Skinning Intelligent Humanoids=Evil Act_____Skinning Intelligent Dragons= Ok?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Nope.

We assimilated them.

Resistance is futile.


Blueluck wrote:

I don't think that skinning any dead creature constitutes an evil act. It's dead. You can't hurt it anymore.

Skinning a creature alive would be evil, whether or not it was intelligent.

As a Pharasmian I am offended and probably angry at this gross mishandling of moral superiority maybe.

As an aside, I love animals...I think that they're delicious.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Nope.

We assimilated them.

Resistance is futile.

You know, I never actually thought about the existence of Borg slashfic.

Thank you for that. :/

Silver Crusade

USB baby.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Plug'n'play.


Mikaze wrote:
USB baby.

Bluetooth. USB is like a dial telephone...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Might as well be sexting at that point.

oh God where is this thread going


And,....Melanesians have 6-8% Denisovan.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
And,....Melanesians have 6-8% Denisovan.

Impressive command of sub-asiatic ancient humanoid species divergence there Spanky...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Nope.

We assimilated them.

Resistance is futile.

You know, I never actually thought about the existence of Borg slashfic.

Thank you for that. :/

Stop lying.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
And,....Melanesians have 6-8% Denisovan.
Impressive command of sub-asiatic ancient humanoid species divergence there Spanky...

I just saw that on Wiki.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
And,....Melanesians have 6-8% Denisovan.
Impressive command of sub-asiatic ancient humanoid species divergence there Spanky...
I just saw that on Wiki.

Heh, not surprised.

You do have to be careful though. This week Wiki had to remove a completely bogus "history" of a war in India that never happened. It had been made up entirely out of thin air, and it was so convincing that it was picked as a daily special link by the Wiki staff before some historian happened across it and said:

"hey, what?"


this site estimates 5% denisovan in modern melanesians.


Leprechauns weren't "flores hobbits" though.
We were ancient astronauts that bred with rhesus monkeys.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Stop lying.

I always lie.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Stop lying.
I always lie.

Me too!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Nope.

We assimilated them.

Resistance is futile.

You know, I never actually thought about the existence of Borg slashfic.

Thank you for that. :/

Resistance is fertile.

Cmon,.....7 of 9,(spoilered for the pure of heart)

Spoiler:
hooking up with Chewbacca,
man!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

That was not a Borg, that was an adolescent fantasy. :P


If the "skin" is worth gp / useable in crafting armor, weapons and equippage items ... it can't be Evil to acquire it.

<.<

>.>

What?


pfft middle aged fantasy.....


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Leprechauns weren't "flores hobbits" though.

We were ancient astronauts that bred with rhesus monkeys.

"Flores Hobbits" were geographically isolated enough that it is possible that human interaction was very rare. Some anthropologists theorize they might have been clever enough to not have been seen by the few humans who might have happened by.

Still, I strongly suspect we haven't found 1/2 of all the actual humanoid species that existed at some point in our history. Maybe not 1/10.


Anyone ever noticed how the "hunk of meat" entry in the CRB doesn't really state where the meat came from?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Anyone ever noticed how the "hunk of meat" entry in the CRB doesn't really state where the meat came from?

That's an entry sold by "All the world's Meat"


I'm pretty sure "hunk of meat" is listed that way because most of it was just some hunk of stone that got converted to flesh and sold as "meat". It was never sentient. Heck it was never alive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

10+ years ago I ran a kinda fun side adventure for my players in which they had the opportunity to foil some enterprising merchants who were selling meat that was Stone to Fleshed from stone chipped off the petrified giant bodies of long dead and forgotten gods floating in the Astral. Not only was it delicious, but it acted as a long-lasting potion of heroism, so it sold for a lot. The PC party cleric was supremely unamused, despite the fact that no living beings were physically harmed by this in any way.


skinning is not evil act, but going out to hunt the creature just for its hides I would say be an evil act.


Heaggles wrote:
skinning is not evil act, but going out to hunt the creature just for its hides I would say be an evil act.

Why? If skinning isn't evil, why would hunting them just for their hides be evil? Would hunting them for meat be evil? How about hunting them for trophies? Hunting them for fun?

I'm assuming you are meaning hunting sentient creatures... but the same basic issues apply even if not.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Heaggles wrote:
skinning is not evil act, but going out to hunt the creature just for its hides I would say be an evil act.

Why? If skinning isn't evil, why would hunting them just for their hides be evil? Would hunting them for meat be evil? How about hunting them for trophies? Hunting them for fun?

I'm assuming you are meaning hunting sentient creatures... but the same basic issues apply even if not.

No lets say that someone that hunts wolfs just for there hides and not for anything else would be an evil act, but if someone the hunts wolfs for there hides and meet would not be an evil act. But hunting an sentient creatures would be an evil act, but if a dragon attacks you even if its a good dragon you have all right to skin it, so it dose not goto waste and according to the game looting is not an evil act. And you can stay skinning is a form of looting.


Starfinder Superscriber

So back on this thread, my 3.5 group had a HUGE freaking argument over this when the CG cleric wanted to skin some nagas to get new shoes made and the Dragonborn paladin had a moral problem with this. She simply pointed out that he had his dragon skin belt and shoes (from a black and family they'd fought a few level earlier) and man, did that ever go around and around the table.

I always felt that skinning humanoids was more icky than evil (unless they are alive; then that is just torture and I don't care what anyone says or their flimsy moral justification, torture is EVIL); sure you could skin an orc to make a fancy orc skin vest, but it'd just be creepy and pretty much put you on the side of "you don't talk to people or go into towns in that clothing" while the rest of the party is in town.

Silver Crusade

DJEternalDarkness wrote:
I always felt that skinning humanoids was more icky than evil (unless they are alive; then that is just torture and I don't care what anyone says or their flimsy moral justification, torture is EVIL); sure you could skin an orc to make a fancy orc skin vest, but it'd just be creepy and pretty much put you on the side of "you don't talk to people or go into towns in that clothing" while the rest of the party is in town.

I still have a hard time believing that some players are still surprised that their characters are treated like pariahs when they come into town wearing necklaces of ears, but apparently it happens.


Yea I had a party member butcher some werewolfs and try to sell the meat to town, the party said that was an evil act something about selling human meat to town just dose not sound right. But the question is what if the party killed Frog men would selling there meat be an evil act? People eat frogs.


Heaggles wrote:
No lets say that someone that hunts wolfs just for there hides and not for anything else would be an evil act, but if someone the hunts wolfs for there hides and meet would not be an evil act.

Suddenly, everyone in 17th century America was evil.

Also, where hides? And how exactly do you carry meets on your body?


ask gollum about the meets my precious


This...
... thread...
... turned...
:.(

It got better.

Also, quoting myself from another thread...

I wrote:

That is, ultimately, the only justifiable reason to kill a sentient creature: you've reached a situation where there is no impasse... either they will continue threatening (reasonably believed to possibly lead to killing/deeply harming) that which is important to you, or they are dead (or destroyed).

(Killing other, non-sentient creatures is mostly a side-effect of survival: to eat, gain "coverings" from their hides, and other needed supplies.)

Thus, killing for sport = bad, killing for (justifiable) reasons = not bad.

The question of what to do with it after the fact?

I'm on the side that "it's tacky and kind of gross, but not inherently evil". It's much better when done with at least some respect due to the creature dealt with.


sorry im giggling at some respect due the creature.

"hey THAT guy wears yeti skin with STYLE"


Is it considered respectful if I cut the dragon into a very nice suit of armor and then cover it all with sequins?


Only if done right, man. Only if done right.


I don't think anyone has quoted the RAW on this: "Most good folk consider wearing the skins of intelligent creatures to be abhorrent." (From the Giant-Hide Armor desription.)
So, there you go. Wearing dragon-hide isn't evil, but it is 'abhorrent'.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dragons pose all kinds of alignment problems!

Q: Is breathing evil?
A: Generally no, but if you're a dragon flying low over a village...

Grand Lodge

Zog of Deadwood wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Great, next it will be: "So... what's the problem if we EAT them? All that meat's just going to waste..."

It may be that you are confusing morals with ethics.

Eating dead people is morally wrong in most human societies. Most have a code of morals that defines "right" and "wrong" and that defines cannibalism as wrong.

Ethics, however, is not concerned with right and wrong except as those terms relate to good and evil. Eating the flesh of dead people is not evil in and of itself, although murdering people for their flesh would be. There are many things that break the moral code of one society that another society would be wholly unconcerned with.

Needless to say, showing wanton disrespect for the feelings of intelligent living beings who have done you no harm, even if you do not share those feelings, is hardly the mark of a good person. And in general, unless you come from one of those exceedingly rare societies that doesn't disapprove of cannibalism and thus have a nonstandard system of personal morality, eating dead dragons would appear to indicate that you do not consider them truly to be people, that you consider people very unlike yourself to be lesser beings. So someone uttering the line you have postulated would usually be nongood, but for those reasons, not for seeing the practical side of what to do with a dead dragon. The act itself is neutral.

Definition of Cannibalism:

the practice of eating the flesh of your own kind

Yetis are not their own kind (his character is a gnome). By definition, Human eating elf meat it's not cannibalism, its just sick.

And many good npcs and npc organization have skinning intelligent creatures. The Harper have a stuffed Beholder in Twilight Hall, for Liira's sake!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zog of Deadwood wrote:

It may be that you are confusing morals with ethics.

Eating dead people is morally wrong in most human societies. Most have a code of morals that defines "right" and "wrong" and that defines cannibalism as wrong.

Ethics, however, is not concerned with right and wrong except as those terms relate to good and evil. Eating the flesh of dead people is not evil in and of itself, although murdering people for their flesh would be. There are many things that break the moral code of one society that another society would be wholly unconcerned with.

Needless to say, showing wanton disrespect for the feelings of intelligent living beings who have done you no harm, even if you do not share those feelings, is hardly the mark of a good person. And in general, unless you come from one of those exceedingly rare societies that doesn't disapprove of cannibalism and thus have a nonstandard system of personal morality, eating dead dragons would appear to indicate that you do not consider them truly to be people, that you consider people very unlike yourself to be lesser beings. So someone uttering the line you have postulated would usually be nongood, but for those reasons, not for seeing the practical side of what to do with a dead dragon. The act itself is neutral.

I've always thought of morality as being in regards to the good/evil axis of thinking and ethics to be along the chaos/law axis of thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


I've always thought of morality as being in regards to the good/evil axis of thinking and ethics to be along the chaos/law axis of thinking.

The distinction between "ethics" and "morality" is difficult to make primarily because the first definition of "ethics" you're likely to find in a dictionary will be something like "a system of moral principles."

However, if you dig into the subject the primary difference between the two for most people is that "morality" is presumed to be something that supersedes human definition, while "ethics" is exactly that which is defined by humans.

Ethics originally meant a system of codified rules that apply to a particular group. Lawyers have "ethics", meaning there are literal rules written down that lawyers are expected to follow or they can be disbarred.

Morality is generally not constrained in that fashion and is frequently communicated through allegory or symbolism.

As an example:

"Golden Rule" = morality
"Code of Hammurabi" = ethics

RD's comment about good/evil vs law/chaos has some merit. Ethics is all about following explicit rules of "do this" or "don't do that". And in a PF sense, that is sort of law vs chaos.


If the players are skinning creatures that attacked him, after they are dead, I don't see what the big deal is about, for the most part.

Creatures like Yetis/Dragons/etc.. are obviously Monstrous, so alittle different then say Orcs. I think the main distinction is if your players are wanting to skin and wear humanoid ( orcs/ elves/etc ) skin, that's creepy, and NPC's should reflect that attitude.

I see no problem with allowing any alignment player who wants some swag, to skin something that would/could look cool and make an item out of it to wear. After all, we are in the "business" of players having fun.

If the players are looking for a "creepy" factor... then you might say that *could* start drifting to evil, or at least some negative modifiers to social skills.

On a side note, I once had a player "skin" a hill giant's private parts, because he wanted a hat ( hair club for men?? ).... let's just say... wow!


By the way, many, many human cultures routinely "skinned" their enemies. The native americans of the great plains routinely "scalped" their dead (and sometimes living) enemies and kept the scalps as a means of "counting coup" or keeping score.

Headhunters kept shrunken heads.

Presumably these cultures did not see themselves as evil, in spite of carrying around body parts of other human beings.


Rynjin wrote:
Heaggles wrote:
No lets say that someone that hunts wolfs just for there hides and not for anything else would be an evil act, but if someone the hunts wolfs for there hides and meet would not be an evil act.

Suddenly, everyone in 17th century America was evil.

Also, where hides? And how exactly do you carry meets on your body?

Moral relativism (and grammar/spelling) FTW!


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The native americans of the great plains routinely "scalped" their dead (and sometimes living) enemies and kept the scalps as a means of "counting coup" or keeping score.

Headhunters kept shrunken heads.

Presumably these cultures did not see themselves as evil, in spite of carrying around body parts of other human beings.

No, but they were evil (and eternally doomed, incidentally) because they were pagans that didn't know about Jesus.

Suckers...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The distinction between "ethics" and "morality" is difficult to make primarily because the first definition of "ethics" you're likely to find in a dictionary will be something like "a system of moral principles."

However, if you dig into the subject the primary difference between the two for most people is that "morality" is presumed to be something that supersedes human definition, while "ethics" is exactly that which is defined by humans.

Well, yes, but that is more than a little misleading. It is true that for most people morality is taken as a given while ethics are derived and defined. However, that actually means that any given system of morality is seen as subjective from those outside that morality, because it is received truth from an impeachable source (a society, the holy writ of a particular religion, parents, etc.). Meanwhile, ethics are also subjective (at the very least in defining a framework), but derive principles within that framework that are logically consistent and with hopefully clear arguments as to why some things are or are not proper types of action.

Morality is gut. Ethics is head. The head can most definitely let you down (false assumptions, shoddy reasoning, incomplete knowledge, and so on). It is a mistake to consider gut as more "real" or valid, however, because it is not identically inherent to all people. It is ingrained into people and will vary according to upbringing.

TL;DR: Morality is the rough map we all have that varies according to how and where we were raised. Ethics is the sextant and navigational tools we use to try to improve the map.

Edit: It is necessary to mention that ethics, the practice of creating and defining proper courses of action, is not identical to its end product, often also called ethics, which if widely popularized becomes morality.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Where do you guys think monster masks (UE) come from? Making, busying, selling, and wearing those certainly aren't evil. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zog of Deadwood wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The distinction between "ethics" and "morality" is difficult to make primarily because the first definition of "ethics" you're likely to find in a dictionary will be something like "a system of moral principles."

However, if you dig into the subject the primary difference between the two for most people is that "morality" is presumed to be something that supersedes human definition, while "ethics" is exactly that which is defined by humans.

Well, yes, but that is more than a little misleading. It is true that for most people morality is taken as a given while ethics are derived and defined. However, that actually means that any given system of morality is seen as subjective from those outside that morality, because it is received truth from an impeachable source (a society, the holy writ of a particular religion, parents, etc.). Meanwhile, ethics are also subjective (at the very least in defining a framework), but derive principles within that framework that are logically consistent and with hopefully clear arguments as to why some things are or are not proper types of action.

Morality is gut. Ethics is head. The head can most definitely let you down (false assumptions, shoddy reasoning, incomplete knowledge, and so on). It is a mistake to consider gut as more "real" or valid, however, because it is not identically inherent to all people. It is ingrained into people and will vary according to upbringing.

TL;DR: Morality is the rough map we all have that varies according to how and where we were raised. Ethics is the sextant and navigational tools we use to try to improve the map.

Zog, I don't think it's "misleading" at all. In fact I'd even call it the etymologically accepted explanation.

Now I agree with you that leaves us with the question of what IS acceptable as a definition of morality, but it puts ethics more or less where it belongs.

Since there is no agreement among all cultures on what the fundamental moral principles of the universe are, or even if there ARE any such fundamental moral principles, we are left with a practical reality of moral relativism no matter how much some people would wish otherwise.

The generally accepted practice among most philosophers is to seek common ground from all cultures and use that as a basis for forming a "fundamental" morality.

In many cases this boils down the the concept of "reciprocity" which is commonly understood by most folks raised in western cultures as the "Golden Rule", or "Don't do to other people things that you wouldn't want done to you, and treat others the way you'd want to be treated."

Honestly, until we peel back the fabric of the cosmos and find the wizard behind the curtain, that's likely to be the best we ever come up with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh. Kill 'em all, take their stuff - including trophies and valuable body bits. Works both ways. Imagine getting whacked by "the bad guys", getting resurrected only to later run into the same "bad guys" wearing your own body bits on a necklace. Good times! ^____^

51 to 100 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Skinning Intelligent Humanoids=Evil Act_____Skinning Intelligent Dragons= Ok? All Messageboards