The limits of a Good Alignment

[dragonfett]

Damn, what did I miss?! That type of voyerism isn't evil per se, but it's DEFINITELY not good either, I would say it would be Unprincipaled or worse (maybe less so with abberant).

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Well, from the facts provided I'd likely say he was selfish. However, while I'd personally have an issue with those acts, I'll also note I think a few circumstances could make it more acceptable.

1) You said the captain and crew don't object to his "habit." A) Now does this mean that they know and are okay with it? B) When the NPC was caught, was he viewing members of the player group, captain/crew, or other NPC (like passengers)?

Now if the crew knows and accepts this and he was viewing a fellow crew member, while not something I personally condone I'd say he could still be of a Good Alignment. In that case, it's more consenting adults. If the crew knows but he was peeping on someone who doesn't know, then we're back to Selfish. I'm saying "Selfish" because of the intent, and nothing harmful meant so not evil. Nor is he intending to exploit the people, so probably Unprincipled.

2) Does he know it's wrong, but literally can't stop himself? You said he had an "obsession," so I'm wondering if that is just a phrase or if he's actually insane: A good guy who knows it's wrong, wishes he could stop himself, but can't (probably feels as much guilt as he does pleasure). Then it's more of a case of a good guy with an insanity, who needs help/treatment (and I don't mean bashing his brains in). Psychiatric help or Cure Insanity may be of more use to this guy. Now I'm not saying an insanity makes it okay, just that I could see him still being a Good Alignment (because he knows it's wrong and wants to stop).

Anyways, those are just a few extra thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Prysus]

I was looking at the alignments in RUE (a rifts player), and they certainly don't seem to suggest that this kind of thing isn't an action of a principled alignment.

Greetings and Salutations. Well then, I guess let me ask this question. If the captain of the ship took all the player characters hostage, sealing their rooms, and intends to sell them off to someone else but keeps them well fed, does this mean the captain could be a good alignment? He hasn't physically hurt them, and there are no laws so kidnapping isn't against the rules (unless their his, and since he makes them that's not a real issue). Since there are no laws and no physical harm, by your logic he can be principled. I'd still disagree, no matter how you want to justify it.

There are more types of harm than physical. Doing this without someone's consent can make them feel violated.

He's betraying people's trust in the sense of invading privacy and personal space. He's infringing upon their rights, and their freedom. You can argue that he's not actually trapping anyone, but when you have to watch every single action and look over your shoulder because you don't know where this pervert may be, it's a type of mental/spiritual cage.

He has no respect for these innocent people and their wishes, only his. You can try to say he would stop if someone asked him, but the fact he needs to hide it shows he knows it's not okay with them (I mentioned consent changing things earlier, but that doesn't seem to be the case here).

Sorry, but saying it's "good" to invade people's privacy, have no respect for their wishes, and if it causes them emotional pain is okay, I have to call it full of crap no matter how you want to justify it. Farewell and safe journeys.

[t0m]

if everyone involved knows what is happening and is ok with it, its simply a weird/quirky little guy 'doing his thing'. i would have no problem paying for expensive gear with nudes (i also have no shame lol). in this case i would say he could be a good alignment.

if he is sneaking around taking pictures of people who dont know about it, i would say that is selfish.

i would also say its selfish for the merchant to be trading pictures of bounty targets, or in any way betraying the trust of the people who gave up pictures. like i said above, i wouldnt have a problem paying with nudes, but if i found out he was sharing them i wouldnt be too impressed. i still probably wouldnt attack him over it, but he would lose my business for sure.

[Rallan]

So in our last session, I introduced a good aligned NPC shopkeeper. However, he had an obsession with voyeurism.

The party determined that this crossed the line into an evil or anarchist alignment and picked a fight with him (or at least one PC did, then backed up by the others when the shop keeper tried to defend his store/life).

Now the situation has them on a ship with a shop on it, the NPC's habit is not objected to by the ship's crew or captain. This is international waters and not subject to any laws of any country. The NPC is also taking the perverted photos for personal use only (not blackmail, internet upload, etc.).

But my PCs were very certain that this was an Evil character trait.

So I ask you, what are the limits of a Good Alignment? I think I crossed one, but I'm not really sure how.
-Pax

Define "picked a fight with him". Because from the sounds of it, the shopkeeper did something sleazy and morally dubious, and the PC responded by being a violent and deranged psychopath.

[Rallan]

Define "picked a fight with him". Because from the sounds of it, the shopkeeper did something sleazy and morally dubious, and the PC responded by being a violent and deranged psychopath.

Good question.

Okay, so male PC and female PC go to my NPC's store. The look around for a PA suit for the male PC. They find one under some other things and dig it out. Before they buy it, they leave the shop only to return with a second female PC.

Now the male PC asks to "talk business." Our butter troll NPC shopkeeper asks the male PC to make an offer. The male PC never makes an offer. At this point, the male PC notices the monitor with the voyeuristic photos.

The male PC decides to take advantage of this, by saying that he needs to give him the PA and delete the photos or he'll start bashing some skulls and reveal his secret to the ladies (his alignment was unscrupulous). Now this alerts the ladies and they ask the shop keeper what our male NPC is talking about.

Our shopkeeper is honest and proud of his collection, so he turns the monitor around to show the ladies. He also smiles (meant as a prideful smile, but interpreted as an "evil smile" by our PCs). This also negates part of our male PC's attempt at blackmail.

Now the male PC is angry and "defending" our females at this surprising turn of events (really, he seems pissed that his blackmail was foiled). He unmaskes his ISP and prepares for combat, this triggers the other PCs to also get ready for combat. The PC also mention sending one of the females to retrieve another party member (one with quite a fearsome reputation, sort of a known terrorist...).

The shopkeeper panics at the mention of the other party member. He pushes a button on the computer keyboard and a crap ton of robotic weapon arms emerge from the walls, ceiling and floors. The exit also slams shut. A forcefield also emerges between PCs and the NPC.

Then one of the PCs decides that the computer is the trigger to fire the guns and places a magic barrier over the key board. Unfortunately, this is not correct, the weapons are motion sensitive as well as responding to radio signals, high temperature increases/decreases and just about everything else. The keyboard is the only way to disable them...

Now that our male PC realizes that the shopkeeper isn't a push over, he retreats into this line that he was only here to do business. He denies making any threats and is somehow convinced that he's on the defense.

At this point, this is his character and I don't care if it kills him, but he's got the other two PCs there thinking my shopkeeper has this evil plan going. I'm the GM worried about a TPK (well, more like half the party). I try to have my NPC talk them down, but since neither party believes they are in the wrong, this isn't going to work.

I do succeed in explaining that the weapon arms will kill everyone if they try to leave, radio for help, or attack the shopkeeper. And right as our male PC is about to start shooting despite getting the NPC and two other PCs killed in the process, one of the female PCs manages to talk him down...

This was a very awkward situation in general, but I really don't think the RP was wrong from any of the PCs or the NPC, they all stayed true to their character and there alignments. I did give them XP for avoiding a potential combat situation...
-Pax

Right, so when the PC finds out he threatens to assault (kill?) the shopkeeper unless he's given millions of bucks worth of merchandise for free. Then when the shopkeeper says no, the PC gets ready to start using lethal force to kick some ass, and is only stopped because the in-store security features are unsurvivable.

Let's imagine this is real life for a moment. Somebody finds out that a salesman at a local car dealership is a peeping tom. Somebody goes down to the dealership and threatens to put the salesman in hospital and tell everyone about his secret cameras unless he gives them a brand new sportscar. When the salesman refuses, they pull a gun and the only reason they don't manage to murder the salesman is because he somehow manages to lock them in an office.

That's not a situation where you'd be umming and ahhing and going "Well on the one hand he's trying to stop a nasty person from being sleazy so it's kind of a good act, but on the other he was trying to score free gear so it's kinda selfish". That's a sitaution where you'd be thinking "Holy **** that guy's an insane psychopath who needs to be locked up before he murders someone". Because seriously, that is not the behavior of a rational human being, it's the behavior of someone who spends their entire life going in and out of jail for violent crimes.

[Killer Cyborg]

Being a perv doesn't make you evil, or even selfish.
It's just a personality trait; it's what you do with it that impacts alignment.
This guy doesn't seem to know that he's doing any harm (if he in fact is), so there's no reason that he couldn't be of Good alignment.

Other than that, I have little to add to Rallan's posts; he's covered the situation pretty well.

[dragonfett]

I think he was trying to say that voyeurism is not a victimless crime, and IIRC it can be considered a crime. Just take the case Erin Andrews stalker taking that video of her getting dressed in her hotel room through the peep hole of the door to her room. That is the other end of the spectrum and I believe that it needs to be taken into consideration as well.

[Mouser13]

Alignment is a guide to ones actions, but in truth my question would be what was the alignment of the one PC. If he Good alignment then he can't simply kill a evil person.


In truth I believe like 90% of the players I played with are aberant alignment using the ends justicify the means.


And from your post it seems like the one player is aberant I would suggest that to him and think about changing his alignment.


He using the fact that he is evil to justicify killing him which is a aberant and is a evil alignment.

[Damian Magecraft]

1) It's not just taking a photograph, you are invading someone's privacy and essentially stealing their modesty and dignity. It's a violation ethically if not criminally.

2) Alignment is not about the exact wording (if you go to a country where rape is legal, you still know it's wrong). If you split hairs like that, I would contend that you need to reexamine your understanding of the alignment system and how it is supposed to work.

the thing is the NPC does not take the pics clandestinely he asks for them or takes them in lieu of cash or credit. so how is the NPC in question invading anyones privacy? How is what the NPC is doing any different from me or you buying a nudie mag?

[Damian Magecraft]

That is different, but by definition it is also not voyeurism.

that is true...
voyeurism was not my choice for the NPCs quirk it was the OPs who then went on to later fully explain the NPCs quirk in later posts.

[dragonfett]

Pax, was the shopkeeper going around taking the pics, or was he asking to take them as a form of payment?

[Prysus]

the thing is the NPC does not take the pics clandestinely he asks for them or takes them in lieu of cash or credit. so how is the NPC in question invading anyones privacy? How is what the NPC is doing any different from me or you buying a nudie mag?

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I think most of us have agreed that if permission/consent was given, then it's okay. The original poster has avoided saying that so far. Instead, he's argued female players didn't object, thereby it's okay that other people had their privacy invaded. Because the male player acted selfish to evil, that makes the NPC good. Or argued that he hasn't killed anyone or caused physical harm that it makes it good. Because it's a Butter Troll and not likely to get laid otherwise it makes it good. He's not hiding it because he admitted it only after being caught. As a result all the excuses become more of a smoke screen or magician sleight of hand.

So the question really becomes: Can you invade people's privacy, take nude photos of them without consent, share them with others (yes, that was stated that the NPC would provide them for bounties and such), and still be a good alignment?

Myself, and most others, are saying no. The original poster (and Killer Cyborg agrees) that is still under the good alignment. I've given up trying to argue the topic (because I would start to become emotionally heated in the process), but I at the very least wanted to try and clarify the topic through the whole smoke screen. What everyone else did (aside from the NPC taking the pictures and those being photographed) is irrelevent. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Damian Magecraft]

I can see if ALL of his pictures were taken with consent, and he worked within ethical means to obtain them, that he could definitely be of a good alignment. THAT displays his desire to fulfill his weird fantasies but not at the cost of others.

If any of them were ill-obtained, then perhaps principled should be out of the question.

agreed.
however the male PC in question was in the wrong...
threats of physical violence/ blackmail to get a multi million cred piece of hardware?

[dragonfett]

I agree on that, and I have a funny feeling I know who the offending person is to because I am in that group, I just couldn't play that night that this had happened (although now I wish I could have been there just to watch the scene unfold).

[Killer Cyborg]

So the question really becomes: Can you invade people's privacy, take nude photos of them without consent, share them with others (yes, that was stated that the NPC would provide them for bounties and such), and still be a good alignment?

Myself, and most others, are saying no. The original poster (and Killer Cyborg agrees) that is still under the good alignment.

Yup.

Being a Good person does not mean being a perfect person. People can still screw up, regardless of their intentions, but it's their intentions that are most important when determining alignment.
If you shoot and kill an unarmed foe, but were actually intending to wound a foe that you believed was armed, does that make you evil?
If you pick up and keep an object that you believe has no owner, but it turns out that there is one, does that make you evil or selfish?
If you make an oath, then fail to live up to it despite your best efforts, does that mean you're not a good person?
If you kill some wild game for dinner, without knowing that the beast you slew was actually sentient, does that make you evil?
No.

Likewise, if you cannot understand cultural taboos about privacy, are you evil if you break the taboos? Or even Selfish?
A person should think very carefully before answering "yes" to that question, because that would mean that anybody and everybody could end up being evil just for being in a different culture and not understanding everything about local customs.

In this case, the guy meant no harm.
He did not believe that he was doing any harm.
He was, in at least some cases, asking for consent.
That's not evil of selfish in my book.
As a general rule, I'd say that you'd have to understand why what you were doing was wrong before it could be counted against your alignment.

[Prysus]

Yup.

Being a Good person does not mean being a perfect person. People can still screw up, regardless of their intentions, but it's their intentions that are most important when determining alignment.

Greetings and Salutations. I'll agree intentions are important. In fact, if I didn't think his actions were selfish, I'd accept him being good. I'll go into more detail as I respond to your other comments. Granted, I accept you disagree (whether I think that's wrong or not isn't important, I accept not everyone will believe the same). I'm primarily responding because I'm guessing at least some of those questions were for me to respond (if not, my mistake).

If you shoot and kill an unarmed foe, but were actually intending to wound a foe that you believed was armed, does that make you evil?

That'll depend. Once I realize that he was unarmed, do I feel guilty about it? If I stand over the body, hands on my hips in a superhero stance, and take pride in the fact ... yeah, I'm probably evil. This character has zero guilt. So in the example, he's closer to what I just said. Do you think that would be evil? I would. You're probably thinking that's not the same because he doesn't know, so let's move on (that'll be addressed later).

If you pick up and keep an object that you believe has no owner, but it turns out that there is one, does that make you evil or selfish?
If you make an oath, then fail to live up to it despite your best efforts, does that mean you're not a good person?
If you kill some wild game for dinner, without knowing that the beast you slew was actually sentient, does that make you evil?
No.

I could go into each of these examples separately, but again it'll depend on reaction. I'll leave the response to the first example given as a guideline. Hopefully you won't need the individual examples answered as well. Again, it'll depend on intent and response. In the case of the NPC, I believe neither are fitting for a good alignment (see below for details).

Likewise, if you cannot understand cultural taboos about privacy, are you evil if you break the taboos? Or even Selfish?
A person should think very carefully before answering "yes" to that question, because that would mean that anybody and everybody could end up being evil just for being in a different culture and not understanding everything about local customs.

Okay, I'm going to break this into a few different sections. First, I'll answer the simplest question. If from a different culture with different customs, will you still be evil from ignorance?

Well, unlike Lucky, I'll actually say that ignorance can be an excuse depending on the situation. In this case (unlike Lucky's example of murder), in a culture where such acts were acceptable no one would get hurt (physically or otherwise), so there isn't harm. I'll allow ignorance to let you slide on these grounds. If people get hurt, and it's simply acceptable in the culture, it's still evil. Nazis were allowed to kill Jews, and there are cultures that allow you to kill your wife (nigh positive). I wouldn't consider someone who partakes in either act "good" though without a damn good explanation. Such as a Nazi who tried to take the stance that he did the evils so that he can work in the system and save more lives than he hurt, or a husband who kills his wife because she's in great pain and he's putting her out of her misery. I'll accept those as at least questionable.

Now, let's ask another question. Did the NPC know what he was doing was wrong? Let's stop and look at this.

Did the Butter Troll come from a culture with no taboos on nudity?

Hmm ... possible. Though I'm guessing the NPC wore clothes himself. Maybe he didn't. Maybe the original poster left that fact out because he figured we'd condemn the NPC for being such a perv. Let's give the NPC the benefit of the doubt (though I think that's being generous).

Surely the NPC realized that there was something odd about it from the captain and crew wearing clothes and concealing their bodies. Hmm ... maybe the crew (when not in protective body armor) walked around naked, this way the NPC wouldn't realize what he was doing could be considered wrong. Okay, this is even a further stretch, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

The NPC does clearly understand doors, locking them, and other similar features. Maybe this is just to protect items, and not privacy. Though he does understand ownership, he does understand his body isn't everyone else's (he's protecting himself from another), etc. But maybe he doesn't understand enough about privacy itself.

Now let's see if the NPC has some concept of the taboo of nudity?

I'll point above to everyone wearing clothes. For that matter, if all these people are walking around naked, or he comes from a culture where nudity is fine, then why is he so obsessed with it? If there's so much nudity without problem, just look at the window. Clearly this is all okay, right? Though why does he need to hide the cameras so unsuspecting people don't notice? If they didn't care, then what's the harm if they see? Why not put the cameras other places other than his own shop? For that matter, if he does bother getting consent from some, why does he do this? If this is a perfectly acceptable act, you wouldn't need consent from anyone (because it's all the same).

Can some of these be true? Quite possibly. Can all of these be true? Mmm ... I think we're stretching things, a LOT.

In this case, the guy meant no harm.
He did not believe that he was doing any harm.
He was, in at least some cases, asking for consent.
That's not evil of selfish in my book.
As a general rule, I'd say that you'd have to understand why what you were doing was wrong before it could be counted against your alignment.

Okay, I can agree with that (to an extent). Unfortunately, it's the Original Poster that convinces me it's selfish more than anything else. This isn't a personal attack on him, but as the GM he knows the NPC better than anyone else.

If he had tried to take some stance like a different culture and completely not knowing, I might have let him slide earlier. He never once said that. In fact, he's tried to come up with various justifications. One of the things that makes me feel the NPC is more guilty is the way the excuses constantly change, and trying to shift the focus to the selfish/evil player character to distract from the NPC. Usually when you need to try and find loopholes and use smoke screens, it's a pretty good indication that he's guilty. Not a guarantee by any means, but when I see that and the excuse why it's okay keep changing, usually that's a big red flag for me that something is wrong.

Though let's push my personal take on this aside. Let's look at another fact posted by the GM. This is in open waters, so there are no laws. That is a very interesting reasoning. Why? Because it shows that if at dock, it COULD be against the laws of the land. Either the NPC breaks the law in these places (out of ignorance), or he knows enough to stop at these times. Since it's stated he doesn't break the law, in these parts he must stop (by what the GM has said). More indication that he KNOWS there's a reason to stop. Even if he doesn't understand why, he knows the region has a problem with it. People picked up from that land should have a problem with it.

In my opinion, there's just too much indicating he knows it's wrong (or at least many people would not want it done), and just doesn't care (so he violates their rights). This is where I have my problem. Intent: Not to help anyone else but himself to fulfill a personal desire/want. Response: Even though he knows some will have problems with it, doesn't care and is proud that he takes away that right (not exactly, but end result). I don't consider that a good alignment. I've tried to keep an open mind, and accept there can be special circumstances, but in this case none of those seem to apply.

Anyways, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to one and all.

[Killer Cyborg]

Pyrus, succinctly and in order:
1. There is a WIDE range of customs and behaviors between nudism and current customs regarding the body and privacy. It's not an either/or situation, so there's no reason to assume that the butter troll would have to be a nudist in order to not get what the big deal is over taking explicit pictures.
2. Cultural differences. An American woman goes to the middle-east. She knows that the local custom would be to cover herself from head to toe, but because her own culture is so different, she does not understand nor abide by this custom.
Evil? Selfish?
I don't see how, really. It could be argued that it's technically a selfish act, but since the examples used in the books for Good alignments include (IIRC) Charles Bronson characters and/or Dirty Harry, I think it's clear that you don't have to be a saint to be Good.
3. Whether or not the Butter Troll knew that what he was doing was "wrong."
Here is what the OP said on the subject:

he certainly doesn't think it's wrong. It's just his thing. One on the PCs noticed it on his PC screen, his ruckus caused the others to question it - so the NPC turn the monitor around to show off his pride.

It's right there, in black and white. You can argue up, down, and sideways that the OP's NPC knew that what he was doing was wrong, but it clearly isn't so.
You could assume that the OP was lying when he said that, but if you're going to assume that the OP is a liar, then the entire thread is void.
4. The Law. Whether or not something might be illegal in some lands or legal in others does not mean much about the morality of the action. In CS territory, abiding by the laws means executing traitors like rogue scholars, killing D-Bees for minor infractions, exterminating any mages you find (or turning them in to the CS), etc.
In Lazlo, the laws are going to be different.
In other places, they're going to be different in other ways.
In lands where there is no law, then the characters' conscience is going to be their only guide.
This guy's conscience is apparently clean; he doesn't consider his actions wrong, he's proud of them, and he'll show them off to random strangers.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I do appreciate your points of view Killer Cyborg, and they're based on logic which makes it easy to discuss calmly. I'll address the topics one by one.

1) Okay, I'll conceed there can be differences. Though, without privacy, would you understand locks on doors the same way or putting a door on the bathroom for that matter? But no matter. I'll say yes, and conceed on this point.

2) Hmm ... interesting question. While walking down the street like that I could call a little selfish, I wouldn't say it would change someone's alignment. Of course, this is a public area. So hey, if a woman stripped in a public area of the ship and the Butter Troll photographs her, I'd say that's okay too. And yes the Butter Troll would have to know the difference between public and private if he knows that it's his shop, his items to be sold, etc. If he thought it was all public and open, then he couldn't defend his shop (just because he knows the difference between public and privately owned things doesn't mean he understands privacy, which is different, and I've admitted as much).

Now let's say while there the woman is invited into a middle-eastern woman's home, but asks while while there asks she wears the face covering, but the western woman enters anyways, refuses to honor the wishes of the woman whose home she's entering, pisses all over her customs while there, and I'm not going to call her good (for note: I've actually seen players do this type of thing). In my opinion you either refuse the offer, or you accept those customs.

Though, in this case, it's closer to inviting the middle-eastern woman into your home, then when there you rip off her face covering (never physically touching her). No warning, but she's entered into your home (business) and you're forcing her to comply to your wishes. I definitely wouldn't call this one good.

3) Nice quote. I'll note a few things. First, it says he doesn't "think" it's wrong. I know that sounds like splitting hairs, but it's important. Ever hear (at the very least see on TV or read in a book) someone say something that they're trying to believe is true, but they know isn't. The classic line of: "Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?" So on one hand, I agree. On the other hand, there's just too much going against it. For example, I can't figure out why you'd hide the fact if you didn't think it was wrong. Yes, he admitted when caught. He hides it otherwise, and he forces his beliefs and customs on others. The original poster also said these pictures are for his personal use only, and yet also said the NPC will show and share these pictures to others. He doesn't give fair warning that he'll have different beliefs and that when in his shop they'll be subjected, he keeps his trap shut so they won't know any better.

4) I admit law isn't everything. However, one of the original poster's points was because it doesn't break the law, it's thereby good. If that is the stance, then any time someone breaks the law they are thereby selfish or evil.

Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[dragonfett]

How many people here, who are GM's, have even given half as much thought as to what the PC reaction was going to be when assigning a unusual personality quirk or trait to an otherwise throw away NPC to make that NPC a little bit more memorable?

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Well Paxmiles, I will say I do appreciate those questions. I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

First, I've walked into minimarts and banks, and I often see the cameras. I've never considered them well hidden at all. The most concealed I usually find are when they're under those black spheres (and if you see them you know there's a camera underneath). I actually notice them all the time. I'm also fairly sure they have to have a sticker or some type of warning that there are security cameras (even if people don't notice those tiny signs or stickers in a window). You also see those signs when you enter the fitting rooms in clothing stores (warning you that you're being recorded). All the warnings/signs I can see not holding up depending on region/setting. However, I pretty much always know security cameras are there because they're not that hidden. I don't look at every one of them, but I don't really care enough to track them all either.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to really be the case here. As stated, he has his cameras positioned to take advantage of the people wearing revealing clothing. That's not for security, that's for personal thrills. Now, if all they were is security cameras that just so happens to be useful for a secondary purpose. If that's the case, I'll at least conceed that he's not hiding it the same. So far nothing has been said to them being security cameras, and it's even been mentioned that this is done through peep holes. Now I'll grant that a peep hole can be used for security purposes, but everything so far has been indicating that it's for personal purposes. Though let me ask this in return: If there were no security concerns (no thefts or vandalisms would ever happen in his store, ever!) would he leave them up? Would he put them in the open now? From what I'm seeing so far, I'm thinking not, but I'll admit I could be wrong.

For the Cyborg eye: 1) It's more obvious, 2) Just because it's a camera eye doesn't mean it's constantly taking pictures or recording (pretty sure that feature has to be activated). Now, if the Cyborg is using that camera eye to take pictures of ... um ... is it Native American tribes, African tribes, or other that believes cameras capture the soul? I'll say "tribe" general for this. So the Cyborg is taking pictures of members of the tribe, watching them freak out or complaing while he laughs because to him it's funny they think they're losing their soul but he knows better (at least in his opinion). And you know what? I'd call that Cyborg selfish too. Why? Because he's disrespecting someone else's beliefs for his own personal pleasure.

Remote Viewing won't be much different.

All specific examples aside, as stated: intent is important. Why are they being recorded, remote viewed, second sight, etc.? Is it for self-defense (such as we're discussing security cameras, and I'll throw protection of property in there for simplicity's sake)? Is it to help or protect others? Or is it for personal gain? In the case of the Butter Troll NPC, it seems for personal gain (pleasure).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a good alignment needs to be selfless and Mr. Goody Two-Shoes all the time. You can do things for yourself, of course. But the question comes down to how it affects other people. When you take advantage of other people, when you force your beliefs in disregard of theirs, and things like that and only for your self-gratification, it becomes something other than good. Killer Cyborg mentioned Scupulous being these Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood types, and I agree that not all good has to be upstanding perfect citizens. But all these dark things they do they do for justice or for the greater good. It's not doing all those dark things ... because they think it's fun.

Hmm ... anything else I miss? Oh! To dragonfett: If that question wanted an answer, that'll depend on a few things. First, what do you consider that much time? I don't know how much time Paxmiles put into this, it could have been 5 minutes. Second, what do you consider a "throw away NPC"? After all, this NPC is meant to benefit the players with providing photos for bounties and such. That sounds like more than a one time character.

I've had an alchemist for instance who found it funny to dump a bucket of water on customers heads before they could enter his store, and pretty much they weren't entering until he got his kicks out of it (I remember a player character just sighing, sucking it up and waiting to get it over with). Of course, the alchemist was selfish (for a lot more reasons than just that, but that's not the point). I'll also say I've put time and effort into PC that never even saw a game. Of course, some of the most beloved NPC have been ones I've made off the top of my head and ends up getting recruited into the group because he's so liked). I remember having a backstory and a special way of speaking for one NPC (meant to be a one time NPC), and was a serious pain when she became a regular because her way of speaking ended up seeping into my subconscious.

The closest I ever had to a character with that type of quirk was in a HU game that took place in a high school. One of the NPC had invisibility and liked to go into the women's showers. There were claims of a ghost haunting the girl's locker room. Hilariously, I later saw that as a minor story on Supernatural once. I was amused. But yes, I do put effort into my NPC (not all of them, that would be impossible, but at least some). I believe firmly in the fact NPC are people too (not just tools for the player characters, even though some treat them that way). As a result, you kind of have to give them personalities. I like my players being able to care about the NPC, even if they're just met once (because that gives them a vested interest, and also more tragic if something happens to them).

Now, with all that said, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm not trying to say Paxmiles is a horrible person or GM. Actually, for the record, I'm not even trying to call him a liar. I don't agree with his take on alignment, and I believe that he can be wrong. My players have shown that I've done things wrong so I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect. I'm not even saying this is a horrible NPC, just that I don't think he's exactly good either. Now, I'll say that someone trying to say that being a peeping tom and invading people's privacy is a good thing does bother me on a moral level. On a personal level I don't agree with it and I'm likely not going to agree with it. With that said, I am trying to keep an open mind and be objective (setting personal feelings aside). I'll say that I do believe there are cases where this could fall into a good alignment. From the evidence provided though, I just don't believe the NPC fits these situations.

Anyways, I think that's all for now. Hopefully that all makes sense. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[dragonfett]

While I personally would say that the most appropriate alignment would be Unprincipaled, Scrupulous might be a better fit than Principaled.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. And yes, I know not all the black spheres have security cameras. I also realize that some places use them as a distraction for the real hidden ones, but I do highly doubt that most places have them (maybe that was their original intent, but I just doubt most actually go through that extent). People just tend to be cheap, lazy, and dont' appreciate quality this day and age. Though I could be wrong, maybe more places have them then I think. Though it does still tip you off you are being watched (which is the part of the point of what I was saying).

As for the non-security reasons, let me ask the question a different way. What I had meant is: If (hypothetically) there was no other reason than spying on his customers, would he keep the cameras there and hidden? What I'm really trying to get to is: Is this just a plus for him, or would no matter what he'd be using the cameras to do this to the customers regardless? My guess was that no matter what, he'd have cameras for this purpose. I openly admit I could be wrong as this isn't my NPC and I can't say for certain (just my impression).

I fully understand the reality of needing security. The point of the hypothetical is to better understand his true motivations. Because if, no matter what, he's doing this anyways: all the security or lazy reasons for cameras become less of a justification. Does that make sense? It does to me at least.

For the peep holes, I apologize. I had thought you said the cameras or something were viewed through things like that, but I can't find it. So maybe someone else said it, I'm remembering wrong, or if you did say it I missed it when I looked back for it.

As for the alignment itself, I'll make a few notes. First, I don't really use the alignment system myself. I put an alignment on my character sheet when a GM tells me I have to, but other than that I really don't use it. Though you say with just one trait not being part of Principled is it right to change. Well, if the character is mostly principled, but kills innocent people (in humane way, no pain, no torture) should the person still be princpled? It's just this one little trait. For example: If you tell a lie to protect someone's feelings, I'm not going to say you have to change your alignment. Though, again, you broke the alignment to "protect" someone. You did it for a good reason. The peeping thing, however, is worse on my list. With a kid I can maybe let it slide because he's young, hormonal, and he may grow out of it (mind you, I consider most kids selfish, and they may grow into a new alignment later on).

Personally, I'd think of the character as Unprincipled. That's not necessarily that selfish. As mentioned earlier Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson types can be Scrupulous. Looking at Unprincipled, it's Han Solo (I know this is mentioned in one of the books as an example). Yes, he tried to do things for money, didn't mind breaking some laws for personal benefit, but when all is said and done he backed up his friends and did so even without personal profit. While he does have some selfish motivations, in the end he always does the right thing. So when someone is "mostly" good, but with some selfish aspects I don't mind saying they're Unprinicpled.

On the P.S. note and trying to make up for it, I do think that was pretty cool of the NPC. I give him credit for that. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yup.

Being a Good person does not mean being a perfect person. People can still screw up, regardless of their intentions, but it's their intentions that are most important when determining alignment.
If you shoot and kill an unarmed foe, but were actually intending to wound a foe that you believed was armed, does that make you evil?
If you pick up and keep an object that you believe has no owner, but it turns out that there is one, does that make you evil or selfish?
If you make an oath, then fail to live up to it despite your best efforts, does that mean you're not a good person?
If you kill some wild game for dinner, without knowing that the beast you slew was actually sentient, does that make you evil?
No.

This doesn't seem relevant because what the character is doing is intentional.

Incorrect. While he is intentionally filming people, he is not intentionally violating them in any way. He does not think that what he is doing is wrong.

Likewise, if you cannot understand cultural taboos about privacy, are you evil if you break the taboos? Or even Selfish?
A person should think very carefully before answering "yes" to that question, because that would mean that anybody and everybody could end up being evil just for being in a different culture and not understanding everything about local customs.

If you come from a culture where the entire "diabolic" list is seen as "principled," are you still evil? Absolutely. We are not judging by the Butter Troll alignment chart, or anything other than the regular vanilla alignment chart.

That's what the above list was about; cases where an action might be technically against an alignment, but in principle would not violate the alignment standards.

Now granted, voyeurism is not specifically addressed in the alignment matrix, and neither is personal privacy. However, there are other relevant articles which warrant closer interpretation:

From principled:
- Avoid lies.
- Never harm an innocent.
- Respect the law, authority, self-discipline and honor.

from scrupulous:
- lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments.
- Never harm an innocent.

Of course, these are subject to interpretation, but they could all be considered relevant to this particular case. In my opinion, filming someone in this manner is dishonest (lying) and could also be loosely associated with "harming" that individual. That doesn't take into account whether or not this type of activity is even legal in that area. If not, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it - knowledge of the law is the civic responsibility of the citizen (just because you don't open your mail doesn't excuse you from paying your bills).

To me this is a case of trying to exploit the system. This type of action may not be laid out in plain words in the text, but it is not in keeping with the spirit of the alignment.

Since he is not aware of any harm being inflicted, I wouldn't consider his actions to break the codes of conduct for the alignment.
Otherwise, any time you said anything that hurt somebody's feelings, or stepped on somebody's foot accidentally, or injured a civilian while tackling them to the ground for their own safety in a firefight, or whatever, you'd be breaking your alignment.
Trying to be strict about the alignment descriptions just opens up another can of worms.

[Killer Cyborg]

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I do appreciate your points of view Killer Cyborg, and they're based on logic which makes it easy to discuss calmly. I'll address the topics one by one.

1) Okay, I'll conceed there can be differences. Though, without privacy, would you understand locks on doors the same way or putting a door on the bathroom for that matter? But no matter. I'll say yes, and conceed on this point.

2) Hmm ... interesting question. While walking down the street like that I could call a little selfish, I wouldn't say it would change someone's alignment. Of course, this is a public area. So hey, if a woman stripped in a public area of the ship and the Butter Troll photographs her, I'd say that's okay too.

Since we have learned that the filming in question either takes place in the public areas of the shop, or is done with permission elsewhere, wouldn't that mean that he's not violating anybody's rights?

And yes the Butter Troll would have to know the difference between public and private if he knows that it's his shop, his items to be sold, etc. If he thought it was all public and open, then he couldn't defend his shop (just because he knows the difference between public and privately owned things doesn't mean he understands privacy, which is different, and I've admitted as much).

There is a difference between property and what people perceive as "privacy."
Property is pretty clear and tangible.
Privacy is not.

Now let's say while there the woman is invited into a middle-eastern woman's home, but asks while while there asks she wears the face covering, but the western woman enters anyways, refuses to honor the wishes of the woman whose home she's entering, pisses all over her customs while there, and I'm not going to call her good (for note: I've actually seen players do this type of thing). In my opinion you either refuse the offer, or you accept those customs.

The issue there would be trespassing, as the woman doesn't have permission to enter the home without meeting certain requirements.

Though, in this case, it's closer to inviting the middle-eastern woman into your home, then when there you rip off her face covering (never physically touching her). No warning, but she's entered into your home (business) and you're forcing her to comply to your wishes. I definitely wouldn't call this one good.

Tearing at somebody's clothing is generally considered to be assault, not an issue of privacy or custom.

3) Nice quote. I'll note a few things. First, it says he doesn't "think" it's wrong. I know that sounds like splitting hairs, but it's important. Ever hear (at the very least see on TV or read in a book) someone say something that they're trying to believe is true, but they know isn't. The classic line of: "Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?" So on one hand, I agree. On the other hand, there's just too much going against it. For example, I can't figure out why you'd hide the fact if you didn't think it was wrong. Yes, he admitted when caught. He hides it otherwise, and he forces his beliefs and customs on others. The original poster also said these pictures are for his personal use only, and yet also said the NPC will show and share these pictures to others. He doesn't give fair warning that he'll have different beliefs and that when in his shop they'll be subjected, he keeps his trap shut so they won't know any better.

The thing is, you're projecting a LOT of assumption regarding the NPC's thoughts and motives.
He didn't try to hide anything- he was proud of it.
He wasn't "caught" either, because he wasn't hiding anything. He was being perfectly open.
And if you don't know how your beliefs differ from the locals, the burden is not on you to preface every encounter with a warning that your culture is different from theirs. IF he understands that people might feel violated by his actions, then such a warning would be appropriate (or, really, a more specific warning), but there is no indication that he understands that people might feel this way. From the OP's description, one of the PCs was flattered, another wasn't particularly offended, and the third tried to shake the guy down for free stuff.
Worst case scenario, only 1 out of 3 people found his actions actually objectionable.
The more likely picture, though, was that even that person's indignation was feigned, and nobody at all was offended.

4) I admit law isn't everything. However, one of the original poster's points was because it doesn't break the law, it's thereby good. If that is the stance, then any time someone breaks the law they are thereby selfish or evil.

Hm. I believe that his argument was more that because he was not breaking any laws, that is one of the ways in which he was not violating the code of his alignment.
That doesn't mean the action is Good, just that the action isn't incompatible with being Good.

[Killer Cyborg]

With the information we currently have, it seems that what the guy was doing was essentially the same as what most people do when they ogle others.
Trying to get a glimpse of cleavage or up a skirt, or even through the clothing itself in some cases, because some outfits are at least partially see-through.

I don't see that as anything terrible.

Granted, this guy took it a step further by using his cameras to record as well as peek.
But it's not so large a step that it would constitute a violation of his alignment.

Moreover, alignments are not determined by lone instances.
If a character's typical behavior and personality violates only 1 rule of the Principled alignment, should that make him an entirely different alignment (assuming it's not a big rule, like murder)?
Even if his behavior goes against the behavior of the lower alignment that that one action would usually belong in?

I don't see it.
A character's alignment should be determined by how closely their behavior matches the description given, and should not be changed unless his/her behavior alters enough that a different alignment better fits them.

[Prysus]

Since we have learned that the filming in question either takes place in the public areas of the shop, or is done with permission elsewhere, wouldn't that mean that he's not violating anybody's rights?

With the information we currently have, it seems that what the guy was doing was essentially the same as what most people do when they ogle others.
Trying to get a glimpse of cleavage or up a skirt, or even through the clothing itself in some cases, because some outfits are at least partially see-through.

Greetings and Salutations. Busy weekend and couldn't respond until now. I'm combining two of your posts for simplicity (not to change the meaning, and if you feel I've taken anything out of context let me know, it was not intentional). I'll divide this response into two parts.

1) I'll agree. If these are in public areas on the ship and only using the cameras to peek up a skirt or down a blouse, while maybe not entirely ethical and I may not personally agree with, I'd conceedd I could see it falling under a good alignment. I'm also in the belief of personal responsibility, so if you don't want someone looking down your blouse, don't wear a low cut blouse. Not saying right, I'm just not going to worry about it at the moment.

2) I'm not entirely convinced this is the case. Is part of this my inserting facts? Possibly, though I'm not entirely ignoring what's said either. Now it was also said most of the pictures/videos he has are people in the buff. Maybe all those were consentual, and the non-consentual are the ones where he's looking down a blouse. Maybe. Though this is ignoring things like the fact he's a voyuer. That some of these images will appear through a "peek hole" (I was wrong, it wasn't a peep hole, the term used earlier was "peek hole"). While I may be making assumptions, your saying that it's only in "public areas of the shop" is also an assumption. While said he doesn't have a "public" restroom, that doesn't mean he won't let a paying customer use it (and record them with hidden "security" cameras while he's at it). It also discounts the possibilities of things like changing rooms. If he has no changing rooms and someone asked him to turn around for some privacy while they changed, he turns around (granting the illusion of privacy) but still keeps the recording, this could also be wrong. I'm not saying these are all the case, but when it's been said that most of his pictures of characters in the buff, some with visuals through a "peek hole", because the character is a voyuer ... I'm having trouble believing the totally innocent side. Maybe some of the posts are poorly worded and that's not all true, but it all has been said.

There is a difference between property and what people perceive as "privacy."
Property is pretty clear and tangible.
Privacy is not.

Actually, if you read what I said, I had agreed. I merely said he knew the difference between private property and public property. If you have a different term you'd like to use other than "private" property, let me know. I'll exchange it. I specifically stated I did NOT confuse it with a concept of privacy. You did. If you don't like the term "private" property, change it. I realy don't care. Just let me know which term you'd rather I use. I can't even remember the point of that.

The issue there would be trespassing, as the woman doesn't have permission to enter the home without meeting certain requirements.

I could probably start in a debate on this one, but you know, I really don't care. It's a minor note. I'll just move on.

Tearing at somebody's clothing is generally considered to be assault, not an issue of privacy or custom.

So "assault" is wrong even if it doesn't have physical harm? Because I've found voyuerism under the definition of sexual "assault." In the example given, I had specifically stated without touching or causing physical harm. So if it's not under the definition of something a principled character can't do, why is this wrong? Why is "assault" wrong, but sexual assault acceptable?

The thing is, you're projecting a LOT of assumption regarding the NPC's thoughts and motives.
He didn't try to hide anything- he was proud of it.
He wasn't "caught" either, because he wasn't hiding anything. He was being perfectly open.
And if you don't know how your beliefs differ from the locals, the burden is not on you to preface every encounter with a warning that your culture is different from theirs. IF he understands that people might feel violated by his actions, then such a warning would be appropriate (or, really, a more specific warning), but there is no indication that he understands that people might feel this way.

Well, I can see what you're saying. But if you look at what the original poster says, the character must follow the laws of the land to keep in alignment (whether you agree or not). If the character must, then he must know the laws of the various lands this ship stops. If just one of those lands had privacy laws, then the NPC has to know about it. ((If you don't get what I mean about having to follow the laws, see Paxmiles post above this one saying how important it is for a good aligned character to follow every law.))

From the OP's description, one of the PCs was flattered, another wasn't particularly offended, and the third tried to shake the guy down for free stuff.
Worst case scenario, only 1 out of 3 people found his actions actually objectionable.
The more likely picture, though, was that even that person's indignation was feigned, and nobody at all was offended.

True, and untrue. While I completely agree that what he did to the player group is acceptable. And if he did it ONLY to the player group, that would've been the end of it. The problem with that is, the NPC has done this to more people than just the player group. If I shoot 100 people, and 3 say it's not a big deal (they won't report it, press charges, and we even have a beer about it afterwards with laughs and stories of old), that doesn't invalidate what happened to the other 97 people. That's why the player group is ultimately irrelevent to the NPC's alignment.

Hm. I believe that his argument was more that because he was not breaking any laws, that is one of the ways in which he was not violating the code of his alignment.
That doesn't mean the action is Good, just that the action isn't incompatible with being Good.

Are you sure you're not the one projecting? Read his above post. According to Paxmiles rape is acceptable as long as it's legal. By his argument, if you lived in Chi-Town and there was a D-Bee mother pleading for her child's life, a character MUST kill the mother and baby to be of a good alignment, because that's the law and if you don't follow it then you're evil or selfish. You may not agree, and I definitely don't agree (someone suggesting that rape is a good thing as long as it's legal gives rise to violent tendencies in me, though I wouldn't act on those tendencies because unnecessary violence goes against my alignment. And for note that is not a threat against anyone, just stating a feeling).

Moreover, alignments are not determined by lone instances.

I agree. Lone instances shouldn't change an alignment. However, this isn't a lone instance. "Oops!" will only work for so long. This isn't a lone instance, but something that is done repeatedly and something the character intends to continue doing.

For example, if you kill someone because you think they're armed and then find out otherwise, I won't say you're evil for that one action alone. If you KEEP killing people again and again and again, suddenly I'm saying it's time to change alignment.

If a character's typical behavior and personality violates only 1 rule of the Principled alignment, should that make him an entirely different alignment (assuming it's not a big rule, like murder)?
Even if his behavior goes against the behavior of the lower alignment that that one action would usually belong in?

I don't see it.
A character's alignment should be determined by how closely their behavior matches the description given, and should not be changed unless his/her behavior alters enough that a different alignment better fits them.

I guess what it comes down to here is what does one person consider "a big rule" compared to another. It really comes down to where each person draws the line. I'd probably draw it at a different point than you would, which is fine by me.

As for which alignment, I'll say that if my character fits into more than one alignment, I'll pick the lower one. So if the character does Principled and Unprincipled actions, I'm just going to say he's Unprincipled. I don't do the "Principled with Unprincipled leanings" bit like others. Though, again, I don't actually use alignments in my games.

Anyways, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Noon]

Funny how everyone always knows exactly what is or isn't evil. I wonder what someone would look like if they didn't know, but thought they did?

[dragonfett]

If I shoot 100 people, and 3 say it's not a big deal (they won't report it, press charges, and we even have a beer about it afterwards with laughs and stories of old), that doesn't invalidate what happened to the other 97 people.

The problem with this example is that every culture has laws against shooting and killing people, granted some cultures are more liberal about the reasons for shooting a person, but there are still laws against it.

Are you sure you're not the one projecting? Read his above post. According to Paxmiles rape is acceptable as long as it's legal. By his argument, if you lived in Chi-Town and there was a D-Bee mother pleading for her child's life, a character MUST kill the mother and baby to be of a good alignment, because that's the law and if you don't follow it then you're evil or selfish. You may not agree, and I definitely don't agree (someone suggesting that rape is a good thing as long as it's legal gives rise to violent tendencies in me, though I wouldn't act on those tendencies because unnecessary violence goes against my alignment. And for note that is not a threat against anyone, just stating a feeling).

Paxmiles never said that rape was ok in the middle ages, just that the lord of the land had a right to sleep with newly wed brides on the night of their wedding. He said that doing this on any other night with the woman would be considered rape and thus wrong and illegal.

As for the killing of the D-Bee mother and her child, even if they are innocent I have a question, for everyone who reads this post. Let's say that there is a law that makes it illegal to be a certain race (in the case of the CS, that race would be any race not human), and the laws say that anyone who is of this race must be killed, what's the greater evil? Following the law and killing the non-human, despite that their only crime was being born (the never harms an innocent), or not killing them and thus breaking the law (the always work within the law whenever possible). So it really is an ethical question of the sanctity of life (regardless of what you sentiments toward members of other races are) or upholding the law to the letter.

As for determining what alignment a character, I go with whatever alignment they best fit (highest percent of values). In the case of ties, I consider the characters personality as well.

[Prysus]

The problem with this example is that every culture has laws against shooting and killing people, granted some cultures are more liberal about the reasons for shooting a person, but there are still laws against it.

Greetings and Salutations. Use a different example if you prefer. Regardless, if 3 people out of 100 say they don't mind, does that make the 97 people's views on it meaningless? The three player's views don't make an action automatically acceptable.

Paxmiles never said that rape was ok in the middle ages, just that the lord of the land had a right to sleep with newly wed brides on the night of their wedding. He said that doing this on any other night with the woman would be considered rape and thus wrong and illegal.

And if on that wedding night she refuses? Well, she is being selfish, and it's still the lord's right, therefore okay. Sorry, I'm not okay saying that's a good alignment no matter how you want to justify it.

As for the killing of the D-Bee mother and her child, even if they are innocent I have a question, for everyone who reads this post. Let's say that there is a law that makes it illegal to be a certain race (in the case of the CS, that race would be any race not human), and the laws say that anyone who is of this race must be killed, what's the greater evil? Following the law and killing the non-human, despite that their only crime was being born (the never harms an innocent), or not killing them and thus breaking the law (the always work within the law whenever possible). So it really is an ethical question of the sanctity of life (regardless of what you sentiments toward members of other races are) or upholding the law to the letter.

So basically the argument is ... Nazis could've very well been the good guys, and others in the world were evil (or selfish) for deciding Jews had the right to live? I'd suggest taking that to a WWII vets home and tell them how evil and selfish they were because they fought against the good and noble Nazis to see how well it's received, but I'm afraid you might actually do it and I wouldn't want to subject them to that.

It's arguments like that which honestly make it almost impossible for me to believe the Butter Troll is a good alignment, because if shows a complete lack of understanding of the good alignment. "Life and freedom" are "above all else" and the "highest priority" for a character of a good alignment. I'll admit freedom can get questionable (afterall laws encroach upon freedom all the time), but I'd think that understanding the value of life should at least be more clear cut. Not being able to understand that really shows and inability to understand good alignment in the first place. I'm not even going by personal codes, but what is written in the book.

As for determining what alignment a character, I go with whatever alignment they best fit (highest percent of values). In the case of ties, I consider the characters personality as well.

I can agree with that to an extent. But at the same time a guy who kidnaps little girls and tortures them because he thinks it's fun, een if he lets them live I'm still going to call him Anarchist at best no matter how else he lives his life. Someone else wants to say he a good alignment, I can't stop them. *Shrug.* But why bother asking if you're already convinced of the answer?

Now for me forcing your beliefs on people and taking away their rights to choose on the matter would be violating other people's freedom, especially when the main justification is there are no laws here so whatever happens is still good (because that just screams selfish justification to me). I can appreciate some people (such as Killer Cyborg) have a different view. I even believe he could convince me a NPC he made a similar NPC is good. Arguments saying this is good because you can rape and commit genocide and still be a good alignment shows a lack of understanding of the good alignment (in my opinion). This is why I can't believe it of the Butter Troll NPC.

Anyways ... *rubs temples* ... I'm getting a headache from even reading some of the arguments, so I need to take a break. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[dragonfett]

I would like to state for the record that I personally do not feel that these actions are good or right. Now with that being said, I would like to know just where in the alignment description for the good alignments does it say "Life and freedom" are "above all else" and the "highest priority" for a character of a good alignment? So according to the Palladium alignment system, you can have a principaled character who commits genocide just because he believes what his culture has taught him and told him about other races. Especially in Rifts where a character can look innocent and unarmed, but be able to unleash death and destruction untold with a mere thought. That is why the Coalition has their laws the way they do is because with a non-magic using, non-psychic person, they can gage about how much damage that person can inflict by looking at what they are wearing and carrying. If that person has any hidden weapons, it is unlikely to make that much of a difference because most weapons that are concealable don't do a lot of damage. With a mage or psychic, it is different because they have a much tougher time figuring out just what they are capable of. And because there are many D-Bees who can naturally use magic or psychic powers, it is just easier for them to make one blanket law that declares all D-Bees illegal instead of some much more complicated legal system that details the legal status of certain races. Do I find this right or good, heavens no, but the people of the Coalition might. I am of the opinion that permission should always be granted to take compromising video or pictures of someone, otherwise you are automatically taking away their free will, which while it is not covered specifically in the alignments, does not fit in well with the good alignments IMHO.

[Jorel]

The line is drawn.

[Killer Cyborg]

If these are in public areas on the ship and only using the cameras to peek up a skirt or down a blouse, while maybe not entirely ethical and I may not personally agree with, I'd conced I could see it falling under a good alignment.

Okay, then. That covers almost everything about the situation described, so we're almost in agreement.

some of these images will appear through a "peek hole" (I was wrong, it wasn't a peep hole, the term used earlier was "peek hole").

Yup. So we need to find out from the OP what exactly was meant by "peek hole" in this case.

If he has no changing rooms and someone asked him to turn around for some privacy while they changed, he turns around (granting the illusion of privacy) but still keeps the recording, this could also be wrong.

The question isn't whether it's "wrong," but whether it's an act of evil.
Do you truly think that peeking at somebody who asked you not to look when they change clothes right in front of you is Evil?
Or even something precluded by having a Good alignment?

Tearing at somebody's clothing is generally considered to be assault, not an issue of privacy or custom.

So "assault" is wrong even if it doesn't have physical harm?

Yes. But it has to include physical contact, or the immediate threat thereof.
If you go to somebody's closet and rip their clothing up, that's not assault.
If you tear up their clothing while they're wearing it, that's assault.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nd+Battery
Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact.

Because I've found voyuerism under the definition of sexual "assault."

Cite your sources and provide context, and we can discuss it.

In the example given, I had specifically stated without touching or causing physical harm. So if it's not under the definition of something a principled character can't do, why is this wrong? Why is "assault" wrong, but sexual assault acceptable?

Those statements, along with others that I did not include, make it seem as if the intent here is just to troll, not to have a serious discussion.

if you look at what the original poster says, the character must follow the laws of the land to keep in alignment (whether you agree or not). If the character must, then he must know the laws of the various lands this ship stops. If just one of those lands had privacy laws, then the NPC has to know about it. ((If you don't get what I mean about having to follow the laws, see Paxmiles post above this one saying how important it is for a good aligned character to follow every law.))

In international waters, the only laws that apply are the laws of the ship. Laws from other lands are unimportant.

From the OP's description, one of the PCs was flattered, another wasn't particularly offended, and the third tried to shake the guy down for free stuff.
Worst case scenario, only 1 out of 3 people found his actions actually objectionable.
The more likely picture, though, was that even that person's indignation was feigned, and nobody at all was offended.

True, and untrue. While I completely agree that what he did to the player group is acceptable. And if he did it ONLY to the player group, that would've been the end of it. The problem with that is, the NPC has done this to more people than just the player group. If I shoot 100 people, and 3 say it's not a big deal (they won't report it, press charges, and we even have a beer about it afterwards with laughs and stories of old), that doesn't invalidate what happened to the other 97 people. That's why the player group is ultimately irrelevent to the NPC's alignment.

They're important because they're all we have to deal with.
We have a sample group of three people, and 100% of the sample group did not have a legitimate objection to the guy's activities. This is an indication that the guy's actions are not automatically or inherently objectionable.
That's a small sample group, to be sure, but it's more solid than how you think that a hypothetical 97 other people might react.
Especially since the butter troll is not in jail, and there is no mention of him having any real trouble with the law.
While it is possible that there are 97 outraged people out there, they don't seem to have reported him to the proper authorities. Or they did, but his actions were legal.

According to Paxmiles rape is acceptable as long as it's legal.

Again with the trolling.
Or such a serious lack of understanding of that post and the situation that it nets out the same.

A character's alignment should be determined by how closely their behavior matches the description given, and should not be changed unless his/her behavior alters enough that a different alignment better fits them.

I guess what it comes down to here is what does one person consider "a big rule" compared to another. It really comes down to where each person draws the line. I'd probably draw it at a different point than you would, which is fine by me.

Okay, where do you draw that line?
For me, if Superman uses his x-ray vision to peep at the ladies now and then, that doesn't suddenly make him Evil, or even Selfish. Peeping is not a Big Rule.
On the other hand, if Superman went around murdering people, that would suddenly make him Evil.
Because Murder IS a Big Rule.

Do you believe that if Superman is an occasional peeper, that would make him Evil? Or even Selfish?
If you always pick the lowest alignment that fits any one of the character's given actions, then it would seem so.
But that's not the normal way of doing things.

[dragonfett]

Do you truly think that peeking at somebody who asked you not to look when they change clothes right in front of you is Evil?

Evil, absolutely not. Selfish however, yes. I think an action can be selfish with out being good or evil. And if someone asks you not to look while they change right there in front of you because there is no other place to change, then the peeper would be committing a selfish act because he is not giving the person the privacy they are requesting. It is not good, but it is not evil either. People here are thinking that just because that some act is not evil, then it must be a good action, or vice versa when that is not the case.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, while I usually don't like making multiple posts in a row, I think I'm going to tackle the posts separately for ease. So I'll be making 3 posts in succession (though maybe a half an hour or hour in between because I type slowly). I may not get a chance to respond again until the weekend, if that early. Here we go ...

I'm really glad that someone read what I posted right. I don't want to be seen as the guy on the forums that says rape is OK. No, rape is not something a "good" person would do. I'm sorry you mis-read me before. Rape is an evil action.

Well, glad to hear you don't think it's good. Whether something was mis-read, mis-worded, or whatever else, I am glad. And, for the record, I wasn't trying to say you, personally, were making the argument it was good in real life so much as could be a good alignment in game (though that doesn't make it much better for me). Again, I accept a misunderstanding. They happen, especially online. I just wanted to clarify I wasn't saying that you do it or anything like that.

... but that title is something only the Lord of the Land is allowed to give.

This part, I'll admit, is news to me. I'd taken it more as a religious ceremony than a matter of state. It being state granted was something more modern (or so I thought at least).

Is the law right? I don't think so, but it is the law. Someone of a good alignment in palladium games must follow the law.

I think I may see where you're trying to go with it, unfortunately I disagree with the statement itself. By that logic, if a good aligned character finds himself in a city and discovers there's some law to eat a newborn baby, the good aligned character must do it or become selfish (as statements have been made). Should a good alignment character try to obey the laws when possible? Yes. But I'm far from saying they must.

Would this be selfish? No. You can have two people conflict even if both are of good alignments. It's just how the world works.

I agree two good alignment character can be in conflict. On the other hand, I believe both should have good intentions as well. There, of course, exceptions such as one taking a single selfish act (but this would also be admitting one is being selfish, at least for that single act). In the case of the Butter Troll, it's a repeated and continued act with selfish intentions. Not an isolated incident, and done with selfish intent. This is one of the things I'm not getting passed.

PS: On a related note, have you ever done a campaign in a setting where slaves are commonplace?

Actually, I have. I've run PF campaigns (which involve slavery), and I've played in a sci-fi game with slavery. First, I'll state that it interfers with freedom. With that aside, I think more importantly than treatment is intent. I know, that sounds odd, but treatment doesn't necessarily mean good.

Example (non-slavery): I've had an evil NPC tag along with the player group pretending to be a good guy. He acted principled, treated people nicely, saved the player groups, fought the good fight, but I never made the illusion that he was good because he acted good. The fact is he had evil intentions, and that made him still evil (at least in my opinion).

With slavery, it would involve at least good intentions. Beyond that, it would involve various circumstances. I'm guessing you did this to make a point? The problem is I've admitted the same could be true of the voyuerism part. Nothing really seems to apply though beyond him being selfish.

Okay, I think that's all for post 1. Off to post 2 ...

[Prysus]

I would like to know just where in the alignment description for the good alignments does it say "Life and freedom" are "above all else" and the "highest priority" for a character of a good alignment?

Before the actual list starts, under the description. There should be a paragraph before the actual list starts. While I had taken the quotes from my PF2 book, there are similar lines in R:UE. I'm fairly sure you can find it in most of the other main books too. Yes, it's in the description part, but if you focus solely on the list I think you're missing a big part of the description.

So according to the Palladium alignment system, you can have a principaled character who commits genocide just because he believes what his culture has taught him and told him about other races.

I disagree. This logic has so many problems such as ignoring the part about them valuing life. Even if you ignore the description part it ignores the part of the list about a good alignment not killing.

Especially in Rifts where a character can look innocent and unarmed, but be able to unleash death and destruction untold with a mere thought. That is why the Coalition has their laws the way they do is because with a non-magic using, non-psychic person, they can gage about how much damage that person can inflict by looking at what they are wearing and carrying. If that person has any hidden weapons, it is unlikely to make that much of a difference because most weapons that are concealable don't do a lot of damage. With a mage or psychic, it is different because they have a much tougher time figuring out just what they are capable of. And because there are many D-Bees who can naturally use magic or psychic powers, it is just easier for them to make one blanket law that declares all D-Bees illegal instead of some much more complicated legal system that details the legal status of certain races.

This follows the mentality of killing someone because they may, one day, possibly, try to hurt you or someone else. Guilt isn't important, only the possibility.

I am of the opinion that permission should always be granted to take compromising video or pictures of someone, otherwise you are automatically taking away their free will, which while it is not covered specifically in the alignments, does not fit in well with the good alignments IMHO.

I agree with that, to an extent. First, I agree the video itself (especially for security purposes) isn't necessarily wrong. Keeping it for selfish purposes is slightly different. Though, beyond that, I agree, telling someone they can't take videos or pictures is wrong. This is one of the benefits of consent. Free will is great. The problem I'm having is when you use that free will to take away someone else's. "I have free will so ..." it's wrong to stop me from murdering people in cold blood. "I have free will so ..." it's wrong to stop me from locking innocent people away in a dungeon just for kicks. "I have free will so ..." fill in the blank.

Now are any of these perfect, unbreakable rules? Heck no. There are always exceptions and so forth. Which is one of the reasons I say intent is important on the matter. In the case of this thread, the NPC imposed his free will over other's for selfish reasons.

Does a good intention automatically make something good though? No. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Oy ... I feel like this is just repeating things. Ah well, I think this finishes Post 2. Onto Post 3 ...

[Prysus]

Okay, then. That covers almost everything about the situation described, so we're almost in agreement.

Almost.

Yup. So we need to find out from the OP what exactly was meant by "peek hole" in this case.

Right, though parts just feel ... like there are a few dots missing that don't have it quite making sense. Things like how these "peek holes" are catching people nude, but without their consent. If we focused on just certain facts, I'd agree. My problem is some of the facts just don't fit without there being something else going on. Maybe the original poster just worded some things poorly (or maybe I misinterpreted), but some of this just seems to not fit.

Do you truly think that peeking at somebody who asked you not to look when they change clothes right in front of you is Evil?

Evil, absolutely not. Selfish however, yes. I think an action can be selfish with out being good or evil. And if someone asks you not to look while they change right there in front of you because there is no other place to change, then the peeper would be committing a selfish act because he is not giving the person the privacy they are requesting. It is not good, but it is not evil either. People here are thinking that just because that some act is not evil, then it must be a good action, or vice versa when that is not the case.

I'll say thank you to dragonfett for answering that one.

Cite your sources and provide context, and we can discuss it.

Actually I just performed a simple google search with "What is sexual assault" as the keywords. Second on the list:

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/261/default.aspx
"While it is true that rape by a stranger is a form of sexual assault, it is vital to include the wide range of unwanted sexual contacts that many people experience in our definition of these words. Sexual assault can include child sexual abuse, rape, attempted rape, incest, exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene phone calls, fondling, and sexual harassment."

You can look at more if you're curious. As I said first time, only about half include voyeurism as sexual assault, but that's still about half. This character was called a voyeur in the first post, first line of the thread. For note: I checked on the site you provided, but it didn't really define sexual assault at all.

In the example given, I had specifically stated without touching or causing physical harm. So if it's not under the definition of something a principled character can't do, why is this wrong? Why is "assault" wrong, but sexual assault acceptable?

Those statements, along with others that I did not include, make it seem as if the intent here is just to troll, not to have a serious discussion.

Half the arguments on the thread are that this isn't listed specifically under the principled chart, so there's nothing wrong with it. Nor does that change my issue with the concept already. I'm not sure I would consider that trolling, but I'll try to come at this in a different way.

If you go into the concept of assault being: "Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact." ((This is your definition.))

Then sexual assault really should only need be fear of the same on a sexual basis. After all, "assault" has no contact involved (this is on the site you provided). When consider "approximately 20% of voyeurs have committed sexual assault or rape" ( http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/voy/p ... ntext.html ) then voyeurism should give reasonable fear of further assault, right? ((I'll note that this site doesn't include voyeurism under sexual assault.))

It's being stated ripping off a face mask and nothing else is assault and causing reasonable fear, why not the other? I'm not trying to be a troll here, but I do have an issue with one being said to be okay and the other bad.

In international waters, the only laws that apply are the laws of the ship. Laws from other lands are unimportant.

Agreed. The point is though, if this character "must" follow the laws to be good. This ship, realistically, has to dock. While docked it's subject to the laws of the land. Otherwise, while there, you would be breaking them. I didn't start the concept of having to follow laws regardless to be good in this thread (that was the original poster, whose NPC this is, which is why this is more important). Does this much make sense? I'm hoping so.

So if not following the laws is selfish, and the argument is the NPC is good, he has to follow all laws (while at dock). Following the logic, if any of those lands have ever had a law involving privacy, then the NPC would have to be aware of it. I'm not so much a fan of this logic, but if the attempt to rule lawyer on technicalities is applied, then I'll rule lawyer along with it.

They're important because they're all we have to deal with.
We have a sample group of three people, and 100% of the sample group did not have a legitimate objection to the guy's activities. This is an indication that the guy's actions are not automatically or inherently objectionable.
That's a small sample group, to be sure, but it's more solid than how you think that a hypothetical 97 other people might react.
Especially since the butter troll is not in jail, and there is no mention of him having any real trouble with the law.
While it is possible that there are 97 outraged people out there, they don't seem to have reported him to the proper authorities. Or they did, but his actions were legal.

Well, we're in agreement his actions weren't illegal (after all the point was that they're at sea and there are no laws, not even murder is illegal). Though I agree, we can't say all of them would be outraged. Now, I'll also admit that the rest probably fall into 2 categories: 1) They're okay with it (in which case I have no problem with it). 2) They have no clue because this was without consent, so they're ignorant of what happened. The latter one is where I have the issue.

If you're really curious how other people might act, you can take a look at this thread. Would you like to start a poll? I'm figuring their people. As a result, I try to think of how people will react. Will all have an issue with it? No. Will some? I'm pretty much willing to put money on it. I'm not trying to speak for all of them, I'm just not dismissing them because of what 3 people said.

According to Paxmiles rape is acceptable as long as it's legal.

Again with the trolling.
Or such a serious lack of understanding of that post and the situation that it nets out the same.

I'll consider lack of understanding possible, always is. Though let's take a look at some of what he said (snipped down not to change the content, just for space and to focus on certain parts).

I think the issue comes when people add their own value to what "good" and "evil" are.
[snip]
This was not an evil act, but a right.

With the above example, if the lord tries to do this on any other night, it's rape and against the law. It becomes an evil action.

Okay, let's just take a stop and looks at this. First he's stating this isn't evil, but "right." Done any other night the same action is no longer legal and now evil. The same act, just at one point it's legal (and right) and another point rape (so evil), but it's an example of the same thing.

Now, Paxmiles has stated this is not how he meant it. I'm willing to believe him (because I'd really hate to believe that's how he meant it). So I'm willing to grant that either it's poorly worded or I connected the dots differently. Let's look at another part of that same post.

A law abiding, good character follows the laws even if they are made by an evil man or organization. Just because the laws aren't justly created, doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed on principle. Only following the good laws is the style of a selfish alignment.

So if you only follow the good lines, you're selfish alignment. A good alignment must follow all the laws to be good. So if, as previously stated, the laws say you need to eat a newborn baby, you need to eat a newborn baby or be selfish by default. Yes, he also stated you have to believe it's good. However, that doesn't change the end result. In the situation given, you'd have to believe eating a baby is good to be a good alignment. If you know it's wrong and don't do it, you'd be a selfish alignment. If you know it's wrong and do it anyways, you're probably selfish or evil.

Now, again, from his last post I'm going to say that's not how Paxmiles meant it. That doesn't change how it's worded (at least to me). So when the statement is you must do something (even if evil) to be good, then I take the statement to read that the person is saying you "must" do something (even if evil) to be good.

Okay, where do you draw that line?
For me, if Superman uses his x-ray vision to peep at the ladies now and then, that doesn't suddenly make him Evil, or even Selfish. Peeping is not a Big Rule.
On the other hand, if Superman went around murdering people, that would suddenly make him Evil.
Because Murder IS a Big Rule.

Do you believe that if Superman is an occasional peeper, that would make him Evil? Or even Selfish?
If you always pick the lowest alignment that fits any one of the character's given actions, then it would seem so.
But that's not the normal way of doing things.

On occasion? Maybe not (of course, he's married which makes it worse in my opinion, but I'm not including that fact into my consideration). However, if he used his X-Ray vision to peep at every woman, pretty much did it all day long, spent more time peeping than saving people ... suddenly, he's not looking so good. My problem here is that this is a constant, daily activity. If you live everyday life doing selfish things, and then do good things when it counts, I don't consider them good.

Again, I'll refer to the fact Han Solo is Unprincipled. In the end of the first movie he flies into a space battle with for no personal gain but to help Luke. In the second he goes into the cold, possibly not to come back, to help his friend. There are quite a bit of things he did that you can consider good, supporting friends and saving people, yet he's selfish. I say Han Solo again because it's an in book reference, and most people have seen the movies.

Ugh ... getting such a headache. Anyways, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day to one and all. Farewell and safe journeys to all.



P.S. Looking at the time stamps, I basically just spent two and a half hours typing these responses. And this is just the typing part, not counting reading other people's posts, checking other sites, and things like that. Believe me, I wouldn't have taken that much time if I wasn't just coming by to troll.

[dragonfett]

Before the actual list starts, under the description. There should be a paragraph before the actual list starts. While I had taken the quotes from my PF2 book, there are similar lines in R:UE. I'm fairly sure you can find it in most of the other main books too. Yes, it's in the description part, but if you focus solely on the list I think you're missing a big part of the description.

Thank you Prysus. I was in fact overlooking the overall description of the alignments because I was merely doing a quick scan and figured that the lists would contain everything that I would need to know about it at a glance (that is why it's there, right?). With that established, I am more than convinced that voyeurism is most definitely a selfish act because you are infringing upon someone's freedoms. A Scrupulous person can be an occasional voyeur while safely maintaining his alignment. However I do not recall the OP specifically stating just how much of the time the shopkeeper is going around taking these up skirt shots or what have you, and when you consider in to the fact that he lives and works on a ship, where in all likely hood the number of males vastly outnumber the number of females, so it's not like he has many chances to begin with unless he's going around snapping pictures of the male members on the ship as well. I doubt that is the case however, otherwise I think more of the crew of had objections. Think about it guys, the captain and crew had no objections because they weren't the ones he was taking pictures of, and if they needed a "change of scenery", aka something new to dream about, he was their go to man. If they stopped him, they stopped getting those pictures that he had as well. Does anyone else see what I am trying to say here?

[dragonfett]

So by your example, any Rogue Scholar or Scientist just merely passing through Coalition territory are automatically committing selfish or evil acts by having just one book or magic item because they are breaking the law. By your example, the law is evil and unjust and stupid, but they are still breaking just by the items they own.

[Killer Cyborg]

Posts are getting long enough that I feel obliged to put this one in spoiler tags, just to save some effort for those trying to skip past it.

Spoiler:

Do you truly think that peeking at somebody who asked you not to look when they change clothes right in front of you is Evil?

Evil, absolutely not. Selfish however, yes. I think an action can be selfish with out being good or evil. And if someone asks you not to look while they change right there in front of you because there is no other place to change, then the peeper would be committing a selfish act because he is not giving the person the privacy they are requesting. It is not good, but it is not evil either. People here are thinking that just because that some act is not evil, then it must be a good action, or vice versa when that is not the case.

I'll say thank you to dragonfett for answering that one.

The original poster's players were trying to argue that the guy was EVIL, not selfish.
Does your response here mean that you agree that they were wrong in this assertion?

Cite your sources and provide context, and we can discuss it.

Actually I just performed a simple google search with "What is sexual assault" as the keywords. Second on the list:

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/261/default.aspx
"While it is true that rape by a stranger is a form of sexual assault, it is vital to include the wide range of unwanted sexual contacts that many people experience in our definition of these words. Sexual assault can include child sexual abuse, rape, attempted rape, incest, exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene phone calls, fondling, and sexual harassment."

You can look at more if you're curious. As I said first time, only about half include voyeurism as sexual assault, but that's still about half. This character was called a voyeur in the first post, first line of the thread.

That's half the sites that are wrong, then; voyeurism isn't any form of assault.
There are sites out there that include pornography as sexual assault too, but that doesn't mean that it actually IS.

Then again, note that the site you list says that voyeurism "can be" a form of sexual assault.
That's not necessarily wrong; if somebody forces another person to strip naked at gunpoint and/or perform sexual acts on themselves or others for the entertainment of the person with the gun, THAT could indeed be a form of sexual assault.
But just peeping at somebody?
Nope.

For note: I checked on the site you provided, but it didn't really define sexual assault at all.

For note: it wasn't supposed to. It defined the word "assault."
Since the term "sexual assault" is dependent on the word "assault," you should understand that half of the term you're using at least.

In the example given, I had specifically stated without touching or causing physical harm. So if it's not under the definition of something a principled character can't do, why is this wrong? Why is "assault" wrong, but sexual assault acceptable?

Those statements, along with others that I did not include, make it seem as if the intent here is just to troll, not to have a serious discussion.

Half the arguments on the thread are that this isn't listed specifically under the principled chart, so there's nothing wrong with it. Nor does that change my issue with the concept already. I'm not sure I would consider that trolling, but I'll try to come at this in a different way.[/quote]

The trolling is when you claim that the people who disagree with you about voyeurism being precluded by a Good alignment are actively endorsing sexual assault and/or rape.
I never said that sexual assault was acceptable, so it's disingenuous for you to claim that I did, to a such a level that it seems improbable that this could be a legitimate misunderstanding on your part, and more probable that it's an attempt to bait and deliberately twist people's words.
As does your response here, where I quoted you indicating that I believed that sexual assault is acceptable, and you respond with crap that has nothing to do with the quoted portion.
Either quit trolling or (if all this is unintentional) get your act together and pay attention to what people are saying.

If you go into the concept of assault being: "Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact." ((This is your definition.))

Then sexual assault really should only need be fear of the same on a sexual basis.

Reasonable fear based on an action, yes.
If you say "hello" to somebody and they freak out due to their own paranoia, that's not assault.

After all, "assault" has no contact involved (this is on the site you provided).

"Assault" does not necessarily include contact in the legal definition provided.

When consider "approximately 20% of voyeurs have committed sexual assault or rape" ( http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/voy/p ... ntext.html ) then voyeurism should give reasonable fear of further assault, right? ((I'll note that this site doesn't include voyeurism under sexual assault.))

Wrong.
That's an 80% chance that the person isn't going to sexually assault or rape you, which should not alone create any reasonable fear of assault. There would need to be other circumstances, like getting caught and jumping out and grabbing the person, or otherwise acting threateningly.

Likewise, although Approximately 66% of rape victims know their assailant, this does not mean that encountering somebody that you know is likely to result in rape or sexual assault.
43% of rapes occur between 6 pm and midnight, but this does not mean that encountering a person between 6 pm and midnight is reasonable cause for alarm.
Fifty-two percent of rapists are white, but this does not mean that encountering a white person should instill you with a fear of rape.
Between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients, but this does not mean that seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist should instill you with fear of rape. Nor does it mean that psychiatry or psychology is a form of sexual assault.

There needs to be some inciting incident, not just some statistic.
If you're showering with the bathroom window open, and you look up to see some guy standing there watching you...
-If he shrieks and runs off, there is not any reasonable fear of getting assaulted.
-If he smirks and starts climbing in through the window, THAT could count as reasonable fear of getting assaulted... but that fear would be just as legitimate even if you weren't naked. If, for example, you're sitting on the couch fully clothed, reading a book, and you look up to see some guy peering in through your window, and he reacts to being seen by smirking and trying to climb inside, THAT would be just as threatening.
The threat is not in the voyeurism, but in that other action.

The point is though, if this character "must" follow the laws to be good. This ship, realistically, has to dock. While docked it's subject to the laws of the land. Otherwise, while there, you would be breaking them.

Hm. Not necessarily. Ships get a lot more leeway than if you're on land.
Say you have a ship filled with Cuban cigars, and you pull up to an American port for repairs.
Will they seize your cargo just for sitting at the dock?
I don't think so.
But they'd certainly arrest you if you tried to bring the cargo onshore.
I could be wrong about that, though, I suppose.

I didn't start the concept of having to follow laws regardless to be good in this thread (that was the original poster, whose NPC this is, which is why this is more important). Does this much make sense? I'm hoping so.

So if not following the laws is selfish, and the argument is the NPC is good, he has to follow all laws (while at dock). Following the logic, if any of those lands have ever had a law involving privacy, then the NPC would have to be aware of it. I'm not so much a fan of this logic, but if the attempt to rule lawyer on technicalities is applied, then I'll rule lawyer along with it.

Being aware of the law wouldn't really matter, because once again the laws at sea are different.
He could well be aware of the laws in some lands, just as we're aware of places where women have to cover their faces in public, but that doesn't mean that he has to follow the laws if he's not there, or that he can't think that the laws are stupid.

Also, I'll point out that even Principled characters "work within the law whenever possible." Which means that even they can sometimes break the law without compromising their alignment.
BUT I can certainly agree that peeping isn't generally the action of a Principled character- it wouldn't work with the "boy scout" description, and it would be too close to breaking and entering.
A Scrupulous character, on the other hand, will bend or break the law "when deemed necessary," and doesn't have as squeeky-clean of a personality. Peeping would certainly be within that particular Good alignment.

I agree, we can't say all of them would be outraged. Now, I'll also admit that the rest probably fall into 2 categories: 1) They're okay with it (in which case I have no problem with it). 2) They have no clue because this was without consent, so they're ignorant of what happened. The latter one is where I have the issue.

If you're really curious how other people might act, you can take a look at this thread. Would you like to start a poll? I'm figuring their people. As a result, I try to think of how people will react. Will all have an issue with it? No. Will some? I'm pretty much willing to put money on it. I'm not trying to speak for all of them, I'm just not dismissing them because of what 3 people said.

Post anything on the internet, and "some" people will be outraged.
That doesn't say much about the population overall, and it certainly doesn't speak about the population of the ship in question (or that world in general).

First he's stating this isn't evil, but "right."

No, he's stating that it was (at that time) seen as A right.
There's a difference between "right" and "A right."
Quite a very large difference, in fact.

Okay, where do you draw that line?
For me, if Superman uses his x-ray vision to peep at the ladies now and then, that doesn't suddenly make him Evil, or even Selfish. Peeping is not a Big Rule.
On the other hand, if Superman went around murdering people, that would suddenly make him Evil.
Because Murder IS a Big Rule.

Do you believe that if Superman is an occasional peeper, that would make him Evil? Or even Selfish?
If you always pick the lowest alignment that fits any one of the character's given actions, then it would seem so.
But that's not the normal way of doing things.

On occasion? Maybe not (of course, he's married which makes it worse in my opinion, but I'm not including that fact into my consideration).

Wait a minute; you've been arguing that peeping is sexual assault.
If it IS, then you've just allowed that occasional sexual assault would "maybe not" make one Evil or Selfish.

However, if he used his X-Ray vision to peep at every woman, pretty much did it all day long, spent more time peeping than saving people ... suddenly, he's not looking so good. My problem here is that this is a constant, daily activity. If you live everyday life doing selfish things, and then do good things when it counts, I don't consider them good.

Without knowing the daily activities of the butter troll in question, or what percentages of his time go into what activities, that doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

Again, I'll refer to the fact Han Solo is Unprincipled. In the end of the first movie he flies into a space battle with for no personal gain but to help Luke.

By the end of the first movie, his alignment had arguably changed. Han Solo is a dynamic character, and he goes through changes over the course of the films.

P.S. Looking at the time stamps, I basically just spent two and a half hours typing these responses. And this is just the typing part, not counting reading other people's posts, checking other sites, and things like that. Believe me, I wouldn't have taken that much time if I wasn't just coming by to troll.

I would certainly hope not.

[Killer Cyborg]

So by your example, any Rogue Scholar or Scientist just merely passing through Coalition territory are automatically committing selfish or evil acts by having just one book or magic item because they are breaking the law. By your example, the law is evil and unjust and stupid, but they are still breaking just by the items they own.

This is one of the unanswered issues of the Palladium alignment system.

In general, people tend to assume that the "law" in question is the law of the character's homeland, or even a set of personal codes of moral behavior.
Otherwise you end up with Good Nazis in WWII and Evil French Resistance fighters and Allied Spies.

[twingle93]

Whenever I have a problem about Alignment I go to easydamus.com and look up if the alignment's equivalent in D&D.

People of all alignments have their quirks, their pride, their weak moments where they do something they shouldn't. Alignment is not a personality, and characters of the same alignment can be radically different.

Principled characters aren't always boy scouts, they can actually be more ruthless than Scrupulous or Unprincipled characters. And Diabolic evil characters aren't always psychopaths (even though I think that would be better if they were. It would be easier to identify them).

[dragonfett]

IIRC, I have seen Rogue Scholars/Scientists that are Principaled in official canon. I only used the example of the Rogue Scholar/Scientist because one of the things they need for their class that is illegal in the Coalition. How about this as a better example, a Principaled Elven Ley Line Walker who goes through Coalition territory. Does this make him/her less good because he is knowingly breaking the Coalition's laws for the simple fact of being an elf and/or a magic user. Sure, they can choose an alternate route that would take them around the Coalition's territory, but they selfishly chose to traipse through the Coalition's lands.

[shiiv-a]

who here reads anime comics?
you know the ones with the school girl uniforms?
GM failed to mention that this is what the character in question was wearing.
so .. i guess it was only natural for the guy to wanna peep/peek/wish/dream/drool/whatever.
PC in question was more interested in what she could buy .. not what the guy was doing.
*shrugs*

[Colt47]

Alright let me set a few things strait on the subject here. My PC, Marin, was using her head to try and cool the situation down. She was only OK with the fact he liked looking at pictures of her. She was definitely not OK with him invading the privacy of her room. Also, Veronica completely objected to the entire affair.

So basically we had two people obviously objecting to the situation, and one person who was doing her best acting to keep her head on her shoulders (as beating up a small greasy butter troll is probably not in her best interests... and she is a law enforcement officer.)

The situation was morally wrong, but the exceptionally over the top reaction is what caused the situation to escalate. However, can you blame the PCs? There was no obvious law enforcement to turn to and the rest of the people on the ship seemed to be perfectly ok with the actions of the offending person, so there was no one else to turn to. The players pretty much had the option of ignoring the infraction or taking matters into their own hands. Marin lives by the motto "Life isn't fair" so since there really wasn't any action that could be taken that would have a high chance of a positive outcome, she rolled with it.

[Rallan]

So by your example, any Rogue Scholar or Scientist just merely passing through Coalition territory are automatically committing selfish or evil acts by having just one book or magic item because they are breaking the law. By your example, the law is evil and unjust and stupid, but they are still breaking just by the items they own.

This is one of the unanswered issues of the Palladium alignment system.

In general, people tend to assume that the "law" in question is the law of the character's homeland, or even a set of personal codes of moral behavior.
Otherwise you end up with Good Nazis in WWII and Evil French Resistance fighters and Allied Spies.

There weren't any good Nazis or evil resistance fighters irl?

Actually wait, the question I just asked goes against the spirit of the Palladium alignment system. It was clearly never intended for stories with complex or ambiguous morality

[Killer Cyborg]

So by your example, any Rogue Scholar or Scientist just merely passing through Coalition territory are automatically committing selfish or evil acts by having just one book or magic item because they are breaking the law. By your example, the law is evil and unjust and stupid, but they are still breaking just by the items they own.

This is one of the unanswered issues of the Palladium alignment system.

In general, people tend to assume that the "law" in question is the law of the character's homeland, or even a set of personal codes of moral behavior.
Otherwise you end up with Good Nazis in WWII and Evil French Resistance fighters and Allied Spies.

There weren't any good Nazis or evil resistance fighters irl?

Actually wait, the question I just asked goes against the spirit of the Palladium alignment system. It was clearly never intended for stories with complex or ambiguous morality

Actually, there probably were some of each; it just wasn't the norm.
And since Kev has mentioned in several books that not all CS troops are evil, and some of them are Good aligned, I think the alignment system is looser than a lot of people think.
I mean, Palladium has its virtues, but having airtight and inflexible rules is not one of them.

[Vrykolas2k]

I think the person is anarchist.
I'd say that trying to get free merch and threatening, then assaulting, is also anarchist or perhaps miscreant.
That said, if some merchant or whatever spied on my wife like that, I'd kick him in the groin with steel-toed boots as a warning.

[Rallan]

this thread has reinforced a few things in my gaming...


one... ALIGNMENTS ARE STUPID. A character should be crafted with motivations and a personality... the alignment systems of games are always an attempt to be able to classify things as black or white or gray which nothing in life is black or white. Characters should be crafted to have a life of their own, reasons they think they way they do. A jihadist or crusader are both good in their own motivations but evil in their actions.

two... ALIGNMENTS ARE STUPID... I believe in any system alignments are only generalities, templates, or guidelines. I think this is ESPECIALLY true in any palladium game. i normally describe characters as "generally lawful good" but its the character traits that determine which alignment is the "closest fit" and not the alignment selection that drives the behavior of the character.

Not stupid, just limited. Palladium's alignment system is far from being the best morality system in the history of RPGs (I mean for starters there aren't really very many rules or mechanics which make it relevant during play, which begs the question of why there's an alignment rule in the first place), but they're a reasonable guide to morality in a world of spandex-clad superheroes or muscly barbarian adventurers. It's just that nobody at Palladium seems to have realised that the alignment system doesn't work very well if you want to the moral and ethical side of your game to be a bit more complex than, say, a Star Wars movie.

[Rallan]

Agree that palladium has the best RPG alignment system, but I still find it a bit lacking.

Been tinkering with an alternate alignment system for RPGs:

Each player decides on 10 absolutes for their character's code of morals. Things like never attacking innocents, never lying, kill all humans, never do what's expected, etc...

They list those 10 things and over the coarse of the game, perhaps they break one. Well, they then put a big "X" on that one and no longer follow it.

Sounds pretty lenient so far, right?

Each time they break a one of their 10 moral codes or face a in-game trauma, you roll to see if they get an insanity. Each non-Xed moral code is 10% of their ability to resist insanity. So if you break a single moral code, you have a skill check with skill of 90% (for the 9 remaining moral codes). GM might want to just pick an insanity that fits the broken moral, rather than rolling a random one.

If the PC ever gets to ZERO moral codes remaining, they are deemed too insane/dysfunctional to continue and their player is forced to create a character.

Basically, this allows a character to create an alignment they can really play - one that is clear to them and the GM. If they break one of their rules, they risk insanity. If they break all their rules, they can start over.

I will note that to break a rule on that list of absolutes, is totally up to the GM/Player on what actually constitutes a true rule break and not just a bend...

Also note that a character with insanities not relating to this moral code does not necessarily start with less moral codes - up to the GM/player. Some insanities are a product of genetics or upbringing rather than trauma. Should try to begin all players with the same number of moral codes.
-Pax

PS: a moral code like, "kill all humans" could have issues with a human party member. But you could bend the rule by saying that your planning to kill the human after is loses it's usefulness, or you just never realized it was a human, or maybe that PC has been your friend for so long you no longer think of them as human. It would require proper role play, but this is an RPG alignment idea.

Well it's definitely more tangible and customisable than Palladium's system, but I'm not sure if I'd enjoy playing it.

First and foremost, it penalises players who want to make characters who are either really nice people or bound by a really tight code of personal behavior. The stricter the self-imposed "Thou Shalt Not" list is, the more likely they are to run into situations where they might have to break one of their own commandments.

Second, it encourages bad roleplayers to be bad roleplayers. Why make a character who's good or honour-bound when you can just pull the equivalent of the old "always play Chaotic Neutral" schtick. Why play a good character and get penalised when you could give yourself a Thou Shalt Not list of crimes and atrocities so outrageous that you won't get a chance to perform them until the whole rest of the party is dead? Eg "Never destroy an entire galaxy" or "Never rape children". And why play an honour-bound character when you can give yourself a list of prohibitions so vague and flexible that you can argue your way around just about all of them? eg Ford Prefect's rules for using his Hitchhikers' Guide expense account, which includes the "unless you really feel like it" clause. And then of course you'll have the rules lawyers who'll give themselves an incredibly lenient code even if they plan on playing a character who's even nicer than the Adam West version of Batman, so that they can play a traditional white-hat hero and not have to worry about being hit with random insanity whenever they face a moral dilemma.

Third up, it penalises some kinds of character growth. You can't play a hero gradually hardening into a cynical antihero, or tragically falling into villainy, because as he abandons his moral code he goes unplayably insane.

All in all it's a system that's kind of wonky even if you've got a group of players who genuinely try to play by the spirit of the rule, and easily sidestepped by players who want to get around it.

Plus thematically I don't think it really fits unless you're playing a setting where something supernatural is going on that ties madness and corruption with evil. It makes sense to have something like this for characters like Cosmo-Knights in the Phase World setting, because they Fall if they can't live by their code. And it makes sense in a game where you've got supernatural critters who can descend into evil (a la the PCs in White Wolf's "Vampire: the Masquerade", or Jedi characters in Star Wars), because it can represent their struggle to maintain their humanity and dignity even though their very nature tempts them into crossing over to the dark side. But for regular characters in regular settings, it seems kinda unnatural.