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.
"Only nine valid personalities" is exactly what you're saying then. You require everyone to strictly and absolutely adhere to one of the nine alignments in absolutely everything they do, or else you break out the accusations of cheating and badwrongfun.
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.
Funny enough, there's nothing in the Paladin code that prohibits chaotic acts, just that a Paladin has to be Lawful Good.
Even if blood drinking to heal his injuries qualifies as Chaotic, a single act does not decide one's entire alignment.
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."
Actually...yeah. That'd be really gross but it's not actually harming anyone. O~O
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of points...
1. I agree that drinking blood from a freshly slain corpse may be Chaotic. However, a paladin does NOT lose his paladin-hood for chaotic acts. Only evil ones. Just because a paladin is Lawful Good, he is perfectly free to engage in chaotic acts from time to time. It does NOT affect his paladinhood...I think too many of you are remembering 2nd ed paladins. This is Pathfinder, people.
2. If you replace "drink blood" with "necrophilia" the answer to all the questions in my post will be the same. Because we're dealing with an object, not a living, breathing, being. Also if you replace "drink blood" with "urinate on", "draw obscene pictures on", "play charades with", or "sing to". You are acting upon an object, without alignment, sub-type, or feelings. It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil. No one has consecrated this corpse to anything. It's a pile of protein, calcium, and other assorted goo.
3. Resurrection has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. In the RAW, you can cast True Res on a pile of dust and bones and re-create the deceased's body. If you've done something to the corpse, it doesn't matter. The same goes for Resurrection. That being the case, I would argue that in a society where these feats are possible, the general public would care LESS about what you did to a corpse. Who cares what happened to Bob the Fighter after he died...we'll just pony up the cash to have him brought back good as new. Also, in a society where the presence of gods isn't some abstract philosophical debate, people are going to care less about the remains of the deceased because they already KNOW where the immortal soul rests. The body is just a dwelling, not the person.
4. The corpse is an object. I feel the need to reiterate this. It makes no difference that some cultures/societies view it differently. Some societies in Pathfinder probably believe certain animals are sacred and killing them is evil, or that touching a corpse is taboo, or that washing in certain streams is forbidden. Does that make those actions Evil (EDIT) and therefore a breach of a paladin's code resulting in loss of standing? Vehemently, NO. Because Good and Evil are NOT determined by mortals, but rather by higher, universal, principles. The litmus test for those principles has been neatly handed to us on page 166 of the PFRPG Core Rulebook. By that test, drinking blood is NOT evil.
A couple of points...
1. I agree that drinking blood from a freshly slain corpse may be Chaotic. However, a paladin does NOT lose his paladin-hood for chaotic acts. Only evil ones. Just because a paladin is Lawful Good, he is perfectly free to engage in chaotic acts from time to time. It does NOT affect his paladinhood...I think too many of you are remembering 2nd ed paladins. This is Pathfinder, people.
2. If you replace "drink blood" with "necrophilia" the answer to all the questions in my post will be the same. Because we're dealing with an object, not a living, breathing, being. Also if you replace "drink blood" with "urinate on", "draw obscene pictures on", "play charades with", or "sing to". You are acting upon an object, without alignment, sub-type, or feelings. It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil. No one has consecrated this corpse to anything. It's a pile of protein, calcium, and other assorted goo.
3. Resurrection has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. In the RAW, you can cast True Res on a pile of dust and bones and re-create the deceased's body. If you've done something to the corpse, it doesn't matter. The same goes for Resurrection. That being the case, I would argue that in a society where these feats are possible, the general public would care LESS about what you did to a corpse. Who cares what happened to Bob the Fighter after he died...we'll just pony up the cash to have him brought back good as new. Also, in a society where the presence of gods isn't some abstract philosophical debate, people are going to care less about the remains of the deceased because they already KNOW where the immortal soul rests. The body is just a dwelling, not the person.
4. The corpse is an object. I feel the need to reiterate this. It makes no difference that some cultures/societies view it differently. Some societies in Pathfinder probably believe certain animals are sacred and killing them is evil, or that touching a corpse is taboo, or that washing in certain streams is forbidden. Does that make those actions Evil? Vehemently, NO. Because Good and Evil are NOT determined by mortals, but rather by higher, universal, principles. The litmus test for those principles has been neatly handed to us on page 166 of the PFRPG Core Rulebook. By that test, drinking blood is NOT evil.
Another post for the favorites book. *favs*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In India cows are sacred. That means that a Paladin can't eat steak in D&D.
Pork is out too, thanks to Jewish/Muslim traditions.
Needless to say, any Paladin who eats a bacon cheeseburger is instantly transformed into a Blackguard.
|
|
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).
This post caught my eye for some reason. This discussion, and the question posed by the OP, is about a Sorcerer Bloodline ability that allows you to drink the blood of a freshly slain creature. It does NOT deal with stealing blood from an unwilling victim. I believe that most everyone in this discussion would agree that taking blood from an unwilling, LIVING, creature for selfish reasons would be an Evil act in PF.
Also, "icky" does not equate to "Evil". Please remember that.
Finally, if you like the idea that necrophilia, corpse desecration, etc be Evil acts, by all means, invoke Rule 0 and make it so! It's your game and you're more than welcome to do it that way. I will in no way fault you if you choose to rule that way. I think I've shown that the RAW doesn't indicate that, but part of the beauty of this game is that we can modify it to fit our own particular idiom.
|
A couple of points...
1. I agree that drinking blood from a freshly slain corpse may be Chaotic. However, a paladin does NOT lose his paladin-hood for chaotic acts. Only evil ones. Just because a paladin is Lawful Good, he is perfectly free to engage in chaotic acts from time to time. It does NOT affect his paladinhood...I think too many of you are remembering 2nd ed paladins. This is Pathfinder, people.
So if a paladin repeatedly does things in such a way that they slide toward chaotic good, becoming Neutral or Chaotic Good and thus are no longer Lawful Good, what happens? Paladins must be Lawful Good, in my estimation and I don't think an argument can be made otherwise.
*edit* rephrase^
2. If you replace "drink blood" with "necrophilia" the answer to all the questions in my post will be the same. Because we're dealing with an object, not a living, breathing, being. Also if you replace "drink blood" with "urinate on", "draw obscene pictures on", "play charades with", or "sing to". You are acting upon an object, without alignment, sub-type, or feelings. It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil. No one has consecrated this corpse to anything. It's a pile of protein, calcium, and other assorted goo.
I think this can be chalked up as how you feel about this, and several other people as well. Nowhere RAW, as I have been told to show support from, does it say anything like this.3. Resurrection has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. In the RAW, you can cast True Res on a pile of dust and bones and re-create the deceased's body. If you've done something to the corpse, it doesn't matter. The same goes for Resurrection. That being the case, I would argue that in a society where these feats are possible, the general public would care LESS about what you did to a corpse. Who cares what happened to Bob the Fighter after he died...we'll just pony up the cash to have him brought back good as new. Also, in a society where the presence of gods isn't some abstract philosophical debate, people are going to care less about the remains of the deceased because they already KNOW where the immortal soul rests. The body is just a dwelling, not the person.
Is this written anywhere or just conjecture? If it is written then I'd read it and change my opinion, but as I see it, the body is more than just a dwelling, it is a part of the person. I just don't see anywhere that this was RAW or RAI, but I could be wrong and will admit so if someone can show me where this is written.
4. The corpse is an object. I feel the need to reiterate this. It makes no difference that some cultures/societies view it differently. Some societies in Pathfinder probably believe certain animals are sacred and killing them is evil, or that touching a...
Responses in bold btw.
I think it goes down to how you feel about it personally because you and I feel differently about this.
I will say though, that on pg 63 of the CRB it states
"Additionally, the paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
This doesn't say that doing evil deeds is the only way that a paladin breaks their code, it says there are various ways to do it. Again, if a paladin changes alignment...do they keep their powers or are they no longer a paladin? I haven't heard a RAW or RAI answer other than "it isn't evil, so anything else doesn't apply."
Sorry if I am wrong on this, I don't want to upset anyone, I am honestly looking for an actual answer because I feel one way and apparently I am in the minority.
|
|
I can imagine roleplaying hooks that would allow it, but it would take a lot of hooks and a hell of a player. If the player was a reformed vampire trying to redeem themselves by becoming a paladin while they look for a cure for example.
If I had the player, I would allow it with a very, very short leash we discuss in advance that could lead to the player becoming fallen occasionally if they don't walk the agreed on line.
*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.
Right, just like its a legend that kobolds have the blood of dragons in their veins, dragons hoard gold, and owlbears were formed by wizard's magic.
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.
That is the downside to lawful good on occasion.
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.
This, and your example of the cadaver cutting doc, violate a lot of the description of lawful good. Now, if the individual in question has a power that they NEED to save a burning orphanage or is stuck on deserted ship then circumstances might warrant breaking the taboo. But routinely relying on fel powers is the very antithesis of what a paladin is supposed to be. They cannot simply break out the silly straw and slurp down the blood of their enemies because its Tuesday.
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.
That would be a phrase, not a word.
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:
This is a perfect answer... if you're lawful evil. Which is exactly why a paladin shouldn't be doing it. You're still imbibing the parts of another sentient being. Whether its liquid or solid is kind of irrelevant to anything but semantics.
1) What if the humanoid doing this is not human and is drinking the blood of humans?
In the real world humans are considered the only sentient species. In D&D cannibalism has a broader definition because there are more sentient species.
2) Why is this considered evil if they are doing it to a slain foe especially if it's an evil foe?
You walk into a throne room. The throne is made out of skulls. You are most likely in the throne room of
A) A paladin
B) The antipaladin
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?
Then it would not be, but I believe the ability specified it only worked on the recently dead.
|
|
@youtellatale--I'm not upset in the least. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm actually enjoying the debate. I'm looking for more info to back my stance, specifically in response to your responses above. As soon as I have the info (assuming I can find it), I'll reply.
I feel the need to point out that, personally, I feel that drinking the blood of a freshly slain human in RL would be wrong. It IS desecrating the body, based on our modern, Western, Earth-based sentimentality, and I would confront someone who did such a thing. I don't think it qualifies as Evil, however, in either our society or that of the PFRPG.
As far as your point regarding p63, none of those points have anything to do with drinking blood. Now, if you're in a location where an actual codified law decrees it illegal, then you have a problem as a paladin. However, I believe any role-player worth their salt would find that out before engaging in this behavior. However, respecting legitimate authority and blindly following all the laws of a LEGITIMATE despotic regime are not the same thing. Does a paladin in Cheliax have to start practicing diabolism? All other religions are illegal according to the legitimate authority of that nation, ergo the entire concept of a paladin is precluded.
Off the top of my head, in response the the question regarding whether or not a body/corpse is anything more than a dwelling for the soul...I don't know if that point is ever made anywhere. I will look, but I don't have much hope. However, logically, if you can be brought back to life with relative ease, regardless of the state of your body, or if your immortal soul can be returned to a different body via the reincarnate spell, how can you believe your flesh is anything other than a container? You die, your body is totally burned away in a pool of lava, your cleric casts true res and *Presto*, you have a brand new body, identical to the last one. It really has no meaning other than a way to transport your soul around. Again, that isn't RAW as far as I can find (so far), but it makes logical sense based on the abilities present in this fictional world. If you knew your body could be destroyed and your friends could just bring you back in 10 minutes, would you really be that attached to it? Answer that honestly. Don't you think that would color your perception of what is considered desecration?
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).This post caught my eye for some reason. This discussion, and the question posed by the OP, is about a Sorcerer Bloodline ability that allows you to drink the blood of a freshly slain creature. It does NOT deal with stealing blood from an unwilling victim. I believe that most everyone in this discussion would agree that taking blood from an unwilling, LIVING, creature for selfish reasons would be an Evil act in PF.
I think the only real point we differ on is this question:
"Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"Personally, I think that -- in the particular case of a world where there is a proven afterlife, ghosts are proven to exist, where animating a corpse using necromancy is proven to be evil, and it is a certitude that sentience continues after death -- it is possible to "show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (sentient beings including ghosts, afterlife spirits, etc.) by dishonouring a corpse. And that happily coincides with my desire to have a campaign with no necrophiliac paladins, etc. YMMV, etc. :-)
It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil.
Well, I'd actually say that corpses are consecrated to Pharasma, but she's also in favor of it being treated with the funeral rites and practices of the onward traveling soul. As far as I see it, there's a lot of burial rites that drain blood, and a lot of funeral rites that burn the body away. Debatable what Pharasma's stance would be. I guess if it's a culture in which they preserve the blood in a jar, she'd be fairly upset that you took it.
You walk into a throne room. The throne is made out of skulls. You are most likely in the throne room of
A) A paladin
B) The antipaladin
A paladin of Pharasma in the Varisian barbarian tribes (I added the Varisian barbarian part because they use skulls as decorations that honor the fallen a lot)! Or, an anti-paladin of Urgathoa. Honestly, what other gods care about skulls so much other than those two?
Anyway, there's some interesting things that keep cropping up here that I find a bit fascinating!
Some say that drinking corpse blood is a desecration, some disagree. Some say that drinking corpse blood is disrespect, some disagree. Without these things decided, this debate is mostly endless. I personally see no disrespect at all because drinking blood can in many ways be a show of respect and therefore up to the intent and methodology of the paladin, although maybe debatable desecration. Desecration is the act of depriving something of it's sacred character, and since there's no real deciding factor on the sacred character of a corpse or it's blood, I'd toss these right out for valid talking points since you're using circular logic to prove "evil".
Apparently necrophilia, the act of getting sexual pleasure from a corpse for no reason than your own enjoyment, is considered similar to drinking corpse blood in order to heal from battle. Honestly, I kinda' think motivation plays a big difference in this one. Now, if you can remove poison due to necrotic orgasms...
The word icky is used more times than I've seen in my life! >.> Seriously, nobody likes the word 'gross' or other synonyms? Blood is not icky... it's delicious when cooked right. :)
Also, all this talk of raising the dead? Really? You realize that they are, in many cases, suffering from fatal wounds? I mean, they're a corpse for a reason, right? If raising the dead can't restore a few pints of missing blood, I don't know how anybody survives the process with a gaping hole in their abdomen. Also, if I'm not mistaken, that blood is going to be missing anyway. It's either going to be in the Paladin's healed up tummy (yes I said tummy), or in an ever growing macabre pool on the damp dungeon floors. Either way, raising the dead... not an issue.
Real RAW arguments? Well, first off, and I ask this innocently without full knowing what the answer is, what is the source of lawful good? Is it the lawful good aligned gods that define it, the lawful good aligned planes, or do both the gods and planes shift nature around with whims of mortals?
The spells argument is interesting because the witch's cooking hex is inherently evil. However, all reasons that I could see this as evil, such as desecration or disrespect of the dead, are not present in the non-evil spell Create Treasure Map. There is either hypocrisy in the magic, or there's more to it than that. Is there something about blood that magic and the gods know that we don't? Perhaps blood stores the soul in red blood cells yet our poor Golarian natives just don't understand microbiology yet to know for sure? I dunno, I'd almost say that the spells argument is also too flawed to take seriously now.
Most are beginning to agree that drinking blood is a chaotic neutral act. It then becomes more up to the GM how often this act is performed alongside other actions to determine if the player's alignment must shift.
|
|
@darth_gator - I think with the legitimate authority thing, I was referring to laws as well as socially accepted norms, as in not drinking blood. Could be acceptable in some places...but not very many if I were to guess. Your paladin in Cheliax example is a unique one and honestly I really don't know what I would do as a GM in that example.
As far as the body being resurrected fairly easily I think that 99% of the population wouldn't have the means to see a loved one raised from the dead. Not exactly cheap and I don't think it's an everyday thing but I could be wrong. While adventurers might get killed and raised a time or two in their lifetime, the majority of people probably wouldn't be exposed to this. Again, could be way off base b/c I don't have anything to reference really haha.
I guess the thing is that I really don't know how people feel in Golarion about drinking blood but the world is based (loosely) on real world places and generalized feelings, I would assume, so it stands to reason that it isn't normal to see someone gulping down a large mouthful of dead guy blood. Could be wrong though.
|
|
As far as the body being resurrected fairly easily I think that 99% of the population wouldn't have the means to see a loved one raised from the dead. Not exactly cheap and I don't think it's an everyday thing but I could be wrong. While adventurers might get killed and raised a time or two in their lifetime, the majority of people probably wouldn't be exposed to this.
Just because it isn't common, or readily available to the masses, that doesn't mean the masses don't know this ability exists. I know that it's possible to buy a ticket on a Russian rocket to fly into space...it'll never happen for me, but I know it's possible. The same applies to resurrection in Golarion.
I guess the thing is that I really don't know how people feel in Golarion about drinking blood...
But the issue isn't how people FEEL about it. This is a question of Evil, and personal opinion does not decide Evil. If majority rule determined Evil, there would be no Evil, because everyone believes they are Good, regardless of their actions. So, how people in Golarion feel about drinking blood is irrelevant to this discussion.
...it isn't normal to see someone gulping down a large mouthful of dead guy blood. Could be wrong though.
A couple things with this...first, abnormal is not Evil. Not simply because it's abnormal. Second, everyone seems to be under the impression that the person using this ability has to fill a Mason jar with fresh blood and gulp it down with it running down his chin. However, the ability doesn't actual give you an amount to consume. Would it cease to be "Evil" if the paladin merely licked the blood from his blade where no one could see?
|
|
@darth_gator - I agree 100% that it isn't evil, in fact I've never said it was evil. But piggy-backing off of that question I asked a follow-up that asked if it was chaotic and I think it is. Yes, the consensus feeling does determine whether people get in an uproar about something, so I say how people feel does matter, I guess we disagree here.
And because I know that people can pay to go into space doesn't mean that I know that people do it a couple of times a year and that it's the norm. It is highly unusual and expensive so I am not diluted enough to think that it's a normal event, only the very elite have the ability to do so and I would be surprised if it happened to someone I knew. Anyway, I think we disagree on this one as well.
I will say though that Pathfinder is an awesome game system and I like that everyone's game is a little different and they are all withing the rules of the game. Honestly, I think that's pretty freaking cool.
But the issue isn't how people FEEL about it. This is a question of Evil, and personal opinion does not decide Evil.
This. Even though some think that a sentient being's corpse is a meaningless object, it is still decidedly anti good to treat it as tool for healing and feasting. Thank you for realizing your thoughts on how specific behaviors affect alignment have no bearing on what is actually good and what is actually evil.
Bravo. :D
So basically, drinking blood isn't evil, insensitivity to others is?
"Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"Personally, I think that -- in the particular case of a world where there is a proven afterlife, ghosts are proven to exist, where animating a corpse using necromancy is proven to be evil, and it is a certitude that sentience continues after death -- it is possible to "show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (sentient beings including ghosts, afterlife spirits, etc.) by dishonouring a corpse. And that happily coincides with my desire to have a campaign with no necrophiliac paladins, etc. YMMV, etc. :-)
Really? I would think that in a world where it is empirically provable that the soul leaves the body after death and travels to the boneyard, there would be far more likelihood to treat the body as a mere used up vessel.
The continuation of the person who the body once was is gone and is not coming back unless he is being raised. So maybe for the very wealthy who can afford that sort of magic there would be customs to keep the body fresh and intact to bring them back, but among 99.9% of the population I don't think there would be.
There are plenty of funeral customs in the real world which have beliefs along these lines, the Tibetans come to mind. Come to think of it, there are (were) cultures where ritual cannibalism of the dead was practiced.
So basically, drinking blood isn't evil, insensitivity to others is?
Well, insensitivity to others is not good. While not necessarily evil, but I submit that the combination of killing then using the corpse presents a certain moral ambiguity that a paladin doesn't have the luxury of exploring. I would make sure that the corpse is treated respectfully (some sort of rite for example) before proceeding with the feast.
Really? I would think that in a world where it is empirically provable that the soul leaves the body after death and travels to the boneyard, there would be far more likelihood to treat the body as a mere used up vessel.
"Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"Personally, I think that -- in the particular case of a world where there is a proven afterlife, ghosts are proven to exist, where animating a corpse using necromancy is proven to be evil, and it is a certitude that sentience continues after death -- it is possible to "show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (sentient beings including ghosts, afterlife spirits, etc.) by dishonouring a corpse. And that happily coincides with my desire to have a campaign with no necrophiliac paladins, etc. YMMV, etc. :-)
Let's take a tortured analogy:
Suppose my neighbour (who has no friends or family) is sentenced to an indefinite prison term in a distant country. Is it moral for me to trash his house without his permission, or to steal the copper plumbing from it? Or does it matter whether he's likely to get released from prison some day or not?
Let's take a tortured analogy:Suppose my neighbour (who has no friends or family) is sentenced to an indefinite prison term in a distant country. Is it moral for me to trash his house without his permission, or to steal the copper plumbing from it? Or does it matter whether he's likely to get released from prison some day or not?
Tortured is right! To rescue this analogy from your treatment, we would have to suppose that:
1. The moment that your neighbor returns from his exile (if he ever does), his old house instantly crumbles to dust, and in its place springs up a brand new one, identical to the old one, in perfect condition, complete with all of his stuff that was in said house, also in perfect condition; and
2. This happens with complete disregard for the condition that his existing house was in, so that if you dropped a nuke on the existing house, the new copy would still automagically appear the second your neighbor stepped foot back in the country.
I think that in this case your neighbor care quite a bit less what you did with his house. He might find it somewhat offensive, for sentimental reasons, but I think he'd be far, far more concerned about being imprisoned abroad; the state of his automatically-replaceable house would be a trivial matter in comparison.
So basically, drinking blood isn't evil, insensitivity to others is?Well, insensitivity to others is not good. While not necessarily evil, but I submit that the combination of killing then using the corpse presents a certain moral ambiguity that a paladin doesn't have the luxury of exploring.
I find the idea that a Paladin can't ever do anything that's not 100% purifying pure pureness rather unrealistic unless the GM is running a completely black and white campaign where the only moral choice are things like "You can either go punch evil in the face, or murder babies just because you're evil."
If it's a more realistic campaign where there are shades of grey, a Paladin kind of has to deal with some level of moral ambiguity. Trying to follow a black and white code in a grey world can make for a very fun roleplaying experience, but it kind of falls apart if one posits that Paladins can't handle that kind of thing.
I would make sure that the corpse is treated respectfully (some sort of rite for example) before proceeding with the feast.
That part sounds quite reasonable; performing some sort of purification rite and a proper burial afterwards seems like a very Paladin-y thing to do.
As a pastor and philospher this thread has been a hoot to watch. Thank you all.
Baiscally one side says drinking blood feels creepy. The other says dead bodies are just objects so its not evil. So we are chosing between emotivism on one hand or a completely emperical understanding of a body on the other. All this to determin the moral actions of a deeply spirital highly dogmatic character. I am not saying I disagree strongly with anyone as it relates to the game I just find the discussion facinating.
As a pastor and philospher this thread has been a hoot to watch. Thank you all.
Baiscally one side says drinking blood feels creepy. The other says dead bodies are just objects so its not evil. So we are chosing between emotivism on one hand or a completely emperical understanding of a body on the other. All this to determin the moral actions of a deeply spirital highly dogmatic character. I am not saying I disagree strongly with anyone as it relates to the game I just find the discussion facinating.
Agreed, a fascinating thread. I do want to disagree with you on one point: I don't think a paladin must necessarily be dogmatic. Adherence to a sharply defined moral code doesn't necessarily preclude flexibility in understanding nuances and situational factors. And dogmatism often comes with a lack of true compassion, which is a trait that good paladins have to possess.
Dogma has a bad conotation doesn't it. In this case should have chosen "heartily decicated to the teachings of his chosen deity."
Dogma has a bad conotation doesn't it. In this case should have chosen "heartily decicated to the teachings of his chosen deity."
Ah, indeed. Yes, this is definitely a defining paladin trait.
Actually, here's a rules question for people who've played more PF than I: in 3.5, a paladin could choose not to follow a deity, and just serve "the ideals of law and good", or some such. Is this true in Pathfinder? Or does a paladin have to follow a deity?
Actually #2, I seem to recall this was true in some campaign settings but not in others, so maybe my question should be "is this true in Golarion?"
@Gnomezrule, yes, it's interesting, but it's also weird, in real life my thinking is mainly based on pure logic, I study mathematics after all, but when it comes to RPGs, my take on alignment is comparable to that of a 6 year old child. Sometimes you can just overthink something when it should be taken at face value, that's how I understand alignment.
By the way, I completly agree with your name, they are the best (right after goblins)
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).
I agree with this.
There are quite a few borderline cases though, and I am not saying a paladin has to be flawless, I would allow a paladin that infrequently indulges in the blood of the recently dead IF he would show remorse/regret for doing so. That bit of RP comes with the creation of a dramatic personae in my book.
I'd rather not guide my sense of evil/good (based on fantasy tropes) by the very limited guidelines in the alignment section rather treating it as a short and incomplete listing.
In real life I would not consider such icky things evil, being an atheist I have no true belief in good/evil, just distasteful.
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.That would be a phrase, not a word.
Noted, you are correct in it being a made-up phrase, but still it's made up and not an actual thing.
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:This is a perfect answer... if you're lawful evil. Which is exactly why a paladin shouldn't be doing it. You're still imbibing the parts of another sentient being. Whether its liquid or solid is kind of irrelevant to anything but semantics.
Wrong, look at the definition again it has parts which are talking about chickens eating chickens. Pigs eat anything if you throw it into their slop pens - including bacon. This is a form of cannibalism as well. I understand as I say these things that they are not sentient beings, but per the actual definition it is cannibalism and no where is cannibalism defined is it limited to a sentient being. Cannibalism is ONLY eating the flesh/meat of the same species, not the blood. They are two different things in regards to what they are defined as. This is not "semantics" and going with different meanings of the same word (as per the definition of semantics), blood drinking is strictly defined as vampirism. So we should get off the drinking of blood as being defined as cannibalism all together at this point. Because there is no way drinking blood should be considered as such or defined as such period.
1) What if the humanoid doing this is not human and is drinking the blood of humans?
In the real world humans are considered the only sentient species. In D&D cannibalism has a broader definition because there are more sentient species.
I don't know where you get this answer. It is simply not true, the definition states "same species" not "sentient species" so your "broader definition" is simply conjecture and really just reaching to try to prove your argument as factual when in fact it is false. Again this is vampirism not cannibalism. As an aside, if you are running your own group and want to leap to different definitions as to what cannibalism and/or vampirism entails, that's your right to do so. For this argument though, you are dead wrong in your argument.
2) Why is this considered evil if they are doing it to a slain foe especially if it's an evil foe?
You walk into a throne room. The throne is made out of skulls. You are most likely in the throne room of
A) A paladin
B) The antipaladin
C) All of the aboveOkay, I'll bite and answer "C" - you didn't define the skulls. They could be trophies taken in honorable combat by a paladin when he faced evil dragons, wyverns, or other beasties. Even so, this is not an answer to my question. We aren't talking a skull collector in this thread, we are talking about a blood drinker, drinking the blood of a slain creature to heal their own wounds.
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?
Then it would not be, but I believe the ability specified it only worked on the recently dead.
True, that was a what if on my part and perhaps I shouldn't have thrown it into the ring with the other questions, but a DM could rule that the paladin could in fact do this if it was easier to swallow for him and the group (pun intended).
My answers are in bold.
Wether it is canibalism or not.. is kinda irrelevant, it is something very similar.. saying it is not canibalism is a strawman argument
Dogma has a bad conotation doesn't it. In this case should have chosen "heartily decicated to the teachings of his chosen deity."
Dogma has received a lot of "bad rep". I don't have a problem with dogma as a rule nor with it being applied to the paladin as it appropriately would.
The real problem with dogma, through the ages, is that it has been slow to recognize and change to encompass the subtle situational exceptions that occur in life. Dogma is church and moral law and as such, it probably needs to learn to adapt, not to the moral vacuity of people, but to the thousands of years of situations that fall somewhere between what was intended and what was written. Even church law has issues with RAW and RAI. :)
But that doesn't mean the paladin doesn't have a dogmatic nature. Nor does it make his compassion a force that overrides his beliefs in his church or the law. Compassion means he heals the sick and protects the innocent, it doesn't mean he ignores the teaching of his church, legitimate authority, or the laws under which he operates.
I think that in this case your neighbor care quite a bit less what you did with his house. He might find it somewhat offensive, for sentimental reasons, but I think he'd be far, far more concerned about being imprisoned abroad; the state of his automatically-replaceable house would be a trivial matter in comparison.
So, if I understand you correctly, you don't think it's immoral to trash someone's property as long as you restore it to its original condition afterwards? I don't agree with that.
Wether it is canibalism or not.. is kinda irrelevant, it is something very similar.. saying it is not canibalism is a strawman argument
Wow I love when people break out the straw man argument, especially when they have done so themselves by inducing it and they are using it wrong.
Let's take a look at the straw-man argument shall we?
So by the definition you are, in fact, using the straw man argument to say that they are "very similar" and trying to toss my actual defined terms to the wayside in doing so.
Now let us take a look at my actual arguments above. Is this a straw man? I think not, I'm not using a red herring here or misleading anyone with anything I say. I'm using actual definitions to prove my point as to what cannibalism is and what the actual definition of vampirism is (what is being asked). My points are not irrelevant, they are very important to what we are speaking to here. The two definitions I put forth are completely different things (one the consumption of flesh and the other the consumption of blood) and that makes my argument relevant and completely valid.
As an aside, I am enjoying the debate going back and forth between most of the people in the thread and appreciate everyone keeping it clean.
I find the idea that a Paladin can't ever do anything that's not 100% purifying pure pureness rather unrealistic unless the GM is running a completely black and white campaign where the only moral choice are things like "You can either go punch evil in the face, or murder babies just because you're evil."If it's a more realistic campaign where there are shades of grey, a Paladin kind of has to deal with some level of moral ambiguity. Trying to follow a black and white code in a grey world can make for a very fun roleplaying experience, but it kind of falls apart if one posits that Paladins can't handle that kind of thing.
I should expand and say that the act of killing then consuming your foes for sustenance opens up the door to questioning what the paladin's true motivation is. As long as the paladin kills only to slay that which is irredeemably evil or protect his group/charge/cause, then he is in the right. However, if the Paladin is able to benefit by merely killing a sentient creature, then who is to say that the paladin didn't slay the last foe because he needed to grab a quick snack. Only the paladin and GM could say, and sometimes not even the paladin is sure himself. I suggested what I did to remove any possible questions as to the paladin's motivations.
@ Malfus - Let's look at the power again:
The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
This bloodline power replaces grave touch.
So as to your question about feeding: Sure if the Paladin is killing only to feed. It doesn't state that the paladin has to feed to fuel (ala regular food), but the other benefit is like having a big meal. Why would the good paladin kill to feed if he's uninjured? If he's evil, then he kills to kill regardless of the healing effects, which gets to the crux of the arguments here and the context.
I should expand and say that the act of killing then consuming your foes for sustenance opens up the door to questioning what the paladin's true motivation is. As long as the paladin kills only to slay that which is irredeemably evil or protect his group/charge/cause, then he is in the right. However, if the Paladin is able to benefit by merely killing a sentient creature, then who is to say that the paladin didn't slay the last foe because he needed to grab a quick snack. Only the paladin and GM could say, and sometimes not even the paladin is sure himself. I suggested what I did to remove any possible questions as to the paladin's motivations.
Fair enough, but if the Paladin personally benefiting from smiting the wicked is that big of an issue, one could bring up things like a Paladin taking loot off the bodies of their enemies, or accepting quest rewards for killing servants of evil. Who's to say that Paladin didn't slay that foe just to fulfill a greedy desire to loot his corps and/or get a monetary reward?
Wether it is canibalism or not.. is kinda irrelevant, it is something very similar.. saying it is not canibalism is a strawman argumentWow I love when people break out the straw man argument, especially when they have done so themselves by inducing it and they are using it wrong.
Let's take a look at the straw-man argument shall we?
So by the definition you are, in fact, using the straw man argument to say that they are "very similar" and trying to toss my actual defined terms to the wayside in doing so.
Now let us take a look at my actual arguments above. Is this a straw man? I think not, I'm not using a red herring here or misleading anyone with anything I say. I'm using actual definitions to prove my point as to what cannibalism is and what the actual definition of vampirism is (what is being asked). My points are not irrelevant, they are very important to what we are speaking to here. The two definitions I put forth are completely different things (one the consumption of flesh and the other the consumption of blood) and that makes my argument relevant and completely valid.
As an aside, I am enjoying the debate going back and forth between most of the people in the thread and appreciate everyone keeping it clean.
I am just saying that we are not debating english language.. the red herring in this case is making the argument one about proper definitions . Nobody thinks the discussion is about the consumption of flesh since it is clearly spelled out, the fact that people consider it to be, or to be equal to cannibalism wether that assumption is correct or not is likely just used to illustrate the relative 'wrongness' of the deed.
I might have missed the question if indeed was asked what the difference between vampirism and cannibalism is, the proper term for the act seems somewhat irrelevant though.
I do not think the ability is so much evil, but it should likely feel 'wrong' to most people, and I'd expect a paladin to question the morality of his actions, but in itself it only makes the paladin a 'darker' character. The motivation and context in which it is used might easily take it into the dominion of evil, also as said before I do feel that corpses in PF should be treated with respect, even in the real world we do out off respect for life and the 'person' it might have been , added to the fact that corpses that aren't shown proper respect after dying are more likely to rise as undead in PF, it seems fairly certain that disrespecting the dead CAN do harm.
I think that in this case your neighbor care quite a bit less what you did with his house. He might find it somewhat offensive, for sentimental reasons, but I think he'd be far, far more concerned about being imprisoned abroad; the state of his automatically-replaceable house would be a trivial matter in comparison.So, if I understand you correctly, you don't think it's immoral to trash someone's property as long as you restore it to its original condition afterwards? I don't agree with that.
No, that is not what I am saying.
There are two points here:
1. Whether it is ok to trash someone's property, or do anything else to it, is entirely dependent on whether they consider it ok to trash it. It's their property, after all. If your neighbor is fine with you nuking his house, then you nuking his house is A-OK and there's nothing immoral about it. If he objects, then it's not ok.
This fact is independent of whether you restore the house to its initial state, or anything else.
2. IF it is in fact the case that the house will be restored to its original state — if it's the case (as in my scenario) that nothing, absolutely nothing, that you do to the house has any bearing whatsoever on what condition your neighbor will find his house in, once he comes back (because it'll crumble to dust and rise anew, in pristine condition) —
... then I think it's much less likely that your neighbor will care about you trashing his house. He'll probably barely care, if at all. And if he doesn't care whether you trash his house, then it is not immoral to trash his house (see point 1).
Wether it is canibalism or not.. is kinda irrelevant, it is something very similar.. saying it is not canibalism is a strawman argumentWow I love when people break out the straw man argument, especially when they have done so themselves by inducing it and they are using it wrong.
Let's take a look at the straw-man argument shall we?
So by the definition you are, in fact, using the straw man argument to say that they are "very similar" and trying to toss my actual defined terms to the wayside in doing so.
Now let us take a look at my actual arguments above. Is this a straw man? I think not, I'm not using a red herring here or misleading anyone with anything I say. I'm using actual definitions to prove my point as to what cannibalism is and what the actual definition of vampirism is (what is being asked). My points are not irrelevant, they are very important to what we are speaking to here. The two definitions I put forth are completely different things (one the consumption of flesh and the other the consumption of blood) and that makes my argument relevant and completely valid.
As an aside, I am enjoying the debate going back and forth between most of the people in the thread and appreciate everyone keeping it clean.
I am just saying that we are not debating english language.. the red herring in this case is making the argument one about proper definitions . Nobody thinks the discussion is about the consumption of flesh since it is clearly spelled out, the fact that people consider it to be, or to be equal to cannibalism wether that assumption is correct or not is likely just used to illustrate the relative 'wrongness' of the deed.
I might have missed the question if indeed was asked what the difference between vampirism and cannibalism is, the proper term for the act seems somewhat irrelevant though.
Not really, this comes down to people comparing one to the other and as such mixing up the actual act of one with the other. They simply put are not the same thing and shouldn't be considered the same thing. I find this to be a very valid thing when I go about it logically. If you read through the thread you'll see people calling the drinking of blood "liquid cannibalism" and comparing it to cannibalism in general, when in fact it's vampirism and different enough to warrant some clarity in my eyes.
As far as "wrongness goes" sure they are both wrong in many people's eyes, but one is cutting someone up and eating their flesh the other is taking a drink of their blood. They are both feeding in different ways, but the drinking of blood to a corpse in my book is not desecrating it, especially to the extent that the dead is not missing anything other than a bodily fluid. I've stated before that even in the real civilized world the removal of blood is not considered desecrating as when you die and go to the morgue they remove all of your fluids and organs then fill you up with embalming fluids to preserve the body. Would you consider this being desecrated?
I also think that most people would balk at it today if we cut the corpse up into little pieces and ate it, this isn't preserving the body. Another thing to take into account is that humans throughout history have practiced ritualistic cannibalism. Just some food for thought... In certain societies it was an accepted practice and believed to imbue special powers and not considered evil.
I do not think the ability is so much evil, but it...
I agree with you here, it's not evil. The context of it defines the "alignment." I liken it to when someone uses a gun, it can be used for good or evil. The actual gun isn't evil neither is the actual ability given to the paladin in question evil. What he does with it defines what makes it good or evil.
My thoughts in bold again.
@ Malfus - Let's look at the power again:
The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
This bloodline power replaces grave touch.
Just for kicks I am going to point out the name of this power "Blood is the Life" is actually (it appears to me) a Biblical allusion to the prohibition of drinking blood. Which is prohibited because "the life of all flesh is in the blood."
This has little to do with whether or not in your game you how you rule on whether it is good or not to drink blood, just thought it was funny.
Like I said the discussion facinates me.
Not sure if someone already brought this up, if so, apologies. If the body isn't humanoid/sentient, I wouldn't say it is evil. Same as eating it for sustenance.
I'd say it wouldn't be cool for a paladin, if the corpse was from a sentient/humanoid/sacred animal. They are more than just 'holy warriors'. Clerics can be holy warriors too. Paladins are the archetypical 'white knight'. Drinking from a 'person', using the term loosely, doesn't jive with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With some GMs, it's just best to pretend the Paladin doesn't exist. There is no good down that road. Play a cleric instead.
Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.
Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.
Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?
Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.
Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.
Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?
No one is saying you or your ex are evil, certainly not irrevocably so.
Also these boards have discussions that involve differences in how to understand the rules. I think you make a good point. I am not seeing much forcing going on. I could have forgotten a few posts it is six pages. Also this is hardly the only thread about what is good or evil in the alignment system.
Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.
Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.
Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?
A closer situation would be thus: you were killed by someone you were trying rob, who then goes down on you to suck your blood. Are they irrevocably evil? Not necessarily, but if he has a penchant of getting robbed and in equal proportion a penchant for sucking the blood of those he slew for robbing him, then yes, he might be evil.
Apparently my ex was also irrevocably evil 'cause she drank my blood when I cut my hand on a rock when we were sitting in a river on vacation. I was bleeding all over the place, and she just kind of lovingly sucked all the blood off my hand. Would most people find it creepy or unnatural? Maybe. I didn't mind. Of course, apparently people here think that somehow equivalent to sucking my very soul out of my body and consuming it on an alter of fire, before sending my soul and her own into the 9th layer of hell itself.
Yeah, screw that. She didn't hurt me. D&D alignment is simple. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing something innocent, it's evil. If you're not, then it's not. End of story. Drinking the blood of a corpse is none of those things. This is just people trying to force their own views on others when the rules do not support them.
Here's an interesting question. If it's evil, why doesn't the ability say "using this class feature is evil", or something similar; eh?
Great points Ashiel! I'm in complete agreement with you.
I think the simple answer to this is something that I hit upon in my previous post when using the gun analogy. I'll take it a step further and apply it more towards Pathfinder/D&D and ask another question.
Is the usage of a fireball inherently evil?
I bet everyone will say "no" or "depends on context" because it's a spell, but the fireball can be used for evil and to kill innocents. Any alignment of wizard can use it. That's completely how I feel about "The Blood is the Life" ability if used by a paladin. The supernatural ability isn't evil, it's what that paladin does with it that classifies the ACT as being good/neutral/evil/lawful/chaotic in nature. Pretty easy to understand in these terms if we get down to the bones of it.