|
Someone's family pet, right in front of them?
An animal sacred to a LG deity, in that deity's church?
The friendly dog that just pulled you out of an avalanche?
Heh. Okay, you got me. Those are Evil. Or close enough to it for government work. I wasn't thinking of them when I made the statement. The big distinction is, and should be, that it's usually okay to kll an animal for blood, never okay to kill a person for it.
Its liquid cannibalism. Definitely evil.Cannibalism isn't evil. So, definitely not evil.Its evil enough to turn you into a Ghoul if you do it... without a spell being cast. That's some seriously bad ju ju.
Legends hold that the first ghouls were either cannibalistic humans whose unnatural hunger dragged them back from death or humans who in life fed on the rotting remains of their kin and died (and were reborn) from the foul disease—the true source of these undead scavengers is unclear.
Legend holds that masturbation will grow hair on your palms and yours eyes go blind.
In the dead dog/innocent little girl scenario, doing anything to the dead dog's body that upset and psychologically harmed the girl would be evil -- because, and only because, of that harm. I can however imagine a scenario where the paladin and the dog were defending the little girl together against, say, shadows or something else that doesn't leave drinkable corpses, and the paladin had run out of lay-on-hands, potions, scrolls or other methods of healing. The paladin might explain to the girl that he is very sorry but this curse he has makes it possible for him to heal by drinking blood, and the only blood available to him is the dog's, and asking her if she thought her dog would have wanted him to be able to have the strength to defend her. If she says yes, he asks her to look away so she won't see it, and then drinks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legend holds that masturbation will grow hair on your palms and yours eyes go blind.
Weremole?
Legend holds that masturbation will grow hair on your palms and yours eyes go blind.
Oh. Right. Legend. (bzzzzzzzzzt)
In D&D the legends are often real. Its at least indicative of the fact that people feel cannibalism is evil.
At the very least its on of societies big taboos, and if the good part of the paladin doesn't respect that, the lawful part does.
|
|
In D&D the legends are often real. Its at least indicative of the fact that people feel cannibalism is evil.
I suspect that, like, say, the Donner Party, those who become Ghouls actually kill others for their flesh (maybe out of desperation, but still)...and I don't think there's any evidence to contradict that.
At the very least its on of societies big taboos, and if the good part of the paladin doesn't respect that, the lawful part does.
Depends on the society he's from, as well as the one he's in. And on what the laws are as well. Also, Chaotic acts do not cause a Paladin to fall (though they shouldn't be common).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legend holds that masturbation will grow hair on your palms and yours eyes go blind.Oh. Right. Legend. (bzzzzzzzzzt)
In D&D the legends are often real. Its at least indicative of the fact that people feel cannibalism is evil.
At the very least its on of societies big taboos, and if the good part of the paladin doesn't respect that, the lawful part does.
Lawful doesn't mean you follow social taboos. A lawful scientist might say "Screw these superstitious taboos! I am going to look inside these corpses to learn how to the body works so I can save my living patients because it's my duty as a doctor!" *cue anime pose to pierce the heavens*
You're attributing something to lawful alignment that isn't necessarily there. Barbarians are often depicted as having cultures full of various social taboos. The barbarian who sees magic as bad, or believes only in the magic of King Ku Lu Hakoo, or thinks that you shouldn't hunt on a red moon because you'll turn into some sort of monster; etc, etc. Why aren't those barbarians lawful? Because whether or not you buy into such things is irrelevant to your personality.
Incidentally, people are stupid. People have thought stupid things for a long time in reality. There's no reason to assume D&D people would be any smarter. Somebody hears about ghouls eating corpses or people, so some fool decides obviously that person must have returned from the grave due to an unholy eating of flesh; 'cause well, eating people seems really gross; and the guy who comes up with this idea doesn't realize that the soul moves on leaving a lump of protein rich tissue in its wake. So he decides ghouls come from that, and he tells other people, and suddenly you have an urban legend.
In reality, ghouls come from pimp magicians. Those clerics and/or wizards who can pop create undead and make a ghoul. Or certain powerful outsiders, who can poop out ghouls and such as well (angels and demons can create ghouls for example, using their SLAs). We get a sneak peek behind the scenes, because we get to read how the world works. The average person isn't going to know or understand anything about create undead or what it does, or even if such magic exists.
Actually, maybe that's why ghouls paralyze people. Maybe they were chronic cannibal masturbates who are cursed to unlife due to their evil cannablism and self pleasuring practices. I mean, they cause you to become rigid and unmoving when they touch you with their hands or mouth, so that's probably some sort of deeply rooted proof that masturbation is evil; and thus Paladins who masturbate must loose their Paladinhood.
I'm sure everyone can see that the above line of reasoning is dumber than bricks. That's good. It is dumber than bricks. While we're at it, let's look at other stuff people have felt was evil, but isn't evil in D&D terms that defines goodness as being altruistic and evil as "hurting, oppressing, and killing".
The list could go on.
Have to agree with Ashiel. The Paladin's code of conduct requires that a Paladin respect legitimate authority, not that he obeys every random social norm or taboo. A Paladin will generally respect the existing social order (so long as it's not evil, of course), but that doesn't require that a Paladin follow every single custom.
If a Paladin believes there's no merit to a social taboo, the Paladin is totally within their rights to ignore the rule. It's just an arbitrary rule made up by a bunch of mud farmers, with no moral/ethical framework supporting the belief.
Paladins are required to maintain a Lawful Good alignment, not Lawful Stupid.
Have to agree with Ashiel. The Paladin's code of conduct requires that a Paladin respect legitimate authority, not that he obeys every random social norm or taboo. A Paladin will generally respect the existing social order (so long as it's not evil, of course), but that doesn't require that a Paladin follow every single custom.
If a Paladin believes there's no merit to a social taboo, the Paladin is totally within their rights to ignore the rule. It's just an arbitrary rule made up by a bunch of mud farmers, with no moral/ethical framework supporting the belief.
Paladins are required to maintain a Lawful Good alignment, not Lawful Stupid.
Pretty much this.
D&D alignment is not a 4000 page religious doctrine. It's the most bare bones and honest form of alignment. Again, summed up, it's like altruism vs cruelty. Good is sticking your necks out for others, evil is "hurting, killing, oppressing". The Paladin is doing none of the above. The Paladin is not committing evil.
Wow Dracula shoule have waited for societies norms to change then he would have avoided the pitchforks and stakes. lol
If you go by a judeo christian based sensibility to your world as many here often say in the numerous morality threads yes it is evil. That said if the diety says its okay then the paladin should have no problem. Generally the life-drinking game mechanics are evil.
Wow Dracula shoule have waited for societies norms to change then he would have avoided the pitchforks and stakes. lol
If you go by a judeo christian based sensibility to your world as many here often say in the numerous morality threads yes it is evil. That said if the diety says its okay then the paladin should have no problem. Generally the life-drinking game mechanics are evil.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dracula kill people? I'm pretty sure the killing of people to drain them of blood is where the evil problem occurs. Then again, people have pulled pitchforks for less. I'm sure being able to use cantrips and orisons would have been a burning offense in lots of cultures because of its "evil".
Incidentally, in D&D, there are only two reasons for vampires to use their blood drain ability. 1) They are indulging themselves for the pleasure of it, 2) they are healing themselves or buffing themselves up.
A vampire, as a sentient creature, could just choose to not be evil. That's what free will does. A D&D vampire can survive indefinitely without drinking blood, but they do either to heal or grow stronger (consuming blood to restore their bodies), or because they just like it.
Because of this, a vampire could be a Paladin. Yep, you could make your own little Vampire Hunter D inspired person. Resist the tempting urge to suck blood, but you got it in your arsenal. The videos I linked before show an example of where D--a very Paladin-like vampire hunter--uses his vampire powers to overcome a monster; literally regaining his energy by biting into it with his fangs. As long as he's not killing anyone just to feed on them; no problems.
Hell, if someone tried to argue that killing an orc via blood drain was somehow more evil than killing them with a sword through their intestines, I'd have to slap them on principle.
isn't a vampire in D&D axiomaticly evil? (and thus can't be a paladin)
btw. we might not have a 4000 page religious D&D alignment doctrine, but that's only because noone compiled all the posts about alignment on this forum.
isn't a vampire in D&D axiomaticly evil? (and thus can't be a paladin)
btw. we might not have a 4000 page religious D&D alignment doctrine, but that's only because noone compiled all the posts about alignment on this forum.
Vampires become evil when they get the template. However, it does not add the alignment subtype to them, and there is no game effect that prevents them from simply having a change of heart. A Paladin could become a vampire, his alignment shifts to "any evil" thus likely Lawful Evil; then he's free to decide to be a different alignment. Atonement also works if you literally want it to be overnight.
isn't a vampire in D&D axiomaticly evil? (and thus can't be a paladin)
In 3.5, monster alignments had qualifiers such as often, usually, and always. A creature that was always evil - well, there were still exceptions, but only through DM fiat. Pathfinder has no such rule, other than alignment subtypes - and even then, only "most" creatures with alignment subtypes adhere to their label - nothing stops a demon from becoming a paladin, so long as they don't perform evil acts or use any of their evil powers!*
*by which I mean of course, spells and spell-like abilities with the evil subtype - teleport away, but don't summon!
oh, you're right, I thought they were like Demons, evil through (sub)type, but they are not.
Well I know what I would like in my next bestiary, non-evil undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Eberron's Deathless - those who are powered by the positive energy (such as by the devotion of their people) rather than an undead's negative energy. Too bad they aren't OGL : /
I reckon generally it would need to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, with all relevant factors being weighed. I was prepared to go with blood of non-sentient beings being generally ok and blood of sentient-beings being generally not ok, but yesterday I changed my mind.
In our session yesterday, the paladin in question drank some orc blood, even as he made a big deal of how disgusting it tasted, because he needed the strength (healing) to continue to defend the caravan and his allies.
Was the orc sentient? Yes. Was the orc killed just for his blood? No, he was killed by the paladin in the course of the paladin defending innocents. Did the paladin do it for selfish reasons? In this case, I'd say quite ostensibly no because he made it clear that if the need was not so dire there was no way he would imbibe foul-tasting orc-blood.
He kept his paladin status.
I'd say the drinking of blood is meant to be morally dubious at best though not outright evil, a paladin that engages in such practices 'should' most likely suffer pangs of guilt. Which in itself lends itself well to rp, I'd rather say it is slightly 'wrong' rather than outright evil.
From a D&D perspective I'd call such an action mildly evil, meaning that in itself is not going to make any person evil though indulging in it with abandon might drop a 'good' person to a neutral alignment.
The difference with other neutral acts is the fact that it is morally dubious behaviour, as such evil in D&D seems more determined by what the majority of people consider wrong or icky if you will. Nobody will say that brushing your teeth is wrong or the other 95% of the actions you perform daily.
If you want to explain many things that are morally dubious as 'neutral'or 'chaotic' you will end up with chatoic evil psychopaths as the only kind of evil, with no room for more insidious and subtle shades which I consider the more interesting types.
I would say that it should not be evil and not cause the paladin to fall. Why? Not for any philosophical reason necessarily, but because role playing is about having fun. It is a game where the purpose is to have fun and to prohibit your player's character concept is going to reduce that player's fun and should therefore be avoided. Of course, if there was such an outlandish character concept that it reduced the fun of the DM or other players, that would be different, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Wow Dracula shoule have waited for societies norms to change then he would have avoided the pitchforks and stakes. lol
If you go by a judeo christian based sensibility to your world as many here often say in the numerous morality threads yes it is evil. That said if the diety says its okay then the paladin should have no problem. Generally the life-drinking game mechanics are evil.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dracula kill people? I'm pretty sure the killing of people to drain them of blood is where the evil problem occurs. Then again, people have pulled pitchforks for less. I'm sure being able to use cantrips and orisons would have been a burning offense in lots of cultures because of its "evil".
Hell, if someone tried to argue that killing an orc via blood drain was somehow more evil than killing them with a sword through their intestines, I'd have to slap them on principle.
Feel free to slap me on principal ;)
My point is that like many morality questions in PF it really comes down to what religious/cultural norms and mores fit the culture you are playing. A faith that is devoted to the poor and freedom might balk at people charging intrest on loans, but for Abadar it might be sacriment. For a diety that celebrates travel, toll roads might be an abomination, but another faith might deal differently.
Wow Dracula shoule have waited for societies norms to change then he would have avoided the pitchforks and stakes. lol
If you go by a judeo christian based sensibility to your world as many here often say in the numerous morality threads yes it is evil. That said if the diety says its okay then the paladin should have no problem. Generally the life-drinking game mechanics are evil.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dracula kill people? I'm pretty sure the killing of people to drain them of blood is where the evil problem occurs. Then again, people have pulled pitchforks for less. I'm sure being able to use cantrips and orisons would have been a burning offense in lots of cultures because of its "evil".
Hell, if someone tried to argue that killing an orc via blood drain was somehow more evil than killing them with a sword through their intestines, I'd have to slap them on principle.
Feel free to slap me on principal ;)
My point is that like many morality questions in PF it really comes down to what religious/cultural norms and mores fit the culture you are playing. A faith that is devoted to the poor and freedom might balk at people charging intrest on loans, but for Abadar it might be sacriment. For a diety that celebrates travel, toll roads might be an abomination, but another faith might deal differently.
*slap*
Seriously though. Those religions have nothing to do with whether it's evil or not, but it might change certain expectations. The deities do not choose what is good and evil, but they do choose what they favor. Asmodeus is a deity in Pathfinder. The stuff he favors is typically quite evil. Urgathoa too. There are lots of non-good deities. If morality was based solely on the will of the gods, then all people would be good and all gods good.
Instead, D&D/PF is quite simple. Are you hurting, oppressing, or killing? No? Then case closed. Drinking the blood from a dead human, orc, elf, or even outsider (such as a tiefling or aasimar) is no more evil than driving a sword through their guts for whatever reasons you would drive a sword through their guts; and is absolutely not evil when you're doing it to a dead object (said humanoid post-death, when the soul has moved on).
From the Gamemastery Guide:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
I would say drinking the blood of your fallen, sentient foe shows a lack of concern for his dignity. Holding a ceremony for the fallen/sanctifying the corpse could be seen as a way to pay one's respects, but simply going down upon your foe's corpse is clearly not good. If you are also responsible for his death, then you start to skirt the line of neutral vs evil. GM's call, but I would label it evil unless he gives some respect to his fallen sentient foes.
[...]
Drinking the blood from a dead human, orc, elf, or even outsider (such as a tiefling or aasimar) is no more evil than driving a sword through their guts for whatever reasons you would drive a sword through their guts; and is absolutely not evil when you're doing it to a dead object (said humanoid post-death, when the soul has moved on).
I would like to point out that your dead foe's body is not simply an object, as you can raise dead/resurrect the creature back into the body.
I would like to point out that your dead foe's body is not simply an object, as you can raise dead/resurrect the creature back into the body.[...]
Drinking the blood from a dead human, orc, elf, or even outsider (such as a tiefling or aasimar) is no more evil than driving a sword through their guts for whatever reasons you would drive a sword through their guts; and is absolutely not evil when you're doing it to a dead object (said humanoid post-death, when the soul has moved on).
Can you cast spells that target creatures on it? No. Does it get saving throws if unattended? No. Is it a lump of protein and various elements? Yes. It's an object. It's more of an object than a golem is, even.
A corpse is not a sentient being by the way. Respect or dignity does not exist for a corpse. If you whipped out your junk and pissed on my corpse, it's not the same as pissing on me. Sure, you might upset people who find it unflattering to piss on corpses, but that doesn't mean you're going to the nine for it.
A corpse is not a sentient being by the way. Respect or dignity does not exist for a corpse. If you whipped out your junk and pissed on my corpse, it's not the same as pissing on me. Sure, you might upset people who find it unflattering to piss on corpses, but that doesn't mean you're going to the nine for it.
Civilization in general gives respect to one's corpse. In fact, this helps with hygiene and with preventing the spread of disease. I would assume that society in Pathfinder would pay even more respect to the dead, as their bodies can be used to bring them back to life, and in some cases the dead are brought back to the exact same body. There is also the matter of interring bodies to prevent wandering necromancers from raising armies on a whim.
As to going to the nine for pissing on a corpse, that was not the focus of this problem. The question is whether or not a living exemplar of good and law would be able to feast upon his fallen foes without consequence. He would not be damned for doing so, but I doubt a beacon of virtuousness and order would be prone consuming the flesh of opponents that he himself slew.
There is also the matter of appearances. This too easily sets up a scenario where the paladin slays his foe to feed his hunger for flesh. There is far too much moral ambiguity in these situations for a paladin, imo.
Lawful doesn't mean you follow social taboos. A lawful scientist might say "Screw these superstitious taboos! I am going to look inside these corpses to learn how to the body works so I can save my living patients because it's my duty as a doctor!" *cue anime pose to pierce the heavens*
Since people tend to write laws based on those supersticious taboos... no. Even if they don't, bucking the system like that is not lawful goods bag. They tend to go with tradition, not against it. I am going to violate the law/social mores for the greater good is neutral or chaotic good.
You're trying to make lawful good into the best good or the highest good and its not. It is not more good than the other good alignments.
You're attributing something to lawful alignment that isn't necessarily there.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.
Not eating corpses is pretty high on the list of basic expectations in Civilized Society.
On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
tells other people, and suddenly you have an urban legend.
The average person isn't going to know or understand anything about create undead or what it does, or even if such magic exists.
There are always odd one time effects on moduels and such.
I'm sure everyone can see that the above line of reasoning is dumber than bricks.
You're being much more abusive than your actual argument would give you the right to be. If your theories made it into the monster manual they might hold some weight. They didnt, so they don't.
Lawful alignment isn't about always obeying the law, no matter how baseless and unjustified it might be. That's what Lawful Stupid alignment is for.
Plus, as mentioned previously in the thread, no character is required or expected to be to an absolute 100% perfect paragon on their alignment. A character who respects tradition and the social order 95% of the time, but thinks that there are a few wrongheaded and baseless traditions/taboos and refuses to follow them is still a Lawful character. Otherwise, we end up with nine per-defined cookie-cutter character personalities.
It's funny to me when I read all this chatter about "cannibalism" this is NOT cannibalism and making up your own words a such as "liquid cannibalism" is not going to fly with intelligent people like myself.
Actual definition of cannibalism. Now if you look at this it's the eating of the flesh of the same species. There are a few things wrong with people who are going this direction with their thought process:
1) What if the humanoid doing this is not human and is drinking the blood of humans? Even if they EAT that person, that is not defined as cannibalism, as they are different species. What if the person doing this is human and they are eating the flesh or drinking the blood of an elf or dwarf? That still wouldn't be defined as cannibalism even in the loosest sense of the word - different species again.
2) Why is this considered evil if they are doing it to a slain foe especially if it's an evil foe? Say they take a small drink of the slain foe and then bury it or even leave it to the scavengers (the circle of life). To me that's more along the lines of being a scavenger because you weren't out to kill just to feed on any humanoid creature. Killing innocents just to feed would make you an evil blood sucker in my book.
3) What about donated blood? What if the PC has a follower/lover/friend who allows them to drink their blood out of love or devotion? Would this be evil if it's voluntary, done without any kind of spell or compulsion, and the volunteer isn't killed in the process?
The question at hand is whether DRINKING BLOOD is evil and assigning your own moral definition based on alignment, so people stop calling it cannibalism of any kind, because it's not. In reality this is defined as Vampirism, which gets me back to the original question posed by the original poster to everyone in the peanut gallery.
I answered the question earlier and still believe the same thing as I posted earlier, this is not evil if done while defending oneself and one's companions - especially against evil beings trying to kill you and your friends. This is evil if done strictly to kill and drink the blood of an innocent.
Context is everything, which is something that you can say about any kind of alignment thread that is asked on here. I always see everyone ask: Why? What was the situation? Who was doing what?
I implore everyone to really think about the context and then post an intelligent answer as to why you think it's good or evil not a one sentence answer like "yes it's evil" or "no it's not evil."
|
Lawful alignment isn't about always obeying the law, no matter how baseless and unjustified it might be. That's what Lawful Stupid alignment is for.
Plus, as mentioned previously in the thread, no character is required or expected to be to an absolute 100% perfect paragon on their alignment. A character who respects tradition and the social order 95% of the time, but thinks that there are a few wrongheaded and baseless traditions/taboos and refuses to follow them is still a Lawful character. Otherwise, we end up with nine per-defined cookie-cutter character personalities.
I completely agree that there is leeway in the alignment grid. But I also think that if you drink the blood of fallen enemies on a regular basis then you will find yourself being looked upon as less than lawful good. MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, whether imagined or real, would find drinking blood abhorrent, even from a recently killed body. Whether that is ritualized in your culture or not, however you spin it, most of the world won't find it okay. I don't think it's evil really, if I look at it in a certain way, but I do think that is it chaotic and I guess that's where you're in disagreement with me.
That's no problem, I just try to apply it to how I would see it in my game and that's how I should've phrased it I think.
*condensed*
Look. The fact is, it is merely a legend that ghouls rise from cannibalism. There's no fact for it. It's just a legend until there are rules that say that cannibals pop out of the ground like daises after they die. Of course, that damns certain indigenous peoples for their funeral rites. Good way to pass judgment without reason across the board. I'm sure that's what good is all about.
Secondly, the alignment rules specifically say that not everyone follows every example of their alignment all the time. There's literally nothing stopping a lawful good person from doing something out of the definition of lawful good. Otherwise we'd only have 9 personalities in the whole freakin' world. Not the case. Someone who lives by a code, acts with honor, thinks things through, but ignores one tradition? Still lawful good.
Unless you mean that a character must always exhibit all aspects of their alignment at all times. In which case Lawful Good people suck, since they blindly follow tradition, are always self righteous, close minded, and lack adaptability. Not every lawful good character is or should be this way. These are not scripts, they are just measuring sticks at best.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drinking blood is not evil.
Western Civilization mores and morality aside, we need to look at this from a purely fictional standpoint, as it's based in the PFRPG.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters debase of destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." (PFRPG Core Rulebook, pg 166)
So, let's ask questions about drinking blood FROM AN ALREADY DEAD SOURCE (because this is the only blood acceptable based on the Bloodline Power description) based on this description of "Good" from the PFRPG Core Rulebook.
Q1: "Does drinking blood debase or destroy innocent life?"
A1: "No."
Q2: "Does drinking blood show disrespect for life?"
A2: "No, the source of the blood was already dead, whether innocent in life or not."
Q3: "Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"
A3: "No. The corpse that supplied the blood, no matter whether the original owner was sentient, is an inanimate object."
Q4: "Is drinking blood a selfish act that harms others?"
A4: "No. Drinking the blood from a dead body does no harm to anyone."
Q5: "Does drinking blood hurt, oppress, or kill others?"
A5: "No."
Q6: "Does drinking blood show lack of compassion for others?"
A6: "In and of itself, no. Doing so in front of the deceased's family, possibly."
Q7: "Does drinking blood show a willingness to kill for sport or out of a sense of duty to an evil deity or master?"
A7: "No."
So, based on these questions, the only real information we have on what is "Good" in the PFRPG, we can conclude that drinking blood is NOT inherently evil. The only caveat I see is if by drinking this blood you show lack of compassion towards some spectator's sensibilities.
@darth_gator - Excellent post, well thought out and very unbiased based completely upon the RAW of the system at hand. I applaud you for doing this Q & A, with a good summation at the end.
@darth_gator - Excellent post, well thought out and very unbiased based completely upon the RAW of the system at hand. I applaud you for doing this Q & A, with a good summation at the end.
Agreed. It was everything I tried to say, only 100x better.
I will once again point out that a corpse is not considered just an object in the vast majority of civilizations, and even more so in Pathfinder where the body can be used to bring back the dead. Mechanics-wise, yes, it is an object, but so is a good aligned artifact. Would desecrating the Shield of the Sun be akin to pissing on some evil character's loot? For that matter, would it be the same as destroying holy symbols of good aligned gods? Dead bodies hold meaning beyond their mechanical definition as objects, and that is the reason the OP posed the question in the first place.
|
|
@darth_gator: I liked the Q&A but there is something that some might find interesting that I can share. In Hugo Grotius' De Jure Belli ac Pacis (written in the 1600s an influential paper on war, battle and conduct before, during and after) there is much talk of the desecration of corpses. It was not legal then to do such things, and is not legal now.
Just some food for thought. Desecration of a dead body is not a new law and I think people long ago and long into the future will find something wrong with it. That doesn't make it evil at all but it does make it icky and weird and--to me--chaotic.
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.
Because good implies respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. That includes after they are no longer able to respond to your actions.
Q1: "Does drinking blood debase or destroy innocent life?"
A1: "No."Q2: "Does drinking blood show disrespect for life?"
A2: "No, the source of the blood was already dead, whether innocent in life or not."Q3: "Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"
A3: "No. The corpse that supplied the blood, no matter whether the original owner was sentient, is an inanimate object."Q4: "Is drinking blood a selfish act that harms others?"
A4: "No. Drinking the blood from a dead body does no harm to anyone."Q5: "Does drinking blood hurt, oppress, or kill others?"
A5: "No."Q6: "Does drinking blood show lack of compassion for others?"
A6: "In and of itself, no. Doing so in front of the deceased's family, possibly."Q7: "Does drinking blood show a willingness to kill for sport or out of a sense of duty to an evil deity or master?"
A7: "No."
Suppose you replace "drinking blood" with "necrophilia". Would you get the same answers?
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.Because good implies respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. That includes after they are no longer able to respond to your actions.
Where is this written that good implies that in the RAW?
Let's say this is a gnoll you just killed that attacked your camp. Is it undignified to ask your companions to walk away/turn around so that you can heal up the wounds it inflicted on you by taking a few drinks of the gnoll's blood?
You didn't go out to try to kill the thing and drink it's blood, you aren't desecrating its corpse by hacking into it any more - you are scavenging from it at this point drinking from the wounds that killed it when it attacked your person and your friends. You tell me how this is evil RAW. I bet you can't, this is the other argument I make about context.
The problem here is that people take their own moral views and impose them upon imaginary "sentient" creatures when there are actual RAW to guide us in what is considered good or evil in this imaginary setting. Now the rules also state that the GM has the ability to do whatever they want to do when interpreting their own world and how their campaign is ran, which is why at the very beginning I said that said alignment rules should be a per table discussion rather than a forum discussion to come to a conclusion on what is best for each individual group.
Suppose you replace "drinking blood" with "necrophilia". Would you get the same answers?Q1: "Does drinking blood debase or destroy innocent life?"
A1: "No."Q2: "Does drinking blood show disrespect for life?"
A2: "No, the source of the blood was already dead, whether innocent in life or not."Q3: "Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"
A3: "No. The corpse that supplied the blood, no matter whether the original owner was sentient, is an inanimate object."Q4: "Is drinking blood a selfish act that harms others?"
A4: "No. Drinking the blood from a dead body does no harm to anyone."Q5: "Does drinking blood hurt, oppress, or kill others?"
A5: "No."Q6: "Does drinking blood show lack of compassion for others?"
A6: "In and of itself, no. Doing so in front of the deceased's family, possibly."Q7: "Does drinking blood show a willingness to kill for sport or out of a sense of duty to an evil deity or master?"
A7: "No."
This isn't a question to necrophilia, stay on point. Even if it was, both are "taboo" in most RL societies, this is an imaginary game in an imaginary setting - so it's up to the RAW and the interpretation of the GM's table at which the discussion and rules are to be decided.
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.Because good implies respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. That includes after they are no longer able to respond to your actions.
But all that does is go right back the question of whether drinking blood from a corpse is showing disrespect for the body, which is all about the intent act of person doing it.
Wantonly desecrating a corpse for no reason would be evil. Taking some blood from a corpse to heal injuries, on the other hand, isn't evil, it's preserving life. There's a big difference between drinking sentient blood for giggles and doing it because it provides supernatural healing your Paladin might need in order to keep fighting the good fight.
Icky? Sure. Shocking to the average peasant mud farmer? Most likely. But there's nothing in the Paladin code or the description of Lawful Good alignment that prohibits either of those things.
The problem here is that people take their own moral views and impose them upon imaginary "sentient" creatures when there are actual RAW to guide us in what is considered good or evil in this imaginary setting. Now the rules also state that the GM has the ability to do whatever they want to do when interpreting their own world and how their campaign is ran, which is why at the very beginning I said that said alignment rules should be a per table discussion rather than a forum discussion to come to a conclusion on what is best for each individual group.
The GM in this case already showed that he leans toward it being somewhat evil, he even asked if there are any circumstances where it wouldn't be. You are the one that tried to convince him that there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. There are a lot of implied rules in complex games, I believe respect for the dead is one of those.
Also, I should have been more clear with my reasoning. I do not believe the act of drinking blood is evil, only neutral. The act of drinking the blood of your slain sentient foes creates a moral ambiguity that, imo, is too close to evil for a paladin to safely walk without paying proper respect to the fallen.
Also, I should have been more clear with my reasoning. I do not believe the act of drinking blood is evil, only neutral.
So we're back to Paladins not being allowed to brush their teeth, because that's a neutral act?
But all that does is go right back the question of whether drinking blood from a corpse is showing disrespect for the body, which is all about the intent act of person doing it.
Wantonly desecrating a corpse for no reason would be evil. Taking some blood from a corpse to heal injuries, on the other hand, isn't evil, it's preserving life. There's a big difference between drinking sentient blood for giggles and doing it because it provides supernatural healing your Paladin might need in order to keep fighting the good fight.
Icky? Sure. Shocking to the average peasant mud farmer? Most likely. But there's nothing in the Paladin code or the description of Lawful Good alignment that prohibits either of those things.
It isn't really preserving life if the Paladin has to be the one drinking it. That means that he still has his faculties when he is performing the action. "Topping off" seems out of the question in those terms.
This isn't a question to necrophilia, stay on point.
I thought my point was sort of clear, but I guess not.
My logic is that if I rule that messing around with a sentient person's corpse isn't evil, then my game will have a variety of icky stuff that isn't evil. Since I prefer for icky stuff like necrophilia and desecration of corpses to be evil in my game, that tends to imply that drinking a sentient creature's blood against their will is evil (although certainly on the low end of evil acts, like shoplifting or something).
|
|
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.
I wish you had more thoroughly read my posts. I very clearly said that I do not think it is inherently evil to do drink the blood of a dead body. I said that it is chaotic to do so.
Here's a quote from the CRB pg166 since you wanted RAW: the CRB roughly defines chaos as
To me, blatantly ignoring what most would say is the norm and illegal/immoral...aka not drinking blood...would be the definition of chaotic in my opinion. The book states that
Being a paladin isn't easy, and being lawful good isn't easy either. I think the character should be a cavalier, then this problem wouldn't happen but whatever. The CRB also says that alignment is up to the GM on issues such as this one so just go with your gut OP, IMHO.
Why do people keep bringing RL stuff up into this conversation. Why not find some kind of rebuttal or proof of your findings (as to why it's considered evil to you) using the RAW? Can you honestly find a way to do this? This is a dead creature not an artifact, this is Pathfinder and Golarion, not Paris in the 1600's. Different rules and imaginary in scope, plain and simple. Give good reasons within the RAW as to why this is evil.I wish you had more thoroughly read my posts. I very clearly said that I do not think it is inherently evil to do drink the blood of a dead body. I said that it is chaotic to do so.
Here's a quote from the CRB pg166 since you wanted RAW: the CRB roughly defines chaos as ** spoiler omitted **
To me, blatantly ignoring what most would say is the norm and illegal/immoral...aka not drinking blood...would be the definition of chaotic in my opinion. The book states that ** spoiler omitted **
Being a paladin isn't easy, and being lawful good isn't easy either. I think the character should be a cavalier, then this problem wouldn't happen but whatever. The CRB also says that alignment is up to the GM on issues such as this one so just go with your gut OP, IMHO.
So we're back to there only being nine valid personality types in all of roleplaying?
@Chengar Qordath - Yep, intent and context in which it is done. Especially as a Paladin. I agree nothing in the code to prohibit it RAW and one of my characters would probably be shocked and grossed out, but wouldn't call it evil unless the paladin went on a killing spree to feed his wanton desires of drinking blood.
@Malfus - I just say that the act of doing so isn't evil, the context is what we have to look at here. Sure there are a lot of implied rules, but then it comes down to personal feelings of what each individual thinks is respect for the dead. To some a dead creature is just a husk and once their soul has left their body what happens to the body afterwards doesn't matter, to others it's revered, cared for, cleaned up, dressed up, makeup put on it, and buried with respect. Different cultures, different beliefs. I just think this all has to come into context as well, especially on the different kinds of creatures that are put into the setting.
I won't tell you that at your own table that you can't do what you want and rule the drinking of blood as evil as that is well within your rights as a GM. Perhaps your home-brewed world is Paris of the 1600's and you have the religions of this world there and all the beliefs in your NPCs and societies that forbid such a thing from going on.
|
|
So we're back to there only being nine valid personality types in all of roleplaying?
No, but you cannot simply act however you want with any character. There is an alignment grid for a reason and it is set up for a reason.
It seems as though you're overgeneralizing what I am saying. There are restrictions on alignment, that's a fact. Otherwise we would not have alignment.
To me, what is being described is a chaotic neutral act. To you it is a neutral act. Brushing his teeth is a non-alignment act, like sleeping, eating, or going to the bathroom so that point is not really valid to me. I am not saying that the paladin has to be a saint but he certainly shouldn't brazenly ignore the laws and accepted traditions of another goodly land simply because he doesn't agree with them. He is a lawful good character, so if he adamantly goes against laws in place after place, shows he is better than the laws and the people that uphold those laws, and upsets the people of various lands I do not see him as following his paladin code.
The alignment grid is there for a reason and that reason is not so you can do whatever you want and say it is a "loose system." There are consequences to your actions, at least there should be. Otherwise you're just roll playing and not role playing IMO and you should focus on combat only RPGs. Just my 2cents.