Welcome to 'alignment is a totally useless clusterf***' thread #58398.
Isn't it kind of sad that even in a fantasy world where we make the rules, we have a hard time making morality an objective quality?
I love how this question outs the Paladin. Why not the question "would any LG character resort to cannibalism?" Answer, because the Paladin is the only one that has a mechanical disadvantage - hence the LG wizard will resort because the wizard doesn't care if alignment changes?
I can say if I was in a campaign playing a PC and this comes up, the GM better have a REAL good reason for doing this to the players. Since I usually play "group comes first" PCs, even my evil PCs wouldn't kill a party member just to eat, though might kill an annoying one to conserve any resources (or to keep from being eaten).
I would say any LG character wouldn't kill a fellow party member that they trust just to live. Already dead party member, depends on their culture / origins. Dead random sentient, that's what roleplaying is for. No easy answer on this (though clerics and Paladins might have guidance magic that would notify them if such an act would change their alignment).
LG characters don't have mechanics that make them not LG for actions (just suggestions to the GM about alignment change). You don't actually have to make moral judgments about the actions of LG PCs to run them. It's the player that roleplays what LG is for their character.
Paladins fall whenever they do a willful evil act. So every action they take requires that the GM give it a moral value because that is how the mechanics work. And that is only the first sentence of code. More problems arise from there on.
Sort of, Marcus, but "willful evil" also means that, so long as the Paladin doesn't say ". . .And I'm doing that just for the sake of evilness!" then she's probably on pretty safe ground. I'd just roll untrained on Survival as many times as I could before I considered killing and eating a fellow PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People at Paizo have claimed that casting protection from evil or summoning celestial badgers a bunch of times will make you go to heaven (JJ treats casting an aligned spell as an act of that alignment)-That's really not how that works. Not all Good or Evil acts are equal. Casting Protection From Evil is a Good act on par with being nice to your waiter and leaving a big tip. If being nice to all your waiters and tipping well, and nothing else, is enough to get you into Heaven...you were probably a pretty decent person to start with.
Eh, I'd argue that anything the majority of the Paizo staff say is how things work is how they work officially, since they're the ones that decide what the official rules are.without any rules citations, I'd add.
I'm not inclined to call those official rules. :P
Where is the chapter that describes how much good or how much evil casting a spell is? I cannot find it, because...IT DOES NOT EXIST.
What does exist is the alignment rules which throw all this nonsensical trash out on its ear, and puts a boot to the hindside of stupid arguments over things like this.
Again, it's like this: If you are HURTING, OPPRESSING, or KILLING it's evil. If you are not doing those things you are not doing evil. Doesn't matter what you're using to do it either. Either you do evil, or you don't. There is no section of the manual that states that casting spells with [x] subtype is always equivalent to x actions. All it does is affect how they interact with other spells and mechanical effects such as dispel good and detect law.
Quotes or it didn't happen. And I don't mean quotes from devs not following the rules, or quotes from devs saying that it is better to let a child with cancer die than to heal them with a scroll that was made with an [Evil] spell (to which the very example of such a thing was to such an extent evil unto itself that I was nearly sick with disgust at the very notion).
Isn't there a passage in Wrath of the Righteous that says the spells with an alignment descriptor are an X act?
...quotes from devs saying that it is better to let a child with cancer die than to heal them with a scroll that was made with an [Evil] spell (to which the very example of such a thing was to such an extent evil unto itself that I was nearly sick with disgust...
Wait, what? I missed this.
That said.... The dead are objects, unless they're animate, in which they're undead. I think it'd be more chaotic, cannibalism, rather than evil, because... Seriously... How can you be evil to an inanimate object? Funerary rites and stuff are more societal, thus along the Law-Chaos axis in any case.....
Though, to be fair.... Orc's a little gamey. Halfling is where the flavor's at. They have a natural smokey flavor, and you hardly need any kind of grease, what with all that fat... I also wouldn't suggest dwarves if you can't hold your liqour. Tough to chew, and will most likely make you drunk off your rump.
Or equip a Ring of Sustenance, I guess; this whole conversation could have been avoided if Create Food and Water was on the Pally spell list!
Well, if the party wizard had teleport, then they could all go somewhere where there was food. But that would need a high enough level wizard.
Heck, paladins don't even get spells prior to level 4
If you were high enough level, you could possibly even bring the dead person back to life, making most of the moral question moot. Actually, I am pretty certain they could even join in the eating if you used Reincarnte, which would make this all sorts of weird since I think a human might be able to just have enough meat so that the party eat and cast restoration on themselves indefinitely..... which is a whole lot of moral and ethical questions that really should never get an answer....
Anyway, the point- just pretend everyone is level 2. It makes setting up ethical problems a lot easier when everybody follows physics closely enough that we can relate to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there a passage in Wrath of the Righteous that says the spells with an alignment descriptor are an X act?
I don't know. I don't remember a Wrath of the Righteous chapter in the Core Rulebook.
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.
Wouldn't that be an AP specific rule then?
...quotes from devs saying that it is better to let a child with cancer die than to heal them with a scroll that was made with an [Evil] spell (to which the very example of such a thing was to such an extent evil unto itself that I was nearly sick with disgust...Wait, what? I missed this.
I was once in a debate with both SKR and JJ about the alignment and spell thing, and neither could provide a RAW example of it being true, nor could either of them discredit the absurdity of the natural conclusion to that sort of ruling (that standing in a field casting protection from evil over and over will therefor make you good).
But, I was utterly repulsed and disgusted when SKR presented a scenario where a BBEG had a spell that he made up, which requires you to sacrifice an innocent as a spell component but otherwise healed all diseases; kidnapped a kid, and made a scroll of said spell; then he said if the PCs didn't destroy the scroll and instead used the scroll (keep in mind, the kid is already dead at this point) would be evil.
Except the PCs aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone, and to use the scroll would be to destroy it (because that's how scrolls work). Yet he stood me down that to use the scroll to save the life of another innocent, such as a child with cancer, was evil because the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Literally that it would be more good to burn the scroll and let the child die.
I was disgusted. Truly disgusted.
|
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.
Oh, right! I forgot for a minute, there's an actual rules citation for this these days.
It's actually in Champions of Purity, p. 15, and reads as follows:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
So...yeah, this is the official rules. Disagreeing with them is fine (personally, I'm fine with spells being Evil conceptually, but would tend to significantly alter which spells are Evil to be more sensible), but they're still the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Neutral is the new good.
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.Oh, right! I forgot for a minute, there's an actual rules citation for this these days.
It's actually in Champions of Purity, p. 15, and reads as follows:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.So...yeah, this is the official rules. Disagreeing with them is fine (personally, I'm fine with spells being Evil conceptually, but would tend to significantly alter which spells are Evil to be more sensible), but they're still the rules.
Yeah I knew it was put into print somewhere. Not that that is a good thing at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.Wouldn't that be an AP specific rule then?
Faiths of Purity is not an AP.
I was once in a debate with both SKR and JJ about the alignment and spell thing, and neither could provide a RAW example of it being true, nor could either of them discredit the absurdity of the natural conclusion to that sort of ruling (that standing in a field casting protection from evil over and over will therefor make you good).
But, I was utterly repulsed and disgusted when SKR presented a scenario where a BBEG had a spell that he made up, which requires you to sacrifice an innocent as a spell component but otherwise healed all diseases; kidnapped a kid, and made a scroll of said spell; then he said if the PCs didn't destroy the scroll and instead used the scroll (keep in mind, the kid is already dead at this point) would be evil.
Except the PCs aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone, and to use the scroll would be to destroy it (because that's how scrolls work). Yet he stood me down that to use the scroll to save the life of another innocent, such as a child with cancer, was evil because the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Literally that it would be more good to burn the scroll and let the child die.
I was disgusted. Truly disgusted.
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?
Whatever would give you that idea? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
..... I... That...
And after I just posted how awesome Paizo was for the support and swag it gave to a transgender fan.... I come and find this....
... This company makes my mood swing more often than manic bi-polar disorder with a hair trigger.
I can't... Even begin to wrap my head around that. Remind me why I keep supporting these people?
Nah, that's not fair. Sins of the few don't reflect the many and all that jazz.
... Screw it. I need to go play some Brawl. Maybe Ganondorfing someone off the stage a few times'll cheer me up. I'll be back after I take a moment...
That's just... How the f... Someone's got a malfunctioning moral compass, and it aint us....
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
..... I... That...
And after I just posted how awesome Paizo was for the support and swag it gave to a transgender fan.... I come and find this....
... This company makes my mood swing more often than manic bi-polar disorder with a hair trigger.
I can't... Even begin to wrap my head around that. Remind me why I keep supporting these people?
Nah, that's not fair. Sins of the few don't reflect the many and all that jazz.
... Screw it. I need to go play some Brawl. Maybe Ganondorfing someone off the stage a few times'll cheer me up. I'll be back after I take a moment...
That's just... How the f... Someone's got a malfunctioning moral compass, and it aint us....
SKR is no longer a Paizo dev if that makes you feel better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.Wouldn't that be an AP specific rule then?Faiths of Purity is not an AP.
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?I was once in a debate with both SKR and JJ about the alignment and spell thing, and neither could provide a RAW example of it being true, nor could either of them discredit the absurdity of the natural conclusion to that sort of ruling (that standing in a field casting protection from evil over and over will therefor make you good).
But, I was utterly repulsed and disgusted when SKR presented a scenario where a BBEG had a spell that he made up, which requires you to sacrifice an innocent as a spell component but otherwise healed all diseases; kidnapped a kid, and made a scroll of said spell; then he said if the PCs didn't destroy the scroll and instead used the scroll (keep in mind, the kid is already dead at this point) would be evil.
Except the PCs aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone, and to use the scroll would be to destroy it (because that's how scrolls work). Yet he stood me down that to use the scroll to save the life of another innocent, such as a child with cancer, was evil because the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Literally that it would be more good to burn the scroll and let the child die.
I was disgusted. Truly disgusted.
I can certainly see why it is evil (or at least morally questionable). I mean, while the crimes that got it in the first with are said and done with, I certainly would not look towards the black market organ trade. Doing so would taciturnly support its use (because it mostly relies upon on desperate people deciding it is worth it).
Of course, I can understand there is also the 'if a tree falls in the forest' style argument, since presumably you got the scroll by killing the one guy that knows how to make it. If you don't take any notes of how the scroll works so you can replicate it later (when some other person you care about is ill, and you just happen to know someone 'that no body cares about'), then there would be no future uses of the spell due to your actions.
Avoiding the whole issue and questing for a more normal healing spell would be for the best though.....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yes binding angels against their will is good. Binding demons to care for the sick and feed the poor is evil.
Actually...no. The Magic Circle counters the Planar Binding making summoning creatures like this inherently a wash (A Good spell to Summon an Angel, then an Evil one to bind it, and vice versa for a demon). It's how you use it that determines the Good or Evil, since (as noted) the spells are a wash.
SKR is no longer a Paizo dev if that makes you feel better...... I... That...
And after I just posted how awesome Paizo was for the support and swag it gave to a transgender fan.... I come and find this....
... This company makes my mood swing more often than manic bi-polar disorder with a hair trigger.
I can't... Even begin to wrap my head around that. Remind me why I keep supporting these people?
Nah, that's not fair. Sins of the few don't reflect the many and all that jazz.
... Screw it. I need to go play some Brawl. Maybe Ganondorfing someone off the stage a few times'll cheer me up. I'll be back after I take a moment...
That's just... How the f... Someone's got a malfunctioning moral compass, and it aint us....
Really? When did this come about? How am I always out of the loop? lol...
It does, actually, but not by much. Considering no one came in and refuted that statement... Or did they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in Faith of Purity I believe.Wouldn't that be an AP specific rule then?Faiths of Purity is not an AP.
Did he give you the whole "You know why I'm right, this should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass, you morally bankrupt monster you" spiel?I was once in a debate with both SKR and JJ about the alignment and spell thing, and neither could provide a RAW example of it being true, nor could either of them discredit the absurdity of the natural conclusion to that sort of ruling (that standing in a field casting protection from evil over and over will therefor make you good).
But, I was utterly repulsed and disgusted when SKR presented a scenario where a BBEG had a spell that he made up, which requires you to sacrifice an innocent as a spell component but otherwise healed all diseases; kidnapped a kid, and made a scroll of said spell; then he said if the PCs didn't destroy the scroll and instead used the scroll (keep in mind, the kid is already dead at this point) would be evil.
Except the PCs aren't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone, and to use the scroll would be to destroy it (because that's how scrolls work). Yet he stood me down that to use the scroll to save the life of another innocent, such as a child with cancer, was evil because the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Literally that it would be more good to burn the scroll and let the child die.
I was disgusted. Truly disgusted.
I can certainly see why it is evil (or at least morally questionable). I mean, while the crimes that got it in the first with are said and done with, I certainly would not look towards the black market organ trade. Doing so would taciturnly support its use (because it mostly relies upon on desperate people deciding it is worth it).
Of course, I can understand there is also the 'if a tree falls in the forest' style argument, since presumably you got the scroll by...
The Nazis invented all sorts of amazing things we still use today during World War 2. Among other things, the precursor to modern pesticides, various medical advances and research into the inner workings of the human body, and caulking in a tube.
It was not evil to take these things and use them just because of the morally appalling research done to come up with them in the first place.
The evil was done, it's over with. Ignoring the helpful results just makes it all pointless.
SKR is no longer a Paizo dev if that makes you feel better...... I... That...
And after I just posted how awesome Paizo was for the support and swag it gave to a transgender fan.... I come and find this....
... This company makes my mood swing more often than manic bi-polar disorder with a hair trigger.
I can't... Even begin to wrap my head around that. Remind me why I keep supporting these people?
Nah, that's not fair. Sins of the few don't reflect the many and all that jazz.
... Screw it. I need to go play some Brawl. Maybe Ganondorfing someone off the stage a few times'll cheer me up. I'll be back after I take a moment...
That's just... How the f... Someone's got a malfunctioning moral compass, and it aint us....
Really? When did this come about? How am I always out of the loop? lol...
It does, actually, but not by much. Considering no one came in and refuted that statement... Or did they?
Some of his post still have the developer tag, others don't.
Take that as you will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Neutral is the new good.Personally, I'd argue that not using the scroll is a greater Evil act than using it could ever be. And that's defensible, per the rules. So not necessarily.
Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
The Nazis invented all sorts of amazing things we still use today during World War 2. Among other things, the precursor to modern pesticides, various medical advances and research into the inner workings of the human body, and caulking in a tube.
It was not evil to take these things and use them just because of the morally appalling research done to come up with them in the first place.
The evil was done, it's over with. Ignoring the helpful results just makes it all pointless.
...yeah, but that is because the part where people got hurt was already over with, and the techniques could be replicated without so much damage.
Encouraging the hypothetical spell that runs on orphan blood is slightly different, since it needs the dead kid each and every time. It is less 'medical research', and more 'pair of stolen kidneys'....
The Nazis invented all sorts of amazing things we still use today during World War 2. Among other things, the precursor to modern pesticides, various medical advances and research into the inner workings of the human body, and caulking in a tube.
It was not evil to take these things and use them just because of the morally appalling research done to come up with them in the first place.
The evil was done, it's over with. Ignoring the helpful results just makes it all pointless.
...yeah, but that is because the part where people got hurt was already over with, and the techniques could be replicated without so much damage.
Encouraging the hypothetical spell that runs on orphan blood is slightly different, since it needs the dead kid each and every time. It is less 'medical research', and more 'pair of stolen kidneys'....
Slightly, but the same principle.
The harm is done. It can't be undone. Try to make some good of it.
It's really like a pair of stolen kidneys that have already been transplanted into someone without their knowledge of the evil origins of the organs.
Yes, the kidneys are stolen.
Is the right thing to do REALLY to rip them out of the sick person just because they were procured unlawfully?
I remember the 3.X book of vile darkness saying that cannibalism is only evil if it is done for power.
Sorry if this has been said as I did not read much of this yet.
...yeah, but that is because the part where people got hurt was already over with, and the techniques could be replicated without so much damage.
Encouraging the hypothetical spell that runs on orphan blood is slightly different, since it needs the dead kid each and every time. It is less 'medical research', and more 'pair of stolen kidneys'....
Slightly, but the same principle.
The harm is done. It can't be undone. Try to make some good of it.
It's really like a pair of stolen kidneys that have already been transplanted into someone without their knowledge of the evil origins of the organs.
Yes, the kidneys are stolen.
Is the right thing to do REALLY to rip them out of the sick person just because they were procured unlawfully?
No, but anyone that knew they were stolen and still let them get put in should be arrested. Because those are called accomplishes (or some other term; I am a lit major, not a lawyer; point is that I am fairly sure it is illegal, for good reason).
The system is also in place to make sure that all the organs are in acceptable condition too. Do you want the kid finding out a year later that he has a demon STD because he was given human sacrifice kidneys? (this would be the 'evil subtype spells have that for a reason' argument)
Slightly, but the same principle.
The harm is done. It can't be undone. Try to make some good of it.
It's really like a pair of stolen kidneys that have already been transplanted into someone without their knowledge of the evil origins of the organs.
Yes, the kidneys are stolen.
Is the right thing to do REALLY to rip them out of the sick person just because they were procured unlawfully?
It doesn't strengthen the argument when the example gets further and further from what the original post was about.
The more similar example in this line would be before that point.
There are kidneys provided. The kidneys are stolen. The person they came from is dead.
There is however a person also provided. They need new kidneys. If they don't get them, they will die.
What do you do?
Do you let the life of the person who died go to waste when you have someone you can save before you?
Or if you use them are you actually endorsing the kidney theft and are only encouraging other to kill more people for their organs by making it successful this time.
But that may not happen. Is it worth worrying about what may happen in the future when you can guarantee you are saving a life right now?
What if you do the transplant and it happens again? Did you just cause that death or would it have happened anyway with a different person. Should you treat this situation any differently? Is this life worth more or less than the person that came before.
In this case though, it is an evil spell rather than an operation. Does that imply anything about the nature of the casting? Is it more or less the same if this was just a scroll of remove disease written in that dead person's blood?
In the organ harvesting example, I don't know what the right answer is. I don't think there is a right answer. Same for this spell example. But the game defines some things as evil and I think it is fair to say that those things are evil acts without debating the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You think you've seen all the Paladin threads, but then there's this.
Paladins can eat whatever they want, but they must use the proper utensils.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
In both cases are breaking the paladin code, but for a good reason. This is sort of one of the major points of being a paladin (for good and ill). Is one part of your code more important than another? Can you ignore some of the lawful in the code if it is for the greater good? Is Good more important than Lawful? Does acting with honor stop being important when lives are on the line?
I would make your paladin fall (of course, I almost certainly not put your paladin in that position in the first place.) and require atonement for the same reason I would require raise dead after I accidentally crit a PC with a scythe. Not because I want to, but just an attempt to work within the construct of the rules I have without reducing the meaning of the paladin code of conduct.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.
Yep. The Nazi Research analogy used above really does apply.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
Eh. I could sorta see it being a no-win situation, where using the Scroll was a lesser Evil, but still Evil. I wouldn't run it that way, but it seems somewhat reasonable.
The idea that not using a way to save an innocent child's life is somehow not Evil is the part I disagree with profoundly, I can sorta see using black magic powered by the deaths of children as inherently Evil regardless of whether it comes pre-powered and what you're using it for...it's just not nearly as Evil as the alternative of letting a child die and letting the life used to make the scroll go to waste.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
Slightly Off Topic Argument:
Actually I have, and will continue to, strongly argued that not lying isn't actually a part of the Paladin's Code per se. It's not listed in the actual text of the code, but as an example of being honorable, with being honorable the actual part of the Code. Therefore, I would argue, a Paladin may freely lie when it is honorable to do so. Now that's a rare circumstance, but one that could certainly come up.
Just for the record.
The whole situation is pretty much BS in my opinion.
If I wanted a moral challenge for a paladin PC, I would change the scenario to a whole town full of dying children and a fiend (who is in disguise, of course) offering a spell that will cure them all at the cost of sacrificing one. The fiend's argument is that it's better to sacrifice one innocent child than to let them all perish.
The right answer, of course, is to do neither; find a third option that saves all of the children. And to really amp up the tension, I would try to make the third option something that the PC doesn't find until after they have definitively refused to make the sacrifice.
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea. You either get a Glabrezu, where the wish is twisted beyond all recognition, or you get a devil, who are only making the offer because they think they can find an angle that lets them rake in greater profits (maybe it comes in as 'Uncle Azzy' and talk about how he saved them all and needs their help to 'solve some problems'). Basic understanding of tropes tells you it is a bad idea.
I like the scroll example more, since it implies (not saying it IS, but implies; remember-evil, unknown spell) that the evil is done and none of the evil beings involved are around any more
Anyway, a lot of these moral question bring to to appreciate the Irorian paladin. Say what you will about its unarmed focused, it lets you write your own paladin code.
Slightly Off Topic Argument:
Actually I have, and will continue to, strongly argued that not lying isn't actually a part of the Paladin's Code per se. It's not listed in the actual text of the code, but as an example of being honorable, with being honorable the actual part of the Code. Therefore, I would argue, a Paladin may freely lie when it is honorable to do so. Now that's a rare circumstance, but one that could certainly come up.
Just for the record.
I agree. I was just coming now to edit the post to note that the line was meant to talk about rare times where acting with honor might conflict with other parts of the code. It was wrong to call out lying like that.
This is very entertaining, watching people try to argue that eating people is not an evil act. I mean, it's not quite the same as choosing the lesser of two weevils.
Maybe what we really need are "sub-alignments".
Yes, taboos against cannibalism are linked to culture. But RPGs in general and Golarion in particular are based on our common Western culture, in which cannibalism is a particularly heinous taboo, universally recognized as evil. Yes, we can conceive of cultures where this is not true, and there *may* be actual or historical cultures where the taboo against canibalism is articulated differently (depending on how accurately informed we are, oh ye junior anthropologists). However, in the eyes of the dominant western culture, these hypothetical cannibalistic societies are also evil.
A human (or by extension, any sentient being) does not simply "become" meat or protein that can then be consumed without guilt or remorse.
C'mon, I just don't buy it. Even if you're chaotic neutral, dining on the dead is just plain evil.
OTOH, any discussion of alignment is doomed to break down into opposing often jingoistic views. Personally, I like Lewis's "greater good" vs "lesser evil. Cosmic, man!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, taboos against cannibalism are linked to culture. But RPGs in general and Golarion in particular are based on our common Western culture, in which cannibalism is a particularly heinous taboo, universally recognized as evil. Yes, we can conceive of cultures where this is not true, and there *may* be actual or historical cultures where the taboo against canibalism is articulated differently (depending on how accurately informed we are, oh ye junior anthropologists). However, in the eyes of the dominant western culture, these hypothetical cannibalistic societies are also evil.
You are really pushing this western culture stuff. Perhaps you should look into getting some multiculturalism in you.
"Western culture...universally recognized as evil"
I live in the West. I don't think cannibalism is inherently evil. Thus your statement couldn't possibly be correct.
Basically when you're dead, what happens to your body is pretty damn meaningless. What western culture or anyone thinks is irrelevant. Within the game, evil is defined as "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." Eating an already dead body to survive is neither debasing or destroying innocent life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the right answer there is obvious, since making deals with fiends is historically a bad idea.In my world, there will never be a situation where the morally correct thing to do is follow the advice of a fiend.
...unless.... they give you perfectly legitimate advice based on the idea that you will never follow it, since they are so untrustworthy.
DOUBLE DEMON BLUFF!
Also, Wheldrake, the comment about 'universally recognized in the West'.... we have brought up the situations where it is morally acceptable (survival cannibalism).
Besides certain famous cases, such as the Andres Flight Disaster or the Donner Party, I also brought up sailing in the beginning. Unfortunately, due the the harsh nature of 19th century sail and exploration.... things happened. It is referred to as the Custom of the Sea. It is the unspoken set of mores that people generally agreed upon, despite the fact that it did not necessarily agree with Maritime Law. And one of those is that, due to the low chance that a ship would pass by in time for all of them to survive.... people would draw lots to see who would be killed and eaten if they are stranded without supplies. This would allow the rest to survive a little longer, betting on the slim chance that help will come.
I remember watching some educational special about the Essex (which is the basis for Melville's Moby Dick), where such events took place. Can't remember the name of the special now (I suspect, through google-fu, that it is called The Essex: The True Story of Moby Dick, but it is hard to be sure) Anyway, check that out if you can to gain a better understanding of the kind of situations we are putting our hypothetical paladins into in this argument.
Not to say that it only happens in the sea. I mean, the Wendigo myth and associate psychosis appeared in North Eastern Native American cultures for a reason, but still, it seems like the easiest way to say 'no survival checks'.
Also, interesting note-now that I bothered going through wikipedia, apparently there is a distinction between endocannibalism (done to members within the community) and exocannibalism (done to members outside of the community.