|
I must say though, that it does sound very strange that apparently it is perfectly fine to kill some guy and steal his stuff (as player characters are pretty much expected to do, both in adventure paths and otherwise), but if your character decides to munch on the body afterwards, that's the evil part.
So let's say a dhampir adventurer manages to get into a fight with a goblin for one reason or another. The dhampir happens to be a sorcerer, who then proceeds to shoot the goblin in the face with an acid spell, which horrifyingly melts the victims flesh from his bones. The dhampir watches as the goblin melts into a pile of organic sludge in unimaginable agony, but luckily for our hero according to the Laws of Alignment in the universe, this was a perfectly noble and lovely thing to do to another person. If however the dhampir had instead cleanly cut the goblin's throat, and then drank blood from the fresh corpse to gain sustenance and quench his hunger, the Universe would regard that as a horribly evil act.
This game (or rather the Golarion setting) does run on some seriously strange morals.
No.
What he is saying is if you have a barbarian with a bite attack who sometimes drinks the blood/eats the heart of what he hunts, that doesn't inherently make them evil. Creepy, sure. Evil...not in and of itself.
If they use that blood in some sort of magical ritual to steal power from the victim...evil.
The fact that evil exists is exactly why the heros get to be heros dispite killing lots and lots of intelligent creatures.
Those creatures were evil, and therefore killing them is kosher.
Killing the goblin does not benefit you personally, but it removes evil from the world.
On the other hand, if you raise the goblin as an undead slave, or steal it's soul, or use it's blood in a ritual to gain arcane power...that is just evil.
Regardless of if you plan to use it for "good".
Example (Game of Thrones Spoiler)
Bolton's bastard would not have been evil if he just killed Theon, considering all Theon did. He is damn evil for what he is doing to Theon...
Using your enemy's body/blood/soul/etc... to gain personal power is evil.
On the other hand, if you raise the goblin as an undead slave, or steal it's soul, or use it's blood in a ritual to gain arcane power...that is just evil.
Regardless of if you plan to use it for "good".
Example (Game of Thrones Spoiler)
Spoiler:
Using your enemy's body/blood/soul/etc... to gain personal power is evil.
But not his possessions. That's ok. You can loot the corpse, you just can't use the corpse itself.
The first is standard noble adventurer behavior, the second is inherently evil.
What?He is saying that benefiting from it is unquestionably, undebatably evil.
Yes.
Is is not saying that biting someone and swallowing there blood is not evil. He is saying that Rolf isn't inherently committing an evil act by doing that. He may just be weird and creepy, but not evil.
Err, yeah. Look at what you put there.
"It's not inherently evil". That's a pretty big statement in a game where "inherently evil acts" are a huge thing in the world.
That means, that it's not evil. The ACT ITSELF is not evil, only the circumstances it's in are what make it that way.
He also may be evil.
Yes, he can. That's why this part is GOOD. He can be good, evil, OR neutral doing this.
But if he takes power from the blood, unquestionably evil.
And you're not seeing the logical flaw here?
I mean, look at it. Assuming in-combat the entire time (original scenario, and most worthwhile scenario for our purposes):
Using a bite attack is not evil.
Using a bite attack and swallowing the flesh/blood afterwards is ALSO not evil, even if it may be creep and/or inappropriate.
BUT, if your biology is such that you GAIN SUSTENANCE from this blood/flesh, it is evil.
It is okay to do it, for some reason, as long as you're doing it JUST BECAUSE.
This is just a big time WTF to me.
It's like saying "Oh, eating that steak is fine, as long as you do it for fun. If you're actually hungry though, it's evil. Take this sick bastard to jail".
You're not, as you post later, using that blood "in some sort of magical ritual to steal power from the victim", you're doing the SAME ACT, in the SAME SCENARIO, but it is evil for you BECAUSE YOU BENEFIT, and for no other reason.
This makes me facedesk so hard I have a large crease in my forehead right now.
|
Adamantine Dragon, by such an absolute moral system, killing anyone, no matter the cause, is evil. I assume that is not intent.Killing is evil. (I'm horrified someone could think it is not!) The reason you kill doesn't have to be evil. (Most notably self-defense.) Again, separate the act from the actors. All killing is evil. Not everyone who kills is evil.
I find it fascinating that my system is declared black and white when people with gray morality insist it has to be either A or B.Once more with feeling
BAD GOODRaising the dead to build an orphanage.
Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family.
Killing a goblin to protect the town.
Raising the dead to build an orphanage... I couldn't be bothered to engage with people and motivate them to work together in a positive community project so, instead, I tormented the souls of the dead. I am such a hero!
I stole a loaf and that other family starved but mine didn't. I am such a hero!
I killed a goblin so I can probably adventure with the paladin playing Wrath Of The Righteous. Unlike the necromancer.
What if you steal it from another family who then starve to death?
If they have bread, they're probably not going to starve.
And even then, is it better to fail in your duty as a husband and provider to your family on the off chance that someone else MIGHT starve?
Raising the dead ... I tormented the souls of the dead.
No, you didn't. Zombies/Skeletons have nothing to do with souls. They're just corpses animated by negative energy.
In fact, I don't think there are ANY undead that are tied to the soul of the victim, besides incorporeal undead...which you can't make (and wouldn't be able to build things anyway, so you wouldn't be using them).
I stole a loaf and that other family starved but mine didn't. I am such a hero!
Hero? No.
Nobody's said that's heroic.
Necessary and NOT EVIL (which is not the same as Good)? Yes.
|
|
It is not inherently evil to kill an animal.
It is pretty evil to torture an animal for no reason.
It is "likely" evil to torture an animal for any reason.
So yes, I can imagine a scenario where a person drank blood and they were not committing an evil act.
And many others where they are.
That it isn't inherently, without exception, evil doesn't mean the persons doing it actually aren't evil. It means the act itself can be done and not be evil.
It could also be evil, in the same way if I stab your dog out of spite it is evil but to save a puppy it is good.
Reanimating someones body is an evil act, by definition, in game terms. Literally defined as evil. It is on par or worse than necrophilia and cannibalism.
I can envision a scenario where cannibalism isn't an evil act. That doesn't mean when I meet a group of cannibals I start with the benefit of the doubt they were always doing it with the consent of the dead and lack of other options...
|
|
Raising the dead to build an orphanage... I couldn't be bothered to engage with people and motivate them to work together in a positive community project so, instead, I tormented the souls of the dead. I am such a hero!You tormented souls of the dead? Really? Where is that in the rules? You animated a hunk of dead matter. There is virtually nothing in the rules to suggest that it has any effect on the soul formerly attached to that hunk of inanimate matter you animated.
*cough* raise dead*cough*
Also read up on Pharasma...
|
|
Wouldn't your justification make Enervation Evil?
Removing is not absorbing. I'm not taking your life for myself, I'm just removing it from you.
Not all that different from a sword.
And so, not inherently evil. Unless you do it to people who are good or kittens or puppies.
There are two issues at play. If I use it outside of the service of good, is this spell, sword, etc...evil.
Yes. Murder Hobo.
The nature of the game involves killing lots of things. If you are good, those things are evil things, and so you are kosher with the gods and medieval society.
Now the issue at play is: What acts/spells are inherently evil.
Meaning, if you do this, and I see it, and I'm good, I can then kill you because you are evil.
Raising dead and summoning evil fall into that category.
I can envision a scenario where cannibalism isn't an evil act. That doesn't mean when I meet a group of cannibals I start with the benefit of the doubt they were always doing it with the consent of the dead and lack of other options...
Lizardfolk practice cannabalism and aren't evil. They eat the corpses of their fellow folk and enemies out of necessity only though.
So yes, I can imagine a scenario where a person drank blood and they were not committing an evil act.And many others where they are.
That it isn't inherently, without exception, evil doesn't mean the persons doing it actually aren't evil. It means the act itself can be done and not be evil.
It could also be evil, in the same way if I stab your dog out of spite it is evil but to save a puppy it is good.
I think you and I agree more on this subject than it seems.
The problem here is that rather than the act being Good OR Evil OR Neutral depending on circumstances and intent, and all that jazz, it's Neutral for some people in some circumstances (and Evil in others)...but ALWAYS Evil for anyone who gains any sort of benefit from it.
That's not okay to me. I don't like inherently evil acts in the first place, but especially not when there's a double standard in place, and a very nonsensical one at that.
Reanimating someones body is an evil act, by definition, in game terms.
Yes, which I think does more harm than good and should be changed. That's what this discussion (for the most part) has been about.
I can envision a scenario where cannibalism isn't an evil act. That doesn't mean when I meet a group of cannibals I start with the benefit of the doubt they were always doing it with the consent of the dead and lack of other options...
I think you and I are on the same page here, if not the same paragraph.
The problem is that, in game terms, you CAN'T imagine a scenario where cannibalism (or Necromancy) isn't an evil act.
I would like it to be possible to imagine such a scenario.
And if it were possible, that doesn't mean it has to be the norm.
"Usually evil acts" is something I can get behind A LOT better than "Always evil no matter what acts".
Also read up on Pharasma...
Not really relevant here. Pharasma despises undead as "an abomination to the natural order", not because it messes with their souls (and Pharasma herself will actually let people come back as ghosts occasionally to avenge their murder or summat).
|
|
Reanimating a corpse is about as inherently evil as you can get.
You are desecrating a body to take control over it.
We wanted to bury Grandpa, but the "nice" man reanimated him as his own personal slave...
Undead Slave for "good" is still undead slave.
Hence that being an evil act, in and of itself. No matter what you intentions for use, you did something evil.
Reanimating a corpse is about as inherently evil as you can get.
You are desecrating a body to take control over it.
We wanted to bury Grandpa, but the "nice" man reanimated him as his own personal slave...
Undead Slave for "good" is still undead slave.
Hence that being an evil act, in and of itself. No matter what you intentions for use, you did something evil.
But it's not Grandpa, it's Grandpa's corpse.
Grandpa is still chillin' in the Boneyard, or Elysium, or Hell or wherever he got sent after he died.
"He" is only a slave insofar as his corpse has no free will (because he's not animated by any intelligent spirit).
It's like making a golem, but with organic parts and negative energy.
|
|
Reanimating a corpse is about as inherently evil as you can get.
You are desecrating a body to take control over it.
We wanted to bury Grandpa, but the "nice" man reanimated him as his own personal slave...
Undead Slave for "good" is still undead slave.
Hence that being an evil act, in and of itself. No matter what you intentions for use, you did something evil.
But it's not Grandpa, it's Grandpa's corpse.
Grandpa is still chillin' in the Boneyard, or Elysium, or Hell or wherever he got sent after he died.
"He" is only a slave insofar as his corpse has no free will (because he's not animated by any intelligent spirit).
No, it is actually Grandpa. Those are his arm and his eyes. He's walking on Grandpas legs, talking with Grandpa's mouth.
His soul may have loosed the mortal coil to chill in line at the boneyard, but his actual, physical body is now your slave.
Not a grey area.
Unless the logic of "What is so bad about necrophilia? It's not actually Grandpa at that point. Who cares what I do with the body?" also applies.
No, it is actually Grandpa. Those are his arm and his eyes. He's walking on Grandpas legs, talking with Grandpa's mouth.
His soul may have loosed the mortal coil to chill in line at the boneyard, but his actual, physical body is now your slave.
Not a grey area.
But it isn't Grandpa. Grandpa is the personality created by the soul of the person (and to a lesser extent the memories in his head). That's gone.
In this case the fact that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and eats the brains of the living like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.
I thought this was basic metaphysics? Even real world religious cultures, for the most part, believe this, and it's definitely TRUE in Golarion. The soul is the person, the body is just incidental.
Reincarnate doesn't change your personality, after all.
|
|
I'm an atheist. That is Grandpa. Grandpa was meat, is meat. Stop making grandpa do things.
And on Golarion, it is unquestionably an abomination.
And again, by your logic what is wrong with necrophilia? Can I use Grandpa for target practice? What about if I make a pair of boots out of him? Is that cool?
I'm an atheist. That is Grandpa. Grandpa was meat, is meat. Stop making grandpa do things.
As an atheist, he's braindead. No more brain waves, no more Grandpa.
Why do you care what happens to his body? Burying or cremating him is a matter of cleanliness and as a way to have closure rather than any respect for the corpse itself.
And on Golarion, it is unquestionably an abomination.
Indeed it is. It goes against the natural order of the world.
But why is it EVIL?
And again, by your logic what is wrong with necrophilia? Can I use Grandpa for target practice? What about if I make a pair of boots out of him? Is that cool?
Cool? No.
Clean? No.
Disgusting? Hell yes.
Illegal in pretty much every society ever made because of these facts (and religious courtesies for the dead)? Yeppers.
Evil? Why?
Who does it harm, exactly? Or what destruction or terror does it wreak?
|
|
I thought this was basic metaphysics? Even real world religious cultures, for the most part, believe this, and it's definitely TRUE in Golarion. The soul is the person, the body is just incidental.
In classic Greek and Egyptian culture, abuse of the dead body was about the highest sin that one could perform, even though both cultures had dualistic (in the Egyptian case nineilistic) beliefs. Achillies shows his great hatred and contempt for Hector by dragging his body around the walls of Troy after denying his foe's request for a proper burial. (Hector actually did get one after his father Priam made a special embassy for his sons body. Achillies kept Hector's corpse under wraps to spare the old man the sight of what he'd done to it.)
It's going to be hard to find a culture that did not attach a fair amount of importance to treatment of the dead. Such reverence is even believed to have shown signs at Neanderthal graves.
Of course. Because it was a human being. It lived, it loved, it was loved by someone. Probably many people.
Now you've made it into a twisted meat puppet to serve you...
In classic Greek and Egyptian culture, abuse of the dead body was about the highest sin that one could perform, even though both cultures had dualistic (in the Egyptian case nineilistic) beliefs.
Wasn't that because the Egyptians had beliefs about things being performed on the body carrying over to the spirit self, though? Hence all the embalming and preserving of the corpse, to keep the spirit healthy looking as well?
Or am I mistaken here?
Achillies shows his great hatred and contempt for Hector by dragging his body around the walls of Troy after denying his foe's request for a proper burial. (Hector actually did get one after his father Priam made a special embassy for his sons body. Achillies kept Hector's corpse under wraps to spare the old man the sight of what he'd done to it.)
I'm not sure if this was portrayed as EVIL, however, or just contemptible (I actually never read the Iliad. Blasphemy, I know.). There's an important difference between something disgusting, culturally unacceptable, and humiliating, and something evil.
It's going to be hard to find a culture that did not attach a fair amount of importance to treatment of the dead. Such reverence is even believed to have shown signs at Neanderthal graves.
Possibly, yes, but again there's the difference between "Culturally unacceptable" and evil (directly harmful to other living beings).
Homosexuality was (and still sort of is, though less so) culturally unacceptable in many parts of the world throughout the centuries, and even illegal in a lot of them. Some would even argue it is still immoral. I doubt most would argue it is EVIL, however.
Cayden Cailean
@Rynjin - If you are asking who does it harm to use someones grandpa/mother/son/daughter/etc...dead body sexually and then make boots out of them, I don't see us meeting in a middle ground here.
Your setting that finds that kosher is just absurd.
"Kosher" no. "Not evil", yes.
It's still culturally unacceptable, and still immoral (why do you need to desecrate the dead to satisfy your sexual urges or make your clothing?), but not evil.
Just as Necromancy can be.
As I put earlier:
Necromancy to build an orphanage: Good (or at least not evil).
Necromancy to give you a personal manservant who won't talk back: Alignment Neutral, though perhaps immoral and definitely strange.
Necromancy to slaughter the innocent: Evil.
Rather than Neromancy: Evil.
|
|
So then why isn't Dominate Person [Evil]?Slavery is evil in most settings. It can be lawful, but it is still evil.
You can be lawful and evil you know?
Because if I am choosing between killing an evil person and dominating them, Dominating is the less evil option.
When I'm choosing between not re-animating someones dead loved one and animating them...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think once someone takes the position that taking your wife's dead body and turning it into sex toy before cooking and eating it, then saving its skin for a new pair of boots isn't evil, you pretty much have to accept that there's really nothing more to discuss.
I understand intellectually what Rynjin is saying. His premise is that a dead person is just inanimate matter with no connection to the living person it was or the soul that has fled.
I just don't think there are many people who agree with this view of "not-evil" and I suspect Rynjin might feel a little differently if his wife were to die suddenly and someone decided to do the things listed above to her corpse.
As with other things, it's easy to say certain things when they are hypothetical game events on a message board. It's quite a bit different to realize your next door neighbor is wearing your daughter's skin as a negligee.
Just going to throw some things into the mix. I can see both sides of the discussion. A corpse is simply inanimate matter. On the other hand I am hard pressed to think of any cultures that wouldn't find the defiling of a corpse loathesome. Therefore it causes emotional suffering.
~~~
Catholicism practices ritualistic cannabalism:
This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."…
Canon holds that transubstantiation makes the bread and wine the actual body and blood of Christ for consumption by believers to purge their sins.
So cannabalism = good
~~~
A sword is as evil as any spell. There is only one purpose for a two handed greatsword, and its not to butter your bread. It kills things. Whether it only kills things that "deserve to die" or not, is a matter of debate. But making things die is its intended purpose.
~~~
Just theorycrafting I would say summoning any creatures to fight and die for you is evil. There isn't discussion of your common goals, to see if the animal/monster/elemental/construct/zombie thinks your cause is worth dying for. The creature doesn't get a save. You've supplanted its will and it must sacrifice itself for any frivolous tripe you command. (I *must* have a cronut! Fly my pretties! Fly!)
~~~
Again theorycrafting: I would say that creating undead channels negative powers-- and the more its done, the more it twists the caster that the negative energy flows thru. So even to save a bus full of schoolchildren, tapping cold icky unlife energy to do it has a damaging effect on the channeler. ("I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!")
Just theorycrafting I would say summoning any creatures to fight and die for you is evil. There isn't discussion of your common goals, to see if the animal/monster/elemental/construct/zombie thinks your cause is worth dying for. The creature doesn't get a save. You've supplanted its will and it must sacrifice itself for any frivolous tripe you command. (I *must* have a cronut! Fly my pretties! Fly!)
Summoned creatures don't die when they're killed. They reform wherever they came from in 24 hours.
A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
|
|
Kobold Quarterly #19 had a white necromancer (every good) and a very balanced classExcellent suggestion!!! In fact, New Paths 7: The Expanded White Necromancer will be released very soon ( probably a week or so). It sounds like it will be worth letting your player give it a look!
As a side note, the White Necromancer class does address and deal with the issue of the class casting evil necromancy spells in (I think) a pretty interesting way
Quick follow up - The White Necromancer will be released very soon:)
You can learn a bit more here:
The Expanded White Necromancer Design Blog