I would argue they're moreso LN than LE. If they bury the dead they eat then for sure LN.
Most people will say ghouls are evil, period.
But, if they adhered to the philosophy outlined I dunno why they couldn't be neutral or even good- if your home brew also ditches the "undead automatically = evil" approach.
Eating the dead isn't evil. Dead things are dead. Eating them is fine.
The fact that it used to be sentient really isn't an issue. Killing sentients is bad. Eating an object is not evil.
People will try to tell you that eating them is bad since they can't be ressed.. but if so, then all the scavenger animals in the game world are actually evil.
:P
-S
I'd say solidly LN
Part of the evil of Ghouls is their cannibalistic nature. That, and the fact that they are animated by the very stuff of anti-life... however, if anything that is animated by Negative Energy is inherently evil, then it would follow that anything animated by positive energy would also be inherently good.
This is, however, clearly a flawed conclusion, as anyone who has been to the DMV can attest to.
So taken in total, a pack of ghouls who actively denied themselves the ability to indulge their base, vile natures I could see as Neutral. If they use their abilities to the betterment of those still living, at great sacrifice to themselves, they could be, in rare and exceptional instances, good. That's the sort of stuff that the Book of Exalted Deeds was all about.
A pretty cool idea, I think, and not so irritating as a sparkly vampire.
|
Those guys can easily be LN and even LG depending on the whys and hows of what they do.
They could have this "removal of infected/putrescent flesh to protect the healthy" thing going. Well meaning, even as it makes folks gag a bit.
Ghoul paralysis could be useful for subduing people non-lethally too...
I like the idea ... these creatures may be 'inherently evil' but actually work for good. On the whole, LN sounds right. However, I would have them make Will saves whenever confronted with temptation in the form of dying men or dead bodies, or succumb to their base desire to feast.
Further, what happens to the poor souls they tend the wounds of who then contract ghoul fever? While by RAW ghoul fever comes from the claws and teeth of ghouls, it seems pretty plain to me that a ghoul treating the open, bleeding wounds of a human would give them the same exposure to the disease as actively attacking them would.
Hence I can see the tragedy of a band of ghouls 'selflessly' following armies, eating the flesh of the dead after battles, interring the bones in solemn rites according to their beliefs and religions, treating the sick and mourning the tragedy as their ranks swell, and the numbers of rogue ghouls increases in their wake ...
A brotherhood of ghoul warrior-monks takes vows to only eat the dead that have fallen in battle - those found to have survived a battle have their wounds tended to by the monks (with the Heal skill). Killing another expressly for the purposes of eating them is forbidden by the vows as is eating anyone killed by the monk, another member of the brotherhood, or anyone in direct service to the brotherhood. The rest of the time the monks ascetically endure their hunger (which per Classic Horrors Revisited never results in actual debilitation).
While these could easily be LE, I'm wondering if LN would be possible?
I would also say that is LN. And depending on what else they do it would even fit within the parameters of an LG or NG Ghoul.
Even if the disease could be passed on through the claws, each Ghoul Monk would also be a first level cleric and prepare Purify Food and Water...
|
|
Should a ghoul monk accidentally turn another being into a ghoul, or if it's through that monk giving in to the temptations of his hunger, perhaps their order typically demands atonement via ritualized destruction of the ghoul responsible(who may likely accept such punishment willingly) while giving the new ghoul the choice of joining their order to leran how to master their urges or be mercifully put down.
Ghoul fever is only passed on through the bite, not from the claws, so unless the ghoul is using its mouth to treat them it's not going to be an issue. As a nurse IRL, I can't recall ever using my mouth to dress wounds.
True, but the ghoul is close to the person with open wounds for an extended period. As it is from the bite, it is probably from the ghoul's saliva. When you are close to somebody your saliva is transferred to them just by talking and breathing. Most combats are not long enough for this to be a significant factor, but extended medical treatment? There's a reason surgeons wear masks!
I would rate the DC for the save to be lower than normal, but it's a clear and present risk that, given the number of injured in a battle, will bear fruit. Perhaps the ghouls have learned to mask themselves for the benefit of their patients to negate this risk, but I am sure you can see my point here ...
