|
If i were in your party I would likely roll me eyes at the mounting of heads. Not because it's evil mind you, but because it's tacky and something the 'other side' of my family would do.
The cannibalism thing seems fairly cut and dry by PFS rules... Even if it's application in story telling is debatable.
|
If i were in your party I would likely roll me eyes at the mounting of heads. Not because it's evil mind you, but because it's tacky and something the 'other side' of my family would do.
The cannibalism thing seems fairly cut and dry by PFS rules... Even if it's application in story telling is debatable.
I am, however, still waiting for the link to where Canaialism is evil per the campaign admins.
S.
|
|
Here you go.If i were in your party I would likely roll me eyes at the mounting of heads. Not because it's evil mind you, but because it's tacky and something the 'other side' of my family would do.
The cannibalism thing seems fairly cut and dry by PFS rules... Even if it's application in story telling is debatable.
I am, however, still waiting for the link to where Canaialism is evil per the campaign admins.
S.
Thank you. I don't agree but at some point you have to play within a greater framework or be forced into 'home' games for the rest of your life.
I have queried him with the exact concept for further insight.
S.
|
This is yet another case where people are far too quick to label something taboo or distasteful or "squicky" as being evil. As has been said, "not good" does not mean it is automatically "evil" in an environment where there are 3 moral alignments and the vast majority of people would fall in the middle.
Totally agree.
Cutting off the heads off bandits would probably get a thumbs up at my table as good RP. It also probably saves lives because it encourages would be bandits to go home and reconsider their lives, helping future would be victims and would be bandits.
My Scarni Alchemist has an "Orcish Barbaque Resturaunt" with the implication being that the Scarni sometimes use said resturaunt for body disposal. But he has a code of Orcish barbaque that includes not eating anyone you talk with among other things. IMHO the fact that holds other people who must be treated with respect mitigates any evil.
Is a Tengu (scavanger not humaniod) evil for eating rotting meat? No, unless he eats tengu.
In a book I just read, one of the good guys takes the corpse of a little girl and cuts it into pieces, sending them to the enemy comander to convince him that he's cutting on his overlord's daughter (rather than cutting on said little girl). He does it to the save lives of the townsfolk he's charged with protecting. He gives gold to the grieving parents.
But he saves the town. So yes, I have no problems calling this guy good (with CN tendencies).
What I've seen as evil involved extreme selfishness, disregard for the rights of others, much of it non squishy and even "respectable". Being Chelish and supporting the government which condones lots of evils and has no respect for its people to me qualifies baseline neutral tending torwards evil.
|
Hmm. Glad I saw this thread. I have a N cleric of Urgathoa who I had planned to have cut off a body part of a fallen foe once per scenario. Then, at midnight when it was prayer time spend an hour attempting to work himself into the right state of mind to eat this part of what he killed. Lots of girly squealing as morselfs reach his lips and the fork drops and he runs off, arms flailing about. He thinks it is totally gross. But he is willing to try anything. Until reading this thread I had every intention of him actually nibbling and eating tiny bits (and very likely throwing them up and such). These are his prayers.
However, it would appear that once the fork outs a piece in his mouth I'll have problems. Hmm. I'll obviously be desecrating at least one corpse per scenario by lopping off a hand, finger, toe, etc. The character isn't evil. But I admit, he does perform evil acts (and good ones). He intentionally plans on doing things such as spreading disease. On the other hand he is almost as likely to remove it since the character concept is built around living life to the fullest and endulging in pleasure. So sometimes he makes sure people are diseased, and sometimes he is there to alleviate that suffering so people can enjoy their lives.
After reading this I am guessing I would have to skip the nibbling on a hand or whatever and may not even get to the point where I take my 'trophy' since there could be alignment problems with that. Oye. This kind is too thin for walking. It needs handrails.
|
Personally, like Seran Ash said it was standard practice up to about 100+ years ago to leave the bodies (or parts) of outlaws on display as a warning saying "DO NOT DO THIS." My Great Grandfather used to say "If you can't learn you gotta feel." and maybe this graphic display will warn people from lethally learning the lesson.
Personally I would rule it as a Lawful/Chaotic act not an evil one.
However, I would back the GM if he ruled it evil, since I've had that happen in the past with a ruling I made and the VOs backed me.
|
So what about the blood drinking ability of Sanguine Sorcerers?
Or the Sin Eater?
Or the whole blood drinking line of feats for Dhampirs?
All evil?
|
|
So what about the blood drinking ability of Sanguine Sorcerers?
Or the Sin Eater?
Or the whole blood drinking line of feats for Dhampirs?
All evil?
For PFS?
Dhamphir, yes. I'm guessing that's why they are not allowed according to the additional resources.
The other two, well, are allowed but will probably be ruled evil by GMs (using previous rulings) until Mike or John get around to banning it like blood transcription.
Also, another thing to add to the list is the level 10 power of the bloatmage prestige class. (Yes, it is possible to get it in PFS play)
|
|
Or the Sin Eater?
I do not believe that the Sin Eater is actually consuming any part of the dead body. My reading is that they are "eating" the "sin" which is more like absorbing a latent psychic emanation.
Taking the body to a taxidemist and getting it mounted is probably frowned upon.
Especially if you are intent on taking your new 'friend' on your wacky adventures.
-j
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always, I try to discern the intent of the character. If I can't easily discern intent on my own, I'll ask the player a leading question like:
"So let me get this straight, your lawful good paladin is going to murder this non-evil dude in the middle of the streets of Westcrown because he tried to pick-pocket you?"
It allows the player to redefine what he's doing, or define his intent to a point I feel comfortable with it. (yeah, these things are subjective to each individual GM, table variation so to speak).
But ultimately, the intent of the action weighs more heavily on my interpretation of "evil" than does the actual action itself.
If you want to execute a murderer in some form of frontier justice, I do not consider that evil. It may be stretching lawfulness a tad sometimes, but in a lawless area, then I'd consider a Paladin the law. They are supposed to be beyond reproach, so if the player can convince me that they have judged the individual appropriately, and as long as I feel the sentence they want to hand down is just, then I'm fine with execution.
As a general rule, cannibalism is evil. But if you are playing a Shoanti who has a different idea of spiritualism than the average person (i.e. the consuming of a dangerous foes organs allows you to subsume their power--a means of respect toward the foe, that you allow their power to continue to live on through you) then obviously exceptions can be made.
As a general rule, slavery is not evil. I don't care what our modern day sensibilities and political correctness tell us. Slavery is not evil. There can be slavers who abuse the power of being a slave owner, and as such their individual institution of slavery is evil. But as a general principle, slavery is not evil.
Defiling a dead body is evil. The problem becomes, what is considered defiling? Certainly perspective can define this differently. I personally try to look at the intent. In Quest for Perfection, Part III: Defenders of Nesting Swallow, you could argue that chopping off he dead bandit heads and posting them on spikes to warn further bandits from harassing the town, is not defiling the dead bodies. While, performing vile acts with a dead body for pure depraved enjoyment would be. A family might consider anything you did to a depraved murderer's body other than giving them a respectful burial as defilement. We see examples of this in our modern times fairly often, where some religious group or other believes that an autopsy is defilement. Ultimately, the intent of the individual that is doing whatever to the dead body is ultimately an important factor in determining if the action would be considered defilement or not.
There is no black and white in my mind. Its full of shades of gray. And a GM needs to really look at the intent behind the action, and not just simply at the action itself.
|
|
I will defend my NG necromancer's right to animate a giant beetle pretty vehemently. It's a BEETLE.
During the same adventure where I was told that eating a monstrous humanoid would be an evil act, I had previously cooked and served up the dead body of a wild animal we killed earlier in the adventure. Profession (Chef) is fun to role play. :)
|
|
I will defend my NG necromancer's right to animate a giant beetle pretty vehemently. It's a BEETLE.
One thing you have to ask yourself is this though:
The standard pathfinder rules indicate that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. This was confirmed by Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs.
Pathfinder Society has created a home rule around this to allow for certain spells to be cast like infernal healing and to remove the argument about such that was so prevalent prior to that ruling.
Are you willing to use the PFS home rule in your favor to cast an evil spell and then still adamantly defend your right to say your character is Good?
|
|
One thing that's important to remember is that there isn't really any such thing as a "neutral" action in Pathfinder. The alignment system hinges on a rigid good/evil and lawful/chaotic spectrum, where Neutral characters are characters that regularly exhibit the behaviors of the different alignments. A Neutral character doesn't take predominantly neutral actions; he takes a relatively even split between good and evil actions. He may lie from time to time, but he exhibits kindness towards strangers. He would sacrifice his life for his friends and family at the drop of a hat, but also has a pattern of ruthlessness regarding those that threaten these same people.
This is what neutrality is. Desecrating a corpse is evil, but a person's alignment is determined by more than one action. This is also why most adventurers tend to fall towards neutral: They regularly kill other humanoids, but also tend to protect the innocent and help the needy. Hence the neutrality. You don't look at an alignment and say that all the actions performed by a subset of these creatures must, therefore, be of that alignment: You look at an alignment and say that the actions, good and evil both, performed by the creatures are the cause of the alignment.
I do not believe that the Sin Eater is actually consuming any part of the dead body. My reading is that they are "eating" the "sin" which is more like absorbing a latent psychic emanation.Or the Sin Eater?
Yes, the rules seem a bit fuzzy on subject of consuming metaphysical concepts. Eating the flesh of "intelligent" creatures is a bit more firm, at least until you start questioning if there's intelligent life in any world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought it seemed like Paizo doesn't fully believe the "cannibalism is evil" angle, either. That's why you see retconning, like with Blood Transcription and the Juju Oracle.
Me, I think it's pretty silly and don't use it in my games. As long as you come from a culture that doesn't view it as taboo, I don't see much wrong with eating people. It's silly to equate "ew gross" with "paladin falls lol".
Hm...did I make my Gravity Falls/Paladin Falls joke yet?
EDIT: And if we need any more evidence that Paizo can't work out what it views as evil, just check out all the Int <2 monsters that kill (and often eat) sentient creatures all the time while remaining Neutral. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just in general, to the players out there: if your PC wants to do a morally ambiguous action and you feel you have to come to the boards to ask about whether or not it's okay, you probably just shouldn't do it to begin with.
Playing PFS at home with friends in a private setting is one thing, but remember, it is a PG13 game, there are times when you don't know the people you are sitting with, and it's just good gamer etiquette to be aware of your actions. GenCon is in two days and PFS will be put on display for the masses of serious and casual gamers alike. We owe it to the campaign and the company to show the game in a good light :)
I had previously cooked and served up the dead body of a wild animal we killed earlier in the adventure. Profession (Chef) is fun to role play. :)Mmm... I'll say.
Played a Cavalier once whose Profession was Chef (not "cook", how ignoble!) and his Lordship was known as The Dragon Flayer. He was feared by Draconis-types all across the face of Toril. Except by Dracolichs... of course.
I'm sure they feared him; he could probably make the best Dragon Bone soup there ever was.
The problem with the "isn't taboo" angle is that the Alignment system sits over and above any and all Golarion cultures. From that perspective evil is as evil does and not when we all agree it's OK.I've always thought it seemed like Paizo doesn't fully believe the "cannibalism is evil" angle, either. That's why you see retconning, like with Blood Transcription and the Juju Oracle.
Me, I think it's pretty silly and don't use it in my games. As long as you come from a culture that doesn't view it as taboo, I don't see much wrong with eating people. It's silly to equate "ew gross" with "paladin falls lol"... just check out all the Int <2 monsters that kill (and often eat) sentient creatures all the time while remaining Neutral. :)
I hear the "morality is absolute" argument a lot. The fact is, yes, morality is absolute. But why are we cramming cultural biases into it? By saying "these taboos are part of the planar rules", you're actually making alignment even shakier than before. Why? Does Reality think cannibalism is gross? Does Reality figure dumb people don't know any better?
Outside of the game world(s) there are plenty of "not taboo" cultural hiccups that no one really likes but merely tolerate because, to each one, "they've always been there".
BTW - The Int <2 situation is excused because they are "too dumb to know better so you can't blame them".
Sorry, I mistyped. Int >2. Krenshar are a good example, but far from the only one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought it seemed like Paizo doesn't fully believe the "cannibalism is evil" angle, either. That's why you see retconning, like with Blood Transcription and the Juju Oracle.
Me, I think it's pretty silly and don't use it in my games. As long as you come from a culture that doesn't view it as taboo, I don't see much wrong with eating people. It's silly to equate "ew gross" with "paladin falls lol"... just check out all the Int <2 monsters that kill (and often eat) sentient creatures all the time while remaining Neutral. :)
The problem with the "isn't taboo" angle is that the Alignment system sits over and above any and all Golarion cultures. From that perspective evil is as evil does and not when we all agree it's OK.
Outside of the game world(s) there are plenty of "not taboo" cultural hiccups that no one really likes but merely tolerate because, to each one, "they've always been there".
BTW - The Int <2 situation is excused because they are "too dumb to know better so you can't blame them".
Yea and by Alignment cannibalism isn't evil in of itself with Lizardfolk being Neutral and they commonly consume the bodies of dead friends and enemies alike.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here you go.I am, however, still waiting for the link to where Canaialism is evil per the campaign admins.
S.
What intelligence score denotes Sentience? 2, 3, or higher? 5 is the lowest a PC could possibly have, so somewhere between 1-4 is okay to eat, but 5+ is right out. Torturing sentient creatures is certainly evil, and I could see ruling that hunting sapient creatures is evil, but eating dead flesh is no more evil than eating dead plant matter. If we weren't meant to be part of the food chain, we wouldn't be made of food.
As for the desecration of dead bodies, desecration is a crime of intent, and the intent determines the alignment. Carving a cow into different cuts of meat is not desecration of the dead cow, unless you are doing it to purposely offend someone, or to express your hatred of cows in general or that cow specifically.
I declare knee-jerk reactions in alignment threads to be evil. I'm making a notation on all of your chronicle sheets. :P
|
|
"Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes?" (raises hand) I do darling, and though I consider myself "extremely good" that has noting to do with alignment (mine is C/N). I do often say "Don't kill them! They're worth more alive...""How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to,..." I always talk. I love to talk. I am "extremely good" at talking. I have talked past many "fights"...
"Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people." I do regularly roll my eyes about it... and will point out that the Cheliaxian PC (me) is avoiding killing them... In fact, I have never done an HP of damage to anything other than myself (currently level 11.2).
I do though have a problem with doing things that some people consider evil... I am a courtesan by profession, which means my "day" job rolls sometimes get labeled "evil" by judges...
To chime in with this, most of my good-aligned PCs do their best not to kill intelligent creatures. Some of them make exceptions for what they consider to be 'pure evil' (devils, demons etc). The characters I play that have no qualms about killing are VERY Neutral, some of them tiptoeing the line with Evil.
|
|
Well then it's evil to eat all animals with 4 or more hit dice, because they might have put their ability bump into intelligence. You have no way of knowing, outside casting speak with animals. And if you're the type to regularly prepare speak with animals you would also realize that even creatures of 1 or 2 intelligence can perceive their surroundings, come to conclusions, make decisions, and relay information to others of their kind. Sounds like sentience to me. Therefore, under our PFS house rule, any non-vegetarian would have to get an atonement every so often. :P
Everyone seems to think that animals are Neutral because they are too stupid to be good or evil. Did anyone consider the possibility that killing to eat, and killing to protect your young and/or lair are inherently neutral acts? Your alignment drifts to match your actions.
|
|
Well then it's evil to eat all animals with 4 or more hit dice, because they might have put their ability bump into intelligence. You have no way of knowing, outside casting speak with animals. And if you're the type to regularly prepare speak with animals you would also realize that even creatures of 1 or 2 intelligence can perceive their surroundings, come to conclusions, make decisions, and relay information to others of their kind. Sounds like sentience to me. Therefore, under our PFS house rule, any non-vegetarian would have to get an atonement every so often. :P
Everyone seems to think that animals are Neutral because they are too stupid to be good or evil. Did anyone consider the possibility that killing to eat, and killing to protect your young and/or lair are inherently neutral acts? Your alignment drifts to match your actions.
I know you're trying to be funny with this, but no. Eating sentient humanoids is what is called out, as it would be considered cannibalism.
I truly am boggled by the number of posters that can't seem to understand why something like that might be considered anti-social, repugnant, or evil in society.
|
|
Having consulted the scripture (Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness) I have determined that the following are evil:
- Necrophilia
I don't understand how "love" could be evil?
- Animating the dead
- Creating undead
You need the two above to make ensure you give more than you receive after all Paracountess Z told me love was a two way street. Actually a she said it was a 5 way intersection with a flyover and metered parking but that's beside the point.
|
|
One thing that's important to remember is that there isn't really any such thing as a "neutral" action in Pathfinder. The alignment system hinges on a rigid good/evil and lawful/chaotic spectrum, where Neutral characters are characters that regularly exhibit the behaviors of the different alignments. A Neutral character doesn't take predominantly neutral actions; he takes a relatively even split between good and evil actions. He may lie from time to time, but he exhibits kindness towards strangers. He would sacrifice his life for his friends and family at the drop of a hat, but also has a pattern of ruthlessness regarding those that threaten these same people.
This is what neutrality is. Desecrating a corpse is evil, but a person's alignment is determined by more than one action. This is also why most adventurers tend to fall towards neutral: They regularly kill other humanoids, but also tend to protect the innocent and help the needy. Hence the neutrality. You don't look at an alignment and say that all the actions performed by a subset of these creatures must, therefore, be of that alignment: You look at an alignment and say that the actions, good and evil both, performed by the creatures are the cause of the alignment.
|
|
I will defend my NG necromancer's right to animate a giant beetle pretty vehemently. It's a BEETLE.
One thing you have to ask yourself is this though:
The standard pathfinder rules indicate that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. This was confirmed by Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs.
Pathfinder Society has created a home rule around this to allow for certain spells to be cast like infernal healing and to remove the argument about such that was so prevalent prior to that ruling.
Are you willing to use the PFS home rule in your favor to cast an evil spell and then still adamantly defend your right to say your character is Good?
Yes. And I'd argue the same in a homebrew. Animating non-sentient NPCs shouldn't be evil to begin with. Certainly no more evil than leaving a trail of corpses as Pathfinders often do.
And that character absolutely is good. He prefers talking over fighting and will stabilize downed opponents. He's far less of a murderhobo than 75% of the PCs I've been with. He just likes to use enemy corpses against other enemies.
Oh, and devils and demons? They're totally getting animated as well. Because they deserve it. Do my bidding fast zombie babau!
"The standard pathfinder rules indicate that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. This was confirmed by Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs."
And this ruling matters not in a homebrew, since anything goes, and basically matters not in PFS now, either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is, yes, morality is absolute.
You know, I really want to just walk away and not start a philosophy debate that could easily go on for thousands of posts (and thousands of years!), but I just can't let this one go.
No, morality is not absolute. Different societies have different values, and morality changes over time. The only absolute in the universe is change.
Eating sentient humanoids is what is called out, as it would be considered cannibalism.
I truly am boggled by the number of posters that can't seem to understand why something like that might be considered anti-social, repugnant, or evil in society.
But eating a dragon that has higher intelligence and wisdom than most PCs is acceptable, because the creature's not a biped? No, I honestly don't understand why eating a humanoid is considered more taboo than eating other sentient creatures.
And again, I've been trying to avoid crossing the line into real world ethical debates, but as long as I've crossed it already, I may as well throw this out there too. Even in the real world, I don't consider cannibalism evil. Killing is clearly evil, and not respecting a person or their family's wishes for what to do with their body once they die is disrespectful. But if there were a society whose funeral practices involved eating the remains of the dead, you'd call it evil? Why? It might be unsafe, and many of us would consider it gross, but I don't see it as evil. It's a cultural taboo, not an absolute moral standard.
I'm a vegetarian in the real world because I refuse to kill (or pay others to kill) innocent animals that have enough sentience to want to live, feel pain and fear, and have any sort of emotions or personality. And I've had enough pets in my life to know that even birdbrains like chickens have unique personalities and emotions. In game terms, I disagree with killing anything with an intelligence score, even if that int score is only 1 or 2. But once an animal's already dead, it doesn't matter to me what happens to their body. The act of eating them isn't what I consider morally wrong - it's the act of killing them that I have a problem with.
|
|
I think its not so much that slavery is evil, but that the required secondary powers are. If you have greek style slavery lite where you buy someone and put them up in your house and treat them decently its little different from having a worker at minimum wage.
On the other hand, the kidnaping in order to make a slave, putting people into a tightly packed boat, and using threats of violence or actual violence to keep them there tips the evilometer pretty hard.
|
|
I think its not so much that slavery is evil, but that the required secondary powers are. If you have greek style slavery lite where you buy someone and put them up in your house and treat them decently its little different from having a worker at minimum wage.
On the other hand, the kidnaping in order to make a slave, putting people into a tightly packed boat, and using threats of violence or actual violence to keep them there tips the evilometer pretty hard.
or even lifestyles where someone chooses to be a "slave" or "pet".
|
|
No, that can happen, and debt slavery was a legal practice in ancient Rome.
But once someone is enslaved they no longer have freedom of choice. A smoker can decide to quit smoking, a partier can decide to stop going to nightclubs, but a slave cannot choose to quit being a slave. Having that choice means they are not a slave.