Alignment and eating humanoids


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Morality has been scientifically connected to disgust, some see homosexuality as dirty and immoral, for others the two are not associated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As DM, I'm -generally- fine with a good or neutrally aligned PC engaging in cannibalism so long as they're not seeking out still living, sentient creatures to ingest.

HOWEVER - in a fantasy magical world improper disposal of a body may have magical/spiritual ramifications. It was a common European historical trope, for example, that improperly burying people had a tendency to disturb their afterlife. Possibly causing them to come back as undead. Many cultural variations on burial and entombment were based on some concept that disrespecting the dead caused some unpleasant attitudes and effects upon the living.

And in a fantasy magical world where spirits and undead DO exist and gods walk the world...

...who is to say that some of these beliefs are not in fact true.


Yeah, in an evil pc or pcs gone bad game, one of the simplest complications involves revenants, ghosts, spectres and the like.

Oh, you caused great suffering, and there are ramifications.

Maybe they hire a cleric and bless their lands to keep the wrathful dead at bay, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:
ZugZug wrote:
What if we just eat cows & pigs (aka the ugly animals), but not horses & dogs (the cute & lovable animals)? Does that make it better now? It somehow seems to. Unless you live in an area where your main choice is dog.

Horse meat is rather tasty but expensive and hard to get where I live. The reason I have not and will not try dog is that I think they are ugly animals, eating feces and all. I've already eaten lots of different animals.

But the thought of eating a human? That freaks me out so much I don't even enter katholic churches anymore because of all this "christs blood and body consuming" stuff. Which for me is cannibalism.

And in other parts of the world, the thought of Horsemeat in their food is causing a panic (see World News on Europe).

And we're not talking about a Human eating a Human. That's Cannibalism, and not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a Mammal eating a different kind of Mammal. And where exactly that line is drawn.

A Human eating a Goblin, is probably not the norm, but how different would eating a Minotaur be over a Cow? An Orc has frequently looked like a Pig at times, so would they make Tasty Baby Back Ribs? People eat lizards, so would Kobolds be much different? Especially with enough BBQ sauce?

The Thread isn't about eating members of your own race. Its about eating the other races ;-)

And if you do like Horsemeat, would Centaurs be ok to eat? Or would the Human half freak you out too much to do it?


Mmmm, can you imagine minotaur steaks?

Kobolds and the right bbq sauce with peppers worked in would be delightful.

In one game, the centaur got a bit weirded out by horses and refused to eat any monster vaguely horse like.


c873788 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
For that reason in my games I would always rule that cooking and/or knowingly eating a living or dead intelligent humanoid with or without this hex would be considered and evil act.
There's a nasty rumour that there is an island nation near Tian Xia where the folk regularly hunt intelligent sea life such as whales, dolphins and merfolk with harpoons from ships. They then harvest the meat for eating or making soup. Would they be considered evil?

Is sea shepard society in pathfinders?


I personally wouldn't do it. But in a game scenario with kasatha characters in it they had a cultural directive to leave nothing for their enemies, and another to waste nothing of use, being wastelanders. So when one died they grieved but respectfully ate their departed so it could no be zombied by their opponent. Traumatizing perhaps as perpetrator guilt, but the right action in their culture.

Recommend reading some books like western attitudes towards death and overviews of grieving rituals in world cultures. Food taboos are interesting when crossed with grieving rituals. Comedic song recommend , flanders and swan the cannibal song is worth a listen too. as the young cannibal swears "i wont let another man pass my lips".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shepherd's Pie, now with 50% more shepherd.


Lightminder wrote:
c873788 wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
For that reason in my games I would always rule that cooking and/or knowingly eating a living or dead intelligent humanoid with or without this hex would be considered and evil act.
There's a nasty rumour that there is an island nation near Tian Xia where the folk regularly hunt intelligent sea life such as whales, dolphins and merfolk with harpoons from ships. They then harvest the meat for eating or making soup. Would they be considered evil?

Is sea shepard society in pathfinders?

It should be. My characters would join right away. :)


Frederic wrote:

Recently while salvaging valuables from defeated bugbears my Half Orc Ranger used Survival skills to render several pounds of rations from his defeated foes. I considered this good roleplaying for a true neutral ranger of monstrous ancestry raised among mountainous barbarian tribes. While I attempted to hide this action from other party members the players in my group considered it an evil act. I dont quite understand the Alignment system in spite of my many years as a player.

If the party is starving, and the only sustenance is flesh from the dead, I do not see cannibalism for survival as bad.

I can even see paladins doing it but probably going for atonement afterwards.

If the humanoids are being sought for their flesh to be consumed, then that is different.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
ZugZug wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
ZugZug wrote:
What if we just eat cows & pigs (aka the ugly animals), but not horses & dogs (the cute & lovable animals)? Does that make it better now? It somehow seems to. Unless you live in an area where your main choice is dog.

Horse meat is rather tasty but expensive and hard to get where I live. The reason I have not and will not try dog is that I think they are ugly animals, eating feces and all. I've already eaten lots of different animals.

But the thought of eating a human? That freaks me out so much I don't even enter katholic churches anymore because of all this "christs blood and body consuming" stuff. Which for me is cannibalism.

And in other parts of the world, the thought of Horsemeat in their food is causing a panic (see World News on Europe).

And we're not talking about a Human eating a Human. That's Cannibalism, and not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a Mammal eating a different kind of Mammal. And where exactly that line is drawn.

A Human eating a Goblin, is probably not the norm, but how different would eating a Minotaur be over a Cow? An Orc has frequently looked like a Pig at times, so would they make Tasty Baby Back Ribs? People eat lizards, so would Kobolds be much different? Especially with enough BBQ sauce?

The Thread isn't about eating members of your own race. Its about eating the other races ;-)

And if you do like Horsemeat, would Centaurs be ok to eat? Or would the Human half freak you out too much to do it?

I'm going to go with Jacobs on this and say that cannibalism applies to eating ANY sentient being whether it's your race or not, and is generally an evil act barring extenuating circumstances.


LazarX wrote:


I'm going to go with Jacobs on this and say that cannibalism applies to eating ANY sentient being whether it's your race or not, and is generally an evil act barring extenuating circumstances.

I agree, but I don't think there are "extenuating circumstances". Cannibalism for survival is what I would call a necessary evil. Would it flip your alignment? No, unless you carry the taste for "long pig" (or Dwarf or whatever) into your life afterwards. Unless, you are a Paladin. Then you have the choice of suffering starvation for your beliefs or falling. Imo, of course. Necessity can't excuse every action. If it does a lot of things become OK, torture for example. "We had to know, lives were at stake", is a classic justification. Necessary, maybe, evil certainly. I think you could say the same thing about survival cannibalism.

Silver Crusade

That approach still throws those RL monks and LG couatls under the bus.

IIRC, James Jacobs actually said it was chaotic.

Every time I think about going to get a steak, this thread pops back up.


Mikaze wrote:

That approach still throws those RL monks and LG couatls under the bus.

IIRC, James Jacobs actually said it was chaotic.

Every time I think about going to get a steak, this thread pops back up.

He said it varied (though it would still throw the monks under the bus if they were friends in life, and it being chaotic is also a problem for monks). Most recent quote I could find was from last month. Also, he stuck with cannibalism = same species, though he did say that eating other species was not that different from cannibalism:

James Jacobs wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

Dear JJ

I am tracking alignment in my game as per that very handy system you suggested and it is working out well. It is forcing my players to think before acting as there has now been an ex-antipaladin. My question is, because it has come up, what is cannibalism defined as on Golarion? By which I am asking whether it applies to eating a member of the same species or does it also apply to eating other sentient races? Like a human eating an elf, dwarf, or even possibly an orc. I ask because when a merfolk member of the party died, the human, tiefling, orc, and catfolk cooked him up and ate him even though they were not short on food.

Cannibalism is essentially defined as eating your same species, so the PCs in your group are not technically cannibals.

That said, the act of eating a sentient, intelligent creature is still pretty gross and creepy and weird, and barring extreme circumstances (such as being in a starvation situation), eating an intelligent creature... ESPECIALLY if when that creature was a life it was your friend, is not really all that different taboo-wise than cannibalism.

I'd call cannibalism (and also the act of eating intelligent species or eating things) a chaotic act.

If said act involves things that were once your friends in life, or if the act of preparing the meal for food involves torture or tormenting others, then it's also an evil act.

On the other hand - YMMV and house rules are made for these issues :)


I don't really understand how the chaos/law scale relates to the act being described. I mean, it doesn't seem all that random or impulsive or a breaking down of order.


Caedwyr wrote:
I don't really understand how the chaos/law scale relates to the act being described. I mean, it doesn't seem all that random or impulsive or a breaking down of order.

The reasoning being that it is against most cultural traditions, thus chaotic.

Silver Crusade

Shadowdweller wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
I don't really understand how the chaos/law scale relates to the act being described. I mean, it doesn't seem all that random or impulsive or a breaking down of order.
The reasoning being that it is against most cultural traditions, thus chaotic.

However, depending on the setting and the cultures involved, it can be a very jarring classification. I have to admit, when I think of the RL culture involved, "chaotic" isn't the first thing that comes to mind.

This thread has made me want to stop putting off reading Courtship Rite


Okay, but that still allows it to be part of other cultural traditions/rituals, and therefore lawful. I'm still not seeing how it can be said to fall at a particular point on the law/chaos scale by default. In some situations, yes it could be chaotic, in other situations it could be very lawful. These things are complicated and really need to be looked at on a case by case basis.


Mikaze wrote:


That approach still throws those RL monks and LG couatls under the bus.

IIRC, James Jacobs actually said it was chaotic.

Every time I think about going to get a steak, this thread pops back up.

First of all, thank you all for giving me the reaso... er excuse to stop grading occasionally and deal with more interesting topics :)

Cultural relatavism is not relevant to this topic. It was fun just typing that. D&D / PF is about moral absolutes, good / evil and law / chaos. It's not about understanding the cultural peculiarities of obscure groups and accepting their behaviors (or making excuses for them). It's about judging the peculiarities of groups from a viewpoint of absolute good / evil etc. and saying what their alignment is. And there is nothing wrong with being evil. Nothing. In rl evil = wrong and good = right. And we all think we are "right" (that is "good"). The other guy (in rl) is wrong / evil. And from their point of view, vice versa. Not in D&D / PF. There are evil gods, evil species, evil people galore. There are groups philosophically dedicated to behavor we would all find "evil" who accept the "evil" label without hesitation. And large parts of the world accept this. Sometimes along side gods, species, and people who are "good". Good and evil are disparate philosophies which are both choices. One is not universally desirable ("good" in rl terms) and one is not universally despised ("evil" in rl terms).

Oh, we had pork roast :)

Silver Crusade

But that's just it, the moral absolutes need to be defined as making sense. Defining "cannibalism is evil" in such broad strokes rather than taking a more nuanced "murdering people to eat them is evil" just results in a lot of weirdness(again, with those in-game LG couatls and any faithful analogue of those monks, who only perform their practices on the bodies of those that shared their beliefs and don't murder them to make medicine from their bones).

It's not a case of moral relativism, but rather finding the absolutes that really are moral.

Silver Crusade

That is:

Serial killer murders a guy and eats him.

Monks claim the offered dead of the village down the mountain and make medicine of their bones.

One being evil and the other not isn't cultural relativism, it's recognizing where the actual good and evil come into play.

had subpar pork chops with bits of bone in it from being cut improperly :(


Mikaze wrote:


But that's just it, the moral absolutes need to be defined as making sense. Defining "cannibalism is evil" in such broad strokes rather than taking a more nuanced "murdering people to eat them is evil" just results in a lot of weirdness(again, with those in-game LG couatls and any faithful analogue of those monks, who only perform their practices on the bodies of those that shared their beliefs and don't murder them to make medicine from their bones).

It's not a case of moral relativism, but rather finding the absolutes that really are moral.

They are roughly defined and rough is as good as it's going to get. You're thinking in modern terms. Modern thought has relatavism imbedded in it as a positive. The culture of the monks is outside of the basic reference of D&D, which is pseudo western medieval belief. Updated and filtered through popular media. Europeans would have been horrified at any time up to, say the last 40 years. And what did the Catholic Spaniards do to the accumulated written wisdom of the Native Americans they conquered? They burned it as "evil" due largely to the presence of snake motifs (not to speak of the rampant human sacrifice of meso-American cultures which gave the Spaniards the willies). We judge good / evil with cultural relatavism imbedded in our basic thought processes these days. I understand that; I have a degree in cultural anthropology to go with the history degrees. RAW D&D / PF assumes a fixed morality which is based on our past and specifically a romanticized pulp version of it. And, because it's a game which defines things in broad, not specific terms, you get simplified things like evil spell descriptors (the act is evil, no matter the reason), and cannibalism = evil. Of course this is all (at best) RAW and your game is what you make it.

My "short pig" was good :)

Silver Crusade

But the objective morality in the game is rooted more in modern morality than the medieval. It's why those conquistadors would be considered evil for their atrocities just like high priests calling out for human sacrifice. That and the game doesn't state "cannibalism = evil", unless one infers that from the behavior of certain monsters. Which still leaves us with those LG couatls(who are from Mesoamerican culture, bringing it all full circle ;) ).

Honestly I nearly chipped a tooth on mine.


Mikaze wrote:


But the objective morality in the game is rooted more in modern morality than the medieval. It's why those conquistadors would be considered evil for their atrocities just like high priests calling out for human sacrifice. That and the game doesn't state "cannibalism = evil", unless one infers that from the behavior of certain monsters. Which still leaves us with those LG couatls(who are from Mesoamerican culture, bringing it all full circle ;) ).

Honestly I nearly chipped a tooth on mine.

It's not really rooted in modern morality although it is certainly moving that way. It's rooted in the classic pulp interpretation of western thought. There are, simplfied, versions of good and evil there which would not crop up in a strictly "modern morality" RPG. Examples; necromancy = evil (even mindless undead for a "good cause), casting spell "X" = evil (just because... it IS), cannibalism = evil (i.e. Witch Hex ? the name), and the Paladin can not tell a lie etc. (even for a good cause). An RPG rooted in strictly modern ethics would be culturally sensitive / reletavist. RAW D&D / PF is not.

I'd say D&D / PF LG Couatls and Monks just don't eat the dead. It's not like D&D / PF is a perfect recreation of any rl cutlure. It's a distorted mirror image at best. And in any event, a non-mammalian monster eating people not quite the same as one mammalian humanoid eating another. If a Dragon snacks on a burglar I don't call it cannabilism. Just lunch :)

Me and the Dragon ate fine :D


Cannibalism almost always has to be evil. In practice there are only a few options for it-

Scavenger of corpses - which is impractical for most humanoids who don't have the constitution to eat rotting meat. In folklore this sort of thing is reserved for horrors like ghouls.

Survivalist cannibalism - where you devour the recently dead to survive, such as during the siege of a town or starving while lost in the mountains. It would usually be a chaotic act as cannibalism is taboo in most cultures, so you are defying customary laws.

Ritualistic death rites - devouring your own recently deceased as a religious practice. This would be neutral in the few unique cultures which do it as a matter of course.

Predatory cannibalism - you and hunt and kill sentient beings for food. This is the only cannibalism that would usually be possible, and predation of sentients must be evil.

Battlelust cannibalism - devouring parts of the corpses of those you kill. Its almost impossible to distinguish this from predatory cannibalism as in both cases you are doing the killing and the devouring.


R_Chance wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


But the objective morality in the game is rooted more in modern morality than the medieval. It's why those conquistadors would be considered evil for their atrocities just like high priests calling out for human sacrifice. That and the game doesn't state "cannibalism = evil", unless one infers that from the behavior of certain monsters. Which still leaves us with those LG couatls(who are from Mesoamerican culture, bringing it all full circle ;) ).

Honestly I nearly chipped a tooth on mine.

It's not really rooted in modern morality although it is certainly moving that way. It's rooted in the classic pulp interpretation of western thought. There are, simplfied, versions of good and evil there which would not crop up in a strictly "modern morality" RPG. Examples; necromancy = evil (even mindless undead for a "good cause), casting spell "X" = evil (just because... it IS), cannibalism = evil (i.e. Witch Hex ? the name), and the Paladin can not tell a lie etc. (even for a good cause). An RPG rooted in strictly modern ethics would be culturally sensitive / reletavist. RAW D&D / PF is not.

I'd say D&D / PF LG Couatls and Monks just don't eat the dead. It's not like D&D / PF is a perfect recreation of any rl cutlure. It's a distorted mirror image at best. And in any event, a non-mammalian monster eating people not quite the same as one mammalian humanoid eating another. If a Dragon snacks on a burglar I don't call it cannabilism. Just lunch :)

Me and the Dragon ate fine :D

If Good is as dumb, ignorant and bigoted as you think it should be in PF / D&D, then no wonder Evil is such a popular choice!! :D


The thing gets blurred when dealing with very different creatures. More so if one doesn't accept the other as sentient.

A human who eats dolphin might think its just another animal.
A dragon who eats a human hight think its just another animal.


Jeven wrote:

Cannibalism almost always has to be evil. In practice there are only a few options for it-

Scavenger of corpses - which is impractical for most humanoids who don't have the constitution to eat rotting meat. In folklore this sort of thing is reserved for horrors like ghouls.

Survivalist cannibalism - where you devour the recently dead to survive, such as during the siege of a town or starving while lost in the mountains. It would usually be a chaotic act as cannibalism is taboo in most cultures, so you are defying customary laws.

Ritualistic death rites - devouring your own recently deceased as a religious practice. This would be neutral in the few unique cultures which do it as a matter of course.

Predatory cannibalism - you and hunt and kill sentient beings for food. This is the only cannibalism that would usually be possible, and predation of sentients must be evil.

Battlelust cannibalism - devouring parts of the corpses of those you kill. Its almost impossible to distinguish this from predatory cannibalism as in both cases you are doing the killing and the devouring.

I would add to this:

Practical Cannibalism - cooking the deceased in your community not out of desperation or religion, but to avoid needless waste and efficient use of resources.

One other point to consider in all this: how is it any different to eat someone than it is to throw them into a compost pile to turn them into food for the plants you're going to eat?


What about culinary adventure quest cannibalism?

A whole world to discover and taste.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jeven wrote:

Cannibalism almost always has to be evil. In practice there are only a few options for it-

Scavenger of corpses - which is impractical for most humanoids who don't have the constitution to eat rotting meat. In folklore this sort of thing is reserved for horrors like ghouls.

Survivalist cannibalism - where you devour the recently dead to survive, such as during the siege of a town or starving while lost in the mountains. It would usually be a chaotic act as cannibalism is taboo in most cultures, so you are defying customary laws.

Ritualistic death rites - devouring your own recently deceased as a religious practice. This would be neutral in the few unique cultures which do it as a matter of course.

Predatory cannibalism - you and hunt and kill sentient beings for food. This is the only cannibalism that would usually be possible, and predation of sentients must be evil.

Battlelust cannibalism - devouring parts of the corpses of those you kill. Its almost impossible to distinguish this from predatory cannibalism as in both cases you are doing the killing and the devouring.

I would add to this:

Practical Cannibalism - cooking the deceased in your community not out of desperation or religion, but to avoid needless waste and efficient use of resources.

One other point to consider in all this: how is it any different to eat someone than it is to throw them into a compost pile to turn them into food for the plants you're going to eat?

There is also the eating of your enemies (and sometimes allies) to gain the aspects of their power. This is a bit of a combo between Battlelust and Religious.


Kaaaa-liii maaa, Kaaaaa-liiii maaaa!

Shadow Lodge

I'm thinking of making a Nagaji character. Who might occasionally eat humans, but I still see her as probably neutral good. Modeled on Madame Vastra from Dr. Who. While there's nothing definative on screen, she does give such conversations as

Vastra: "Jack the Ripper will trouble these streets no more"
Partner: "How did you find him?"
Vastra: "Stringy"

Would you say her eating humans affects her alignment?


So one question I had on the matter is. What if you play a Dalit, a third party aberration that is described as a scavenger who feasts on trash and corpses. One thing of note is that the setting is an unforgiving desert wasteland, the character has about 7 Wisdom, and doesn't ever eat anyone or anything he considers a friend. Also he prefers dead corpses due to the fact that he is a scavenger and nothing else but in order to save his friends will eat a live creature sentient or otherwise

Would it be reasonable that he could be a chaotic good character because he just doesn't have the wisdom to know any better and does this based solely on his instincts.

Dalit can be found here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/3rd-party-races/samurai-sheepdog/dalits-8-rp /


Hi ! I think you necro'ed this, but necromancy isn't magically an evil act unless it has the [evil] descriptor.

There are two things to consider, in fact : your character morality and his alignment. They are not the same, even if they do seem alike !

Morality refers to culture and such. Not realizing one is repeatedly committing an evil act, he may very well be king and a real good boy. He just doesn't know better. That's for your low Wisdom. It is a relative value, that may change depending the context and depending who judges. One can be a good boy by his own standards and a blasphemious criminal in the eyes of others.

Alignment is not a variable. It may change, but it is not relative to culture. It is relative to magic and static mechanics. That is why spells and acts are sometimes ruled as [evil] or [good], why there are aligned planes, why deities are aligned, and so on. At some points, that alignment may change depending your acts. If you repeatedly commit an [evil] act, ruled as evil (either raw or by your GM), your character's alignment will shift to evil without his personality or moral changing. Or, he can change alignment without changing his personality or moral.

There are deities, ancient deities, whose moralities don't quite fit in the alignment system. It doesn't really matter. Their alignments and ethics are different things.

Here are a few example. Starting with your own:

Eating a sentient being's corpse is not, as much as I remember, an [evil] act by itself. An evil hex cooking corpses has been mentioned here - it is the magic from this hex that taints the consumer's soul, not eating some corpse. Most of the time, ruled [evil] is related to a spell, but not always. So, yes, nothing stops you from having a Good alignment, at least it's not that until your GM states otherwise. And he could still be a good guy, nice and everything else.

Other example. Here's a dhampir, with Blood Drinker (human). RP-wise, he is the son of an old and powerful vampire, and his blood calls for him to kill people and drink their blood. Thing is, he likes it. He still is the most loyal guy in the world, and if you don't keep an eye on him, he'll provide the Good temples and orphanages endless funds. But two things are against him :
- using Blood Drinker on unwilling creatures is evil (the wording even suggest that it is permanently evil to feed of living unwilling sentient creatures)
- he spent his childhood in a vetala's lair, and vetala's presence corrupts children souls into evil
So with that he starts the campaign as Evil. Though the GM ruled, the first time he surreptitiously made all our loot disappear in charity funds, that he was not, could not, would not be Evil. But that is GM, non-RAW ruling.

Third example. Here's an aasimar who, for some reasons perfectly logical started as CE by the alignment rules from Ultimate Campaign, with :
- Mass Murder, CP:12. Resolution chosen was, he liked it, and the only reason he doesn't brag about it is that the rest of the party would gag him rather than having their little secrets exposed. So that character was pretty badly CE, and destined to stay it. He was it in morality and in mechanic, he knew it, he loved it.
However - and that however is important - that character crossed a god's loved servant. Said god did not like it. So alignment changed to Good. RP-wise, what did it mean? It meant that the character was now forbidden from any behaviour listed as [evil] or contrary to the god's ethics, since having a god intercede means that he acts at the same time by the cosmic rules of Alignment, and by his own beliefs.

Fourth and last example. Natural lycanthrope. That character kills people, then eats them. Nothing inherently [evil]. She is not Evil because of that. She started the game as Evil, but because she had also rolled Mass Murder; that did not suit her (we narrated it as half madness crisis and half accident), so she worked to erase this stain, until she got a redemption and went back to a more reasonable CN. Still, she keeps on eating corpses when she encounters them, and as an adventurer she has loads of that. She does it for the taste, sure, but it is not [evil], just like killing people is not [evil] (otherwise, every adventurer ever would be Evil, or most of them). And do note that, if the god to whom a redemption is addressed does not agree, there will be no alignment change.

Now, if one keeps performing morally evil deeds, the GM may ask that the character's alignment change. It comes from common sense (the Ultimate Role-Playing Game Law : the GM is always right), but the reason I am mentioning it is the optional rules from Ultimate Campaign, p.134-137. Those rules are rather vague - there is a general description of alignment's ethics, and then how committing acts out of one's alignment might change, by GM adjudication, the character's alignment. They do state that a GM should warn a player before any change that [insert a behaviour] is such other alignment-linked, and that next time he may ask for a change of alignment. If the mischief (or good deed) repeats, the GM may then rule a change on one or two axis, Law/Chaos and Evil/Good. Those axis consist of nine steps, so a slight change might not actually change the character's alignment, and the character may shift back to his previous place on those axis at a later date. They also include a penalty for changes of alignment by behaviour. They add that changes of alignment due to magical effects or divine intervention does not impose the penalty.

Personally, as a GM, I draw a line between still acceptable and outward Evil when obvious torture and killing innocents gets into game. The player who wanted to play a CN torturing drows and said "they are foes and I'm Chaotic anyway" had to accept that she now detected as Evil for any game mechanic, including her own home's ward against Evil. As she played a succubus, and was thus an Exterior unable to cross her own magic circle, she did not appreciate but, hey, the GM is always right, and it was a no-Evil campaign. Warned them the first day it would be a no-go.

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Alignment and eating humanoids All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.