Results 271 to 300 of 351
Thread: Unanimous Good
-
2023-01-31, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
-
2023-01-31, 02:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
More or less. I was attacked by bandits, gave them a thrashing, and then once they were disabled I mended their wounds and gave them a talk about the direction their life is going in and why they think they need to attack people on the road and what they would do if the next person they came across wasn’t so merciful. I may have shared some or my food or money with them.
To me this is being wise and compassionate.
To my DM it was shirking my duty as a holy warrior.Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2023-01-31, 02:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Unanimous Good
First off, I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds about this, because to me the sentence above is like saying "Vandalism is roughly on the level of murder" So this is only going to be picking at the edges, because if you really believe that then we're operating in separate reference frames.
That said, I'd question the assumption several posters have made that accepting surrender indicates the mercy/goodness of the party being surrendered to. In many cases, they have significant practical benefits from accepting surrender - less resources spent, more information gained, possible propaganda advantage, etc. I'm not saying that accepting surrender is bad, just that it's a lot more like "enlightened self-interest" than "selfless mercy".
False surrender does have the potential to cause larger-scale harm - even if it's 100% the better outcome in this particular case, that has to be weighed against the possibility of making future true surrenders not be accepted. But really, that's a consequentialist concern, isn't it? So we also have to consider the larger-scale effects of winning or losing this particular fight. I'm not saying false surrender isn't a bad action, but it depends on the situation.
Your choice of example brings up something that similarly bugs me when media presents it as justified - killing/harming third-parties for "revenge". Here's my flow chart for that, it's quite simple:
1) Is the person/people you're going to directly harm the one(s) who wronged you? Yes -> 2, No -> 5
2) And is the harm you're doing proportionate to what they did? Yes -> 3, No -> 4
3) Revenge
4) Excessive Revenge, not justified
5) Hurting people to make yourself feel better, not justified at all
But what if the person who wronged me is dead? Then I guess you don't get revenge.
But what if they're too well defended, but their kids aren't? Then I guess you don't get revenge.
Or there's no way to get to them without collateral damage? Then I guess you don't get revenge.
Nobody is entitled to get revenge, and not being able to get revenge doesn't make "hurting people to make yourself feel better" any more justified.
But won't killing the perpetrator still make their family sad? Yeah, it will, it may lead to a whole "cycle of vengeance" thing - that's why revenge is neutral at best. But (IMO) that's still considerably different than going after them directly.Last edited by icefractal; 2023-01-31 at 02:26 PM.
-
2023-01-31, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Unanimous Good
Going back to the Trojan wars.
Achilles killing Hector in a duel. Heroic.
Achilles looting Hector. Accepted as heroic at the time.
Achilles dragging Hector’s body behind his chariot and refusing him a proper burial. Nor heroic, presented as an action fueled by rage.
Not every action a hero takes is meant to be heroic and good. Heroes sometimes take actions that they later regret for various reasons. But a main character takes a bad action without regret it starts to move them from hero to protagonist.
Also the Trojan Horse and the false surrender. “Western values” are often presented as a monolith, but that isn’t the case. In some western traditions winning through trickery (Odysseus, Puss in Boots, simulations in soccer) is soon as part of the heroic tradition. While in other parts of western tradition winning through trickery is seen as not encouraged or even outright dishonorable.
The Trojan Horse is presented as clever and heroic in the Homeric tradition, but a knight of the round table would never stoop to such a device in Arthurian legend.
Re Batman and the Joker.
Batman locks the Joker in an easily escapable Arkham not because that's what Batman would do, but because it’s what the plot requires Batman to do so he can have recurring villains.Last edited by Pauly; 2023-01-31 at 04:12 PM.
-
2023-01-31, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
Choices made for the author's convenience can absolutely have costs and side-effects with regards to the way their work is received. In this case, the cost of the authors not figuring out better ways to do this is that Batman ends up reading to me as unheroic and even to some extent un-protagonistic, starting to function narratively more like a foil for the villains than as the actual center of the story.
-
2023-01-31, 05:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Unanimous Good
Ditto. If putting the Joker in Arkham worked, then it'd be a different story, but it barely even slows him down. Or if the Joker didn't periodically go on killing sprees, but he does. And I could accept "Batman is psychologically unable to kill the Joker himself" - but going so far as to rescue the Joker from other people? Nah, it doesn't work for me.
Incidentally, I have a grudge against "every foe is a repeating foe, sometimes the very next issue" (or more generally, "status quo is king") in comics, because people port it into superhero TTRPGs, where it usually sucks. An individual campaign doesn't have any of the reasons comics have to maintain the status quo - let the PCs' actions make a ****ing difference!Last edited by icefractal; 2023-01-31 at 05:26 PM.
-
2023-01-31, 05:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
There is a reason that rabid dogs are shot or put down. Sociopaths and psychopaths are orders of magnitude more dangerous than a rabid dog. Why? Their higher brain function. Heath Ledger's version of the Joker (wants to watch the world burn) was an extreme case but an apt one.
Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2023-01-31 at 05:24 PM.
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2023-01-31, 05:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Unanimous Good
I don't mean "accept" as in "agree with", but rather that sometimes the answer in-fiction has been:
"Batman is actually a very psychologically-damaged individual, with his iron-willed heroic persona resting on a foundation of glass. Break that foundation (which his killing the Joker would do), and he turns into, say, Owlman - who would be a much worse threat to the world than the Joker is."
And I could believe that, for some versions of Batman. Still doesn't explain why nobody else has killed the Joker though.Last edited by icefractal; 2023-01-31 at 05:31 PM.
-
2023-01-31, 05:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2023-01-31, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Unanimous Good
Yes? My comment was, I suppose, simply that good characters doing bad things *mostly* only bothers me when it’s indicative of the author’s lack of moral fiber tainting the setting, when their evil is effectively universally lauded. That it’s that combination of “war crimes” and “but of course that’s good and praiseworthy”
The kept doing something evil, even war crimes level evil, whether or not they realize it’s evil? No problem. The author having a setting-wide foolish consistency? Annoying… but probably tolerable if the rest of the work is good. Uniform praise of war crimes? Nope, done.
I… I would agree, but I’m not sure I even make it to “unheroic” past “incoherent”.
I mean, yes, there is a pragmatic, callous evil that says, “mooks are expendable, but you? I can use you.”, but trying to frame that behavior as anything “good” tends to fail out as incoherent before I get to register it as unheroic.
“Punished” is not a synonym for “dead”. If it is where you live, remind me never to go there - or, if I do, to never speed (or litter, or…).
And punishment *can* be merciful without being nonexistent.
First, it’s just one example. But also… is that a Paladin who pursues [evil that is without mercy] (the most linear reading), a Paladin that [mercilessly pursues] evil (and then maybe treats them with mercy) (the natural reading), or a Paladin that pursues evil [and then treats them mercilessly] (the only reading that supports your GM’s insanity, and requires twisting English into pretzel-adjacent shapes)?
Agreed that mercy is more common / stronger / whatever in NG than LG, but that is because mercy is a “good” concept, so “pure good” that doesn’t factor in other considerations is more likely to show mercy.
Of course, it can also be a pragmatic concept, so LE can also appreciate selective mercy among otherwise draconic laws.
-
2023-01-31, 06:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
One place where it can show up and not be incoherent is when there is some kind of very strong social norm about hierarchies and castes, such that the idea of e.g. someone who isn't a noble making the decision about whether a noble (even an enemy noble) should be freed, captured, ransomed, or killed is unthinkable. The usual arguments to defend the practice would be things like 'if you kill enemy leaders, those under them will go out of control' or 'this person is geopolitically relevant and if you kill them there will be consequences that are above your head or station' or reputational things like 'yeah they're a villain, and were basically trying to slaughter us all with no consideration, but they're also the favored son of the elder of a powerful sect - if you were to kill them, that sect might actually slaughter us all'.
A failure to see a way past that kind of thing to the extent that it allows the harm caused by the villain to continue reads to me as either hypocrisy, cowardice, or incompetence. But it doesn't necessarily have to be incoherent, just... not traits I look for in heroic figures.
There's also the trope I really hate, which I do consider incoherent, of having the hero give mercy, have the villain betray that mercy, and then e.g. rocks fall or a bolt of lightning or whatever happens so the villain dies but not at the hero's hands. That's especially bad when five minutes ago the hero was flinging fireballs at people or pushing them off of bridges or whatever.Last edited by NichG; 2023-01-31 at 06:26 PM.
-
2023-01-31, 06:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
The Cranky Gamer
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2023-01-31, 08:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
-
2023-01-31, 08:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
My apologies, I was AFB, my paraphrase was inaccurate. The actual quote is "a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good" which to me clearly implies she does not show any mercy to the evil creatures whom she fights.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2023-02-01, 01:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Unanimous Good
But are bandits ‘evil creatures’?
Orcs and goblins et al who are listed as ‘evil’ in the monsters manual could be viewed as irredeemably evil and therefore able to be executed out of hand without affecting the paladin. It isn’t a reading I would make, but one that can be reasonably inferred from the RAW.
Bandits on the other hand are I assume human since they were described as bandits, not orc bandits or bugbear bandits. Humans are capable of being any alignment and are able to be redeemed (i.e. change their alignment for the better). Not only that but not all bandits are necessarily evil, some may be neutrals who by force of circumstance have ended up as bandits.
Therefore it is not clear on the RAW that it is appropriate for a LG paladin to mercilessly exterminate human bandits
-
2023-02-01, 01:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Unanimous Good
Oh, i agree.
But there are more than enough cases, where "kill them all" seems quite excessive, especially in victory. To mandate that for paladins is pretty ridiculous.
Orcs and goblins and bugbears and whatever can be nonevil too. To treat bandits of different species differently is imho not warranted at all unless you want to portray a flawed, racist/speciecist individual.
There might be arguments for making an exceptions for beings that need to feast on humanoids or that are literal embodiment of evil, but not for your run-of-the-mill evil humanoid.Last edited by Satinavian; 2023-02-01 at 01:42 AM.
-
2023-02-01, 01:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
Well if you can confidently say that leaving them alive risks fewer than one unjust death caused by that decision, and be consistently right about that, then there's no issue. If on the other hand you keep sparing people in ways that lead to them killing or harming again, its probably time to step aside and let someone else take charge.
-
2023-02-01, 02:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Unanimous Good
In some ways you could do that but in game there tend to be other considerations.
For example "Did what they did even deserve death or are you about to do an unjust murder" ?
or
"Do you actually have the authority to execute people or should you just hand them over to who is responsible. Are you killing them just because it is a hassle to go the official route ?"
or
"Are you about to start a blood feud or other retaliation?"
and most importantly
"What do you even know about those guys to estimate the likelihood of future trouble on? Just because you met them in some kind of conflict that is not the extend of their characters."
-
2023-02-01, 02:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
I mean, if at the end of the day your decisions are making the world worse than if you had let someone else make the decisions, 'it was hard for me to make the right decision' isn't a good excuse. If you actually care about the world, that means you should have the humility to say 'maybe my way doesn't work, time to let someone else try'. Pushing on and insisting on doing things the same way when it keeps backfiring and hurting people isn't really justifiable.
Maybe the right decision is to kill. Maybe its to not kill. But if you can't make that decision accurately, you shouldn't put yourself forward as the one to make the decision and say what should or shouldn't be done.
A paladin whose mercy keeps getting people killed shouldn't fall for mercy, but maybe they should fall for putting pride above care.Last edited by NichG; 2023-02-01 at 02:14 AM.
-
2023-02-01, 04:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Unanimous Good
Personally i am not particularly keen on making paladins fall. I won't say i would never do that.
But even among the things that might result in a fall, doing more killing than appropriate certainly ranks higher than doing less killing than appropriate.
I am not sure i would ever let a paladin fall for being too merciful. Having to live with the consequences of a wrong decision should generally be punishment enough in such cases. Paladins don't fall for being stupid, naive, hopeful or bad at reading people.
But i don't think i would run a game where mercy regularly backfires all the time anyway. Generally my antagonists are reasonable people, not cartoon villains. It might happen once in a while, but no more.Last edited by Satinavian; 2023-02-01 at 04:56 AM.
-
2023-02-01, 08:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
Isn't there a requirement in some edition for paladins to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents?" I can't seem to find it right now, but I have a pretty clear recollection of that exact wording.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2023-02-01, 08:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Unanimous Good
Yes, that does exist.
But that does not specify at all how hard that punishment is to be and might be fulfilled by an admonition.
Also technically that does require the paladin to every possible paladin to do every punishment himself, but that kind of interpretation can be safely ignored because then the existence of different paladins would already mean that some automatically fall when one of the others does the punishment.
Generally, when there are proper courts and authorities, i see an ideal paladin turn over evildoers to said courts and authorities instead of going vigilante just because his code says "he/she/they" must punish the evildoers, not someone else.Last edited by Satinavian; 2023-02-01 at 08:33 AM.
-
2023-02-01, 09:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2023-02-01, 11:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Gender
Re: Unanimous Good
3E/3.5 Code of Conduct:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate
authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.
Like, killing them also would be OK with the Code and compatible with Lawful Good alignment, because Good does not mean Nice, and most characters probably would not take the extra step of providing material aid to the bandits after fighting them (more likely take their equipment and either attempt to transport them to a local magistrate or set them loose to fend for themselves, effectively sentencing them to exile to survive if they can) but the only thing you would be bound to do by either the Code or general Lawful Good principles is to try to remove their immediate ability to harm others. Which you did. By beating them in a fight.
-
2023-02-01, 12:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Unanimous Good
Say I crush 3 mosquitoes, then leave Godzilla alive. My excuse is I can't kill Godzilla, physics has already deemed this impossible.
Here, I feel that this is a case where it isn't the Hero's choice, it's societies. Unless the Hero has the wherewithal to recognize that going against society is a valid option in the first place, it's not their choice. Even if they do recognize their choice, it is a different cost/benefit analysis of "is it worth it to slay all the good kings and their loyal knights in order to transform society into one where I can kill bad nobles?".
I'm OK with a Hero having larger considerations. But not with the "kill all the bandits but take the bandit leader alive" (because he's a named NPC / because plot) mentality.
Ugh, preach it! Death to this trope! Let the Trope Hero come forth, and bring Death to the trope minions, and the trope leaders, all by the Trope Hero's hands!
-
2023-02-01, 01:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: Unanimous Good
Yeah, far too many authors seem to have clashing morals where the villain has to die for their crimes but the hero can't sully themselves by doing it.
A heroic character angsting over having to kill and doing their best to avoid it can be interesting (even if I've seen it a million times before), what bothers me is when universe bend over backwards to have it work out (looking at you, Deus Ex Lion Turtle).
-
2023-02-01, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
I mean, this is an important bit. If someone has the power to be merciful while also preventing harm, that's heroic. If someone has the wisdom to recognize when mercy will lead to reform and follows that wisdom, that's heroic. If someone takes responsibility in their mercy and follows up, watches the person, successfully contains them, etc, that can be heroic too. If the world is one in which mercy works, via logic, narrative logic, or even authorial fiat, then recognizing that and being merciful is heroic.
My problem is with characters who claim a moral high ground, who use that to insist on courses of action that repeatedly end up with consequences, and who then hide behind virtuous intent to absolve themselves of those consequences. Rather than being a beacon to others about the virtue of those virtues, they undermine them.
Fall or not in an actual game, well, I tend to not use alignment on my games and even when I do, I always make character powers decoupled from it. So no actual game mechanical consequence from my side of the table. But I understand that's also similar in Talakeal's game so I take the discussion to be more along the lines of 'would I see this character as paladin-like?'.
For me at least, incompetence, folly, pride, and stubborn adherence to dogmatic interpretations of principles rather than adapting things to need are all characteristics which interfere with seeing that person as a role model - moral or otherwise.
This bit is actually a requirement for me. Having the wherewithal to chart new paths is kind of fundamental to my enjoyment of a character even just as a protagonist, much less a hero.
-
2023-02-01, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Unanimous Good
Is it? Could you accept a hero who wins a video game competition with the established characters, rather than requiring your Hero to have hacked the system and adjusted the stats of their character? Is that wherewithal to act contrary to societal expectations, and take actions others will look down on, actually always a requirement, or just when it's something you would agree with? Is there perhaps more complexity to this, or do you truly demand the Hero always be willing to spurn society's laws?
I enjoy both kinds of heroes, but I usually have more respect for the ones who find ways to work within society's constraints. For me, it's not unlike having the skill to work within what the rest of the party cares about. For me, not caring about society and not caring about the desires of the rest of the party are too similar for my taste, elevating in my mind the Hero who does care over the one who does not.
Of course, I also enjoy the hacker, and definitely appreciate the Hero with creativity and innovation, who doesn't just (say) stick to the spells in the PH / published mechs in Battletech / whatever, but who uses their own custom and completely balanced spells / mechs / whatever to support their own, unique style of play.
(Not sure if all that made sense, or was necessary, but I felt there were several ideas I didn't want to seemingly accidentally lump together as "the same thing".)
-
2023-02-01, 03:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Unanimous Good
I don't think I'd call a character winning a video game competition in a totally normal way 'a hero' just on the basis of them winning that competition. They're just... a character. Maybe a protagonist.
A character who has a solid option to cheat at a video game competition when someone's life or freedom or equally important things are the line, chooses not to because of a sense of fair play, and then loses (with the concomitant consequences of that loss e.g. someone goes into an arranged marriage, gets killed, whatever) is certainly not a character I'd find heroic. Even if they choose to play it straight and win, I'd find it sleazy for the character to value their love of fair play or the game over whatever those side consequences could be - basically, they'd better be really over-the-top OP at fair play compared to their opponent in that case like throwing Fujiwara no Sai against someone who thinks they're just playing Go against a kid. A character can lose because they're not able to win and still be heroic; a character can choose to lose as long as they're taking the entirety of the consequences of that loss and still be heroic; but a character can't voluntarily choose to lose when those consequences apply to others they've claimed they care about saving and still be heroic.
But yeah, not being bound by assumptions or traditions, finding new paths and showing that those paths are viable or better ways of living or acting, etc are essential elements to a 'hero' for me. That could be spurning society's laws, bearing knowledge that society has yet to recognize, even just pulling off a way of life that people think should be suicidal or foolish but actually managing to make it not only work but be good.
And I guess the irony of it is, it even works to me if literally no one else could viably follow that path, as long as walking that path lets the hero get people to a place they couldn't otherwise go. Vash the Stampede 'non-lethal gunslinger build' violates social conventions (check) but it only works because he's so OP compared to baseline human and can do things like deflect bullets in flight by throwing pebbles at them. But since he actually consistently succeeds in making things turn out for the best in following that path, that works for me. Someone following the exact same moral philosophy but who ends up letter bystanders be killed who could have been saved because they don't have the chops to pull it off would come off as unheroic.
I enjoy both kinds of heroes, but I usually have more respect for the ones who find ways to work within society's constraints. For me, it's not unlike having the skill to work within what the rest of the party cares about. For me, not caring about society and not caring about the desires of the rest of the party are too similar for my taste, elevating in my mind the Hero who does care over the one who does not.
That's not to say that in a tabletop situation, everyone at the table should be a jerk. Playing a character that I would see as heroic is not a requirement, nor even necessarily something I'd be trying to encourage as a GM. It's also not impossible - playing a character whose claimed goal is 'nurture those close to me' or 'people reaching their potential is more important than life and death' rather than 'protect everyone' could still read as heroic to me.
An interesting conclusion I'm drawing from this is that I'd likely find a character like a necromancer who wants to, say, end the concept of involuntary death in the cosmos by committing the proper theft of divine domains could easily be heroic. But if they held back and failed in that goal because of their fondness for the Pelorite priestess in their circle of friends, that would make that character become unheroic to me.
-
2023-02-02, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Unanimous Good
I guess I get it? Your requirements certainly are more likely to produce the "tragic hero", especially in a world of unknowns (like "will I get caught cheating at video games to save the world?" (yes, that's a real plot point, albeit one nobody asked - they just did get caught cheating at video games to save the world)).
Interesting that "heroic" is arguably more compatible with "evil necromancer" than with "gaming group".