It really depends if desecrating someone's remains is an evil act (regardless of whether the person in question was a lowly bandit or not), but for a cleric of Shelyn, that'd be some "interesting art" no?
Crucifixtion was not so much an act of 'exectution' as it was an act of 'torture'. Similar to Vlad the impaler and his long sticks...
I would consider 'torture' to be evil even if the person in question deserved execution.
That said, it's not really what your asking. Your question is more similiar to someone putting an enemies head on pike outside their castle.
I think it would be distasteful. I would question how 'GOOD' a king or cleric would be to think that was a 'cool idea.' but on the grand scheme of good/evil, I don't think it would be EVIL to do such things, and probably common in some countries.
I would say since they're dead already, it's not evil, as they're not suffering unnecessary and being tortured.
So no evil act, but it might be an issue between the cleric and his god. I don't know enough about Shelyn to know how she looks at that.
True crucifixion most certainly is evil. What you describe, not so much.
True crucifixion most certainly is evil. What you describe, not so much.
Definitely erring on the neutral side of Neutral Good, unless you bound the corpse's hands to the wood, rather than drove nails through it. Then it's firmly in the middle.
Why not just put their heads on stakes?
Doesn't require as much wood.
Also, since Shalyn's into art and such, you could call it that and then have a clearer conscious about it I guess.
(Also, what' up with all these "Is X Evil" threads? Do people not have the ability to deduce these things by themselves? That or they're trolling.)
Heads on stakes is much less likely to get into a real world religious debate to boot.
Why not just hang them and leave them? Makes a point, plus fewer in game questions of alignment.
So I have a character who is a up and coming noble, he's a neutral good Cleric of Shelyn who has been trying to deal with a banditry problem and I was thinking of putting the bandits we kill in the course of our battles up on crosses on major roads to illustrate the mortality rate of a career in banditry. I'm not looking to crucify living people, just to post some interesting road signs.
If these were living individuals being nailed to crosses similar to the story of Jesus then I would say yes, its evil because of the innate torture.
Dead individuals being nailed to crosses as warning signs is a little bit more of a gray area but not by much IMO. When a good character must kill an opponent they also have to handle the logistics of desposing of the body (assuming there is still a body). This generally means a burial or cremation is to follow with either the local areas first rights being conducted or first rights being done by a religious figure in the group.
In this situation the only way I would say this wouldnt be an evil act is if crucifixion was part of the last rights of the dead person or the religious leader handling the body. Somehow I doubt that Shelyn is big on crucifixion for corpse desposal so I would say yeah your skirting the evil side
If it is used by a government, state, or local authority then it is a form of execution and not considered evil.
|
If it is used by a government, state, or local authority then it is a form of execution and not considered evil.
Not considered unlawful perhaps, but its still evil. Just because a government does it doesn't make it good (or neutral). Lawful evil governments exist afterall.
And public displays of victims of state power sounds decidedly lawful evil to me. In fact, if I wanted to communicate to my players they were walking down a road towards a lawful evil kingdom, crucified bandits would be one of my go-to warning signs.
If they were chaotic evil? Crucified peasants.
*facepalm*
Yeah, let's go ahead and put automobile accident victims on display along highways. That'll be a good awareness campaign with no social repercussions at all...
Sounds like a plan to me. I wonder why people haven't done this yet.
So I have a character who is a up and coming noble, he's a neutral good Cleric of Shelyn who has been trying to deal with a banditry problem and I was thinking of putting the bandits we kill in the course of our battles up on crosses on major roads to illustrate the mortality rate of a career in banditry. I'm not looking to crucify living people, just to post some interesting road signs.
I won't get into the debate of it being evil or not. But I will say this...it is ugly. Leaving around rotting corpses is not something even a evil whorshipper(if possible) of Shelyn would do, much less a cleric of one.
IMHO the reason for so many threads of "is X evil?"is the fact that we are modern people playing in a medieval fantasy setting, so we bring modern ethics in to the game.
Try reading about crime and punishment in the medieval period. Public flogging, hanging and humiliation were the norm, there were no prisons to speak of, as we know them. The punishment were made so that people could see what would happen to you, if you broke the social contract.
With that in mind, it is not necesarily evil to put a dead man up on a cross, it could be seen as showing concern and constraint to wait until he's dead.
|
|
Sounds like a plan to me. I wonder why people haven't done this yet.*facepalm*
Yeah, let's go ahead and put automobile accident victims on display along highways. That'll be a good awareness campaign with no social repercussions at all...
You mean those big posters with the photos of the accidents and the dead bodies showing?
It ha been done.The difference is that today we can use photographs and don't need to use real bodies, so we avoid the smell and flies.
The OP can do the same thing with a permanent illusion.
As a scare tactic against criminals he can even put the face of know outlaw in the illusionary corpses on display.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not looking to crucify living people, just to post some interesting road signs.
It's not evil since you are not causing any undue harm to the victim, but it would still be forbidden for that character. Leaving rotting corpses near the roads for all to see is a very big NO for a devotee of Shelyn, much less a cleric. Remember, gods aren't just alignments, they are associated with various concepts that they promote and by which people honor them. Shelyn is the goddess of beauty and art; promoting them is her "duty" as a goddess, and such things are pleasing to her and how she is to be venerated. Macabre and revolting "signs" as you propose would be an abomination to her and what she stands for, and something which would get that cleric her immediate (and negative) attention.
If the cleric was a devotee of... say, Erastil or Iomedae, I'd say it's ok. Shelyn, though? No. Not because she's "more good" than the other two, just because it's against her dogma. In the end, the cleric swore to serve her, and should abide by her wishes and views. If I were the DM, I'd allow a Knowledge (religion) DC 5 check to realize this would be grossly inappropriate (and I'd probably make a point I mean "relieving yourself on the altar" inappropriate), and if the cleric went through with this, he falls.
(And no, using Gentle Repose to make sure they don't decompose isn't much better. The bodies of the killed are not something devout Shelynites put on display, imo.)
In the end, the cleric swore to serve her, and should abide by her wishes and views.
To me, this sounds like kind of a weird statement. Clerics would typically follow a god because of faith reasons, they believe in whatever the god believes in. Not because of some contractual obligation was made "swearing" to serve.
A cleric who starts exhibiting desires and actions that run contrary to the god they call for aid would be having a crisis in faith, more than "not meeting contractual obligations of abiding her wishes".
I know it's semantics, but from the character perspective, it seemed like a weird sentence.
From a player perspective, it's entirely accurate. We don't necessarily feel exactly like our character should, so if we want to play a Cleric of Shelyn, then there's things we "must" abide.
IMHO the reason for so many threads of "is X evil?"is the fact that we are modern people playing in a medieval fantasy setting, so we bring modern ethics in to the game.
Try reading about crime and punishment in the medieval period. Public flogging, hanging and humiliation were the norm, there were no prisons to speak of, as we know them. The punishment were made so that people could see what would happen to you, if you broke the social contract.With that in mind, it is not necesarily evil to put a dead man up on a cross, it could be seen as showing concern and constraint to wait until he's dead.
Pretty much agree, actually in that mind set of the medieval peasant it would be a good act to torture and pin them up alive, so long as God and the local lord wanted it done. In game the considerations would be 1) The characters God/God's preferences/teachings...to see if it's good. 2) The local Lord/Kings dictates....to see if it's lawful.
From a strictly utilitarian view: Does the display of dead criminals drop the crime rate? If so, that's good aint it? Unless you are the criminal, with the need to feed a family....oh how circular.
I think it depends on the type of campaign you are playing, medieval times had very low moral standards in general, but I'd rather say evil and selfishness abounded, probably one reason people reference the 'dark ages'
It is however not a medieval setting and people are more morally aware, since they have contact with their gods and their heavenly servants, clerics and paladins. The alignment is at least partially objective, because good is a very real force, rather than just the right thing to do by popular vote.
I think this example shows disrespect for the once living and their dignity, I'd not go as far as call it evil, but it is a form of rule by terror, at the very least quite ruthless. Mildly evil perhaps, I do not think a cleric devoted to good ideals would be likely to do such a thing.
The act should strike the cleric as quite brutal and extreme, which means she might be forced into extreme circumstances, but as a common deterent policy it sure seems out off character. The act itself is not all what makes the alignment, but such actions should not come lightly to a good character and should be uncomfortable ordering such actions (imo)
I have to say pretty much every era has very low moral standards at times. The worlds pretty much given up on official slavery but sweat shops, child prostitution and slaughter based on a them and us mentality is still going strong...
Question regarding the crucifiction of the dead, are we opposed because its not aesthetically pleasing or because its not good? Shelyn can have neutral clerics, so would it be alright to display the bodies if they had their skeletons polished and maybe a bit of gold inlay?
I think it depends on the type of campaign you are playing, medieval times had very low moral standards in general, but I'd rather say evil and selfishness abounded, probably one reason people reference the 'dark ages'
Mostly it was called the dark ages because of a lack of recorded history. Later medieval times, which were mostly chronicled by the clergy recorded many good acts of torture and attempted genocide. The crusades were sanctioned by the pope who acted directly on behalf of a good God. Although morally ambiguous (or downright evil) to the modern mind, these things WERE considered "Good" by the morally aware.
It is however not a medieval setting and people are more morally aware, since they have contact with their gods and their heavenly servants, clerics and paladins.
The alignment is at least partially objective, because good is a very real force, rather than just the right thing to do by popular vote.
Do you see the similarity? Acts are made even more ambiguous to the modern mind because your character "knows" the Gods are real. If the Cleric of a deity which channels positive energy, and is therefore "good", tells you to nail a guy to a tree because he is "evil" it would be wrong not to do it. There are gods of vengence which channel positive energy.
I think this example shows disrespect for the once living and their dignity, I'd not go as far as call it evil, but it is a form of rule by terror, at the very least quite ruthless. Mildly evil perhaps, I do not think a cleric devoted to good ideals would be likely to do such a thing. The act should strike the cleric as quite brutal and extreme, which means she might be forced into extreme circumstances, but as a common deterent policy it sure seems out off character. The act itself is not all what makes the alignment, but such actions should not come lightly to a good character and should be uncomfortable ordering such actions (imo)
It would surely be more dependent on the teachings of the "Good" Clerics faith. Some faiths may place no taboo on the dead at all, they are now just meat now the spirit is gone. What dignity does meat deserve?
Frankly I'm not sure if this is my opinion or not, but I do enjoy healthy debate. It could certainly be a way to sway the opinions of your characters in game, especially those given a bag of nails and a wood axe, and told to go do a "good job".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, let's go ahead and put automobile accident victims on display along highways.
On a related note, is changing lanes without signaling an evil act?
In the end, the cleric swore to serve her, and should abide by her wishes and views.To me, this sounds like kind of a weird statement. Clerics would typically follow a god because of faith reasons, they believe in whatever the god believes in. Not because of some contractual obligation was made "swearing" to serve.
A cleric who starts exhibiting desires and actions that run contrary to the god they call for aid would be having a crisis in faith, more than "not meeting contractual obligations of abiding her wishes".
I think it ultimately depends on how clerics, as a class, are "made" and work as a social position. I'd expect that in most religions, they'd have to be somehow ordained, and possibly take a vow or in some other way affirm their affiliation with the cult. Granted, Shelyn is a CG deity and probably not all that hung up on dogma, but I'd expect there to be some sort of ritual that comes with becoming one of her chosen - perhaps something as simple as a visitation where she or a messenger grants the character her favor. After all, her clerics are her chosen apostles, granted magical powers to work in her name that the other 99.9% of her devotees lack; with such power comes responsibility. There is also an element of a "deal" - the deity gives you powers, and there is the expectation that you pay it back with service. If you accepted the powers, you accepted the restrictions they come with.
In polytheistic settings, where people have proof many gods exist and are not in conflict, it would be certainly possible to choose whatever divine patron best suits your views and change it after something causes you to reconsider your worldview. However, I'd expect members of the clergy would go an extra step. They aren't just miracle-workering adventurers, but also representatives of their cult, and thus authority figures of sorts to the other cultists. Ignoring their responsibilities towards their deity and fellow believers should come at a price. Adhering to taboos or principles of the faith even when they don't make sense is part of what being a cleric - and, for that matter, a believer - is about. It is not just lawful and chaotic, good and evil - the gods stand for some things and against others, have their own likes and dislikes, friends and rivals; it is just how they are.
On a related note, is changing lanes without signaling an evil act?
Yeah, let's go ahead and put automobile accident victims on display along highways.
It is a chaotic act. Unless you do it while talking on a cell phone, or texting, then it becomes pure Evil!
I think the OP's question really boils down to the details of religion in your campaign world. Almost all religions in the modern world have fairly strict rules about how to treat the dead. Sometimes these rules only apply to followers of the faith, sometimes to everyone, and sometimes denying them could be the ultimate punishment.
I would use this as an opportunity to flesh out your world, and give some of the different faiths opposing ideas about it.
I actually haven't seen these. Did they get family permission?
You mean those big posters with the photos of the accidents and the dead bodies showing?
It ha been done.
I don't think you NEED permission for such things (though getting it might avoid much grief). A photo taken in a highly public place (such as near a freeway) is the sole property of the photographer, and he can do whatever he wants with it, including giving it to a billboard advertising agency, sans permission from anyone in the photograph (or anyone known to the people in the photograph).
Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes. This is one of the many reasons why you should never go out in public unkempt. :P
There are limitations on putting someone's likeness to commercial use, however, so such a billboard would only be legal either with permission, or if it served as a warning message put out by a non-profit organization. If the victim or victims are no longer recognizable, then any notion of "likeness" is voided. Otherwise, we would never be allowed to look at wartime photography.
*facepalm*
Yeah, let's go ahead and put automobile accident victims on display along highways. That'll be a good awareness campaign with no social repercussions at all...
:)
If I was in a game, as GM or player, right now, I'd use WWJD as my yardstick... as in, What Would Joffrey Do? Joffrey would be all for heads on pikes and corpses on crosses, so this is probably a bad idea. Just because other historical (fiction or real world) rulers & governments did it is not a good excuse.
You can accomplish the same goal by putting the bandits empty tunics, helmet, or defaced banners up on pikes. Plus, no pissing off neutral and goodly people with corpse desecration or possible undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note, is changing lanes without signaling an evil act?
Intentionally? Yes. That, or driving while using a cellphone, will provoke me to drive over you in a celestial Uni-Mog.
Evil is contextual - killing and eating sentient beings, for example, is not an evil act when performed by an animal, but is an evil act when performed by a sentient humanoid. In our modern society the act of putting executed criminals on display in public as a warning would certainly be an evil act, but in a society where that sort of thing is commonplace it would be a neutral act. Certainly never a *good* act, but not necessarily evil.
Creating fear is not inherently evil - the spells that cause fear are not of the evil subtype. Causing undue suffering and pain is evil, so methods of execution that are torturous would likely be considered evil. Executing criminals by means of crucifixion would probably be evil unless it was the law (that you didnt put into place) in which case it would be a lawful neutral act, more or less.
When dealing with paladins and their requirement to act in a lawful good manner, I find it best to apply the morality test set out in Kantian Absolutism, which is to ask yourself "can the act in question be justified if universalized?" - would it make equal sense to put all prisoners on public display, alive or dead? would it make equal sense to break any every which, in a particular case, ran contrary to what you feel is morally right?
Public displays using criminals have been a fairly integral part of most cultures until our own more modern day culture. We don't consider our ancestral cultures to be evil, just less "civilized". On the other hand, breaking any law you feel morally uncomfortable with is certainly not Lawful - someone who obeys only laws they feel morally aligned with is Chaotic.
In our modern society the act of putting executed criminals on display in public as a warning would certainly be an evil act, but in a society where that sort of thing is commonplace it would be a neutral act. Certainly never a *good* act, but not necessarily evil.
If display is NEVER a *good* act then surely execution is NEVER a *good* act, so far one which you have not questioned. Execution is, by it's nature killing an unarmed and defenceless sentient being...one already rendered harmless to society by dint of imprisonment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Execution is, by it's nature killing an unarmed and defenceless sentient being...one already rendered harmless to society by dint of imprisonment.
Only death renders things harmless.
Unless there's necromancy involved, then only fire.
|
So I have a character who is a up and coming noble, he's a neutral good Cleric of Shelyn
Shelyn's all about beautifying the world.
Bodies on sticks along major thoroughfares sounds not only ugly, but also prone to attracting disease and carrion-eating vermin and man-eating creatures (so, not just ugly, but also bad for the common welfare).
A LG cleric of Iomedae or Torag might support this sort of thing, or a LN cleric of Abadar (showing the consequences of lawless behavior in a graphic way), but I don't think that a Shelynite would be fond of something this *tacky.*
Sometimes it's not about good morals, it's about good taste.
Commissioning some frescos / murals / inspiring tales or songs / etc. of the freeing of people, of battles won against bandits, etc. would seem more the Shelynite thing to do. (The songs and tales, particularly, but also paintings displayed in prominent areas, perhaps even painted murals on the inside of town walls.)
I haven't read the responses.
That said, anyone who said an objective "yes" or "no" is attempting to make something objective that in reality is very subjective.
Moral questions don't have black and white answers.
Example: If murder is evil, then when Col Stauffenberg attempted to murder Hitler was he committing an evil act? It's questionable, because morality isn't objective.
GM's and players need to discuss and agree what is good and evil on a case by case basis with the understanding that the rules aren't written in stone.
The other option is to use a religious based objective morality. Be aware though that this kind of system can often judge acts that "feel" moral to be immoral and acts that "feel" immoral to be moral.
Only death renders things harmless.
Unless there's necromancy involved, then only fire.
What about burning skeletons? What do you do about those?
What about burning skeletons? What do you do about those?
If the answer isn't more Fire, then it's more frost.
The inverse is also true.
|
|
I actually haven't seen these. Did they get family permission?
You mean those big posters with the photos of the accidents and the dead bodies showing?
It ha been done.
Probably not. It was a campaign done by a province in northern Italy as a deterrent against driving while drunk.
It was considered shocking and was suspended after a few week.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I still think "evil or not" is the wrong question here. The issue is fairly minor to begin with, since the criminals are dead already. Whether they are properly buried or not is a fairly trifling matter in terms of good versus evil.
Instead, imo the bigger issue is "Will Shelyn, the goddess of Beauty, approve of this." For a cleric, this is arguably even more important. I'd say that from what we know of her, it's quite likely she will not be pleased by such actions. Not because it's evil, but because it's offensive to her.
I'd just like to point out disemboweling people with Glaives is also pretty damn ugly and Clerics and Paladins of Shelyn do that on occasion as well.
This is about finding a reasonable method of preventing ugliness and suffering by showing people that the local area is no longer easy pickings. The actions that lead up to creating something beautiful are often ugly.
I'd just like to point out disemboweling people with Glaives is also pretty damn ugly and Clerics and Paladins of Shelyn do that on occasion as well.
True, although it's quite debatable if it's any worse than killing them with bludgeoning weapons, axes, swords, etc. Devout Shelynites just try to avoid combat where possible and would rather not slay their enemies when they can; iirc it's actually in the code for paladins.
Now, I don't want to be dragged in a "means vs end" debates, but I hold to my point that Shelyn won't be pleased by such grisly deeds. If the cleric wants to leave monuments of their victories more "tasteful" means can be devised (as in, ones without rotting cadavers), and I'd actually contend that a few choice rumors in local taverns can do just as much. Bards can be so imaginative when given a chance...
|
|
I haven't read the responses.
That said, anyone who said an objective "yes" or "no" is attempting to make something objective that in reality is very subjective.
Moral questions don't have black and white answers.
Sure they do. You just have to get off the fence and subscribe to a theory of morals. Your options are between competing rational theories (most of which are in full agreement except in very special cases) and competing traditional theories (which tend to be prone to Bronze Age absurdities, like equating homosexuality to murder and banning pork). I don't know where you're getting this idea that only religion (i.e. tradition) based morality is absolutist.
For example, I subscribe to a Kantian perspective, which recognizes that conscience is subjective and passionate, and seeks to use reason to answer moral questions by considering the intent of the person acting without regard to context or consequence. The Kantian argument is incredibly strong because it is rooted in the categorical imperative. What makes it so strong is that its conclusions are derived from a set of premises that one either agrees with or admits to being a suicidal, homicidal egomaniac with no regard for the self of others.
And I consider it a pretty strong confirmation of a moral theory if the only people who can rationally disagree with it are people willing to agree to being labeled with the descriptors we use for psycho ax killers. I think that's a pretty weak position to make any kind of arguments about morality from.
Kant has had a huge influence on the development of moral theory in the modern era, and all of the major schools of modern ethics owe some significant measure to Kant. And Kant provides very black and white answers in most cases (gray areas in Kantian ethics tend to revolve around issues of aesthetics and discussion of who precisely is a person and who is not).
We like to pretend there are a lot more gray areas than there really hard, because as it turns out, if you accept that other people have the same right to a life you do, modern life suddenly becomes very, very complicated and messy. It turns out that we, as a people, are kind of dicks. But we don't like to think about that.
Tying this back to a fantasy world, if you have the Good gods act as Kantians (as I often do in my game worlds, and it meshes very well with the alignment system -- with Chaotics believing each person should reason what is right out for themselves, and Lawfuls believing what is right should be codified into laws to give people a guide to follow), then all moral questions in the game are ultimately resolvable. And people would be a lot more clear on where they stood.
And finally tying it back to the thread, the intent of the act of crucifying bandits is to intimidate and terrorize others into acting in accordance with the law. But no one (at least no one reasonable) would agree with the proposition that the state should terrorize them into being a good person. When all reasonable people agree a course of action is wrong when done to them, then you can pretty much bet its wrong when done to other people.
Example: If murder is evil, then when Col Stauffenberg attempted to murder Hitler was he committing an evil act? It's questionable, because morality isn't objective.
His intention is to kill someone, an intention he would consider evil if directed at him, so his evil intention makes the act evil. That the consequences might have been good doesn't make the act less evil, because the consequences could also be worse. So the consequences can't really have an influence on whether the act is good or evil - if they do, then we can only know what the right thing to do is in retrospect, which means we can never choose to do the right thing (barring the possibility of prophetic powers).
The decision to do something evil in the name of good is fundamentally what defines the Neutral character (on the Good/Evil axis). Evil (in the Kantian sense) done in the name of good is the defining characteristic of James' theory of moral pragmaticism, and Neutral characters are pragmatic (while good characters are idealistic). But an enlightened neutral character understands when his intent is to commit evil in hope of good consequences. He has made the decision that "things will be better" if he does the evil thing now.
GM's and players need to discuss and agree what is good and evil on a case by case basis with the understanding that the rules aren't written in stone.
Except that its a fantasy world, and the rules probably are literally written on a stone somewhere.
And if you've still got questions, a 9th level cleric casting commune gets to ask his or her deity at least nine yes or no questions which the deity will answer truthfully. Every day.
"Can I crucify bandits along the road to discourage badnitry?"
"NO."
"What if they're already dead when I crucify them?"
"NO."
Sorted!