For all the people still trying to derail the thread over Golarion-specific stuff, James Jacobs says cannibalism in Golarion is a Chaotic act, not necessarily evil. James Jacobs is supposedly the primary authority over Golarion canon. So there it is, all the people trying to argue that cannibalism is inherently evil in Golarion are definitively wrong.
Now can we please stop the Golarion derail and go back to discussing alignment as defined in the Core Rulebook and Bestiary? This isn't the Golarion forum!
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.
Context matters in the situation, but I'm fine with it being more defined as chaotic. So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes in Golarion there are Evil birds.
Except you're suggesting Birds are Evil, not just some Birds that are Evil.
So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.
I don't think anyone would argue that eating anything would be considered a good act.
Yes in Golarion there are Evil birds.Except you're suggesting Birds are Evil, not just some Birds that are Evil.
No, you are suggesting that. I'm saying that Lust as a concept in pathfinder is evil. If you could show me a creature with the good type in pathfinder that is the embodiment of lust I will be more than happy to concede that point.
Off topic:
So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.I don't think anyone would argue that eating anything would be considered a good act.
Eating is not the same thing as cannibalism. One doesn't have a place on the axis, the other does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are suggesting that. I'm saying that Lust as a concept in pathfinder is evil.
Which you proved by showing there was a demon lord of lust.... So I showed that "since there is a demon lord of birds, all birds must be evil."
If you could show me a creature with the good type in pathfinder that is the embodiment of lust I will be more than happy to concede that point.
Gancanaghs, a type of azata that is an embodiment of lust and flirting.
Off topic:
** spoiler omitted **
You said that as long as cannibalism isn't good, it's fine. Which is a strange statement because no one was arguing it as good, and I find it immensely strange because I cannot think of a single thing you can eat that where the act of eating it would be considered good in itself.
Raise Dead: A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.
I'm pretty sure Raise dead not working means the spirit of the dead can care quite a bit if its body is reanimated.
If Golation's cosmology says that none of those acts are evil, are any of those acts necessarily "Good?"
I've covered this before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Context matters in the situation, but I'm fine with it being more defined as chaotic. So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.
Why the heck do you people think that just because something = "not evil" that it means it's GOOD!? Nobody has ever said that.
The reverse is likely just as ridiculous!
Player: "GM, is it a good act to search for traps?"
GM: "No...?"
Player: "I smite our rogue,"
GM/Rogue: "Wtf, why!?"
Player: "Because he's committing evil in dungeons constantly!"
*faceplant*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes in Golarion there are Evil birds.Except you're suggesting Birds are Evil, not just some Birds that are Evil.No, you are suggesting that. I'm saying that Lust as a concept in pathfinder is evil. If you could show me a creature with the good type in pathfinder that is the embodiment of lust I will be more than happy to concede that point.
Off topic:
** spoiler omitted **
Creatures of X alignment having tendencies towards certain emotions or actions does not make those actions good/evil/lawful/chaotic unless those actions fall into the things defined as those alignments.
Serial killers who love their daughters do not making loving their daughters an evil act.
Lust in and of itself does not hurt, oppress, or kill. If you do evil things because of your lust, then you are doing evil things with lust as a motivation. Lust itself is not evil.
Stop. Making. Up. Nonsense.
From their description, I see no description of lust. Flirting yes, but no lust. (cant access d20pfsrd at the moment, so excuse the lack of copy paste).
So try again.
Off topic... again.
Cannibalism is not the same as eating. You are comparing two different things.
Just because 1 is a number, and 2 is a number, 1 =/= 2.
Yes in Golarion there are Evil birds.Except you're suggesting Birds are Evil, not just some Birds that are Evil.No, you are suggesting that. I'm saying that Lust as a concept in pathfinder is evil. If you could show me a creature with the good type in pathfinder that is the embodiment of lust I will be more than happy to concede that point.
Off topic:
** spoiler omitted **Creatures of X alignment having tendencies towards certain emotions or actions does not make those actions good/evil/lawful/chaotic unless those actions fall into the things defined as those alignments.
Serial killers who love their daughters do not making loving their daughters an evil act.
Lust in and of itself does not hurt, oppress, or kill. If you do evil things because of your lust, then you are doing evil things with lust as a motivation. Lust itself is not evil.
Stop. Making. Up. Nonsense.
Stop bringing real life situations into a discussion where the world exist on a 9 alignment axis? Because yes, some actions do fall on that chart.
While I like what Paizo does with undead, I also totally get why people think differently.
I see no reason we can't all get along on this.
Has someone brought up the Car analogy yet, I love the Car analogy.
Context matters in the situation, but I'm fine with it being more defined as chaotic. So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.Why the heck do you people think that just because something = "not evil" that it means it's GOOD!? Nobody has ever said that.
The reverse is likely just as ridiculous!
Player: "GM, is it a good act to search for traps?"
GM: "No...?"
Player: "I smite our rogue,"
GM/Rogue: "Wtf, why!?"
Player: "Because he's committing evil in dungeons constantly!"*faceplant*
Hope your straw-man situation works well for you.
There is a difference between committing an action that has no alignment action and claiming that you cant be good and a cannibal.
(clarification: That you can claim being a cannibal as being objectively a good action, sorry)
|
Most undead creatures who have Evil as their alignment in the Bestiaries are indeed Evil, with a few exceptions possible.
If you do not agree with the above, please quote this post and clarify what your understanding is.
This post is meant to clarify what is currently being debated because I am kind of lost with all the many topics and arguments
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason we can't all get along on this.Because we have to tell people they're wrong?
No, it's because people are wrong.
What do you want us to do? Ignore it? Then they will keep being wrong.
Context matters in the situation, but I'm fine with it being more defined as chaotic. So long as it can be seen as definitely not good.Why the heck do you people think that just because something = "not evil" that it means it's GOOD!? Nobody has ever said that.
The reverse is likely just as ridiculous!
Player: "GM, is it a good act to search for traps?"
GM: "No...?"
Player: "I smite our rogue,"
GM/Rogue: "Wtf, why!?"
Player: "Because he's committing evil in dungeons constantly!"*faceplant*
Hope your straw-man situation works well for you.
There is a difference between committing an action that has no alignment action and claiming that you cant be good and a cannibal.
(clarification: That you can claim being a cannibal as being objectively a good action, sorry)
Who claimed cannibalism was a good action, objectively or otherwise?
Oh and you can be both good AND a cannibal. Because cannibalism is the act of eating an object. Since eating a corpse is not altruistic, concerned for life, or concerned for dignity of others, it's not good. Since it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing anything, it's not evil.
Which means just as the rogue can search for traps all day long and eat PB&J sandwiches without it affecting her alignment, the same rogue can also search for traps all day while eating the dragons, chimeras, and orcs that tried to kill her and failed earlier.
If said rogue is likewise altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for others, the rogue is also very likely good.
I'd say cannibalism can be considered a Good-aligned act depending on context...
1- When you crash somewhere and do it not only to survive, but to inspire others to do the same so that they can survive as well. No one wants to eat their dead friends, but by volunteering to be the first one to do so, you made the decision much easier for your fellow survivors, thus, increasing their chances to live long enough to be rescued.
2- If a battle takes place in an area known to spawn undead, eating the dead could be a very easy way to prevent their bodies and souls from being twisted by dark energies. Not everyone has a handy Cleric around.
3- If it's considered a honorable act by a group of people you're currently fighting against, eating their bodies (or allowing them to do it to your fallen) could be seen as a show of respect for a worthy opponent.
4- If by eating someone already dead, you can avoid killing something else, you're protecting life itself. Eating your friend who fell in combat could very well mean one fewer dead deer... So just pay your respects and save a little bit of your friend's corpse so that you can resurrect him later.
I could on, but the point is:
Actions' alignment should be determined by motivation and effect, not by simply arbitrarily deciding it's evil because it's considered in poor taste by modern society.
Again, off topic...
Unless I was interpreting things incorrectly, the main argument was weather or not cannibalism could be considered an objectively evil act in the world as defined by the 9 point alignment system.
I was saying that yes, the consuming of a sapient creature is evil.
Others were saying that it is not evil because of situations, religion, or culture.
"...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."
Ok, a designer clarifies that to him its a chaotic act. I accept the point but in assigning it an alignment based action he is saying to me two things:
1. That in Pathfinder a being can not be a cannibal (obligate or otherwise) and be considered completely good or lawful. Are there situations where a good person might eat a sapient creature, yes, and it would be disturbing, not enough to cause a change but still.
2. Being a cannibal or in a society that is cannibalistic should limit you away from Lawful in all situations, and good in most.
I think the biggest misunderstanding I and others are having between each other is our interpretations of what is good and evil in a world where it is explicitly decided by a metaphysical force.
We all have different interpretations of what good and evil are, so even though certain things are defined as being one or the other from one aspect of the world there is going to be an exception somewhere in the breadth and depth of the world.
In a game created from a system based on an interpretation of the world that was probably based on a Judaeo-Christian worldview of what is good and evil, certain things get put into piles of good and evil. The 7 Deadly Sins are Evil, etc.
If you don't agree with those, change them in your game.
Mmm, people are so deliciously gullible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, off topic...
** spoiler omitted **...
I'd like to point out that the rules don't say cannibalism is evil, and that the man who said cannibals can't be completely lawful or good is not a rules-guys and often goes out of his way to say he's not a rules-guy.
So, yeah... Unless cannibalism is hurt, oppressing or killing others, it's not Evil.
Off topic.
I'd say cannibalism can be considered a Good-aligned act depending on context...
1- When you crash somewhere and do it not only to survive, but to inspire others to do the same so that they can survive as well. No one wants to eat their dead friends, but by volunteering to be the first one to do so, you made the decision much easier for your fellow survivors, thus, increasing their chances to live long enough to be rescued.
2- If a battle takes place in an area known to spawn undead, eating the dead could be a very easy way to prevent their bodies and souls from being twisted by dark energies. Not everyone has a handy Cleric around.
3- If it's considered a honorable act by a group of people you're currently fighting against, eating their bodies (or allowing them to do it to your fallen) could be seen as a show of respect for a worthy opponent.
4- If by eating someone already dead, you can avoid killing something else, you're protecting life itself. Eating your friend who fell in combat could very well mean one fewer dead deer... So just pay your respects and save a little bit of your friend's corpse so that you can resurrect him later.
I could on, but the point is:
Actions' alignment should be determined by motivation and effect, not by simply arbitrarily deciding it's evil because it's considered in poor taste by modern society.
That's fine but there are some actions that are always some sort of ding on an alignment chart.
Given the choice between eating a deer and your friend, and you choose to eat your friend... you probably wont have friends. Same goes for ordering your army to eat the opposing dead when rations are just fine.
I honestly thought we were past this discussion considering the JJ quote and I ceded the point that cannibalism isn't evil all the time, its just chaotic all the time and evil some of the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I love people using the RAW as gospels when they believe it strengthens their case and casually disregarding it when it does not. Such as the Bestiary entries on most undead saying that they are Evil.
I just cannot fathom how one can use part of the RAW to try and disprove another part of the RAW.
People point out logical contradictions in the raw. I don't know how that isn't clear by way of the posts thus far.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off topic.
** spoiler omitted **I honestly thought we were past this discussion considering the JJ quote and I ceded the point that cannibalism isn't evil all the time, its just chaotic all the time and evil some of the time.
I wouldn't even say it's Chaotic all the time. It might very well be a very old, respectable, lawful tradition preserved by a very old, respectable, lawful culture (that said, Law/Chaos is very poorly defined in PF).
I agree that committing acts of cannibalism probably won't make you very popular among most people... Personally, if my friend saved enough of me to resurrect me (assuming that's a real possibility and what I want), I wouldn't care. I might actually be pleased by the fact that my body made one last contribution to the team. I'd find it disgusting of course... The same way I think eating snails is disgusting... But disgusting isn't the same as morally wrong (or Chaotic).
(Also, forcing others to commit cannibalism could be considered "oppressing others", so that might actually qualify as Evil).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should say:
"Your character is evil now. Changed by the vile energy that animates your corpse. You need to change your character's views on things. If you don't want to, then you can make a new character as this one becomes an NPC."
and that is a dick move on the part of the dm
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
and that is a dick move on the part of the dmThe GM should say:
"Your character is evil now. Changed by the vile energy that animates your corpse. You need to change your character's views on things. If you don't want to, then you can make a new character as this one becomes an NPC."
If an enemy cast charm person on the PC and they didn't act as though charmed, I think the GM would be within their rights to control the PC's actions for them. This seems like a very similar situation to me.
and that is a dick move on the part of the dmThe GM should say:
"Your character is evil now. Changed by the vile energy that animates your corpse. You need to change your character's views on things. If you don't want to, then you can make a new character as this one becomes an NPC."
Why is that a "dick move"?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an enemy cast charm person on the PC and they didn't act as though charmed, I think the GM would be within their rights to control the PC's actions for them. This seems like a very similar situation to me.and that is a dick move on the part of the dmThe GM should say:
"Your character is evil now. Changed by the vile energy that animates your corpse. You need to change your character's views on things. If you don't want to, then you can make a new character as this one becomes an NPC."
Similar, but different... Turning Evil doesn't mean you're suddenly unable to control your actions. And there are many, many stories where evil creatures (including Undead and even Demons) turn good.
We have devils/demons turn good! How is being twisted by dark magic any worse than being a literal personification of evil!
Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.
What is roleplaying tossed out the window?
Alignment determines actions just as much as actions determine Alignment.
If your character is forced into a new alignment either by magical means or undeath why wouldn't their new alignment factor into how they act?
Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.What is roleplaying tossed out the window?
Alignment determines actions just as much as actions determine Alignment.
If your character is forced into a new alignment either by magical means or undeath why wouldn't their new alignment factor into how they act?
but you should be given the choice to do good
This thread and like seven others over the past few days have made me sure of one thing if nothing else.. I'm super duper happy I just use this game as a rules set and wouldn't go anywhere near Golarion as a player or a GM for an oppertunity to motorboat every stripper and burlesque dancer in Vegas.Golarion is fine so long as every little bit of it isn't voted on by a panel of internet form-goers. ;P
I should point out that I don't think Golarion is poorly done. It is in fact a far better version of shoehorn world design than many others I've seen.. But like Brussels sprouts it doesn't matter if yours are the most delicious in the world I still hate the damn things.. The only way to get me to enjoy them would be to obliterate everything that makes them what they are which defeats the purpose of even serving brussels sprouts. I respect and even admire the work put into the setting it just isn't my taste.. Largely because it tries so hard to something for everyone that I go crosseyed when a revolutionary american freedom knight has to work with a french revolutionary executioner, a Shinto shrine maiden, and a gothic Russian private detective, and an apache/mongolian dog soldier/horseman to stop the machinations of a kingdom of demon worshiping sith lords.. It's a personal problem I have. Way too often I focus on the individual bits to the point that I can't enjoy the picture as a whole.
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an enemy cast charm person on the PC and they didn't act as though charmed, I think the GM would be within their rights to control the PC's actions for them. This seems like a very similar situation to me.and that is a dick move on the part of the dmThe GM should say:
"Your character is evil now. Changed by the vile energy that animates your corpse. You need to change your character's views on things. If you don't want to, then you can make a new character as this one becomes an NPC."
Similar, but different... Turning Evil doesn't mean you're suddenly unable to control your actions. And there are many, many stories where evil creatures (including Undead and even Demons) turn good.
We have devils/demons turn good! How is being twisted by dark magic any worse than being a literal personification of evil!
Again, Arueshalae didn't just decide to switch sides. I recommend reading Demon's Heresy. Are there any other good demons or devils in Pathfinder canon?
And if something turns the PC evil, but they don't act any differently, that seems like the equivalent of "I don't like it, so it didn't happen". Would you let your players do the same if they failed a save against charm person? What about fireball?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position. If a PC is turned evil, but wants to continue acting the same as before, how would you treat that? Does the alignment-changing effect get ignored? How is that different from ignoring any other effect?
The first claim you need to establish evidence for is that alignment affects your actions, rather than the inverse (because they are mutually exclusive). You haven't done that, and it's contradictory to actual game text.
Then you need to deal with the fallout of that, including players no longer being able to make decisions for their characters after character generation, and most of the text on Alignment being vestigial and useless.
I honestly thought we were past this discussion considering the JJ quote and I ceded the point that cannibalism isn't evil all the time, its just chaotic all the time and evil some of the time.
It's not innately chaotic either.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
The act of eating a corpse is none of these things. One could argue that the adaptability and flexibility could manifest in doing so when it's socially unacceptable or something but it's not innately any of these things.
If an enemy cast charm person on the PC and they didn't act as though charmed, I think the GM would be within their rights to control the PC's actions for them. This seems like a very similar situation to me.
The thing is, it's not similar at all. Charm and compulsion effects are very specific in how they work, are mind-affecting, and explicitly remove the character's agency in the ways that it details.
However, there is no effect that is forcing behavior. There is no thing that is forcing actions. There is no exception made to the normal rules on alignment.
Thus far the "must be evil" thing has been disproved at every step since it either requires someone to invent new things to push that narrative, or requires them to take alignment to absurd places, such as when it was briefly suggested that even if you act good that the GM can decide you're evil (in which case alignment doesn't mean anything).
Meanwhile, we've not moved away from the rules, accounted for every counterpoint made, haven't invented anything, and have been consistent within the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first claim you need to establish evidence for is that alignment affects your actions, rather than the inverse (because they are mutually exclusive). You haven't done that, and it's contradictory to actual game text.
Then you need to deal with the fallout of that, including players no longer being able to make decisions for their characters after character generation, and most of the text on Alignment being vestigial and useless.
So what happens to a Neutral Good character that gets turned into a Neutral Evil Vampire Spawn?
Why wouldn't my new alignment change how the character is played in game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are ascribing an effect to the alignment change that the alignment change doesn't say that it does. You need a citation.
The helm of opposite alignment is unique in this regard, in that it specifically says:
Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required.
Only a wish or a miracle can restore a character's former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
...which is all specific to that item, and not an effect of having your alignment changed by a template.
So what happens to a Neutral Good character that gets turned into a Neutral Evil Vampire Spawn?
Why wouldn't my new alignment change how the character is played in game?
They would continue acting like a Neutral Good person, and their alignment would eventually change to reflect that again. Because alignment doesn't affect how you act- how you act affects your alignment.
Why is it so hard to grasp that becoming undead changes a character more than just physically? If doing so changes your alignment its, obviously, not just changing a descriptor on the sheet its obviously meant to represent a psychological change to the PC.
I'd be fine with that if not for the fact that the change is apparently both immediate and inevitable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They would continue acting like a Neutral Good person, and their alignment would eventually change to reflect that again. Because alignment doesn't affect how you act- how you act affects your alignment.So what happens to a Neutral Good character that gets turned into a Neutral Evil Vampire Spawn?
Why wouldn't my new alignment change how the character is played in game?
Okay then explain the Mace of Blood.
I'm playing a Neutral Good Character and i pick up the mace and fail my save. It changes my alignment to Chaotic Evil.
Using your logic the cursed item does nothing.
Edit:
I just want to clarify that I'm not suggesting that the forced alignment can never change back to the players original.
I'm just saying that forced alignment change should change how the character is played until its fixed.
You become a Chaotic Evil character. You would be affected to the worst degree by things like holy word, weapons with the holy quality, and dictum.
...is that not clear?
Edit in response to your edit: I'm saying that's unsubstantiated by the rules. In my personal opinion it's also a bad idea, since it bullies people into playing a way they don't want to for no good reason.
You become a Chaotic Evil character. You would be affected to the worst degree by things like holy word, weapons with the holy quality, and dictum.
...is that not clear?
But it would have no effect on how the character is played?
Even though Alignment defines the characters moral and personal attitude.
We've been over this. I'm not going to repeat things that have already been carefully explained to you multiple times.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You become a Chaotic Evil character. You would be affected to the worst degree by things like holy word, weapons with the holy quality, and dictum.
...is that not clear?
It seems unlikely that that's how the mace of blood was intended to work.
This is the part of the forum where "how things are intended to work" is meaningless, right? I can never remember which subforum that is...
If that was how it was intended to work, it would have similar text to the helm of opposite alignment to make it actually function that way. It doesn't, so it wasn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've been over this. I'm not going to repeat things that have already been carefully explained to you multiple times.
So your stance is ignore all role-playing effects of alignment change.
Gotcha.
Uneducated and uncoordinated doesn't mean low int. Some babies learn faster than others. Beyond which I'm not finding a reference to Int 3 as some cutoff either, just this line: Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
Tie Int < 3 to incapable of moral action somehow.
Have you really reached a point in your argument where you're trying to argue that babies can be chaotic evil and not joking about it?
Really?
This has reached absolute absurdity.
Well.. there is some basis for that.. after all it's hard to diagnose sociopathy and other antisocial disorders in children because nearly all children have many of the earmarks just be virtue of not being fully mentally, psychically, and emotionally developed.. But if anything I think that's more of a point on the side of how things that are evil can change their outlook..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My stance is that we've gone through why your interpretation is explicitly incorrect multiple times in this thread. We can talk about other things and cover new ground instead of wasting time repeating the same things in the vain hope that you'll actually read it this time.