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.
Yeah but adventurers kill and steal from dead bodies all the time, if they aren't used to the haunting at a certain point they shouldn't be adventuring.
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?
Necrophilia is disgusting, but it's not Evil. Unless, as I've conceded to LoreKeeper, the cosmology of the setting is such that the treatment of the corpse affects the spirit in the afterlife, in which case it's the same Evil as desecration of a corpse-- within that setting. I wouldn't take a way a Paladin PC's powers for engaging in necrophilia, but I would likely kick the player out of my group for being disgusting.
I'm not going to get into the morality of cannibalism because, as has been pointed out already, trying to define "cannibalism" in a world with multiple sentient species of varying levels of intelligence is an exercise in futility. Suffice it to say that I do not consider the eating of flesh-- any flesh-- to be Evil and that the act of killing something to eat it may or may not be Evil, depending on the circumstances.
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.
Leaving aside the issue of how little any campaign setting-- except perhaps for FATAL's-- truly represents a medieval worldview, you still seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in understanding the difference between the subjective cultural values of society and the objective measurement of good and evil established within the rules of the game.
The game defines evil as practices which "debase or destroy innocent life" and "hurting, oppressing, and killing others". What these PCs did, however distasteful, does not meet that definition.
I wouldn't want players to behave like that at my game table, and I have no compunction against telling them that I don't like it and that if they continue I'll find someone else to play with. But there is no basis in the rules for applying in-game penalties for behavior that the GM simply does not like. He's free to request that they stop, and to stop playing with them if they refuse, and I would encourage him to have NPCs react negatively to this behavior if they're aware of it, but they're not breaking any rules or playing the game wrong.
This simply is not an in-game issue to be handled with in-game consequences, aside from NPC behavior. This is an issue of the GM's comfort level and should be handled as such, by the GM talking to his players like a reasonable adult.
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.I mean, seriously, WTF?
No, the person isn't being hurt. However, friends and relatives who would be grieved by the death will definitely be hurt. Their likely reaction is little to do with societies' conceptions either (in fact, I would think that most of 'respect for the dead' is based in avoiding causing them further grief.)
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.
I would not have any problem running a game with necrophiliac or canibalistic Paladins, provided that they fit into the setting. Societies in which those aspects exist would have no problem fielding Paladins. I consider both to be neutral on the good-evil scale, though depending on the culture could be very chaotic, thus preventing the ability to be a Paladin. Adherence to your cultural norms is only 1 measure of the Law-Chaos scale though, so it is possible to stay lawful while performing those acts in a more standard society. Paladins have stricter codes though, and it is harder to stay in the code. Just because it will not change their alignment does not mean they wont have to repent.
No, the person isn't being hurt. However, friends and relatives who would be grieved by the death will definitely be hurt. Their likely reaction is little to do with societies' conceptions either (in fact, I would think that most of 'respect for the dead' is based in avoiding causing them further grief.)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.I mean, seriously, WTF?
If you're going to assume the existence of the soul as a fact--and in a fantasy game, it certainly is--and if you're going to allow the dead soul to perceive the world of the living in some fashion after they are dead, then what you do to their body after they're dead most certainly can matter to them if they feel it does.
Saying that "The dead don't care" is either the statement of an atheist--where the dead don't care because they don't exist--or else based on some theology where the dead are either busy with their next incarnation or have drunk from the River Lethe or some similar otherworldly source of forgetfulness or else are off in some paradise so marvelous or hell so awful that in a relativistic way they really don't care that you've cast Gentle Repose on their corpse and are using it as the star attraction of your necrophiliac brothel.
And, it should be mentioned, this really isn't borne out by the folklore. If you say you've never heard of this motif, go read the story of "The Stolen Liver" and then come back to the discussion. It's the same motif used in "The Golden Arm." Honestly, this is standard ghost story 101.
Don't forget that, in order to cast resurection you only need a part of the body... Ok I don't think that, in this case, the OP players intend to resurrect the poor NPC, but if in a group someone dies and they took a part of the body with them to resurrect it I think they can do whatever they need to the remain, 'cause they know the dead will not need it anymore... It's now an "object", not a corpse anymore since the corpse can be made whole with just the finger they took and put carefully in their bag... ;)
But in the specific case of the OP I would have given a lot of "Chaotic point" to the players, that's what I do when someone act without thinking of all consequences... :p
Don't forget that, in order to cast resurection you only need a part of the body... Ok I don't think that, in this case, the OP players intend to resurrect the poor NPC, but if in a group someone dies and they took a part of the body with them to resurrect it I think they can do whatever they need to the remain, 'cause they know the dead will not need it anymore... It's now an "object", not a corpse anymore since the corpse can be made whole with just the finger they took and put carefully in their bag... ;)
But in the specific case of the OP I would have given a lot of "Chaotic point" to the players, that's what I do when someone act without thinking of all consequences... :p
Ah, the old "We rented your corpse out for sexual favors and sold choice bits to the gnolls for sushi until we raised enough money to pay for your resurrection" routine.
No, the person isn't being hurt. However, friends and relatives who would be grieved by the death will definitely be hurt. Their likely reaction is little to do with societies' conceptions either (in fact, I would think that most of 'respect for the dead' is based in avoiding causing them further grief.)
the law of any land doesn't agree. If your a rapist murderer they will hang you from the gallows and they might stick your head on a pike. Your family b-damned, should have raised him better. The guy in question was a merc, a hireable murderer. Anything done to him is lawful retribution.
All good.
By the way, most Dwarfs would be upset that humans do these things to humans, not Orcs. If an Orc defiled a Dwarfs corpse, the other Dwarfs would make a point of burying them together, but the dwarf's corpse would be armed and armored. The Orc's corpse would be wearing only a blindfold.
If any of the body defilers die before they confess, repent, and otherwise acknowledge they did a bad thing, they will hop back up as an advanced ghoul. The survivors of the Donner party were very apologetic. It's not like one of the PC's has a Gnoll girlfriend, because she would have called dibs on the meat.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad and I like puns.
Is this any worse then what a character normally does to something that they kill?
the typical post murder...justice killing....err..whatever
DM : Well hes dead
Player 1 : whats he wearing
DM: fine leather armor and silk clothing as well as 2 short swords catch your immediate attention. You also spot a belt pouch after a few quick looks
Player 2 : detect magic
DM : After about 20 seconds his armor and weapon emit a faint glow.
Player 1 : cool ill take his stuff
DM : you shake his battered corpse out of your loot and kick it aside.
Really how many corpses has your party taken the time to bury. Adventurers are a brutal , bloody mess that finds stuff , kills it and takes its stuff. I wouldnt think twice about putting this evil man corpse to good use as a trap finder.
the law of any land doesn't agree. If your a rapist murderer they will hang you from the gallows and they might stick your head on a pike. Your family b-damned, should have raised him better. The guy in question was a merc, a hireable murderer. Anything done to him is lawful retribution.
No, the person isn't being hurt. However, friends and relatives who would be grieved by the death will definitely be hurt. Their likely reaction is little to do with societies' conceptions either (in fact, I would think that most of 'respect for the dead' is based in avoiding causing them further grief.)
But he hopefully gets a fair trial first, and it's not clear to me that mercenary equates to rapist/murderer - the death penalty should be for what you're proven to have done, not what you might have done or even probably did. (And not all modern countries have the death penalty, but I'll grant it's likely most D&D countries do.)
But he hopefully gets a fair trial first, and it's not clear to me that mercenary equates to rapist/murderer - the death penalty should be for what you're proven to have done, not what you might have done or even probably did. (And not all modern countries have the death penalty, but I'll grant it's likely most D&D countries do.)
Not to burst your democracy bubble any further but most lands in DND are a monarchy. This means your guilty if someone of higher standing says you are. If the town guard says a peasant stole the kings vegetable then the peasant doesn't get a say in the matter, whether the guard has proof or not.
And yes to qualify to be called a merc you have to have killed someone, IE a murderer.
|
Eh, I would have just risen him as a zombie/skeleton and let him stumble about to protect the part. Now if I could just animate the body like a puppet and leave the soul it wouldn't be evil, just in bad taste.
Same thing applies. It's by no means chivalrous, it's pretty low. But the soul is not harmed so it's not truly evil. But if you want to get back at them or make it a story point the grave desecration as it were could lead to a haunting.
Dun Dun DUNNNN!
I will deny the Paladin his single 1st level spell (he's 4th level) until he atones for allowing the scene to happen. My basis for this based on all of the feed back is not a Good vs Evil but that it was a Chaotic action and that it violates the Honor aspect of the paladin code. The man had surrended and made no attempts to escape and was providing them with information and assistance as requested. It was dishonorable to allow his remains to be treated like that.
At first I didnt like the ghost idea but with some thought it actually works in. There is an NPC that would be more than willing and capable of giving an upset spirit a little nudge in the ghostly directions. I will have it first appear to the neutral character that effectily taunted him with a vial of anti-toxin. Having it ask her things like "why? I was trying to help? I did everything you asked?" But I also want it to be more subtle so for a while I think it will only appear when shes alone. Tempted to let it possess her Eidolon on occasion. hehehe still debating on that.
The best subtle hauntings work by gaslighting the victim. I would suggest that the summoner with the antitoxin, next time she gets a flask out, ask her to make a Perception check. If she makes it, tell her that she sees something floating in the antitoxin. If she looks closely, tell her that the floating sediment in the vial briefly takes the form of the man she denied the antitoxin to while he was begging for it.
If she takes the antitoxin, let her get a brief haunting in her head, with the spirit going "Why?" before vanishing. If she fails to do something to make amends--taking his corpse back to his village, paying for a proper burial, asking forgiveness from his widowed mother or other family members, etc.--escalate it as the spirit gets angrier.
I'd let the antitoxin in her possession and later just in her presence becomes clouded with blood. It's a standard haunting effect, well within the powers of a minor tormented spirit, easily done with a wizard's cantrip, but will play merry hell with the adventuress, especially if she walks into an alchemist or apothecary's shop and spoils his stock. Whether or not the antitoxin still works is immaterial--Who wants to buy stuff that looks and tastes like curdled blood, and may even give the drinker flash visions of the poor spirit's dying moments?
Then let the apothecary have her arrested for ruining his stock, claiming that she was sent by some thieves for failing to pay protection money. Let her exact deeds come out in court, and let some enterprising bard use her and her fellow adventurers as the subject of a murder ballad, which broadsheet sellers will sell in the street. And let people mock her in the street as "the woman without mercy" from the popular murder ballad.
Heck, you could even add extra levels of intrigue to it if the ballad seller (who is actually evil, being in the music publishing industry) hires assassins to lynch her but frame it to look like a suicide so he can sell the sequel he has ready about how the murderess, tormented by conscience and public shaming, took her own life by swallowing poison. The business about the assassins holding her down and pouring it down her throat with a funnel will be left out.
This will have the fringe benefit of laying the first spirit to rest and also pleasing the alchemists' guild, who also wanted something to be done about the woman who was ruining their trade in antitoxin.
If you're going to assume the existence of the soul as a fact--and in a fantasy game, it certainly is--and if you're going to allow the dead soul to perceive the world of the living in some fashion after they are dead, then what you do to their body after they're dead most certainly can matter to them if they feel it does.
If harming the corpse actually harms the spirit, desecrating a corpse is torture. If it only offends the spirit, it's an insult. Insulting people is not Evil. In a world where people will kill each other over insults, I think there's a good case for insulting people being Chaotic behavior and plenty of justification for the restless spirits of the dead to demand satisfaction.
If desecrating a corpse is a harmful, Evil act, then the best time to address it is when one of the PCs dies. Turnabout is fair play.
Ah, the old "We rented your corpse out for sexual favors and sold choice bits to the gnolls for sushi until we raised enough money to pay for your resurrection" routine.
"Of course we rented out your corpse for sexual favors. It's the only way we could raise the money for the resurrection spell."
If you're going to assume the existence of the soul as a fact--and in a fantasy game, it certainly is--and if you're going to allow the dead soul to perceive the world of the living in some fashion after they are dead, then what you do to their body after they're dead most certainly can matter to them if they feel it does.If harming the corpse actually harms the spirit, desecrating a corpse is torture. If it only offends the spirit, it's an insult. Insulting people is not Evil. In a world where people will kill each other over insults, I think there's a good case for insulting people being Chaotic behavior and plenty of justification for the restless spirits of the dead to demand satisfaction.
No, that's a false dichotomy.
Having "torture" and "offense" as the only possibilities is wrong.
You've left out mental cruelty, hate crimes, rape, etc.
One of the easiest definitions of evil is willfully causing pain and suffering through action or inaction.
It's not that the ghost is offended by someone abusing its corpse. It's that it actively causes it anguish and grief.
The difference between renting a corpse out to necrophiliacs or taking a Feebleminded wizard and pimping him out to living perverts? Not much. Both are cases of rape and slavery, and will both cause a great deal of anguish if the person every finds out what happened while they were impaired.
One of the easiest definitions of evil is willfully causing pain and suffering through action or inaction.
It's not that the ghost is offended by someone abusing its corpse. It's that it actively causes it anguish and grief.
Next question... This knowlegde of the spirits afterlife, and the creation of the undead, and the 'torture' resulting in these actions...
How common of knowledge is this in golarion? I'm still trying to get the setting itself down... Forgotten Realms/planescape I'm familiar with... golarion I honestly don't have a clue...
Is 'desecrating a corpse a cause of undead' common knowledge? Is it considered a wives tales? Do people think only necromancers can make undead?
Would you require someone to make a knowledge check Planes or Religion to know these things? how hard of a DC would you require?
It seems many people on here think that the corpse is just a slab of meat and that the soul has gone on to it's reward...
If the CHARACTERS truly believe that too, then I'm not sure it would be evil. They aren't 'willfully' causing anguish. It may be foolish... it may be crude... but stupid does not equal Evil.
One of the easiest definitions of evil is willfully causing pain and suffering through action or inaction.
It's not that the ghost is offended by someone abusing its corpse. It's that it actively causes it anguish and grief.
Next question... This knowlegde of the spirits afterlife, and the creation of the undead, and the 'torture' resulting in these actions...
How common of knowledge is this in golarion? I'm still trying to get the setting itself down... Forgotten Realms/planescape I'm familiar with... golarion I honestly don't have a clue...
Is 'desecrating a corpse a cause of undead' common knowledge? Is it considered a wives tales? Do people think only necromancers can make undead?
Would you require someone to make a knowledge check Planes or Religion to know these things? how hard of a DC would you require?
It seems many people on here think that the corpse is just a slab of meat and that the soul has gone on to it's reward...
If the CHARACTERS truly believe that too, then I'm not sure it would be evil. They aren't 'willfully' causing anguish. It may be foolish... it may be crude... but stupid does not equal Evil.
Shouldn't it also require a Knowledge the Planes or Religion check to declare with any certainty that the body is "just a slab of meat" or that "the soul has gone on to its reward"?
People in any game world are going to have assumptions about some things, commonly held beliefs, and old wives tales as well. Sometimes, however, the old wives are right, and it's up to the GM to decide when that happens.
Unless the characters have huge amounts of skill ranks in Knowledge Religion and a GM who agrees with their interpretation, there's no way that they can say for certain that it is impossible for the dead to be desecrated or for their rest to be disturbed in the slightest regardless of what awful thing happens to their corpse. Anyone who says that is likely a player who's filtering their own personal beliefs over to their character and expecting the GM to agree.
Not to burst your democracy bubble any further but most lands in DND are a monarchy. This means your guilty if someone of higher standing says you are. If the town guard says a peasant stole the kings vegetable then the peasant doesn't get a say in the matter, whether the guard has proof or not.
But he hopefully gets a fair trial first, and it's not clear to me that mercenary equates to rapist/murderer - the death penalty should be for what you're proven to have done, not what you might have done or even probably did. (And not all modern countries have the death penalty, but I'll grant it's likely most D&D countries do.)
I think you're overly harsh in your views on medieval monarchies. Some may have been that bad, but not all of them. There was a lot of variation across Europe and over several centuries. The Magna Carta was signed in England in 1215, and included a clause "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
In particular, there had to be an open trial and the verdict wasn't up to the person of higher standing: not that I'm claiming it was always followed, but in principal it was supposed to be. The town guard might have been able to say the peasant stole vegetables without proof, but would probably need to do better to accuse him of murder.
The wise lord of the land would have at least had to make a show of a fair trial, or risk being prosecuted himself - there likely would be those who'd love an excuse to disinherit him. And most towns were independent of the local lords and had their own courts.
And yes to qualify to be called a merc you have to have killed someone, IE a murderer.
I understood a mercenary to be someone who fought wars for solely for pay, as in mercenary companies who hired themselves out during warfare. Killing enemy soldiers in a war isn't normally classed as murder, and a person's a mercenary the moment they've signed up, whether they've killed someone or not.
.
..
...
....
.....
Neutral/Good*
Carbon Neutral Footprint Party!
Otherwise, what else will they use?
Rocks? The time taken to weigh a rock/some rocks and develop a way of distributing their weight in a 'body-like' manner is going to cost valuable world resources - food, water, wood (pencils and paper!) etc
Each of these must be harvested.
Cloth? Wood? Any other resource?
All require harvesting -- all robbing the world of precious resources!
*Good if they eat the body after and make use of it's skin and bones to craft items and needed goods - RECYCLE!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
::
Curious, would it be 'ok' if it was an *evil* humanoid?
it was a mercenary paid to kill them, he was evil....
butseriously, they goofed.
they should of animated his armor to do that too...
Shouldn't it also require a Knowledge the Planes or Religion check to declare with any certainty that the body is "just a slab of meat" or that "the soul has gone on to its reward"?
People in any game world are going to have assumptions about some things, commonly held beliefs, and old wives tales as well. Sometimes, however, the old wives are right, and it's up to the GM to decide when that happens.
Unless the characters have huge amounts of skill ranks in Knowledge Religion and a GM who agrees with their interpretation, there's no way that they can say for certain that it is impossible for the dead to be desecrated or for their rest to be disturbed in the slightest regardless of what awful thing happens to their corpse. Anyone who says that is likely a player who's filtering...
I would imagine that this is common knowledge in any setting in which hauntings are commonplace and people are capable of speaking with the dead.
That's a DC 10 Religion check.
I don't have a problem with this being true in a campaign, and I confess that I think I will begin assuming that this is true for any campaign I run. I enjoy the implications of it.
.
..
...
....
.....Neutral/Good*
Carbon Neutral Footprint Party!
Otherwise, what else will they use?
Rocks? The time taken to weigh a rock/some rocks and develop a way of distributing their weight in a 'body-like' manner is going to cost valuable world resources - food, water, wood (pencils and paper!) etc
Each of these must be harvested.
Cloth? Wood? Any other resource?
All require harvesting -- all robbing the world of precious resources!
*Good if they eat the body after and make use of it's skin and bones to craft items and needed goods - RECYCLE!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
::
Curious, would it be 'ok' if it was an *evil* humanoid?
Yes, there is a Dwarf in the party! Use an Orc!
Also, in any game there are clothes and gear that are virtually worthless. You can make a scarecrow out of junk. Burial is the most carbon neutral of body disposal if there is no embalming.I want to point out that cannibalism has never been accepted by any other culture. Repentance is required.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad and I like puns.
|
I, for one, HATE true neutral and chaotic neutral characters. They're loose cannons (and the alignment of the characters of players who hate roleplaying) and for me, RPG's are about heroics. So I'm biased. I love LG. (And I'm American!) I usually play smart paladins and clerics and I take my divine magic seriously.
There were so many Chaos points in what they did.
If you ever read the Pathfinder adventure path "Skinsaw Murders" you'll get awesome ideas for haunts, which are like traps, but they're supernatural. You cannot disarm them. I suggest the corpse's soul start a few of those. Make one for each character and theme them. Greed, Anger, ect. Use the cardinal sins and teach them a lesson.
Have you ever read the Magic of Golorion book? (I think that's what it is called) In addition to the spells that were lost for the Pally, depending on the paladin's god, you can give him a -4 to all his attacks until he atones because his weapon is too heavy (for Iomedae) For Sarenrae, he'd probably go blind, and incur all the penalties for that, unless he took Blind Fight feat line, in which he'd get a very painful sunburn that caused Con damage. For Erastil, every animal ever would attack them, no matter whether a druid tried to talk to them. Shelyn would drop their charisma to an 8.
ALL the LG and NG gods despise corpse desecration. It would basically falls into the realm of the Urgathoa or the lawful evil god of pain. The god of Necromancy would also get pretty damn pissed.
What I'd do is to put a sidequest in there that would give them half exp and treasure to put things right, using a divine intervention as a messenger. Haunts, and an antagonist ghost who made a friend with PC levels in Oracle or necromancer wizard/cleric. Negative energy clerics are beastly and will give the PC's a run for their money.
.
..
...
....
.....
Burial is the most carbon neutral of body disposal if there is no embalming.
As long as the burial doesn't traumatise any earthworms, I'm all for it!
::
|
|
I want to point out that cannabilism has never been accepted by any other culture.
Cannibalism is accepted by no *pc* races as a whole unless you worship that lawful evil BDSM god from "Curse of the Crimson Throne", you know, Shelyn's brother. I can never remember his name. They have sacred rites to go about it so it's painful for the living... uh... buffet. And even then, the one to be eaten CHOOSES to do it and pays good coin to be mutilated and eaten.
Sahaguin (spelling? the shark people) and Goblins do it, iirc. And I'm sure some tribes of Mawangi do so to keep the "memories" of the deceased in the tribe, and even then only the well-loved members... but they are probably considered heretics by other, more "mainstream" tribes.
.
..
...
....
.....
There are also tribes in The Real World who practice Cannibalism as a method of preventing an 'evil' person from returning as a vengeful ghost/ an angry spirit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
"Cannibalism has recently been both practised and fiercely condemned in several wars, especially in Liberia[5] and Congo.[6] Today, the Korowai are one of very few tribes still believed to eat human flesh as a cultural practice.[7][8] It is also still known to be practised as a ritual and in war in various Melanesian tribes.[9] Historically, allegations of cannibalism were used by the colonial powers to justify the enslavement of what were seen as primitive peoples; cannibalism has been said to test the bounds of cultural relativism as it challenges anthropologists "to define what is or is not beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior".[10]"
http://www.papuatrekking.com/Korowai_Kombai.html
"Korowai and Kombai used to be cannibalistic tribes. We are convinced that they still practice ritually cannibalism, but considerably less frequently. Korowai and Kombi are two of the wildest tribes on Papua. Despite that, as we gradually found out during our expeditions to this area, one can get along with them reasonably well. We have been visiting the area of these tribes for more than 10 years now. We even have some of “our friends” among the tribesmen."
I, for one, HATE true neutral and chaotic neutral characters. They're loose cannons (and the alignment of the characters of players who hate roleplaying) and for me, RPG's are about heroics.
I played a (necessarily) CN cleric of Dionysis once, and had a great deal of fun, and a lot of roleplaying opportunities. In downtime, obviously, she spent a lot of time drinking. Probably her worst moment was on an island, when the BBEG sank the ship and all her wine, leaving her with one small flask till we got back to somewhere with booze. I suppose, though, that almost no-one in the party was a hero type - mostly we tried to survive, and get the jump on the enemy sometimes. TN was the only permitted alignment for 1st ed druids, and gave a lot of roleplaying opportunities.
If, for you, RPGs are about heroics, that's great, but it isn't true for everyone. The reluctant hero just trying to survive is also very playable, and it's unjust to imply that people who like TN or CN hate roleplaying.
Ok was running a game and the party had captured a mercenary hired to kill them. They threated and coorced the merc into revealing the location of one of the mercenary's hideouts and lead the PC's there. The mercenary was poised by a trap at the entrance and died. The PC then proceeded to drag the mercenary's dead body around with a light spell cast on it so they could see and repeatedly throw the corpse infront of them trying to set off any traps that might be there. Personally I think using a body in such a fashion, even the corpse of an enemy is a little on the shady side of moral. I tried to bring it up but they were like its not an "evil" act. They made such comments as...."He's already dead." "Its not like we killed him."
Sure it wasnt evil but really tasteless and a bit sadistic. Aside from teh fact of whether it would be good or evil. It's kind of a twisted thing to do.
What are other peoples views?
The party consists of Good and Neutral characters and contains a Paladin.
Yes, it's tasteless. In Golarian, I would call that kind of treatment very shady indeed - there is a reason there are spells and burial rites, in order to stop the dead from rising. If they had seriously abused this guy, I would consider having him come back as something nasty just to demonstrate this. For a paladin it's also shady.
Paladin's code is based on the chivalric code, and in that even the body of an enemy is deserving of some respect. To treat a foe in such a way is dishonourable, period.
In many cultures proper treatment of the dead was a very important aspect of conflict, in it's presence and in it's absence. It's up to you to decide how it works in your world, but I would assume as above that this treatment is dishonourable - yes he was an assassin, but he died for the party's sake however reluctantly.
There was a movie called Cotton Candy. These teenagers had formed a band. It almost broke up when one member insisted they play strip poker. The guy who helped start the band finally grabbed the cards and told them to put their clothes back on. At least I think that happened. In any case, a paladin should just take the corpse away from the other characters and burn or bury it.
What did they do with the corpse after they raided his lair? Just leave it for the scavengers?
|
|
Core rulebook, p 166 : "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."
Hence, what they are doing is definitely not Good.
Also "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." (same book, same page)
In a world were the persistence of the soul/spirit after death is not a belief but a reality, using somebody's corpse for one's own purpose is indeed hurting and/or oppressing the being it belonged to, unless said being agreed to the treatment given to its remains. Hence, in this case I would rate it as Evil.
Also, it is definitely not acting with honor, and thus a breach of the Paladin's code (even if it was not considered Evil).
Interesting thread.
My personal take, probably not evil (borderline, but just a hair not over the line), at least as far as the corpse treatment goes.
Withholding antidote when the guy was poisoned? Yeah, that's evil. Mainly because of the tormenting of the guy as he died. Pretty much evil.
The paladin? Yeah, broke his code. First off allowing the withholding of the antidote would be a violation of his code (killing the guy wouldn't necessarily, although he'd need to do at least a modicum of a field trial to put him to death, and then submit to a higher authority later to be judged for it). But allowing the teammate to make fun of the guy while he's dieing horribly, that's pretty much a huge violation of his code.
Then desecrating the body would be also a violation of his code, IMHO. Actively joking and laughing about it, even more so.
The NN, CN, NG, and CG characters in the group? Meh, probably just fine. They committed one act that wasn't good (or was borderline evil at worst) but one act doesn't an alignment change. Unlike the Paladin, they don't get penalized for one mistake. A Paladin does.
|
I want to point out that cannabilism has never been accepted by any other culture.
Cannibalism is accepted by no *pc* races as a whole unless you worship that lawful evil BDSM god from "Curse of the Crimson Throne", you know, Shelyn's brother. I can never remember his name. They have sacred rites to go about it so it's painful for the living... uh... buffet. And even then, the one to be eaten CHOOSES to do it and pays good coin to be mutilated and eaten.
Sahaguin (spelling? the shark people) and Goblins do it, iirc. And I'm sure some tribes of Mawangi do so to keep the "memories" of the deceased in the tribe, and even then only the well-loved members... but they are probably considered heretics by other, more "mainstream" tribes.
Some Sarkoris tribes of humans practiced ritual cannibalism as part of their funeral rites, according to the original Campaign Setting.
Interesting thread.
My personal take, probably not evil (borderline, but just a hair not over the line), at least as far as the corpse treatment goes.
Withholding antidote when the guy was poisoned? Yeah, that's evil. Mainly because of the tormenting of the guy as he died. Pretty much evil.
The paladin? Yeah, broke his code. First off allowing the withholding of the antidote would be a violation of his code (killing the guy wouldn't necessarily, although he'd need to do at least a modicum of a field trial to put him to death, and then submit to a higher authority later to be judged for it). But allowing the teammate to make fun of the guy while he's dieing horribly, that's pretty much a huge violation of his code.
Then desecrating the body would be also a violation of his code, IMHO. Actively joking and laughing about it, even more so.
The NN, CN, NG, and CG characters in the group? Meh, probably just fine. They committed one act that wasn't good (or was borderline evil at worst) but one act doesn't an alignment change. Unlike the Paladin, they don't get penalized for one mistake. A Paladin does.
+1
I completely agree with this.
|
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.
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...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.
Do you actually read the BS you write dude?! Really?
Core rulebook, p 166 : "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."
Hence, what they are doing is definitely not Good.
Also "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." (same book, same page)
In a world were the persistence of the soul/spirit after death is not a belief but a reality, using somebody's corpse for one's own purpose is indeed hurting and/or oppressing the being it belonged to, unless said being agreed to the treatment given to its remains. Hence, in this case I would rate it as Evil.
Also, it is definitely not acting with honor, and thus a breach of the Paladin's code (even if it was not considered Evil).
Depends on if you believe the meat sack has anything to do with the spirit after death.
As for honor, again, it depends on if the body is seen as something special, or not.
What you believe is immaterial. Good is about respecting the beliefs and wishes of other people.
You can believe that a body is a meat sack all you like. People who respect your beliefs can take your body and bury it, burn it, feed it to the dogs, or give it to anatomy students for medical dissection. Your spirit will not be troubled by this because it's in accordance with your wishes.
Somebody else's body? It's up to them and their spirit what they consider respectful treatment, not you.
Similarly, honor is based on respect for others. You may personally believe that other people's beliefs are stupid, silly, or just outright wrong, but the honorable thing is to respect them regardless.
If you're without any concept of respect for other people and their beliefs? Then you're a sociopath and you might as well just write CE on your character sheet and quit arguing.
The paladin? Yeah, broke his code. First off allowing the withholding of the antidote would be a violation of his code (killing the guy wouldn't necessarily, although he'd need to do at least a modicum of a field trial to put him to death, and then submit to a higher authority later to be judged for it). But allowing the teammate to make fun of the guy while he's dieing horribly, that's pretty much a huge violation of his code.
Ohhh yeah, THAT is an evil act. Clarification though, I think the OP said that the Paladin was out of the room or something and didn't have knowledge of that act. So no harm to the Paladin THERE....
As for the body treatment... I'm still on the fence about that. Honestly, I think body desecration is entirely too common in worlds like this for that to be cause of undead... All the heads on pikes and bodies left to rot in cages... the whole world should be crawling with undead.
Obviously it's not... so that leads me to think they are just slabs of meat.
However... IF you want the ghost to come back and torment the pcs... The taunting with an antidote while they watch you die... WOULD be a legitimate reason for an angry spirit ;)
THAT has some fun play potential... But yeah, sidetracking a whole campaign because the players got a little goofy one night seems like a stick in the mud to me :/
At most I'd tell the Paladin player that he's getting a warning... You consider it an evil act and goofying around or not, next time it'll be an issue.
It's getting hard for me to tell who's flaming who.
While I am not a vegan, others can be one, and even fill their game world with butcher's spirits and such. It's not in the spirit of the game for making someone have alignment problems for eating chicken.
Allowing characters to misuse corpses is another extreme. There should be consequences or very in game reasons for the specific actions. Has the GM been throwing bounty hunters at the characters unjustly? Where the characters framed for something?
As for neutral, what have the characters done that was so good to balance this?
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad and I like puns.