i would consider it evil if what they were doing with the body served no purpose.
So, if the party rogue skinned it and made a cloak that would be OK with you because the cloak serves a "purpose?"
For what it's worth, in one game I ran one of the characters was comatose for a few sessions mid-dungeon. (read: He had to leave on short notice and took his character sheet with him. For 3 weeks. So, we only had the baseline info that managed to scribble down from memory of the preceeding week's character audit.)
One thing we knew for sure, is that he had fast healing 2. So, the party - which consisted of his in-game family - decided to use his body for trap checks by hucking it ahead of them. On the basis of 'he heals well and this makes him useful for more than just dead weight.'
I tossed out a few save or die traps, and rolled the saves myself. Every freakin' death effect I rolled a nat 20 on his save. I roll openly, so I couldn't just say 'oops, you've killed your brother.'
Though it was amusing that one of the others got caught in a AoE trap and died. Mr. "I stand 35' back because AoE spells have a radius of 30' or less" got caught in a 40' radius circle of death and critically failed the save. Ah, good times, good times.
Hmmm.... or you could have had the DM or one of the other characters temporarily play the missing player's character, which is what every group I've ever been part of has done. If we had so little idea of his character's build that we couldn't wing it for a while, then we'd just have him be off-line.
Throwing the comatose "body" of a "friend" around to check for traps is, if anything, more egregious than using the dead body of a foe.
Weird stuff in this thread. Really weird stuff.... I'm glad I'm not a psychiatrist...
I think that the question here is what happens when morality meets roleplaying. Do your moral views clash or coinside with the morals of the PC you are playing? Are you playing a PC that has moral views that are diffrent than your own for fun or personal growth?
The act of desecrating a corpse is an affront to the concept of the sanctity of life and any sort of respect for the dead.
In a land and culture where you can be resurected, raised, and riencarnated and the sure knoledge and proof of an afterlife the sanctity of life and respect for the dead take on many new and strange aspects especialy with the consideration of necromancy and oblivion as real dangers to ones sole.
Behavior such as this is recognized immediately as horrific by any person living in the real world. This is why horror movies so frequently include corpse desecration.
This is NOT the real world.
yeah i would be fine with it, i don't see it being any more evil than wearing the skin of a monster you killed
Neutral. If you think evil then you've never killed anything and shouldn't have an opinion and you'll kinda sound like a prick. Anyone trained for war or that kills out of necessity will do things to corpses that would disgust most.
It was pretty common practice to build a wall out of the corpses of your enemy or hurl the rotting corpses at a foe. If my PC's want to ever start killing things they had better start acting like killers (yes adventurers are in fact killers, just "usually" justified ones).
I have had PC's carry the body of an ogre as cover while walking toward archers. defiling the corpse? oh yeah, necessary? of course, evil? hell no.
i would consider it evil if what they were doing with the body served no purpose.So, if the party rogue skinned it and made a cloak that would be OK with you because the cloak serves a "purpose?"
While I'm not in agreement with the general consensus of this thread I do take issue with this example... partly.
Unless you're arguing that skinning any dead sentient creature is evil this is a one-sided claim.
That would include for example Werewolves, Worgs, Yetis, etc.
In a fantasy world a human body isn't more sacred than any other sentient creature. The claim that they are evil(excluding yetis which are neutral) isn't a good argument because humans can also be evil.
The act of desecrating a corpse is an affront to the concept of the sanctity of life and any sort of respect for the dead.In a land and culture where you can be resurected, raised, and riencarnated and the sure knoledge and proof of an afterlife the sanctity of life and respect for the dead take on many new and strange aspects especialy with the consideration of necromancy and oblivion as real dangers to ones sole.
Actually there is no guarantee anywhere that you will get raised, resurrected or reincarnated. Just as there is knowledge that there is an afterlife there is also knowledge that several of those afterlives are nothing but eternal punishment and damnation and that not every soul makes it to its deserved resting place.
Indeed the very existence of these things would cause you to want to take better care of your dead on the chance that they might need that body again, or to prevent the spirit from becoming angry and rising as undead (a very real danger).
So respect and reverence for the dead would actually be more important in a world with magic and undead.
What an eye-opening thread.
I'd be fascinated to see if there are any sort of demographic correlations between those who call these atrocities "neutral" and those who consider them quite obviously and blatantly evil.
There's probably a good thesis paper in this somewhere...
Have to say I'm glad I play with people who tend to take the same attitude towards atrocities such as this as I do. Small favors and all that. :)
i would consider it evil if what they were doing with the body served no purpose.So, if the party rogue skinned it and made a cloak that would be OK with you because the cloak serves a "purpose?"
Again, depends on the 'reason.' If he just felt the urge to make 'Elf-skin' cloaks 'fashionable'... they i'd consider it pretty evil...
If they were caught in a trap with the door on fire, and needed something to protect their faces as they leapt through the flames... maybe not :-/
What's the opinion of 'Create treasure Map'? 2nd level Divination spell in the APG? you take a part of a body, Cast the spell, and a map to their treasure shows up...
Sounds comparable...
i would consider it evil if what they were doing with the body served no purpose.So, if the party rogue skinned it and made a cloak that would be OK with you because the cloak serves a "purpose?"Again, depends on the 'reason.' If he just felt the urge to make 'Elf-skin' cloaks 'fashionable'... they i'd consider it pretty evil...
If they were caught in a trap with the door on fire, and needed something to protect their faces as they leapt through the flames... maybe not :-/
What's the opinion of 'Create treasure Map'? 2nd level Divination spell in the APG? you take a part of a body, Cast the spell, and a map to their treasure shows up...
Sounds comparable...
No, I don't think it's comparable to throwing a body repeatedly into rooms as a trap finding device.
But I don't like that spell and none of my good aligned characters would ever use it. One of my neutral characters MIGHT use it under extreme circumstances, and of course one of my evil characters might use it routinely. I personally think the spell should be in the necromantic school, not divination.
What an eye-opening thread.
I'd be fascinated to see if there are any sort of demographic correlations between those who call these atrocities "neutral" and those who consider them quite obviously and blatantly evil.
There's probably a good thesis paper in this somewhere...
Have to say I'm glad I play with people who tend to take the same attitude towards atrocities such as this as I do. Small favors and all that. :)
I think people's attitude toward what is acceptable and 'neutral' in the world of fantasy gaming is different than they probably believe in real life. I doubt many of them would callously mess around with corpses.
As stated above, I don't agree with this as a neutral action. I do believe it is evil, but I'd drop short of calling it an atrocity. I believe it may be enough to make a paladin fall, but I wouldn't change someone's alignment based on this one act.
Besides as the OP has said the players were morealess acting around with 'dead body humor' and not dragging the body through the streets yelling "This is the fate of those that try to kill us!"
I'm not suggesting that those calling it neutral would do it in real life. I'm simply appalled at the notion that anyone would consider this to be the appropriate actions EVEN IN A FANTASY WORLD for "neutral" characters to do.
But then again, I'm not in agreement with what many folks seem to think qualifies as "neutral" alignment in general. Another correlation that I think would be interesting would be between those here calling this behavior "neutral" and the opposed views of neutral being about "balance" or those who think it's all about "don't give a crap."
No, I don't think it's comparable to throwing a body repeatedly into rooms as a trap finding device.
But I don't like that spell and none of my good aligned characters would ever use it. One of my neutral characters MIGHT use it under extreme circumstances, and of course one of my evil characters might use it routinely. I personally think the spell should be in the necromantic school, not divination.
Honestly I was shocked that it WASN'T necromancy... But I know a Diviner who used it a couple times, till we paid closer attention to the material cost...
But the idea of kill an enemy, take a hunk of skin and track down his stuff...
i'd compare that with using a corpse as a trapfinder, and unlike the animate stuff... isn't noted as evil. O.o
I guess my opinion is, it's disrespectful of the dead... However as an assassin type enemy who tried to kill me... I have no respect for him.
If i had a 150 pound duffle bag to block arrows and set off traps i'd use it instead. but since we don't... you make do with what you have.
There's a difference between what you do to your enemies corpses AFTER the battle during peace time... and what you do IN battle. If your in combat for you life... and you know the door is trapped, is it evil to kick the villain into the trap?
I doubt it... No more than hitting him with a sword. If it's not evil when he's ALIVE... Why is it considered Evil when he's DEAD?
Somebody like this was PROBABLY in line for a crow's cage or public hanging ANYWAY... Left to rot as a warning to others, and (maybe) buried in an unmarked grave. I'm usually pretty strict on what i consider Good and Evil... but gosh... I'm JUST not seeing it with this one...
There's a difference between panic-in-the-heat-of-battle-necessary-to-save-your-life actions and premeditated malice. Killing someone in self defense is acceptable. Murder is not. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter or killing someone in the heat of passion.
There's a difference between pushing an enemy's corpse or even a living enemy into the river of molten lava to provide you with a temporary stepping stone so you can vault out of the way of impending doom and going into a perilous situation and bringing a prisoner or corpse with you as the premeditated sacrifice you need to avoid the rolling rock and lava trap.
There is also, it should be pointed out, a difference between a lynch mob doing vigilante justice and a lawful society doing a trial with a judge and so on, even if the end result is someone dangling from the gallows tree. How they got there is important from the purview of both Law and Good.
|
I define good as "those who respect the wants, needs, desires, and lives of others just as much (or more than) his own." I define evil as "those who do not respect the wants, needs, desires, and lives of others at all."
I would characterize the actions of this party as fitting the latter quite nicely, and not at all fitting the former.
Therefore, I believe it was an evil act.
As a DM, I would tell these players something like: "That was an evil act. All of your characters get an 'evil' bump. If you get two more of those, your alignment becomes evil, no matter what it is right now."
Then I'd address the paladin specifically, saying something like "You get a vision from your god (or from the avatar of Hope if he's sponsored by more than one god). He says 'I know you've done something that you regret. I hope that's not the path you want to follow. I'm putting you on probation for a little while until you can prove that you're still on the right side of my war against evil. My priests can help you, but only if you seek them out.' As a paladin, you can no longer cast spells, and you cannot use your Lay on Hands or Smite abilities."
Then I'd try to encourage the party to take up a quest for the paladin's lost honor, and probably give him back the powers incrementally, rather than all at once.
If he didn't participate, but permitted such an evil deed to happen, I'd probably take away just a few powers (rather than all of them at once).
This is why I'm slowly, but surely, removing all traces of alignment from my games. Far too many sessions have been spent arguing over what moral stance some ancient European culture might have taken. If most players were honest, they'd play CE; traditional dragon's hoard and dungeon crawl quests are basically homicidal home-invasions anyway.
If alignment must be acknowledged, I don't see "doing anything with a corpse other than burial or autopsy" as desecration. Intent is everything when it comes to alignment. Was the corpse altered for a practical use or for giggles? Why is the PC acting against his/her (in-game) culture? Is it to feed a vice or can a greater good be achieved through a minor sin?
Regarding the original topic: I see it as lazy gaming and would try to take their newfound toy away from them ASAP. Their approach means they trip every trap they come across; this should have some consequences. Sure, no one gets poisoned (well, except Dead Osric the Merc), but let's say every tripped trap also set off silent alarms alerting a faction of dungeon denizens to their location. Have a squad of elite critters march in and force a party-retreat. When they return the corpse is gone. Alternatively, have something fast and creepy jump in and snag the corpse the next time a trap is tripped. Allow the beastie to escape into some crawlspace/gutter/etc. along with the body.
Another angle is to change the way upcoming traps are sprung; switch to magic traps, something that registers pulse, brain activity, positive energy sources, etc. rather than floor sensors. Make the cadaver more trouble than it's worth.
You know I had a wizard once use fireball on a couple of dead giants. People were like "OMG you're desecrating the bodies, and wasting magic! How could you!"
Oh wow. :D
To be fair the guy's character actually thought that magic was a finite limited resource that was endanger of running out if specific things were not done to create a new supply (things usually considered dark, gruesome and just plain bad) -- as such he really had a respect for magic and felt that it should only be used in the most dire of circumstances.
It's evil. And chaotic.
Evil is not limited to eating babies and genocide.
Yes, but one could easily argue that it is limited to causing harm to living, feeling beings-- of which a corpse is neither.
The chaotic argument holds weight. It is a gross violation of societal norms. I specifically called it out as a dishonorable act, which given my ethos is considerably worse than an evil act. This is why I specifically mentioned the concept of honor and to what extent it applied to Paladins in the OP's games.
It is not "merely" a neutral act, as neutral people (i.e. the majority of humans) both in-game and the real-world have moral objections to such practices.
That is a concern of lawful vs. chaotic behavior.
To me having an entire group of players feel fine about it, is a sign of denial and immaturity.
I find it distasteful, but there are many things I find distasteful that other people consider appropriate for their recreational activities. I sympathize with the OP, but I'm not going to judge his players for enjoying play that he and I both find repulsive. Handled without the crass humor, such an event could establish the grim pragmatism of a hardened adventurer. Not all games are meant to portray paragons of virtue.
I am amazed at the number of people on this thread who assert this. It is so utterly and obviously an act of evil that viewing the desecration of corpses can enrage entire nations and lead to total war.
So can refusing to take your shoes off before entering a temple.
This is a matter of societal norms in a campaign setting, not the objective standards of good and evil presented under the rules for alignments.
The act of desecrating a corpse is an affront to the concept of the sanctity of life and any sort of respect for the dead.
Respect is an ethical concern, not a moral one.
I think people's attitude toward what is acceptable and 'neutral' in the world of fantasy gaming is different than they probably believe in real life. I doubt many of them would callously mess around with corpses.
I respect my enemies and I would dishonor neither them nor myself by behaving in such a fashion. If having slain a person unworthy of this respect, I might consider using his corpse for a practical purpose, but certainly not giggling about it.
I agree their behavior was beyond the pale. I just don't agree upon the grounds of your objection.
Honestly? I don't see a problem.
Sure, you could have the mercenary come back as a ghost or some other form of undead for his corpse being defiled. But I'd do that because it's fitting from the perspective of the mercenary in a world of D&D magic and cosmos.
As for the PCs?
Hmm.. let's see. Who else took corpses of fallen enemies and used them as a tool, and laughed all the while, like it was a big joke?
Perhaps, Leonidas, building his wall made of the bodies of the recently slain? They were just short of playing football (soccer) with their enemies' heads.
DM: This.. this is Evil!
PCs: Evil?... this.. is.. PATHFINDER!
.
Though, if they were playing a wide spread of races and classes (likely), and there was a Paladin in the group, then it's likely that this kind of behavior was at least a little "off" for a number of people.
Might be a good idea to go over how serious you want your players into the roleplaying aspect of gaming. A player of a Cleric of Pharasma might be pushing it with that kind of behavior (if only for promoting the creation of undeath, at the very least).
Have you seen Cube? Use the shoes or boots of dead people, but don't throw corpses ahead of you. It was a horror movie, but in spite of a clear need, they didn't violate the dead. I have not seen Hypercube, so i can't speak for all the sequals.
If you are really POed about Mercs working for evil people, hang his stiff from a tree with a note. Use his clothing to make a scarecrow, then use that as a trap detector.
Ask yourself too if this person was still alive and posing no threat is it considered evil? If so then you have your answer to if it's so when they are dead.
A dead body is just meat. It has significantly less consideration than a human. That people put value in it is not a matter of good vs evil. It is a matter of propriety, respect, honor. These are all things on the law-chaos scale, not the good evil scale. Intentionally violating customs is not evil.
northbrb wrote:
i would consider it evil if what they were doing with the body served no purpose.So, if the party rogue skinned it and made a cloak that would be OK with you because the cloak serves a "purpose?"
It depends on the motivation for creating the cloak. I would have no problem with a human skin cloak. It would be an evil act if his purpose is to intentionally disregard others customs for the purpose of getting a negative reaction (instilling fear or rage). It could be neutral if made for its practicality (though human skin is not very good for such things, this discussion could extend to humanoids, like lizardmen). I can even understand someone justifying it as good, though am hard pressed to come up with an example.
I would say in a culture where the possibility of undeath happening from disrespecting the dead could happen the wanton mishandling of a corpse would be at minimum disrespectful and chaotic, and easily fall into the evil since the actions could directly lead to the creation of undead, and evil undead at that.
In addition in a culture where the possibility exists that if the body is whole and taken care of someone could restore a loved one to life then the mishandling of a corpse would be even worse: Not only are you having a chance the creature could get back up as undead, but your misuse of the corpse could lead to it not being available for raising by a loved one.
These two points in concert would cause more issues than simply the moral taboos of a culture (which have significant weight in and of themselves -- after all in many ways it is these very taboos and mores that cause the culture to have the alignment that it has).
******************************************
As to the cloak situation -- it would depend:
Is there another material that could be better used in this situation?
Is the body otherwise properly taken care of?
Is the use of the body in this fashion helping better a bad situation?
For example if someone were in an extreme survival situation and the only way to make some clothes and blankets to survive with is to use the skin of the several hundred dead in the area that is one thing -- distasteful (and potentially dangerous with diseases and what not -- a reason we have evolved to have the distastes we do) and akin to cannibalism but possibly understandable given the circumstances -- after all what happened to the dead is tragic but if more death can be prevented with this use that is generally seen as acceptable.
However after the situation has passed then the cloak/clothes/whatever should be properly disposed of in accordance with the funeral customs as much as is possible.
Trista reread my post again -- you aren't saying anything I didn't.
Mutilating corpses of intelligent beings is an evil act.Why?
Nuff said.No its not. Lots of people already posted disagreement with this sentament in this thread. If you want to argue this case, you must back up your claim with reasoning.
If the corpse was left to rot they would be neutral and if the group tried to bury the man or pursued finding family to tell them the man had died, that would be considered good. Maybe in extreme cases like a Paladin atoning he would offer to pay for burial.
Why are these the way that you see it? These are not the only options. The world is not black and white.
Mutilating corpses of intelligent beings is an evil act.Why?Nuff said.No its not. Lots of people already posted disagreement with this sentament in this thread. If you want to argue this case, you must back up your claim with reasoning.If the corpse was left to rot they would be neutral and if the group tried to bury the man or pursued finding family to tell them the man had died, that would be considered good. Maybe in extreme cases like a Paladin atoning he would offer to pay for burial.Why are these the way that you see it? These are not the only options. The world is not black and white.
It's Evil because I would not want it done to me.
This is exactly why I have arranged for Cremation.While I can accept that some might want Manson to be entombed in his cell when he dies, I may attend a prayer vigil for his immortal soul. You need forgiveness to get your enemies off your back.
This is turning into an Ethics argument, because that's really what the whole corpse desecration thing is. Discussions like this are why I dropped ethics 101 in college. "What is acceptable to one culture may be taboo to another" etc etc hurp durp
It's evil. And chaotic.
Evil is not limited to eating babies and genocide.
Yes, but one could easily argue that it is limited to causing harm to living, feeling beings-- of which a corpse is neither.
The chaotic argument holds weight. It is a gross violation of societal norms. I specifically called it out as a dishonorable act, which given my ethos is considerably worse than an evil act. This is why I specifically mentioned the concept of honor and to what extent it applied to Paladins in the OP's games.
It is not "merely" a neutral act, as neutral people (i.e. the majority of humans) both in-game and the real-world have moral objections to such practices.That is a concern of lawful vs. chaotic behavior.
A chaotic act that harms a creature is also an evil act. The notion that the creature has to be alive is not true. The majority of "chaotic neutral" humans (name whatever culture seems to fit, say the huns) view(ed) such practices with revulsion. This is coupled by the subconscious notion that the human collective in historic times held: that the state of your mortal vessel, in death, reflects your lot in the afterlife. As such, messing with the corpse was/is considered an evil act (as well as being unlawful).
Judae-christo religions tend to dissolve themselves from such notions, but they are the new kid on the block; so even most judae-christo faithful would be outraged at such practices.
Now I don't say that messing with the corpse in battle is a problem. Using a fallen enemy as a shield - or his gore to demoralize his allies - can work fine in a non-evil context.
But once the encounter is over and there is no more need to abuse the body - the act of desecration becomes a valid concern. In the OPs scenario there were many ways to search for traps that did not involve tossing the body around for cheap laughs.
Conversely, eating the corpse of a fallen comrade after your ship somehow crashes in the Andes mountains, is sanctified by the church. (Paraphrasing a bit here.)
In other words, it comes down to the necessity of the situation. And in the scenario the OP sketched, there is no sign of gravitas or sanctity in the actions of the PCs. Their acts are base, and not even on the level of an animal (which I guess is the most "neutral" baseline that we have).
I've sometimes used traps that are triggered in one square, but effect an area well behind that square, specifically designed to punish the players that hang back while the rogue takes all the risks. This situation would be a perfect time for that sort of trap...Id have them walk into a custom trap that will negate this idea.
have them throw body into the trap and have the trap cast resurrection on teh corpse..
somebody has been reading Grimtooth...
I am such a grognard...I miss old grimtooths traps.
I mean, seriously, WTF?
Good and evil are, to me, about the harm done to others. Is the person being hurt? No, they're already dead. Peoples reaction to it is more a mater of societies conceptions about the respect owed to the dead. People kill and eat neutral creatures all the time, start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of good and neutral beings all without being EVIL.. these seem far worse than abusing a glorified sack of meat from which the soul has already departed.
|
Yes i consider what they have done evil, sadistic and twisted. So what? As long as they are in character everything is good, now if you got so good aligment charaters that helped i would toss in some nightmares and/or visions to remember them of their roleplaying choices.
If one of said characters is a pally, on the next morning after waking up (from a night of intense nightmaress with his angry god) i would tell him that he lost all his paladin powers and need to find a high cleric to go throw an attonement ritual (spell). Meanwhile i would keep tossing him some bad karma mojo like been nauseated and throw up everytime he ate red meat, the small children start to cry when he comes near them and some other goodies.
I take roleplaying very seriously. And yes, that ghost is definitely coming back futher down the road. I guess i am a mean DM but thats why i give people hero points.
This is coupled by the subconscious notion that the human collective in historic times held: that the state of your mortal vessel, in death, reflects your lot in the afterlife. As such, messing with the corpse was/is considered an evil act (as well as being unlawful).
If this is true in your cosmology, then I will agree that desecrating a corpse is an evil act. However that is a setting assumption that is not explicitly spelled out in either the core rules or any setting I have personally read, though I suppose it should be given the number of cultures that share this belief.
This is coupled by the subconscious notion that the human collective in historic times held: that the state of your mortal vessel, in death, reflects your lot in the afterlife. As such, messing with the corpse was/is considered an evil act (as well as being unlawful).If this is true in your cosmology, then I will agree that desecrating a corpse is an evil act. However that is a setting assumption that is not explicitly spelled out in either the core rules or any setting I have personally read, though I suppose it should be given the number of cultures that share this belief.
If desecrating a corpse by casting light on it and throwing it on traps is not considered evil but is neutral and causes no alignment problems even for paladins, what possible objections are there for necrophilia and cannibalism being classed as purely neutral acts as well?
If you want to run a game with necrophiliac cannibal paladins, go for it, but most people basing their fantasy on some vein of medieval worldview and the values of western society are going to find that not just utterly distasteful but extremely lame.
Yes i consider what they have done evil, sadistic and twisted. So what? As long as they are in character everything is good, now if you got so good aligment charaters that helped i would toss in some nightmares and/or visions to remember them of their roleplaying choices.
If one of said characters is a pally, on the next morning after waking up (from a night of intense nightmaress with his angry god) i would tell him that he lost all his paladin powers and need to find a high cleric to go throw an attonement ritual (spell). Meanwhile i would keep tossing him some bad karma mojo like been nauseated and throw up everytime he ate red meat, the small children start to cry when he comes near them and some other goodies.
I take roleplaying very seriously. And yes, that ghost is definitely coming back futher down the road. I guess i am a mean DM but thats why i give people hero points.
Why would he eat red meat? that's desecrating a corpse. Or are you the man who will define the definition of intelligent creature for all the world. because I know dogs smarter then some people. And no the ability to screw up the English language does not make you smart. Hell some horses have been taught multiplication (up to like the 5's) that's more then some humans can say.
your displaying an either elitist or a vegan attitude.
It's Evil because I would not want it done to me.
This is exactly why I have arranged for Cremation.
While I can accept that some might want Manson to be entombed in his cell when he dies, I may attend a prayer vigil for his immortal soul. You need forgiveness to get your enemies off your back.
The last guy who got shot in a war didn't want a gaping hole in him either, just because the opposing side caused it (even if he took the head off) isn't considered evil in any way for it. So how is this different? If what happened to your body really matter then hell would outnumber the heavens simply through the wars and diseases that have plagued mankind.
If desecrating a corpse by casting light on it and throwing it on traps is not considered evil but is neutral and causes no alignment problems even for paladins, what possible objections are there for necrophilia and cannibalism being classed as purely neutral acts as well?
If you want to run a game with necrophiliac cannibal paladins, go for it, but most people basing their fantasy on some vein of medieval worldview and the values of western society are going to find that not just utterly distasteful but extremely lame.
Except outside Europe there are many cannibalistic countries (try going to the non-american half of simoa) you calling all of them evil too?
And necrophilia was originally considered evil for the same type of reason that cats were gods in egypt. Cats kept out rats so by making them gods people wouldn't kill them (which they were doing), necrophilia caused the spread of disease and so was considered evil. cultures that disliked body desecration came after. So your view is skewed.
If desecrating a corpse by casting light on it and throwing it on traps is not considered evil but is neutral and causes no alignment problems even for paladins, what possible objections are there for necrophilia and cannibalism being classed as purely neutral acts as well?
-For paladins, treating the body of a fallen foe that way is far, far FAR and away below what the code allows, alignment violation or not.
The last guy who got shot in a war didn't want a gaping hole in him either, just because the opposing side caused it (even if he took the head off) isn't considered evil in any way for it. So how is this different? If what happened to your body really matter then hell would outnumber the heavens simply through the wars and diseases that have plagued...
Sorry, the Folktale Motif Index says you're wrong. Desecrating the remains of the dead is one of the top ways to get a haunting.
If we're going to be playing in a fantasy world where the dead come back as undead whenever they get sufficiently ticked off, then it's up to the dead to decide what their personal buttons are. It would be reasonable to assume that desecrating their remains is still on that list, along with the other old standards such as speaking ill of them, or harming other things they loved or held dear.
If desecrating a corpse by casting light on it and throwing it on traps is not considered evil but is neutral and causes no alignment problems even for paladins, what possible objections are there for necrophilia and cannibalism being classed as purely neutral acts as well?
If you want to run a game with necrophiliac cannibal paladins, go for it, but most people basing their fantasy on some vein of medieval worldview and the values of western society are going to find that not just utterly distasteful but extremely lame.
Except outside Europe there are many cannibalistic countries (try going to the non-american half of simoa) you calling all of them evil too?
And necrophilia was originally considered evil for the same type of reason that cats were gods in egypt. Cats kept out rats so by making them gods people wouldn't kill them (which they were doing), necrophilia caused the spread of disease and so was considered evil. cultures that disliked body desecration came after. So your view is skewed.
If we go with a rationalist multicultural perspective, hardly anything should be evil and most gods shouldn't even exist, or at very least be in serious therapy for years of backwards thinking. That might be an interesting world to roleplay in, but it wouldn't have much relevance to a world based on medieval folklore and fables.
If I wanted to have Samoan paladins, I would come up with some way that the knights of Charlemagne and/or King Arthur encountered the similarly folkloric Samoans, likely during some epic quest for Prester John's Kingdom mixed with the business from Las Sergas de Esplandian where they encounter the Isle of Calafia, home of amazons and their man-eating griffons. Then I'd have the two cultures work out their differences, and ditto their gods, because if you have one culture saying something is sacrilege, and the other saying that it's sacrament, only one of them gets to be right if we're going with some standard of ultimate truth.
I certainly wouldn't have the Samoans with paladins before the contact, because that's a class based on another body of folklore. It would be like doing a game based on the Salem Witch Trials and pasting in ninjas. The whole "I'm not a witch--I'm a ninja!" routine would be amusing for all of two seconds and then would become lame. In short, it doesn't fit.
I want my paladins in a world vaguely aproximating Europe and the Middle East at the time of the Crusades with morality and theology to match. If I want something ambiguous to argue about, I'll let the Crusader and the Saracen debate the evil of pork chops.
I want my paladins in a world vaguely aproximating Europe and the Middle East at the time of the Crusades with morality and theology to match. If I want something ambiguous to argue about, I'll let the Crusader and the Saracen debate the evil of pork chops.
Fantasy crusade morals or real ones? or your own mix which you can't expect others to know/follow? Because there are flaws to both real and fantasy.
Real holy knights did things purely for money, gambled, killed defenseless enemy peasants, etc. So I doubt this is the morals your going for.
Fantasy holy knights are patrons of good and won't kill anything unless it directly endangers others. Which even if it is in defense is an evil act. (you did just desecrate a body, and rob someone of life). And more often then not spend any time not killing in defense praying for forgiveness. I doubt you mean this one either because it is hard to adventure like this.
your good/evil seems to come down to your own morals more then anything else. That's why I base my good evil axis on an actions effect on someone. If it affects them badly it is evil, if it affects them in a good way then it is good, all other is neutral. Killing an evil being is more good then bad because it caused those they tormented to be happier which outways the evil person feeling bad about dying.
in this instance the person has no idea he is being used as a trap dummy, he is dead, and will never see his body again. The undead that come back are usually angry about something that happened during life or the way they died, not what happened after death.
in this instance the person has no idea he is being used as a trap dummy, he is dead, and will never see his body again.
Saying that in an "Earth" setting might make sense - in Golarion the afterlife is complex and fraught with uncertainty. Ghosts and undead and hauntings are plenty. Any number of soul-related things can happen based on how the corpse is treated. Also PCs aren't the only ones that use raise dead.
So, the creature - even if dead - probably has a good idea what is happening with his body. Particularly minutes after being killed.