| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Whether or not the use of Create Treasure Map is an evil act has recently come up in the game I am in.
Now, it does not have the evil descriptor while the similar body-part-involving Blood Transcription does. The DM seems to object to cutting off a piece of a body in order to create the map. My contention is that if this was in itself an evil act, as it is necessary to cast the spell, it would have the evil descriptor. Creatures which most moral systems would consider 'ok' to cut up would be creatures that this spell would be pointless to cast on (animals, constructs, vermin, non-intelligent undead, etc.,).
The two bodies I used this spell on were a troll and a human bandit (a flayed finger and a foot respectively).
My character is a N elf who grew up in Kaer Maga, so I play him very unconcerned with morality. For him, a corpse is just a corpse and it has no special moral consideration (like Klingons!).
I will inform him of this thread and let him come on and defend his position if so chooses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter if it's an evil act, unless you're a cleric or paladin. It's not going to affect you in the slightest, save for a potential alignment shift IF you keep doing it AND you don't do anything good in the meantime.
I see no reason for that spell to have the evil descriptor (I see no reason for Blood Transcription or Infernal Healing to have it, either). As you say, a corpse is a corpse (of course, of course, and no one can talk to a corpse, of course, that is, of course, unless you're casting Speak With Dead).
I think its a grey enough issue to not raise it.
The campaign has a 'no evil alignment' restriction (which I fully support), so if it did cause a shift to evil I would be NPCed.
of course, of course, and no one can talk to a corpse, of course, that is, of course, unless you're casting Speak With Dead
haha, big ups.
I think its a grey enough issue to not raise it.
I can get on board with this interpretation
Its not evil in the slightest imo.
Why does he think its evil? That's probably an important thing to know if you want to convince him its not.
Its not evil in the slightest imo.
Why does he think its evil? That's probably an important thing to know if you want to convince him its not.
The DM seems to object to cutting off a piece of a body in order to create the map.
The create treasure map isn't a gray area in my opinion because all you have to do is to take the blood out of the dead creature after you're killed it, which is no more of an evil act that the party looting the body of a group of orcs who failed to destroy a town that the PC's were defending. If searching a defeated encounter for loot isn't evil, why would using a bit of blood from a dragon you've just slain to find it's treasure trove be evil?
The campaign has a 'no evil alignment' restriction (which I fully support), so if it did cause a shift to evil I would be NPCed.
Getting your character taken away for looking for loot and killing bad guys? Isn't that like... half the point of DnD?
The create treasure map isn't a gray area in my opinion because all you have to do is to take the blood out of the dead creature after you're killed it, which is no more of an evil act that the party looting the body of a group of orcs who failed to destroy a town that the PC's were defending. If searching a defeated encounter for loot isn't evil, why would using a bit of blood from a dragon you've just slain to find it's treasure trove be evil?
You actually need a body part (if the distinction matters) upon which the map appears.
The campaign has a 'no evil alignment' restriction (which I fully support), so if it did cause a shift to evil I would be NPCed.Getting your character taken away for looking for loot and killing bad guys? Isn't that like... half the point of DnD?
I don't think it is precisely the same thing. Like, if someone started making human-skin tuxedos out of everyone we killed I would definitely see that as a problem (both of evil and insanity). I don't think the use of treasure map breaches any universal moral laws which may exist in Golarion, but my DM obviously disagrees (and, in the end, it is his call of course).
So you take a scale or ten off the recently slain dragon, and it's still not evil.
So you take a scale or ten off the recently slain dragon, and it's still not evil.
Indeed, we even have a Barghest hide back at HQ which should certainly be considered an evil act if using create treasure map is.
As stated, one evil act (even if this WAS evil) doesn't cause a shift. It would require multiple evil acts over a period of time not countered by doing good in the meantime. You'd have to cast this spell a lot, and do other evil stuff like murdering innocents, while not doing anything good like protecting innocents, over a fairly long period of time. Alignment shifts don't happen overnight.
I don't think the use of treasure map breaches any universal moral laws which may exist in Golarion, but my DM obviously disagrees (and, in the end, it is his call of course).
No, it doesn't break any of the universal laws of Golarion(at least not to my knowledge). However, the thing is your GM does get the final say, and sometimes in the moment its hard to see your blowing something small out of proportion.
Why exactly does he think its evil though?
What's a little corpse desecration between mortal enemies?
You already killed the guys. If that's not something to be concerned about, why would cutting a piece of skin off their already dead backs be a huge alignmental problem?
One one hand, killing a intelligent creature, just for its treasure, could be seen as evil.
But that is kind of the whole point of the game, so for the most part.. dungeon raiding and thievery is over looked in D&D/Pathfinder as neutral action.
On the other hand, is using someone dead skin, for a treasure map, any different than wearing someone dead skin as armor. Leather, Studded leather, and Hide wearer's need to look out. Dragon Hide wearer will also now have problems, and dragon hide, is not the only intelligent creature with hide, that can be made into armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I already said this is not a one I would say deserves to be labeled evil.
That said there are plenty of examples of this in multiple cultures that would be considered evil. Desecrating the corpse even of an enemy is something plenty of cultures look down on. I would not bother to make an issue of it at the table but the question is not out of left field.
I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil action.
Now to the conflict in question:
Desecrating a corpse is not an evil action. Neither is eating a corpse BTW, in case you want a troll casserole to warm those cold nights, go ahead.
With that in mind, does cutting a bit of skin from their bodies for practical purposes, seem evil? Or to put it differently: If skinning dead things for profit was evil, tanners and trappers across Golarion would be on the recieving end of Iomedae's latest crusade.
Tell your GM that socially awkward/unacceptable/illegal is not the same as evil. The alignment chapter provide fairly clear descriptions of what is evil in this game, so start here :)
-Nearyn
It also bears noting that the use of the creature's body part(s) is pure flavor text, and is therefore mutable. You could simply *poof* the map into existence on paper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group had this same issue with this spell thou it was more of a Role play restriction than anything. The bard tried to use the spell "Without" removing the skin component and just allowing the map to form on the Bandits body and he just copied the map. The solution seemed like a fair enough compromise to the more LG members
My group had this same issue with this spell thou it was more of a Role play restriction than anything. The bard tried to use the spell "Without" removing the skin component and just allowing the map to form on the Bandits body and he just copied the map. The solution seemed like a fair enough compromise to the more LG members
While I maintain that the skin cutting part should only offend on a cultural level, I must say, what a tactful and elegant solution. :)
-Nearyn
I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil action.
I know it is not in PFS, but it is in Pathfinder. SKR has (IIRC) commented on this before, but I don't seem to have favorited that post.
There is also a big difference between skinning an animal and skinning an intelligent humanoid within the moral universe of Golarion.
The section on alignment in the Core rulebooks is woefully inadequate (which is not a dig at the devs; it's just a crappy part of the rules to have to deal with).
My group had this same issue with this spell thou it was more of a Role play restriction than anything. The bard tried to use the spell "Without" removing the skin component and just allowing the map to form on the Bandits body and he just copied the map. The solution seemed like a fair enough compromise to the more LG members
This would work. The reason I didn't do this either time were that I didn't have the material components on hand nor did I have the spell prepared.
I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil action.I know it is not in PFS, but it is in Pathfinder. SKR has (IIRC) commented on this before, but I don't seem to have favorited that post.
There is also a big difference between skinning an animal and skinning an intelligent humanoid within the moral universe of Golarion.
The section on alignment in the Core rulebooks is woefully inadequate (which is not a dig at the devs; it's just a crappy part of the rules to have to deal with).
Aah, yes, that old fiasko. I am still surprised he has not withdrawn that statement, but it does not matter, since it does not change the RAW. The RAW teaches us the relevance of the descriptors, and that they have no effect on alignment, so I must object to your comment.
In PFS repeated use of spells with the evil alignment descriptor CAN in fact be cause for the DM to tip you towards evil, which is of course ridiculous, but hey, dems da rules. In regular pathfinder though, no, you are incorrect. Alignment descriptors do not affect the alignment of the action, or the person performing them.
I don't agree with your assesment of the alignment rules either. I find them just as they need to be, and the supportive text they released in the gamemastery guide helps alot, in terms of nuanced portrayal of the different alignments.
-Nearyn
I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil action.I know it is not in PFS, but it is in Pathfinder. SKR has (IIRC) commented on this before, but I don't seem to have favorited that post.
There is also a big difference between skinning an animal and skinning an intelligent humanoid within the moral universe of Golarion.
The section on alignment in the Core rulebooks is woefully inadequate (which is not a dig at the devs; it's just a crappy part of the rules to have to deal with).
And this is why alignment is best ignored.
And this is why alignment is best ignored.
Its subjective and we have to hunt for developer post to determine what's evil and good on occasion? Yeah, might be a bit odd, but I prefer vague and open to interpretation to objective morality. Being told what's right and wrong because personal opinion but presented as law has never been popular imo. Well... Unless its on your side.
PFS has its own set of rules for alignment.(repeated casting of evil spells doesn't turn you evil, no evil players, morality can actually be dumped on your faction leader unless your a cleric/paladin who are held to a higher standard, Torture is evil, etc.) That list goes on for a while, but its an attempt to make it playable and work in an organized play environment. Hit or miss whether I agree with their ideas or not, but its not my game.
Be sure to tell us how it turns out Whale.
@Nearyn: While you are entitled to your opinions, please don't try selling them as the one and only truth.
I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil action.Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.emphasis mine
Ah, I see the problem, my apologies. I can see why my comment would seem direct, considering we are not in the rules board, forgive me.
What I should have said was:
It is my opinion that every gamemaster is entitled to run the game as he pleases, provided he states his intention to houserule, to his players. However, if I was to discuss this topic strictly from a rules perspective, I'd tell you that the alignment descriptor does not affect your character's alignment, or the alignment of the action you are presently performing.
Again, I apologize, I had gotten it into my head that I was posting on the rules board, rather than the general discussion board, so I just posted the cold hard rule, rather than consider it could be misconscrued as me trying to force a narrower vision of the game on other players :)
-Nearyn
Violating the sanctity of the dead
Dishonoring your fallen opponent on the battlefield
Being violent and gross and using knives and magic to the end of finding treasure
These concepts, while realistic and reasonable, are not feasible roleplaying elements in Pathfinder, in my humble opinion. I would LOVE to bring it to the table, but it bogs things down.
So...I would go along with Gnomezrulez on this; it isn't worth the headache.
STILL...if you fell a PERSON within sight of commoners or some reputable witness and then go about casting necromantic spells, and carving a treasure map out of the corpse, you're probably going to lose some friends when you get back to town.
STILL...if you fell a PERSON within sight of commoners or some reputable witness and then go about casting necromantic spells, and carving a treasure map out of the corpse, you're probably going to lose some friends when you get back to town.
Create Treasure Map is a divination spell. What kind of commoner put a point into spell craft anyway? Should he be putting points into profession dirt farming or something?
You could cut off a lock of hair, nothing evil about that.
The map appears on the body party, making hair impractical.
You could cut off a lock of hair, nothing evil about that.The map appears on the body party, making hair impractical.
Define part of the body? Hair and blood are both parts of a person's body. People usually don't volunteer to give up all their blood or hair.
Define part of the body? Hair and blood are both parts of a person's body. People usually don't volunteer to give up all their blood or hair.You could cut off a lock of hair, nothing evil about that.The map appears on the body party, making hair impractical.
The creature must be dead.
The creature must be dead.Define part of the body? Hair and blood are both parts of a person's body. People usually don't volunteer to give up all their blood or hair.You could cut off a lock of hair, nothing evil about that.The map appears on the body party, making hair impractical.
Well... I sure didn't say he has to be alive when you take it, and hair is technically dead.
Well... I sure didn't say he has to be alive when you take it, and hair is technically dead.The creature must be dead.Define part of the body? Hair and blood are both parts of a person's body. People usually don't volunteer to give up all their blood or hair.You could cut off a lock of hair, nothing evil about that.The map appears on the body party, making hair impractical.
You said...
People usually don't volunteer to give up all their blood or hair.
That is not relevant to the situation being discussed, as the spell only works on body parts from the dead (and the dead don't volunteer anything). If someone volunteered all the skin off their back for my character to cast this spell on, it would not work.
STILL...if you fell a PERSON within sight of commoners or some reputable witness and then go about casting necromantic spells, and carving a treasure map out of the corpse, you're probably going to lose some friends when you get back to town.Create Treasure Map is a divination spell. What kind of commoner put a point into spell craft anyway? Should he be putting points into profession dirt farming or something?
Heh. I like you.
I like to houserule a little "spin" on the general perception of magic in my Golarion; given that folks might not possess an advanced and sophisticated point-of-view of the world, they're likely as not to see magic as a dangerous and sinister art, much as we see firearms in our modern world. i.e., "Magic is dangerous, and those who use it are up to no-good, except for those like the priests who use it to heal good folk like ourselves." Those in the big cities probably see it a bit differently, (a dangerous tool) but are no less wary of it.
You have to know your audience, is what I'm saying.
Hmmm. The OGC description of 'evil' says that it ' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.'
Is anybody being hurt? Nope, the dead guys aren't feeling a thing.
Oppressing? Nope.
Killing others? Too late.
The 'map made out of the target's body part' is just flavor text; just re-write it into something more palatable for your DM.
No, what you posted is actually in contradiction to RAW (as quoted above).Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.Ah, I see the problem, my apologies. I can see why my comment would seem direct, considering we are not in the rules board, forgive me.
[...]
I'd tell you that the alignment descriptor does not affect your character's alignment, or the alignment of the action you are presently performing.
[...]
so I just posted the cold hard rule
[...]
I hate to break this to you, but your quote does not provide rules basis for saying: "Casting an evil spell is an evil act". You can look for as long as you want, but as far as I know (And I have looked, oh have I looked), you will not find any rule claiming I am wrong in this matter. That being despite the fact that in Ultimate Magic, the alignment descriptors are all given an individual explanation.
So no, my words are quite RAW, whereas your claim is based on conjecture I am afraid :(
Also, creating undead is not by its very nature an evil act, thought the spell is of evil origin, which is what the [Evil] descriptor signifies.
-Nearyn
A different conversation has led to aquire Champions of Purity, in which it is expressed that using [Evil] is evil. So I retract my statement, as of the release of Champions of Purity, it is no longer RAW that [Evil] is not evil.
point conceded Isil-Zha. Although I would not use that particular quote to support your claim in the future, as, to me at least, it is quite inadequate.
-Nearyn
its funny to post 3 times in a row. Almost as fun as retracting a retraction.
I just realized that Champions of Purity is a setting specific book, meaning the [Evil] is evil line is not supported by core rules.
So I guess my answer to Whale Cancer would be:
Hi Whale Cancer. I dont think it is evil to use create treasure map. Also, note that unless you are using Champions of purity, using [Evil] spells or items, is not an evil act in and of itself.
Hope it helps :)
-Nearyn
Whether or not the use of Create Treasure Map is an evil act has recently come up in the game I am in.
You could ask your gm if he is ok with you using summon monsters to call a celestial animal each time you use create treasue map to remain balanced and neutral. First it would fit a neutral guy who wants to stay in balance with the cosmos and second it is RAW.
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type.
So summoning an animal with the good subtype is a good spell and as such a good act.
My witch learned summon monsters just in case I ever have problems like that.
|
There are a ton of spells that use parts of creatures for spell components. I don't see anything wrong with using slicing a piece off of a dude to cast a spell telling me where his treasure is. It's more "wrong" killing the dude in the first place but we all hand-wave that part until some DM/GM decides that it's time to test the moral compass and starts making paladins fight goblin babies, and people worry about whether cutting some hide for a map is evil, and whether the using a Hand of the Mage is evil because it's an elf hand....
I wish GMs would just learn that it's a game, play and have fun is the rule, not how do I control the PCs actions.
@Zhayne: if that were a comprehensive list creating undead would not be evil
Also, creating undead is not by its very nature an evil act, thought the spell is of evil origin, which is what the [Evil] descriptor signifies.
This is why people should still use the alignment descriptions from the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. They give an as-through-as-necessary accounting of what is good, what is evil, and what is gray for a fantasy world.
Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
It's more "wrong" killing the dude in the first place
Yup, I think the intentions matter most. Killing someone in order to cast Treasure Map should be seen as murder and theft. Slicing a body part off to cast Treasure Map on a vanquished foe still seems fine to me (although I will accept my DM's [Isil-zha, in this case] ruling that it is a mildly evil act). Slicing a body up after you kill someone so you can make a skinsuit is probably evil (intentional desecration). Intentions (should) matter.
You could ask your gm if he is ok with you using summon monsters to call a celestial animal each time you use create treasue map to remain balanced and neutral. First it would fit a neutral guy who wants to stay in balance with the cosmos and second it is RAW.
My character is neutral as in disinterested rather than neutral as in must-maintain-balance (although, prior to this I would have been worried about a slip into good rather than evil). As a diviner, I will probably be casting a lot of see alignment during downtime to make sure I don't start glowing.
Though I do see what you are saying, I think that summoning some celestial eagles for 18 seconds or what not is a pretty absurd act of 'Good'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Zhayne: if that were a comprehensive list creating undead would not be evil
Well when you think about it... What is evil about creating undead? Its icky? Fluff about negative energy? The developer said so and has a bias that all undead should be evil with super rare dm fiat exceptions? Retconning Juju zombies? Legacy? All of the above? Probably unimportant to the conversation though.
Anyways, is mutilating a body the only reason its evil? You stab and blow up a lot of people in your dnd career. Then you rob them... So long as you aren't actively hunting people for their treasure I don't think its really that evil, but in that case the evil act was killing for the sole reason of robbing. Which... probably has a legal name I don't know.