That feat is absolutely evil. 50 innocent people killed to further your own personal gain or for no reason at all? Yeah...
I would say if you are using backgrounds it would be possible to qualify for the feat without being evil, but it would be impossible to complete (or even try) without being evil, which probably makes it less attractive.
I suggest the first thing you do is find out why he wants that feat, and then figure out if there is something else that will satisfy what he wants without being a serial killer.
Just having the feat isn't evil in the least. You can qualify with background and not the slaying of noncombatants. You also don't have to move forward with your story feat. Nothing stops you from just taking the starting benefit and not working towards the completion.
So have you talked to your player and asked if they are planning to finish the completion goal? That'd be the only way that it'd be evil.
The intelligent noncombatants bit makes it pretty universally evil. The feat specifically calls out that it cannot be handwaved as for a "greater good" - it's either for killing for fun or because it benefits the character selfishly. This is a feat for mass murderers.
*Edit* I just re-read it. I can't find the backgrounds on d20pfsrd. I guess it would be possible to qualify for the feat using one of them (if it's not puppy-kickingly evil) and not be evil. The completion prereq is that you kill 200 intelligent noncombatants and then either someone who tries to "bring you to justice" or usurp your power.
There is possibly a slim way this could be not-completely evil:
1) Qualify using a non-evil background
2) Kill 200 intelligent noncombatants in some way that is either justified by the plot or the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they're innocent carriers of an incurable, deadly, contagious plague and headed toward a city - something like that. Not good, but *maybe* justifiable.
3) Kill either someone seeking justice for step 2 or someone trying to usurp you. Step 2 is likely to make you enemies even if it was a "greater good" choice.
These are the only circumstances I can think of that are non-evil. And they're bloody tenuous.
What would qualify as personal gain in this case? I think there could be some corner cases to fit it into neutral.
Having the feat isn't evil in the least? You do realize this is a feat that says, in pretty much the exact words "I am an unrepentant murderer who wants to kill those who pose absolutely no threat to me."
The feat can be taken after killing 0 intelligent noncombatants past the already approved background "The Kill". The feat doesn't require the killing of any intelligent noncombatants unless you are heading for the goal. What's evil about a bonus on Intimidate checks and a bonus after slay an intelligent creature [noncombatants NOT needed]? Nothing that I can see.
So killing intelligent noncombatants isn't an integral if you aren't going for the goal. Hence my asking, is he going for it? The goal is evil, not the starting feat/benefit.
Having the feat isn't evil in the least? You do realize this is a feat that says, in pretty much the exact words "I am an unrepentant murderer who wants to kill those who pose absolutely no threat to me."
It really doesn't say that. It says killing innocents will give you power, but if you don't kill the innocents (even though it will give you power) that is certainly not evil.
The Kill background is actually more problematic, since it pretty much says you kill (or at least killed) for money (so probably not good) but if the character was discriminating I could see it not being evil. I will kill other mob bosses for you, but I won't go after their families for example.
Wanting to kill, even finding pleasure in it, as long as you don't do it, is generally not something that most people would consider evil. It is the act, not the desire that matters. Of course it would be disturbing to associate with someone like that (and if you knew, they would certainly bear watching) but as long as they don't actually cross the line they are not evil.
Good question, Johnnycat. What would you see as sufficient personal gain to kill the town baker, and have it still be a morally neutral action?
Killing innocents for personal gain is pretty much what evil is.
Killing non-innocents for personal gain might slide you into neutral. The 'they were all bad' defense. Killing non-innocents without personal gain (or at least the goal not being personal gain) might slide you into no impact on alignment territory, in some cases maybe even being a good act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'big group', 'new players'
With those factors I would be very hesitant about an evil campaign, and certainly an evil campaign without a unifying goal and theme and restrictions on PvP.
You can pretty much fit any seemingly evil act/ability/spell/etc that doesn't have an explicit alignment evil requirement into neutral territory as long as you look at from just the right angle.
Good question, Johnnycat. What would you see as sufficient personal gain to kill the town baker, and have it still be a morally neutral action?
Go more morally grey. What about races generally thought of as evil. Drow, goblins, hags, ect. You find some non-combatants after clearing out a nest of them. Is killing them and preventing future attacks 100% evil? What about breaking evil dragon eggs? Wyvern hatchlings? What about intelligent noncombatant cannibals?
You have to remember that the feat doesn't mention innocents but "intelligent noncombatant". Killing those villagers would count as the feat doesn't care about the villager's innocence just their noncombatant status.
Good question, Johnnycat. What would you see as sufficient personal gain to kill the town baker, and have it still be a morally neutral action?
Again, these are way, way out there ideas that are purposefully trying to get around the rules for the sake of it but...
Vampires or some other creature that has to feed to live (and barring the technically all of those creatures are NE anyways, that's an aside to my bringing it up) could presumably kill non-combatants for the sake of survival and still maintain a tenuous grip on neutral.
Alternatively, flagrant abuse of atonement could let one qualify in pretty much any case.
I think it's a good feat for a reformed criminal kind of character. I had a character way, way back in the day that would have qualified for it from creation (keeping in mind that we weren't really starting at level 1) but, again, that's a corner case.
Another question is how involved one needs to be in the killing. Could you order someone else to do the deed and still qualify or do you have to personally do all of those killings? I could see a really, really zealous inquisitor or warlord qualifying in the case of the former.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have this purely as a background feat, then it is possible to not be evil. Mostly because of the possibility of the character changing their ways. Perhaps they used to be a thug for an evil tyrant and went around doing their dirty work, but now has reformed their wicked ways.
But if are the same person they were when they killed the 50 intelligent noncombatants and/or are trying to achieve the goal of the feat, they are absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt .
Hypothetically, imagine an assassin (not the PrC just the job) who has a sole employer who pays her well enough she doesn't need another. They keep her on retainer because she is able to complete difficult kills without being detected, harming anyone but the target, or damaging any property and always completes her kills in a matter that is both humane and extremely difficult to distinguish from a natural death.
Suppose that the people hiring this assassin are in fact a sect of clerics of a neutral deity, who use powerful divination rituals to attempt to minimize harm in the future, believing for example that if you can prevent a war by killing a single person in cold blood, you are morally obligated to do so. So every target the assassin was sent after was someone who was chosen to be killed by a holy order in order to secure a brighter future or make the world a better place (e.g. a slaver plans to lead an expedition across the desert that will result in terrible suffering and the eventual death of many thousands of innocent people, kill the one person whose death would stop the expedition.) The assassin in question neither knows nor cares about who is hiring or or why, she just does her out of a sense of professionalism and for the lifestyle her generous retainer accords her. She doesn't feel bad about the people she kills for her job, because she's merely the weapon, and as she's so reliable and her employers know this, the karmic debt ought to fall on the person who ordered the kill, it's the off-duty kills that she feels bad about.
I would say this hypothetical character could potentially both qualify for this feat and also not necessarily be evil.
I doubt that this situation describes the PCs who took the feat, but something like this could potentially justify putting this feat on a neutral character. It's a better concept for an NPC honestly.
What would qualify as personal gain in this case? I think there could be some corner cases to fit it into neutral.Paid executioner?
Or assassin (the job, not the prestige class) with a conscience.
"Sure I'll murder that gang boss in his sleep, you'll just have to pay me enough for it."
Killing bad people for money is still personal gain, but as long as you don't kill innocents, you should be able to stay clear of being evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The key words in the feat are "slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no reason at all". That's evil, and no amount of "what if you were paid by an infallible diviner to utilitarian ends?" can justify it. Deliberately killing sentient beings who do not pose a threat to you for fun or profit is bad. The intent is the important part really. No "greater good" is allowed.
However you can qualify for the feat using a background and avoid this.
You can even complete the feat using "lesser of two evils" arguments.
But this is corner case, tenuous, why-don't-you-just-take-skill-focus-instead hypothetical. It's an evil feat. Tell your player. Reach a compromise.
Corvino raises a good point. Skill Focus: Intimidate is at least as good a mechanical option, anyway, and requires less bookkeeping.
Not is you took the feat for the "+1 bonus on attack rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute". In that case, Skill Focus: Intimidate is a super-poor mechanical option in comparison.
The completion benefit is pretty good if that's your gimmick. Kind of drops off though since tons of stuff is immune to fear by mid-game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The key words in the feat are "slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no reason at all". That's evil, and no amount of "what if you were paid by an infallible diviner to utilitarian ends?" can justify it.
I think "you were the court-appointed executioner" for several years, because someone had to swing the axe/pull the lever ought to qualify. The only reason the executioner is killing these folks is that you're paid to do it, since you likely neither know them nor want to know them and you certainly wouldn't do it if you weren't getting paid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to fulfill this feat to get the Completion Benefit is utterly evil.
There is no leeway in this. It is crystal-clear that this is a feat for a serial-killer.
Xou want this? WANT this? --> You have an Evil character.
"Noncombatant" doesn't mean "harmless". I'm pretty sure it extends to anyone who isn't currently fighting you or your allies.
Killing the warlord that's besieging to your town in his sleep isn't evil, even though he's a noncombatant while he's sleeping. At worst, it might be seen as chaotic because you didn't offer him a fair chance to defend himself (though I'd argue that you could even get around that if you made it perfectly clear that you could and would sneak into his tent and kill him if he didn't abort the siege - then he had his warning, and it's his fault that he didn't heed it).
Not even if the only reason you do it is "because you were paid", since if you can sneak into his tent and kill him in his sleep, you could probably flee to another town instead of bothering with the town.
I mean, there is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Executions (Damerrich), so Executions - as in, "Killing people who are currently helpless and have no way to defend themselves, much less harm you" - isn't an automatically evil concept in Pathfinder. It's situational, like most other stuff.
There are enough "grey area" killings where you can't let someone go, but where it isn't viable to keep them prisoner, and "for personal gain" can be a lot of stuff. If you're in Cheliax and murder your way through the evil corrupt bureaucracy to avoid being caught doing your otherwise non-evil, but illegal activities? It's for your personal benefit, since it allows you to continue with your illegal activities. It's also not good, but it's not "iredeamable, hell-and-damnation evil" either, even if none of those you killed recieved a fair fight and would thus be "noncombatants". You might even free some slaves on your gory path to money.
But yeah, the simpelest explanation would just be "executioner for money". In Pathfinder, executions on their own aren't evil (again, they even have their own Empyreal Lord), and if you're just doing it for the paycheck, then it's for your personal benefit.
Or follow Calistria, and kill people for personal revenge. Your family was killed by slavers, and now you kill slavers in return. Good people might balk at both your motive (not the liberation of slaves, just personal revenge) and the way you do things (killing them all without mercy), but it's close enough to neutral that you might end up above the "evil" line.
...
That being said, this is an alignment debate, so there obviously won't be any settled agreement.
The name "Innocent Blood" seems to imply you're murdering specifically innocent noncombatants. I guess if you go by RAW then they technically don't have to be innocent. The intention seems pretty clear to me though.
I think "noncombatant" here means "someone who is not actively fighting you". Rather than "someone who cannot fight you" or "someone who will not fight you" since almost everyone will fight back when cornered, and the dice can always come up all 20s or all 1s. Arguably PCs who regularly get the drop on opponents and kill them in the surprise round before they have the chance to react ought to qualify for this.
The more restrictive part of this is that you're doing this killing for either personal gain or for no particular reason. I guess you could say that PCs who are in the habit of ambushing and killing potential antagonists before they have the chance to react when doing nothing nobler than "raiding dungeons for loot" ought to qualify.
If there's an orc just walking around a dungeon and the PC gets the drop on said orc and slits its throat just in case the orc would react aggressively/sound an alarm, taking no steps to first figure out whether or not the orc is friendly, you could say that you're slaying a noncombatant for no reason beyond personal gain (particularly if they loot the corpse afterwards.)
I could definitely see a neutral wet works kind of guy that assassinates enemies of the state or something. You could murder a balor in its sleep and it would still be a non combatant... if balors even sleep. Is a job personal gain? Anyway, you get the point.
