|
Even though I think this is soundly thought out and in the real world is probably the case, by RAW I do not believe killing is an evil act in Pathfinder. Otherwise it would be impossible to be a good adventurer seeing as how adventurers' main job is killing. The best you could do would be to be neutral.
In the real world "good" people turn the other cheek. In pathfinder good people kill the offender and then kill all of the offender's friends in the vicinity too as standard practice.
This is exactly right. If killing was a blatantly evil act, all of Pathfinder's would be evil since that's sort of what we do.
Its an argument that comes down to the basic fundamentals of justified killing.
If you kill your enemy on the battlefield in a time of war, you are not a murderer. If you kill in the confines of a peaceful society, youre a murderer. But what if you kill the enemy on the battlefield and you enjoy it. Still not a murderer but maybe a bit questionable. This is where my PC has gone to. I don't think its evil to enjoy killing your enemies on the battlefield. Neutral at best.
|
I could say the same to you. Lets not back and forth. Claims like that don't do any good, and insults are definitely not needed.Then you either haven't actually read the descriptions of Shelyn and her dogma, or don't understand them.Its non-existent as far as any dogma's are concerned. Her dogmas is beauty, art, and love. I think your injecting your own views into her actual dogma, and that's fine, but when you say someone deserves to lose their character over it, that's not so cool.Why do you think that?It is clear from reading the description of Shelyn that she does not like seeing things killed, and wants her worshippers only using lethal measures as a last resort. This means she views killing as a sad thing, not something to be enjoyed or celebrated.
Considering that this isn't the first person to tell you this, I'm gonna say that it does seem that the person who doesn't understand is you and not...say the all the other people who say your wrong.
This is exactly right. If killing was a blatantly evil act, all of Pathfinder's would be evil since that's sort of what we do.
They also extort! And steal! and may or may not kidnap, experiences vary. Pathfinders aren't the best people in the world...
Doesn't matter what you think it is. Matters what the organizers think it is.Incorrect! Unless you are talking about Society Play, the only opinion that determines moral lines is the GM's. So make sure you and the GM understand each other.
Well the thread started in the PFS forum, so I'd think it would be for PFS. I don't even use alignment when I GM, I just have a few things on a "do not Do' list, like PvP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:(
Even though I think this is soundly thought out and in the real world is probably the case, by RAW I do not believe killing is an evil act in Pathfinder. Otherwise it would be impossible to be a good adventurer seeing as how adventurers' main job is killing. The best you could do would be to be neutral.
In the real world "good" people turn the other cheek. In pathfinder good people kill the offender and then kill all of the offender's friends in the vicinity too as standard practice.
This is exactly right. If killing was a blatantly evil act, all of Pathfinder's would be evil since that's sort of what we do.
Its an argument that comes down to the basic fundamentals of justified killing.
If you kill your enemy on the battlefield in a time of war, you are not a murderer. If you kill in the confines of a peaceful society, youre a murderer. But what if you kill the enemy on the battlefield and you enjoy it. Still not a murderer but maybe a bit questionable. This is where my PC has gone to. I don't think its evil to enjoy killing your enemies on the battlefield. Neutral at best.
Incorrect. If you kill your enemy in a time of war you are not CHARGED with murder. But to kill is still murder. It is just legal and unpunishable. That is why people look for just causes to follow so we can justify murder in our hearts.
To continue 'Nearyn's examples:
"I killed a human" - Murder - Evil.
"I killed a human (Evil) because we were at war and our side was more humane(Good) -Neutral
"I killed a human (Evil) and I liked it (Evil)"- more Evil
"I beat the Evil doer and took his ass to jail to stand trial" - Good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Kill =/= Murder.
Murder is a specific type of unlawful killing.
Murder that is "legal and unpunishable" is by definition NOT murder.
A good character who fights to defend the weak and innocent but revels in the blood of his enemies.
I stabbed a human enemy through the sternum instantly killing him, raised my glaive above my head, yelling to the sky in a rage. While the glaive was over my head, some blood dripped off my blade and fell onto my face and into my mouth and I enjoyed it.
Is that evil?
Enjoying the blood dripping off your weapon and falling into your mouth is definitely chaotic and fringing a little on evil.
Anything involving anything with blood ecstasy is gonna tend toward that evil side mate.
Killing is not evil, life is suffering and death is just a release. Is actually good as you gift precious rest to your enemy.
This seems chaotic by design as this is something barbarian would do. Do you say good enraged barbarian will not enjoy slaying his foes?
Anyway, from ancient times men associated blood with death (cos they mostly bleed when fighting each other) while women associated it with life (guess why? also there damn lot of blood during childbirth)
Also, if you see goblin running with torch into art gallery cleric of Shelyn would say "Hey mr. goblin dont do that" ? No, unless he is most naive person in the world. If you dance with your glaive while slaying him, even better. If you torture him this is evil. If you eliminate him quickly it is not. If you cut him into bloody mess and put it onto altar Shelyn will not be happy about it.
Also, if you see goblin running with torch into art gallery cleric of Shelyn would say "Hey mr. goblin dont do that" ? No, unless he is most naive person in the world. If you dance with your glaive while slaying him, even better. If you torture him this is evil. If you eliminate him quickly it is not. If you cut him into bloody mess and put it onto altar Shelyn will not be happy about it.
If you disarm him and replace the torch with a bucket of paint and invent Jackson Pollock, Shelyn would be pretty stoked. I'm just gonna grab this from up-thread again, which comes from the code of Shelyn's paladins in Faiths of Purity:
"I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is cut short."
Note 2 things: Paladins are held to a much stricter standard than Clerics, and Faiths of Purity is a setting specific book not everyone uses.
Note 2 things: Paladins are held to a much stricter standard than Clerics, and Faiths of Purity is a setting specific book not everyone uses.
Yes, but it establishes in no uncertain terms that Shelyn is very much against casual bloodshed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric who is evolving to enjoy bloodlust slays a band of fourteen little gobbo pyromaniacs who wanted to destroy the Shelynian Museum of Fine Art. Cleric dances while killing them, dedicates the kills to Shelyn, and drinks ALL the blood, plays merry heck with her glaive and dismembers the bodies, putting the body parts up as a warning to other gobbos on the fence outside the museum.
Gobbos go to Pharasma, who sighs and sends them to Shelyn for final storage since their deaths were dedicated to her. Gobbos are confused.
Shelyn gets to receive the gobbos in her Grand Hall of Eternal Beauty. Gobbos aren't exactly clear on why they are there, but see lots of silk pillows and stuff they want to burn. Shelyn sighs and turns them into little dancing lights for a few centuries until they have learned the value of beauty. She then asks one of her angels to fetch the cleric HR file for review. Until, of course, she also hears about the fact that the very same cleric ruined the beauty of her museum by setting up goblin corpse parts that disturbed the view.
Even though I think this is soundly thought out and in the real world is probably the case, by RAW I do not believe killing is an evil act in Pathfinder. Otherwise it would be impossible to be a good adventurer seeing as how adventurers' main job is killing. The best you could do would be to be neutral.
In the real world "good" people turn the other cheek. In pathfinder good people kill the offender and then kill all of the offender's friends in the vicinity too as standard practice.
I thank you for your kind your kind words :)
My opinion is based on my reading of the alignment chapter. The bit where I differentiate between the alignment of characters and the alingment of actions, is based on a comparison of the alignment section in the Gamemastery guide, and a section of the alignment section in the core rulebook. Let me illustrate my train of thought
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Now, I've always found this bit lacking. After all, if it is evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, adventurers would have trouble if they hoped for a long career, and to die with a G in their alignment. And Paladins had to be pacifists, otherwise they'd insta-fall.
The solution is to think of Good and Evil as balancing forces. So if you do evil, tempered with goodness it turns neutral. If you do good, tainted by evil, it is neutral. Naturally this is a GM judgementcall, but the player should have at least some say. That part is missing from the text, but if you think about it that way, the adventuring life, even the life of a Paladin becomes much more manageable.
So a group of adventurers travel the land, murdering and hobo'ing. The good life(if you pardon the pun). Marlowe the fighter spends most of his time sharpening his swords and picking fights. He will take any quest that involves some bloodshed and he does very little outside of cutting up things with his adveturing buddies. He always takes his just rewards when a quest is done. Martin the Paladin on the other hand, spends his downtime helping the community. Not necessarily in big ways, but also in the small ways. Maybe he takes a day to go talk to the children in the local school, reprimanding the bullies and giving life lessons his faith finds appropriate for children. He attends sermons at the church, helps erect old man Miller's new barnhouse, and is generally a nice, helpful guy. When questing he tries to think his way around violence, but is completely willing to fight for justice and goodness. He takes lives while adventuring, just like Marlowe, but turns his blade sideways more often than never, as opposed to his buddy. He sometimes takes his just rewards, but sometimes the people need it more than he does. Sometimes he takes his just rewards and gives some of it to charity.
Killing, Hurting and Oppressing can be made neutral if tempered with good acts. Such as self sacrifice, altruism and so on. That is the basis of my reading of alignments. That means that a Paladin could travel the world and slay evil in his gods name, but if that is all he ever does, then sooner or later, he -will- fall. Not because he commits an act of evil, maybe everyone of his kills were tempered with good and he did not draw blood just for the sake of it. But because too many neutral deeds, will turn him neutral, rather than good, leading to him falling from grace. By my reading, paladins cannot just be self-righteous murder machines, scouring the land. They must uphold virtues, and do genuine acts of good. They must be the paragons of Lawful Goods, because that is what their class is designed to be :)
Martin the Paladin will have no issues travelling and killing in his god's name, because that is not all he is doing, and he's being concious of who and what he levels his blade against, and why. Marlowe will remain neutral or maybe even evil. Or he could change his ways, because Martin sets a good example. Either way, the adventuring life continues.
I believe that if you read alignments this way, and cooperate with your GM if an issue gets murky, then there should be no issue with alignments, that cannot be solved by a quick think-over :)
This is of course still just my reading, and by no means an official call, but I'd like to think I have the right of it, and that it is intended to work this way. Where the content of the act, motivation, reason, and circumstance, come together to form an alignment for that specific act.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problems seeing paladins either sacrificing themselves for someone else's safety at a young age, or growing disillusioned and giving up that life for one slightly more sensible, still fighting the good fight, still trying to improve the world, but a bit more tempered. When asked about why he doesn't call himself a paladin anymore, he'd shake his head and say "I did that once, and eventually, I just couldn't see things that way anymore. If I had continued, I think I would have become something pretty dangerous. Still, bless those who can, and I am still deeply honoured I was chosen."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Is my action good, evil, neutral, lawful or chaotic?"
The answer is yes.
If you disarm him and replace the torch with a bucket of paint and invent Jackson Pollock, Shelyn would be pretty stoked. I'm just gonna grab this from up-thread again, which comes from the code of Shelyn's paladins in Faiths of Purity:
"I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is cut short."
If someone's potential for beauty is negative number then cleric would not feel bad about cutting it short.
Like paladins can kill (evil act) evil creatures and it considered good, so i believe destroying sources of ugliness and ones who destroy beauty is looked by Shelyn with sad approval.
Shelyn has to have a limit, right? So, Charisma below 9 means the world is better off without you. =)
|
If you disarm him and replace the torch with a bucket of paint and invent Jackson Pollock, Shelyn would be pretty stoked. I'm just gonna grab this from up-thread again, which comes from the code of Shelyn's paladins in Faiths of Purity:
"I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is cut short."If someone's potential for beauty is negative number then cleric would not feel bad about cutting it short.
Like paladins can kill (evil act) evil creatures and it considered good, so i believe destroying sources of ugliness and ones who destroy beauty is looked by Shelyn with sad approval.
Killing is not an evil act per se. The basis for your comparison does not stand.
No.
Kill =/= Murder.
Murder is a specific type of unlawful killing.
Murder that is "legal and unpunishable" is by definition NOT murder.
Not Quite.
It is not Murder by legal terms AFTER the law is applied to it, but the act by itself before you look at it through the eyes of the law... is 'murder'.
If you want to differentiate between the Legal term 'Murder' and 'Murder' : The Evil killing of sentient life. then we can try to do that.
Superman doesn't kill Lex Luthor, Batman doesn't kill Joker, Spiderman doesn't kill Venom, this is all because there is always another option: stopping them without killing them, then trying to guide them back to the path of good. To not try that option is to not respect their right to live, and to be a Good guy you have to respect life.
Not sure Ragathiel is a good example of 'killer good god'. Yes, he's into killing evil. But he's also just fine with redeeming it as well (if you don't think so, you might want to look into his parentage and what he had to do to get on the side of the Angels).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have to ask a question about your alignment, you probably already know the answer. And it's probably not what you want it to be.
Killing is not an evil act per se. The basis for your comparison does not stand.If someone's potential for beauty is negative number then cleric would not feel bad about cutting it short.
Like paladins can kill (evil act) evil creatures and it considered good, so i believe destroying sources of ugliness and ones who destroy beauty is looked by Shelyn with sad approval.
F.A.Q. Replace words "evil act" with "neutral act".
|
|
My opinion is based on my reading of the alignment chapter. The bit where I differentiate between the alignment of characters and the alingment of actions, is based on a comparison of the alignment section in the Gamemastery guide, and a section of the alignment section in the core rulebook. Let me illustrate my train of thought
Now, I've always found this bit lacking. After all, if it is evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, adventurers would have trouble if they hoped for a long career, and to die with a G in their alignment. And Paladins had to be pacifists, otherwise they'd insta-fall.Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
The problem with your statement above is that you totally ignore the word innocent when you are reading the alignment description. It is not evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, its evil to hurt, oppress and kill the innocent. There is a big difference between an innocent child and a person attacking you with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill you. Your sort of glossing over that fact and equating killing anything to killing an innocent child.
|
|
By the way...This post really should have nothing to do with Shelyn. She just so happens to be the god of my cleric but the discussion is more about the acts of enjoying killing your enemies as a good character. The Shelyn banter sort of railroads the discussion as now the thread has evolved into 2 separate discussions.
The problem with your statement above is that you totally ignore the word innocent when you are reading the alignment description. It is not evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, its evil to hurt, oppress and kill the innocent. There is a big difference between an innocent child and a person attacking you with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill you. Your sort of glossing over that fact and equating killing anything to killing an innocent child.
Certainly an interesting read of my previous post :)
I can assure you that I ignore nothing, nor have I glossed over anything. I chose to read the opening paragraph of the Good vs Evil segment of the alignment chapter, that is the:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
as a broadstroke statement, supposed to give a general guideline to the two alignments, where the following paragraphs spell it out in greater detail. I read the paragraphs
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
not as requiring the first paragraph to qualify, but as seperate attempts to clarify what is evil, good and neutral.
By your logic, since killing, hurting and oppressing is only evil if it adheres to the opening paragraph, showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, committing an act of self-sacrifice or altruism that is not directly motivated by the intent to protect the innocent, is not a good act.
And I don't believe that to be the case. :)
-Nearyn
Doesn't matter what you think it is. Matters what the organizers think it is.
This. If your GM says you performed an evil act, then you did. All the moreso in PFS if I understand it correctly.
Obviously, if the GM's claim seems absurd ("I pat the puppy on the head" "I hate dogs, that's an evil act!") then I can understand wanting to try to convince him otherwise. If there's a reasonable amount of leeway though, you may simply either have to go with the GM or find another one.
Generally, I actually find the description of good, evil, chaos, and law in the actual rules pretty useful and pretty clear on how the game defines the different alignments (which may be different from how you define similar moral and ethical concepts, but your personal moral and ethical philosophy is irrelevant in application to the rules of a game, even if the rules and your personal philosophy uses similar syntax). So if you're not sure, and your GM is willing to discuss it with you, refer to the rules first and let that be your guide. For example, "good" is defined by the game's rules as involving altruism, protecting innocents, and preserving the dignity of all sentient beings. If you can argue successfully with a good amount of reason that your character's act is altruistic, protective, and or preserves the dignity of all sentients you interact with, then go for it when discussing it with your GM. (What we say about it is entirely irrelevant.)
By the way...This post really should have nothing to do with Shelyn. She just so happens to be the god of my cleric but the discussion is more about the acts of enjoying killing your enemies as a good character.
Enjoying killing is a weird area for alignment imo. Over the course of the game outside of particular builds, your probably going to kill a lot of people. I mean a lot. I mean like, mountains of corpses lots. If you aren't doing it, someone else in your party likely is. If you aren't okay with it you would have trouble being an adventurer.
Obviously, if the GM's claim seems absurd ("I pat the puppy on the head" "I hate dogs, that's an evil act!") then I can understand wanting to try to convince him otherwise.
You'd be shocked how many guys like that I've met. I've even seen a player yell at a GM for not making someone take a hit once.
|
|
To echo what TOZ and Death quaker said......"It doesn't matter what you think it is, it matters what the organizers think it is."
to the op: you can try to find wiggle room, and you can parse things ( Ie if i do X while my intent is Y am i doing something evil? ) as much as you want. But when the Organizers ( Mike Brook and company for PFS) or you GM tells you what is good and evil in their game, that is the end of the discussion. period. The GM gets to decide what is good and evil in their game.
for example:
in my own home games things that are considered evil:
murder (especially taking pleasure in it)
killing a helpless prisoner
sacrificing a sentient ( halfling, human dwarf elf, gnome- goblin kobold orc etc) is an evil act.
trapping a soul and preventing it from moving onto the afterlife,
animating the dead
summoning a devil demon etc
the negative energy plane....
others. etc.
Oh in my games the ends do not justify the means.
but then that is just my game
When I play in other people's games, the GM gets to set the parameters of the world.
I hope this helps.
|
|
By your logic, since killing, hurting and oppressing is only evil if it adheres to the opening paragraph, showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, committing an act of self-sacrifice or altruism that is not directly motivated by the intent to protect the innocent, is not a good act.
This is sort of a stretch since I can't even find a way you can put those words in my mouth at all.
Killing, hurting or oppressing are not good or evil acts in and of themselves. This is why you can't paint these acts with a broad brush. Which is also why the word innocent is so important to the Alignment statement.
Consider the following (edited to add EVIL and EVIL PEOPLE):
Good implies altruism, respect for EVIL life, and a concern for the dignity of EVIL sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help EVIL PEOPLE.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing EVIL PEOPLE. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill EVIL PEOPLE without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing EVIL PEOPLE for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
When you consider the sort of people you are committing the acts against, the lines blur and what once was evil or good might not be so any longer.
To echo what TOZ and Death quaker said......"It doesn't matter what you think it is, it matters what the organizers think it is."
People kept bringing up this point, but I never mentioned that I had a disagreement with a GM or even other players as to how this should be handled. I was simply asking for my own understanding as it would guide how my player proceeds. I will move my guy to neutral myself if I think that's how he's devolping. I don't RP in PFS to make some GM satisfied with my character's actions. I might respect and play by his rules sure but that doesn't stop how my PC progresses.
By your logic, since killing, hurting and oppressing is only evil if it adheres to the opening paragraph, showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, committing an act of self-sacrifice or altruism that is not directly motivated by the intent to protect the innocent, is not a good act.This is sort of a stretch since I can't even find a way you can put those words in my mouth at all.
I could if I really wanted to :P
But no, if you disagree with my assesment of your standpoint, I take it that you meant that:
Killing, hurting and oppressing is not ALWAYS evil, but it is if you do it to innocents.
And that Showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, self sacrifice and altruism is not always good, but it is if you are motivated by a desire to protect the innocent.
Is that a correct assesment of the point you were making, because if I'm off on both cases, I'm afraid this...
The problem with your statement above is that you totally ignore the word innocent when you are reading the alignment description. It is not evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, its evil to hurt, oppress and kill the innocent. There is a big difference between an innocent child and a person attacking you with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill you. Your sort of glossing over that fact and equating killing anything to killing an innocent child.
...does not make sense to me.
-Nearyn
You'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree to an alignment question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enjoying the defeat of evil? Not evil.
Enjoying the thrill of combat and victory? Not evil.
Enjoying the act of killing because it is killing? Evil.
|
|
But no, if you disagree with my assesment of your standpoint, I take it that you meant that:
Killing, hurting and oppressing is not ALWAYS evil, but it is if you do it to innocents.
And that Showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, self sacrifice and altruism is not always good, but it is if you are motivated by a desire to protect the innocent.
Is that a correct assesment of the point you were making, because if I'm off on both cases, I'm afraid this does not make sense to me.
Yes that is exactly what I meant. Killing hurting and opressing is evil when you do it to innocents and maybe good and maybe not if you do it to evil people on the battlefield. In the same regard as doing acts to harm evil people may or may not be good or evil depending on the act.
For example, If my paladin has a smite spell (yes I know its evil but bare with me), is it evil if he smite's evil? probably not. What if he smite's good? Probably....What if he smite's evil and enjoys it? Hmm that's the question.
|
|
Enjoying the defeat of evil? Not evil.
Enjoying the thrill of combat and victory? Not evil.
Enjoying the act of killing because it is killing? Evil.
This is exactly my thought and I play my cleric as a NG cleric of Shelyn but has devolped from not caring about combat to now being in 1 and 2 but NOT 3.
These people on here keep trying to say that if you are in 1 or 2 then Shelyn would reject you or you would need to attone. I disagree.
Yes that is exactly what I meant.
Eureka!
I don't agree, but that does not matter :)
I think that enjoying what you are doing, is condusive to you continuing to do it. With that being said, I do not believe that drinking the blood of the fallen is evil. Heck, i'm in the "cannibalism and necromancy is not evil"-camp, so getting lost in the thrill of battle does not strike me as evil at all. If you getting lost in that thrill led you to spear a kindergarden to a barnhouse, however, expect your alignment to take a firm step in a decidedly evil direction.
-Nearyn
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that enjoying what you are doing, is condusive to you continuing to do it. With that being said, I do not believe that drinking the blood of the fallen is evil. Heck, i'm in the "cannibalism and necromancy is not evil"-camp, so getting lost in the thrill of battle does not strike me as evil at all.
:)
I was about to do the exact thing I thought you were doing. Assume the opposite of your statement.
Just because something is not evil doesn't mean it's good. While I may agree that drinking blood of your enemies, canabalism, or necromancy may not be ourright evil, they certainly aren't outright good acts. Depending on the situation I am sure. If you go around eating people cause you enjoy it...probably evil. If you are shipwrecked and you need to eat the remains of your fallen captain to survive, probably not evil. Enjoying eating the remains cause you haven't eaten in weeks, probably not evil. Drinking and bathing in the blood of your fallen evil enemies, while gross is probably not evil. Doing that to goats, sheep, and dogs cause you have a fetish, probably evil and defintely disgusting. Doing that to said kidnergarten, hmm still on the fence on that one :) just kidding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that enjoying what you are doing, is condusive to you continuing to do it. With that being said, I do not believe that drinking the blood of the fallen is evil. Heck, i'm in the "cannibalism and necromancy is not evil"-camp, so getting lost in the thrill of battle does not strike me as evil at all.:)
I was about to do the exact thing I thought you were doing. Assume the opposite of your statement.
Just because something is not evil doesn't mean it's good. While I may agree that drinking blood of your enemies, canabalism, or necromancy may not be ourright evil, they certainly aren't outright good acts. Depending on the situation I am sure. If you go around eating people cause you enjoy it...probably evil. If you are shipwrecked and you need to eat the remains of your fallen captain to survive, probably not evil. Enjoying eating the remains cause you haven't eaten in weeks, probably not evil. Drinking and bathing in the blood of your fallen evil enemies, while gross is probably not evil. Doing that to goats, sheep, and dogs cause you have a fetish, probably evil and defintely disgusting. Doing that to said kidnergarten, hmm still on the fence on that one :) just kidding.
Lizardfolk practice cannabalism and aren't evil.
Drinking and bathing in the blood of your fallen evil enemies is probably evil. Think gratuity. If you don't have a believable reason to commit a strange act, its going to look evil. My lizardfolk has eaten two of my dead companions. It's part of his culture to eat them and carry on their warrior spirit within him. Cut out the last bit. Now it looks kinda evil dontcha think?
Another example. Bathing in the blood of your enemies. To strike fear into his enemies and that without this advantage might fail. To just bathe in their blood, just because is a bit evil
A good rule to go by is Necessity. Do I really need to do this? If yes, you're good or atleast neutral. If no, you tread into neutral leaning evil.
Also keep in mind characters and their mindsets. I watched one of my companions get killed. I absolutely butchered the foe who killed him. In a rage I activated the shocking grasp effect on my intelligent weapon and coup de grace'd the enemy while he was down. Was it unnecessary? Definitely. Was I justified? Probably. Did it matter? No. Because my character did something he felt at the time to be paramount. Going beyond alignment and allegiances. I wanted that man to die in as painful of a matter as possible.
Remember the sheets of paper we wield are living, breathing people in the worlds we create together. Alignment is not a set stone. We shift and change. Perfectly law abiding citizen oft lapse and cheat on their taxes. Evil Overlords sometimes take pity on the small child of the family he just butchered who would one day grow up to be the hero who slays him. Good people do terrible things when they get caught up in their emotions.
|
|
A good rule to go by is Necessity. Do I really need to do this? If yes, you're good or atleast neutral. If no, you tread into neutral leaning evil.
Does my paladin need to enjoy smiting evil foes? Probably not but does he think smiting Evil brings more glory to his God and therefore enjoys it? Probably...Is he Neutral because of that? Definitely not.
This is where my cleric is. He's not smiting evil persay but his view is changed into thinking any enemy on the battlefield of his is automatically Evil unless proven otherwise. Therefore he is good and maybe leaning Neutral.
A good rule to go by is Necessity. Do I really need to do this? If yes, you're good or atleast neutral. If no, you tread into neutral leaning evil.Does my paladin need to enjoy smiting evil foes? Probably not but does he think smiting Evil brings more glory to his God and therefore enjoys it? Probably...Is he Neutral because of that? Definitely not.
This is where my cleric is. He's not smiting evil persay but his view is changed into thinking any enemy on the battlefield of his is automatically Evil unless proven otherwise. Therefore he is good and maybe leaning Neutral.
The above example is exactly what I was talking about. Solid justification. My problem with the original post is the blood bit. That is gratuitous.
I still see a difference between "enjoys smiting evil" and "bathes in the blood of his enemy."