D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Jfdlsjfd]

Third, “that’s the law” is not a defence when as one of the highest ranking people in Kenabres, and a representative of the goddess of Justice, you likely have the power to change the law.

Indeed. He isn't a random footman. [In my opinion, for that matter, he's indeed LE who thinks himself LN].

At of course, as an Inquisitor, Halruun’s actions reflect on Iomedae herself. So murdering good-aligned priests without a trial and burning witches is definitely a bad look on the LG goddess of justice.

Not sure on this one. Have you played the first game? In this on

Spoiler

Valerie is rejecting Shelyn and an order of Shelyn's paladins tries to make her get back into the flock. It is obvious that Shelyn doesn't disapproves the intent but when they go overboard about it, another order of paladin stands up for the characters and they end up fighting each other. (Shelyn is NG, she shouldn't approve forcing someone to... follow the strict rigid way of paladinhood by force).

I am not knowledgeable enough with Golarion, but its possible the gods aren't omniscient and keep granting spells to people really not morally qualified for the job and I'd say the bad Paladin in Kingmaker isn't better than Harluun, and Shelyn obviously supported one side, without removing the power of the other side.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So, how many priests must you murder or witches burn at the stake before you are considered Evil? What does this say about Regill and Daeron, who are Evil and part of your party?

If they are really witches and witching does really enlarge the worldwound (which is probably naughty word, but they probably don't know it), then I wouldn't say it's evil to kill witches whenever witching is forbidden by the law. It's harsh, but I wouldn't classify it as evil. Burning officials priests from your city because... they don't approve your crusade-management method is evil.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, how many priests must you murder or witches burn at the stake before you are considered Evil? What does this say about Regill and Daeron, who are Evil and part of your party?

Isn't the whole point that things are never going to be as cut and dried as you want?

You're always going to have a situation where every decision/event is unique, because this isn't a video game, you don't have X morality points for Y action. Indeed, RPGs have tried that, like Vampire: The Masquerade, and I can assure you, it works extremely badly unless you have a Storyteller who is willing to ignore the system and use their brain instead. I mean, some (most?) versions of Humanity literally made it worse to take a golf club to some dude's BMW than to take the same golf club to owner of said BMW's face.

Demanding fixed morality stuff like that just really doesn't end well.

 

[Scribe]

So, how many priests must you murder or witches burn at the stake before you are considered Evil? What does this say about Regill and Daeron, who are Evil and part of your party?

What it says, is that Regill wouldn't perform a Good deed unless it was militarily prudent (killing the wounded is his first act we see) Daeron is gleefully selfish and self centered, and has no care for anyone but his own hedonistic whims, and that our Inquisitor 'grimaced' as Ember bid him farewell.

Do you think Regill would have?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, how many priests must you murder or witches burn at the stake before you are considered Evil?

You'd be surprised in D&D as long as you pick your targets carefully.

Was the priest of the wrong religion (even though his god has a temple on third street? Was the witch a member of a species the game says are all okay to kill? You're gonna go far, kid.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What it says, is that Regill wouldn't perform a Good deed unless it was militarily prudent (killing the wounded is his first act we see)

Well, yes, he's LE. If it's a coin-flip on whether the most prudent thing is Good or Evil, he'll pick Evil. If the Good thing is clearly more prudent, but not massively more, and some sort of argument can be made for Evil, even if it's contrived and involves tortured logic, Regill will pick Evil. If there's no way out of the Good thing being the smart thing, he'll grudgingly do it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I am not knowledgeable enough with Golarion, but its possible the gods aren't omniscient and keep granting spells to people really not morally qualified for the job and I'd say the bad Paladin in Kingmaker isn't better than Harluun, and Shelyn obviously supported one side, without removing the power of the other side.

I am not an expert in Golarion and I did not play Kingmaker. In 2e, as I recall, a deity could deny spells from a cleric that was contravening their tenets. I believe that this was maintained in 3e and Pathfinder (not to mention that in all these editions, paladins could fall if they failed to uphold their tenets).

 

[Scribe]

Well, yes, he's LE. If it's a coin-flip on whether the most prudent thing is Good or Evil, he'll pick Evil. If the Good thing is clearly more prudent, but not massively more, and some sort of argument can be made for Evil, even if it's contrived and involves tortured logic, Regill will pick Evil. If there's no way out of the Good thing being the smart thing, he'll grudgingly do it.

I don't believe that's accurate.

If there is a Good option that is more efficient, his character would do so.

He is Evil, as he clearly doesn't care about things like life, or joy, or anything beyond the crusade against the Demons.

Granted, I don't know if there is printed material, I only know the Character from the game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If there is a Good option that is more efficient, his character would do so.

I haven't finished it, but I've seen a lot of times Regill was arguing for something that was extremely short-sighted and obviously counterproductive, but I guess it's a discussion for a different thread. He'll pretty much always argue against the Good thing, even if it makes more sense. The difference is, if you pick the Good thing anyway, he'll usually rationalize it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Isn't the whole point that things are never going to be as cut and dried as you want?

Demanding fixed morality stuff like that just really doesn't end well.

I agree, which is why alignment shouldn’t have been implemented in the first place. It’s never going to be cut and dried, so stop incorporating mechanics on the basis that it is.