Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[GâtFromKI]

In the example I described in Curse of the Crisom Throne, the PC are invading the house of Mr X in their hometown. They don't go in a savage region or in a foreign country, they do it in their hometown, with laws and bureaucratic state, while it is peaceful (there's a revolution shortly after, but at the time they're killing Mr X, the town is peaceful).

If this doesn't qualify as murder, then nothing does. The word shouldn't even exist since it designate nothing.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Gaedren Lamm is not a 'petty criminal,' he is a crime lord who habitually tortures orphans and then feeds them to his alligator. 'I wanted to stop him torture-murdering children' is pretty good justifiable homicide.

[GâtFromKI]

A "crime lord" with 4 minions total, whose house can be invaded by a level 1 party. "Crime lord" seems a bit exaggerated.

And again, in the new edition, if the rule 1 ("thou shall not murder") and the rule 2 ("thou shall protect orphans") are in conflict, you have to follow rule 1.

[Username17]

A "crime lord" with 4 minions total, whose house can be invaded by a level 1 party. "Crime lord" seems a bit exaggerated.

And again, in the new edition, if the rule 1 ("thou shall not murder") and the rule 2 ("thou shall protect orphans") are in conflict, you have to follow rule 1.

Real world criminals can in fact be killed by being home invaded by 4-5 dedicated people with swords. That would be a thing that most criminals could be potentially taken down by. If someone has minions, then they can be invaded. Your group comes into conflict with their group and you fight. That's war. And if you're going to war because the other group are a bunch of dicks that feed orphans to aligators, that's justice as well.

Now the whole concept of "wars" that have five people on a side is pretty alien to the modern way of looking at things. Because in modern society you have complex bureaucratic states that hold a monopoly of force. But D&D doesn't have that. It has very loose feudalism with the constant presence of adventurers. Wars scale all the way up and all the way down.

Attacking the home of some baron is right or wrong depending on why you are attacking them and what the presumed results of their defeat would be. But regardless of whether it's right or it's wrong it's not murder, it's war. And whether they have four minions or four thousand minions is just a question of scale.

The fact that you're being stupid about this is actually why it's a stupid thing to include in the Pathfinder book at all. This is a stupid argument to have, and having a rule whose only possible effect is to force people to have a historical moral-legal debate about how Viking raids in a pre-industrial disunified region are structurally dissimilar to theft and murder in a well-policed bureaucratic society with a state-monopoly of force in the middle of an action scene involving hitting Orcs with swords is horribad. Literally nothing good can come of such a rule.

But that's Alignment in general. As soon as it is game mechanically relevant whether Robin Hood is Chaotic for opposing the Sheriff or Lawful for supporting Richard you might have to have that discussion during or around a game. And that discussion has no winners, only losers. Obviously I am openly contemptuous of any new edition of D&D that doesn't accept that the 9 alignment box matrix has to fucking go.

Prohibitions on "Murder" are even more ridiculous than prohibitions on "Theft." Theft is taking things that belong to someone else. And once you realize that property rights are social contracts crafted and enforced by the powerful, that whole discussion just becomes a snake with its head eating its own asshole. You only own things because I acknowledge you owning them - if I don't acknowledge your ownership, my taking it isn't theft - just disagreement about ownership. Murder is even more bullshit, where killing people is murder if and only if it isn't justified. Meaning that an action can't be murder unless and until you've already determined that it was wrong. At which point the murder label is completely useless. You don't need a prohibition on murder specifically because you already have a catch-all commandment to not do things that are bad.

-Username17

[Thaluikhain]

Doesn't all that depend on the setting?

In theory at least, I know some of the D&D books talk about defining good and evil and society and stuff, but dunno how many groups sit down and work all that out beforehand. It would perhaps stop awkward arguments about the morality of killing orcs or what paladins do sometime later, though.

[Username17]

Doesn't all that depend on the setting?

The Pathfinder Paladin is defined in terms of Golarion, which is a setting. It is a setting which is a pretty unexceptional generic D&D setting where adventurers are regularly called upon for policing and military duties because there is no state monopoly of force but there are manticores and demon priests.

It is a setting where vigilante justice is simply accepted and acceptable. Where adhoc groups of adventurers mount invasions of armed holdings that are within walking distance of unaffiliated villages they buy ale from. Randos with swords dispense justice and mayhem claiming divine right which they actually have.

-Username17

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, right, I thought you'd drifted away to talking about things more generally there, my mistake.

[RobbyPants]

Since the paladin is a divine class, on one hand, we could assume this is all being adjudicated by the deity in question. Of course, "murder" suddenly becomes "killing someone your god didn't want you to". That has creepy moral implications, but also leaves the game fully in "read the DM's mind/ask permission for everything" territory.

On the other hand, you could argue that the "laws" are either the laws of the god, the laws of your country of origin, or the country you're in. Of course, this never discussed, and the last two don't cover regions that have no laws.

Of course, the CoC never mentions any of that. They write up some platitudes that sound cool to people who don't scratch below the surface, and leave it to each gaming table to have their own arguments. I never really considered before how much pre-written CoCs were actually leaving content generation up to the players.

[infected slut princess]

Murder is literally the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. That's what Murder is. Seriously. That's the actual definition. If you have a reason, even a shitty reason that doesn't keep you from going to jail for a long time, it still isn't murder.

Wow how retarded can you get.

"I killed my stupid wife. The REASON was she was having an affair with some douche. NOT MURDER." No, that's murder.

"I'm a miserable fuck and I shot up 10 stupid kids at my school. My REASON for this is other kids were mean to me and I am a fat virgin. NOT MURDER." No, that's murder.

Motive is not the same as justification. Otherwise why are there murder convictions at all?

Having an excuse might get you mitigation on punishment if you do something bad. Having justification means you shouldn't get punished because you didn't really do something bad.

[nockermensch]

Murder is literally the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. That's what Murder is. Seriously. That's the actual definition. If you have a reason, even a shitty reason that doesn't keep you from going to jail for a long time, it still isn't murder.

Wow how retarded can you get.

"I killed my stupid wife. The REASON was she was having an affair with some douche. NOT MURDER." No, that's murder.

"I'm a miserable fuck and I shot up 10 stupid kids at my school. My REASON for this is other kids were mean to me and I am a fat virgin. NOT MURDER." No, that's murder.

Motive is not the same as justification. Otherwise why are there murder convictions at all?

Having an excuse might get you mitigation on punishment if you do something bad. Having justification means you shouldn't get punished because you didn't really do something bad.

ISP, when you think other people are being retarded, remember that the reason for that is that you're an insane person who thinks States are inherently evil.

See: this is what Frank actually meant to say: "without justification or excuse [as accepted by the community/group/state you belong to]". Once you add the part between brackets, something that non-insane people do subconsciously, the sentence makes perfect sense. Because get this: Murder is a legal term that only makes sense within a legal framework, that only exists inside communities/states.

So, I'm pretty sure that if a man kills his unfaithful wife in some place like Saudi Arabia or Iran, they're not in fact a murderer. And since most PCs in D&D end being hardcore enough that they ARE the state (remember how you think roving gangs in Somalia are mini-governments?), then these PCs by definition can't be murderers.

[infected slut princess]

Ok but morality precedes law so it's useful to have a non-legal term that distinguishes a morally justified killing from an morally unjustified killing. I could be wrong but I tend to think the D&D style of "good and evil as metaphysics" is supposed to provide a non-legal standard for whether the paladin is murdering (or 'murdering') if he decides to start stabbing little kids. While there are significant issues with the moral realism in real life, I think D&D/Pathfucker posits something of that nature.

[deaddmwalking]

Ok but morality precedes law so it's useful to have a non-legal term that distinguishes a morally justified killing from an morally unjustified killing. I could be wrong but I tend to think the D&D style of "good and evil as metaphysics" is supposed to provide a non-legal standard for whether the paladin is murdering (or 'murdering') if he decides to start stabbing little kids. While there are significant issues with the moral realism in real life, I think D&D/Pathfucker posits something of that nature.

It posits something of that nature which is neither internally consistent nor capable of being used for predicting future action. If the little kids you're stabbing are orc babies, D&D usually posits that as 'good' because killing evil is always good. And killing 'good' is always evil. So you can literally switch team jerseys and nothing changes - angels are now the 'bad guys' killing the 'good demons'.

[infected slut princess]

t posits something of that nature which is neither internally consistent nor capable of being used for predicting future action. If the little kids you're stabbing are orc babies, D&D usually posits that as 'good' because killing evil is always good. And killing 'good' is always evil. So you can literally switch team jerseys and nothing changes - angels are now the 'bad guys' killing the 'good demons'.

Oh.

But does D&D "usually" posit that killing orc babies is 'good' because they are "team evil"? I didn't notice that. Maybe you've been playing with some weird sociopaths (possibly incel). I also thought things worked different for orc babies and such on the one hand and angels & demons/devils (outsider, planar types) on the other.

[Username17]

The point is that it isn't consistent. Having a prohibition on unjustified killing is only as helpful as your definition of what killings are justified or not is. And D&D has not ever had one of those that was better than asking a random teenager. Pathfinder's alignment system is still contradictory nonsense, so it can't tell you whether any killing in particular is right or wrong. And since the prohibition is just "don't do killings that are wrong." we got nothing.

The question about whether it's right or wrong to smash Kobold eggs is a stupid and horrible question to even have. But D&D's alignment system raises this question and then does not answer it. The argument that the Paladin must smash the Kobold eggs and the argument that the Paladin must not smash the Kobold eggs are equally persuasive under Pathfinder alignment rules.

Note that I think we'd all feel better if the Kobold village government was bad but that Kobold children were not and that having defeated the army of the Kobold village we appointed some new rulers who weren't such assholes and then left without actually having to even have discussions about the fates of Kobold non-combatants. Simply not having an alignment system would default to that, and then we'd all be happier.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

I remember reading an official source to that effect, but I can't seem to find it now.

In our world, we often talk about whether you would be justified to kill infant Hitler knowing what he would become. At least at the moment, knowing that a child will lead a genocide is impossible, and if you could travel back in time perhaps you could 'solve' these problems another way. But D&D world doesn't have these limitations. Not only can you divine the course of future events, you can literally identify creatures that are evil.

If you leave evil creatures to their own devices, they will cause additional suffering - it is in their nature to do so - at the very least if it is convenient to do so per the SRD. If you are an adventurer and you leave evil creatures in place, you're at least committing the moral equivalent of leaving an unmarked mine near a farming village. It is possible that nobody gets hurt, but it is at least as likely that an 'innocent' stumbles upon it and does.

Defeating evil reduces the amount of evil in the world. You're literally making it less likely that a regime based on 'hurting, oppressing, and killing others' comes to power.

'Alignments' don't really exist in our world because you aren't 'allied' or 'aligned' with a philosophical entity that ties to the true and provable metaphysics. But in a world where that's true, it's hard NOT to justify killing evil. In any case, death is demonstrably NOT the end. They'll be returned to the outer plane that corresponds to their personal philosophy...

Which brings it back to alignment is stupid - it's very different than anything we deal with in our world, so any argument based on 'white hats' and 'black hats' in Westerns doesn't really work. If you can't apply real world morality...and can't agree one what moral framework should apply, it ultimately becomes an excuse for GMs to dictate the behavior of their player's characters. 'Alignment infractions' and 'divine punishments' are easily among the most disempowering aspects of the game to players.

[Grek]

If you leave evil creatures to their own devices, they will cause additional suffering - it is in their nature to do so - at the very least if it is convenient to do so per the SRD. If you are an adventurer and you leave evil creatures in place, you're at least committing the moral equivalent of leaving an unmarked mine near a farming village. It is possible that nobody gets hurt, but it is at least as likely that an 'innocent' stumbles upon it and does.

But it is equally true that euthanizing all Good creatures painlessly in their sleep will transport them to a realm of safety and joy where they will dwell forever in bliss. If allowing evil creatures to live is reckless endangerment, allowing good creatures to live is torturing innocents. The only morally valid option is to slaughter all living things and to raise their bodies as mindless undead animated solely by the unceasing desire to snuff out the cosmic blight that is Life. Vote Orcus 2020!

[erik]

You still need a farm stock of living beings to keep creating more so you get more joy multipliers. But once they're done raising offspring the good paladin puts them to pasture. All hail Pelor the euthanizer.

[OgreBattle]

What did crusaders do with infidel babies IRL

[angelfromanotherpin]

There are records of the mass slaughter of infants by crusaders (recorded by Christian historians), so it's a thing that probably happened, but how often is a harder question to answer.

[deaddmwalking]

Or you could raise them as an army to use against your enemies.

[infected slut princess]

I remember reading an official source to that effect, but I can't seem to find it now.

How convenient...!

If you leave evil creatures to their own devices, they will cause additional suffering - it is in their nature to do so - at the very least if it is convenient to do so per the SRD.

Perhaps. But it is possible to change one's alignment, so apparently one's actions have something to do with what alignment one has. Orc babies probably spend most of their full-round actions eating, shitting, and crying, rather than evil stuff. Furthermore, the SRD says for many people, being good or evil is a matter of attitude. A certain orientation, if you will. Does this mean one could just "be" evil without "doing" evil? Perhaps the orc baby that you want so desperately to kill with your incel paladin character will just grow up to be an orc farmer with "evil attitude" but no evil actions against the innocent.

The SRD says, "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." What makes orc babies "not innocent" and why does your game group want to kill them? Good and Evil are objective properties in D&D and Pathfuckerverse. I figure "innocent" is an objective property as well?

What do orc monster stats tell us?

Alignment: Often chaotic evil

Hmmm.... often eh...

If you are an adventurer and you leave evil creatures in place, you're at least committing the moral equivalent of leaving an unmarked mine near a farming village.

I can imagine your character in a game arguing this because you really want to justify the killing of orc babies, yet I don't see this discussed explicitly in any of my D&D books. Where is the evidence that D&Dverse evaluates things in this manner? Could it be you are projecting your own incel morality onto the game? Frank said D&D raises the question but does not answer it. You projecting your answer into the void is not the same as "D&D says this."

Defeating evil reduces the amount of evil in the world. You're literally making it less likely that a regime based on 'hurting, oppressing, and killing others' comes to power.

"Defeat" is a funny verb to use for stabbing orc babies but ok.

Question: who is more likely to produce a regime that oppresses and kills: Random orc baby or deaddmwalking's incel psycho paladin who kills orc babies?

[Thaluikhain]

Where is the evidence that D&Dverse evaluates things in this manner?

IIRC, the Book of Vile Darkness discusses evil and says that sort of thing may or may not be something you want to put in your game, and that it's a personal choice, rather than a hard and fast rule. But that it's not a necessarily wrong option, just a preference, involuntary celibacy not required.

IIRC also, though, it also says that kinky sex is inherently evil, and has an evil goddess of dominatrices. So...yeah...

Though, been a while since I read that.

[deaddmwalking]

I remember reading an official source to that effect, but I can't seem to find it now.

How convenient...!

So just to be clear, if I find the source, you'll admit that you're wrong?

As for questions of my personal morality, I do not argue for slaughtering orc babies. I think that D&D alignment is far too simplistic and tries to reduce very complicated things down to simple black & white judgments. I think just about any other 'system' does better for providing PC actions than the 9-alignment grid. For example, affiliations, alliances, or personality keywords like 'honest' or 'distrustful' do a better job of providing role-playing hooks.

And ultimately, your desire to engage in this argument is simple proof that the system doesn't work. You assert it means one thing; I can assert it means another thing. We all know that killing orcs increases our personal power and you can write Lawful Good on your character sheet and do exactly that. 'Good' is certainly dubious by any kind of modern sensibility.

But if you want me to find an official source that says something akin to 'increasing the amount of evil in the world is an evil act - decreasing the amount of evil in the world is a good act', I could do that. It's probably in the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds. Just explain to me what it solves? Because even if an official source indicates that killing orc babies is a good act, I don't buy it. Which again - is just further proof that there is no agreement on what ANY of the alignment stuff is supposed to mean.

If you're 'Lawful Good' can you support a rebellion against a tyrannical regime? If you're chaotic, can you do so with the intention of elevating to the throne a better absolute dictator (as monarchies may be)? If both characters can do the same things and 'motive' never has to be defined, the labels themselves don't mean much. You can't find a better example than Mialee versus Ember - both of them are dedicated to their craft and that makes one chaotic and the other lawful.

[Grek]

If you're 'Lawful Good' can you support a rebellion against a tyrannical regime?

Only if the friendly pretender the throne has been annointed by some manner of farcical aquatic ceremony, as the moistening of the new ruler is required in order to certify them as Lawful.

If you're chaotic, can you do so with the intention of elevating to the throne a better absolute dictator (as monarchies may be)?

Only if the existing dictator is insufficiently well-lubricated and hates you for some reason. (Or if you're some sort of robot/bug person/former ally of the dictator who betrayed him in favour of the wet and sticky love of someone in the party.)

You can't find a better example than Mialee versus Ember - both of them are dedicated to their craft and that makes one chaotic and the other lawful.

Mialee is True Neutral because her art (wizardry) is all about writing spellbooks. Spellbooks are made from parchment (dry and crunchy) with ink (wet and sticky) applied to them. This makes her Neutral.

Ember is Lawful because she is a goddamn monk and therefore made out of wet tissue paper and a complete lack of useful mechanical crunch. Because she's a member of the party, these attributes make her Lawful.

[infected slut princess]

So just to be clear, if I find the source, you'll admit that you're wrong?

Depends on the source, I suppose. I can imagine there could be a source that might back you up about the killing orc babies thing. Maybe not. I dunno.

And ultimately, your desire to engage in this argument is simple proof that the system doesn't work.

What "system" doesn't work? Obviously there isn't enough information in the game itself and you are projecting your racist incel morality onto the game when you say D&D says it's not an evil code violation for a paladin to kill orc babies. (I assume Pathfuckerverse works basically the same way but I could be wrong.)

You assert it means one thing; I can assert it means another thing. We all know that killing orcs increases our personal power and you can write Lawful Good on your character sheet and do exactly that.

Begs the question. Depends what you mean by "killing orcs". Do you mean killing orc warriors that are attacking you? Or Killing orc babies? Contrary to your incel morality projection, maybe you can't just go around killing orc babies and be Lawful Good at the same time.

But if you want me to find an official source that says something akin to 'increasing the amount of evil in the world is an evil act - decreasing the amount of evil in the world is a good act', I could do that. It's probably in the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds. Just explain to me what it solves? Because even if an official source indicates that killing orc babies is a good act, I don't buy it. Which again - is just further proof that there is no agreement on what ANY of the alignment stuff is supposed to mean.

Even if those books carried a lot of weight (which I'm not sure they do), it doesn't matter if you find a quote in there that says "reducing evil is good", because that's question-begging. The question is not whether reducing evil is good, it's whether killing orc babies reduces evil. YOU are saying it does, not the game, as far as I can tell.

Does the Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Exalted Deeds (both pretty bad books) give a rule for what counts as "innocent"? Unless you can find such a thing in the text, not sure how it helps you with the orc baby thing.

I think there is generally agreement among non-incel, non-sociopathic RPG players that killing orc babies is "probably not good", at the very least. Maybe this is just a problem for you and the weirdos you play with.