Sure, me too. Sorry again about any offense given.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And I believe TOZ is actually ex-military, which paints his comment in a somewhat different light, IMO.

12 years, into Iraq in '03, out of Iraq in '11.

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Hypothetical alignment question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion