|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, this isn't about necromancers creating undead, though that would probably be relevant to this conversation, too. That is still legal in PFS, isn't it?
In PFS play, I've had situations come up twice now where one of my characters wanted to do something with the bodies of dead, humanoid foes, and either the GM or other players at the table disapproved.
The first time, the PCs protected some peasants on the road from a group of tengu bandits. After killing the bandits, my character suggested cutting the bandits' heads off and putting them on sticks on the side of the road, as a warning to other bandits.
Some of the other players at the table disapproved. As I recall, at least one guy thought I was treating tengu more like animals than humanoids because of their avian nature, so he thought that I saw them as less than human. That's not it at all.
Bear in mind that my character involved in this was lawful neutral, bordering on good at the time. He has since shifted to lawful good (I've got a long, involved back story for this guy, explaining his alignment shifts, among other things). In a "lawless" frontier, this just seemed like an appropriate way to enforce civilized behavior - scare the area's bandits into giving up their evil ways. But the rest of the group didn't want to do that, so I just went along with the majority.
More recently, I played my new tiefling fighter/chef last night. Early in the scenario, we killed some wild animals, and my character made a point of applying his profession (chef) skill towards turning the remains into dinner for the group.
Later, we killed a monstrous humanoid foe (don't want to give away any spoilers, but it's a humanoid race that's not in the Advanced Race Guide). Once again, my character wanted to cook up the body, but the GM insisted that cannibalism is an evil act, so I couldn't do that in PFS without giving up the PC permanently. Since it was just a minor bit of RP on the side, I didn't push the point.
It should be noted that earlier in the scenario, we fought a different group of "probably evil" monstrous humanoids, and my character was the one who wanted to try talking to them first, but the rest of the party charged in swords drawn to just fight and kill them. How is killing enemies without even giving them a chance not evil, but not wanting their remains to go to waste considered evil?
Different societies have different social standards with regards to the remains of their dead, both in the real world and Golarion. If we were talking about the dead bodies of good people, I could see our PCs wanting to treat them with respect, and bring them back to their families for proper burial, cremation, or whatever that society does with them. But if it's someone evil enough that we've already judged them worthy of death, does it really make sense to draw the "evil" line in the sand at doing stuff to their bodies after they're dead?
Since I was planning to make this an ongoing RP quirk for my fighter/chef (he'll cook ANYTHING), I thought I'd ask the question before I play him again. What do the rest of you think? More important, what does campaign management (who I'm sure won't have time to look at this until at least a couple of weeks after GenCon) think?
|
The cannibalism = evil thing in Golarion is very well-established at this point. If you do some searches you shouldn't have *any* trouble finding the threads. I don't particularly agree with it, for most of the reasons you've mentioned, but there it is. (And where I do agree with it, I don't particularly agree with the working definition, which is cannibalism = eating flesh of sentient creatures. I have a gnome druid who vehemently argues that she is not a cannibal because she doesn't eat gnomes, only humans. Of course, she *is* evil, so the point doesn't really matter much.)
You have a little more of an argument with the head-on-a-stick thing. I think desecration of the dead is also defined as evil, but the definition of "desecration" may be a little more fluid. I personally would not have had a problem with a non-good character doing what you described, but I would not have argued against a GM who ruled it the way they did.
In our local group we also had a character who wanted to eat everything he killed. I've had him make Survival checks to properly clean the game, followed by a Cooking (or Survival) check for preparing it. Since he was trying to do this without actually *having* Survival (or Wisdom) his character ended up Sickened a few times, and eventually dropped the idea.
Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City
|
I can't say for sure, expect table variation, etc.; the usual rapport with something like this.
Personally, I could see RP reason where it'd come up. Perhaps a Shoanti PC who believes eating a part of a fallen strong foe allows him to grow stronger, or a half-orc fighter taking a trophy from something she just killed. At least this way you're honoring your foe versus potentially looking creepy (as the PC) and getting into the GM debate.
Other option would be to RP why you wouldn't cook the thing and save yourself the hassle, like 'Pfft, <redacted>? Too stringy and it will take too long to properly braise the meat.'
Since it provides no real game benefit other than drawing unnecessary attention from the GM, I'd just try to avoid the setup and have more time enjoy the game :)
EDIT: Also, even if the GM made the cannibalism/evil call, you usually still have until the end of the scenario to make an atonement to clear up the 'evil' condition barring the GM going full wantonly evil.
Also, as with anything with table variation, ask the GM ahead of time before the game begins and lighten up the RP as suggested above if he/she is against the idea.
|
No, this isn't about necromancers creating undead, though that would probably be relevant to this conversation, too. That is still legal in PFS, isn't it?
In PFS play, I've had situations come up twice now where one of my characters wanted to do something with the bodies of dead, humanoid foes, and either the GM or other players at the table disapproved.
I have two characters now that chop off the feet of slain enemies (and separating the pieces) - they both have experienced NPC animating the dead against them. Chopping off the feat doesn't stop that but it does make them slower. And after the last game, one of those characters also fills the body up with water (with create water).
sometimes people object - but then the circumstances of the why are spoken about (without spoilers) and then there are usually nods all around, except for the necromancers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I was planning to make this an ongoing RP quirk for my fighter/chef (he'll cook ANYTHING), I thought I'd ask the question before I play him again. What do the rest of you think? More important, what does campaign management (who I'm sure won't have time to look at this until at least a couple of weeks after GenCon) think?
In regards to the cannibalism, Mike has gone on record stating that drinking the blood of a fallen intelligent humanoid is an evil act, is it really all that far of a stretch to assume that eating the body would be too? (The drinking of the blood is why blood transcription was removed from play.)
In regards to the beheading of corpses, that's probably going to be more of a table to table thing. It made the table (and GM) uncomfortable, so evil or not stepping back was the right call. If the table and/or GM is against something like that, and going ahead it's not going to necessarily be wrong due to being evil, but breaking the underlying rule of don't be a... Not saying you would, as obviously you went along with the table, but just as a general sense of why it might be cool, even if it's not called out as evil.
Some tables may have no qualms with the medieval style warning left for the bandits, and that's fine too. I personally, don't think I'd have an issue with it...unless it appeared to be causing dissent or unease at the table.
|
It does depend on GM call on actions such as this. In an encounter I played in a year ago, the gm allowed my CN pc and another CN pc to use recently killed dire rats bodies to stop a swinging axe trap. Another said he would not have allowed it because he considers actions like that an evil act, no matter your current alignment.
Since pfs is more stringent on these things, a lot of GMs are more headstrong on things being done to dead bodies being evil acts.
It is easier to do things in homegames.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sentient creature is generally the line I see drawn, eating or enslaving or killing. You can see how the killing end goes, and enslaving in Golorian is not agreed upon. For the spiked bandits thing, I might suggest asking to make a KN (local) check to see if "Is it the local custom to spit a known bandit's head?" or something. It lets the group know your character thought of it, but is willing to follow customs.
We had a similar question last night come up when a character wanted to revive an opponent so he could kill it and restore his [panache/grit?] We all agreed it was an evil act.
(I do not see a chef venerating an opponent though.)
As far as chef, you can RP out of it as suggested above and still let your characterization come through. "And me all out of rosemary salt." or "Explore. Report. Cooperate, I guess I've no time to start a proper kettle then. What a waste." Or even ask the creature itself while it is still living, "Is it true what they say about your pancreas and the opposite sex? Have you tried ever tried [species]'s pancreas?"
I can't say for sure, expect table variation, etc.; the usual rapport with something like this.
Personally, I could see RP reason where it'd come up. Perhaps a Shoanti PC who believes eating a part of a fallen strong foe allows him to grow stronger ...
Interesting. One of my characters does almost exactly that ... his backstory is that his tribe has always done so, but only for enemies defeated in battle. And it's very definitely a play it by ear thing.
From a roleplaying standpoint, it's been great at some tables, I've dropped it at other tables where one of the players had an issue, and in some cases it didn't come up at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do people seriously have an issue with actions that were common in the middle ages? Putting heads on spits to warn off bandits is the /LEAST/ objectionable thing my character has done to EVIL NPCs. Perhaps my understanding of evil and PFS's understanding is different. Could someone link the 'drinking blood' and cutting on dead bodies is evil post / clarification?
S
|
|
I don't know if dismembering bodies of dead evil creatures/people is evil as you describe, but drinking the blood of or eating "sentient" creatures is evil.
I believe this is the post where the ruling was made.
It is evil. Please don't eat other sentient creatures dead bodies.
But more to the point of "using" blood
If cannibalism is evil, why is blood transcription allowed in PFS play?Good point. It will be removed as an option on the next additional resources update.
(As usual, would not mind being corrected for misquotes haha)
I think it would kind of depend on what you're doing with the body. Even putting the head on a pike is kind of toeing the line a bit.
inb4 animate dead argument.
While I don't personally have any issue with desecrating the dead, 'They did it in the middle ages!' is really not a very good stick against which to measure whether or not an action is evil. They did a lot of absolutely horrible, evil stuff in the middle ages commonly.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies. Because Pathfinders kill people when they don't have to at pretty much EVERY FRIGGIN TABLE.
Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes? How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to, or at least they should have tried talking to before killing them, even if it wouldn't have worked? Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people.
I can honestly say that in over 150 tables of playing/GMing PFS, I can't think of a single table where less than half the PCs did something that would be considered evil by 21st century moral standards. Yet, other stuff that has been considered not only non-evil, but sometimes downright honorable in certain societies, is considered evil in PFS.
|
|
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies. Because Pathfinders kill people when they don't have to at pretty much EVERY FRIGGIN TABLE.
I don't know, this mostly seemed to be hand waved at the end of the scenario. The hard part (in theory killing the BBEG) is done so the GM railroads the wrap up, hands out chronicles, does day job rolls, etc. What actually happens to the BBEG is not really covered.
In my experience, this gets covered somewhat inconsistently. If a PC goes out of their way to kill someone when it's not really called for, it's typically met with an alignment infraction (IE killing them after they surrender, killing when they're unconscious, etc). Nobody bats an eyelid when the NPC just sort of happens to incidentally die from excessive damage; nobody really seems to mind. I'm not sure if that even qualifies as "killing people when they don't have to."
Should they get penalized for it? I don't know. I think it's fine leaving the alignment infractions to putting in the effort to blatantly murder someone rather than just hitting them with the axe the one time that puts them over. Maybe going out of your way to chop up a body and put it on display is evil only because you made the conscious decision and effort to put your former foe on display to intimidate other would be evildoers.
The next question that comes to mind, as much as I'm going to regret bringing it up, is whether "dismemberment for piking" is more evil than desecrating a body with animate dead. I view animate dead as an "ends justify the means" sort of thing, but it seems odd to call it less evil on the "disrespect to the body" scale than dismemberment.
I don't think anybody would be too upset if you decided to enforce that at your tables as long as there was a warning that you'd actually pay attention to whether they kill people when they didn't have to. Advance warning goes a long way, people don't like surprises.
|
You say that your PC at the time was lawful neutral bordering on good. Since your behavior models that of the historical Vlad Teppes, I'd rethink that assumption.
Throughout history, many cultures have displayed the bodies or parts of the bodies of criminals and enemies of the state as a means of warning people of penalty for doing what these people did. Doing so, then, would normally be an inherently lawful act, not an inherently evil one. Vlad Teppes, if current history is to be believed, impaled people not only as a warning but because he got a sadistic joy out of it, and he did it in great excess and usually while they were still alive. So your comparison is invalid and smacks of the "Because Hitler Did It" Fallacy.
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies.
"Desecration," by definition means to violate the sanctity of something, which is certainly not a good act. I would argue, however, that desecration and dismemberment are not the same thing.
|
|
The next question that comes to mind, as much as I'm going to regret bringing it up, is whether "dismemberment for piking" is more evil than desecrating a body with animate dead. I view animate dead as an "ends justify the means" sort of thing, but it seems odd to call it less evil on the "disrespect to the body" scale than dismemberment.
I would argue that posting of a bandit's head on a pike or cutting the hand off of a thief or leaving a hanged man up for a week to demonstrate that crimes of this type are not to be tolerated is then ends justifying the means, alot more so than raising someones entire body with unholy energies to fight for you before casting them aside where they fall rather than returning them to their proper resting place.
My character is a very 'ends justify the means' kind of guy, so breaking an enemy with pain or sending a message to the society's enemies that their attacks will not go unpunished or even showing the true price you pay for being a slaver in my sight is /very/ justified.
Again, not a good action but not really an evil one. That is what Neutral is all about. One act does not make a good man evil or vis versa, it even mentions that one way of playing true neutral is to not favor good over evil or evil over good.
That is one of the issues I have with alignment; noone acts the same way every moment of every day. It should be an indication of how the character acts over all, including intention, not a iron clad rule that is not to be broken.
S.
|
|
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies. Because Pathfinders kill people when they don't have to at pretty much EVERY FRIGGIN TABLE.
Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes? How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to, or at least they should have tried talking to before killing them, even if it wouldn't have worked? Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people.
I can honestly say that in over 150 tables of playing/GMing PFS, I can't think of a single table where less than half the PCs did something that would be considered evil by 21st century moral standards. Yet, other stuff that has been considered not only non-evil, but sometimes downright honorable in certain societies, is considered evil in PFS.
"Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes?" (raises hand) I do darling, and though I consider myself "extremely good" that has noting to do with alignment (mine is C/N). I do often say "Don't kill them! They're worth more alive..."
"How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to,..." I always talk. I love to talk. I am "extremely good" at talking. I have talked past many "fights"...
"Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people." I do regularly roll my eyes about it... and will point out that the Cheliaxian PC (me) is avoiding killing them... In fact, I have never done an HP of damage to anything other than myself (currently level 11.2).
I do though have a problem with doing things that some people consider evil... I am a courtesan by profession, which means my "day" job rolls sometimes get labeled "evil" by judges...
|
|
Just to be clear, in my original example of my LN character wanting to put a bandit head on a stick to warn future bandits, nobody at the table said it was evil. It didn't happen because the rest of the group didn't go along with it, so I didn't push the issue, but I don't think the word "evil" ever actually entered into the conversation.
And I totally agree with trollbill on this one. The comparison to Vlad the Impaler is inappropriate. My character was trying to find a way to enforce law and protect the innocent in a chaotic frontier area. IIRC, we even took some of those bandits captive and didn't kill them - the displayed bandit heads would only have come from the ones who happened to die during combat.
On the other hand, my fighter/chef character not wanting the meat to go to waste after killing a monstrous humanoid was told outright by the GM that cannibalism is an evil act, so I can't do that in PFS.
As for my more recent comment about Pathfinders killing people they don't have to, I didn't mean situations where you knock the bad guys down to below their negative con score with the last hit. I'm talking about the guys you knock down to -2 HP and then let bleed to death, which probably happens at least once in 90% or more of PFS sessions.
Or all of the many times I've seen Pathfinders say "Screw talking to these guys - let's just kill them!" That's happened at both of my last two tables, among many, MANY others. Apparently, "because they're kobolds", "because they're goblins", and "because they're troglodytes" is a good enough reason to kill people without an alignment infraction. Even the Order of the Stick knows that's not right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do people seriously have an issue with actions that were common in the middle ages?
I tend to view Pathfinder as a contemporary world that lacks mass production and uses magic in place of technology. The social issues they deal with are widely varied, yet seem relatable to the player base. The monarchy in Golarion tends to act like modern governments rather than behead a peasant that doesn't bow types. There appears to be a middle class mentality with merchants and craftsmen.
In short, I think the Golarion setting has more in common with the player's current society than it does with Europe's middle ages past. The PCs just get by with magic items and spells rather than carry firearms and drive cars.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that intent and perception plays a role on if something is an evil act. For example I have a tiefling barbarian/monk who is as dumb as a bag of rocks. During that same scenario with the Tengu bandits, he thought that they were being attached by giant chickens, having never seen or heard of Tengus before. Afterwards, he started to cook and eat the big chickens until someone explained to him that they were people. After that he was really mad at the chicken people for looking too much like chickens and not enough like people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does depend on GM call on actions such as this. In an encounter I played in a year ago, the gm allowed my CN pc and another CN pc to use recently killed dire rats bodies to stop a swinging axe trap. Another said he would not have allowed it because he considers actions like that an evil act, no matter your current alignment.
Seriously -- A GM considered it an evil act to use the corpses of animals (not humanoids, and not pets) to disable a trap? I am surprised he didn't ding you just for killing them. I wouldn't want to play with that GM.
|
|
Do people seriously have an issue with actions that were common in the middle ages?I tend to view Pathfinder as a contemporary world that lacks mass production and uses magic in place of technology. The social issues they deal with are widely varied, yet seem relatable to the player base. The monarchy in Golarion tends to act like modern governments rather than behead a peasant that doesn't bow types. There appears to be a middle class mentality with merchants and craftsmen.
In short, I think the Golarion setting has more in common with the player's current society than it does with Europe's middle ages past. The PCs just get by with magic items and spells rather than carry firearms and drive cars.
I think it is more of a mix. Certainly Golarion's take on slavery is not contemporary.
|
|
Personally, with at least some reasoning I probably wouldn't consider either act evil. Heads on pikes (the reasoning would probably be for the rest of the table I get it). The sticky point may be humanoid though good meat going to waste is a shame (as long as you aren't completely spotlight hogging with it I'm not gonna have a problem generally)
On the other hand a GM I like and know well says a CdG is an inherently evil act. On a mindless creature or a demon that just tried to eat your face still evil. So I would imagine that both of these acts would unquestionably be evil by his standards
As with everything in PFS expect table variation.
|
|
Do people seriously have an issue with actions that were common in the middle ages?I tend to view Pathfinder as a contemporary world that lacks mass production and uses magic in place of technology. The social issues they deal with are widely varied, yet seem relatable to the player base. The monarchy in Golarion tends to act like modern governments rather than behead a peasant that doesn't bow types. There appears to be a middle class mentality with merchants and craftsmen.
In short, I think the Golarion setting has more in common with the player's current society than it does with Europe's middle ages past. The PCs just get by with magic items and spells rather than carry firearms and drive cars.
I understand and respect that this is the way you and your character view the Pathfinder world; but to punish a character/player in what is a high fantasy and almost by definition a medieval world for doing acts that until 100 years ago in the US and presently in much of the world is absurd. I get the possible social punishment from those in your group, NPC's etc. That is RP and I /never/ turn down good RP; but for a GM who may or may not have even 10 scenarios under his or her belt and in my experience still have issues with rules that are spelled out in black and white in the core book to put their own moral compass on a situation and cost me PP for an atonement with a high hand is unacceptable.
S.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wha.. Wait,
Are you saying we can't eat dragons we have killed?
I mean, its only cannibalism if it's your own race. If an awakened evil intelligent dolphin gets killed, I'm eating it.
I don't buy sentience as a moral indicator.
If you as a GM tell me, I can't eat a monster, because it's "intelligent" I'm going to laugh at you and bust out the grill. Because Trolls are good eating. Dragon flank steaks are delicious, and green slime jello will clear up just about any type of constipation you have.
All of it. Delicious.
Yum!
|
|
I'm pretty sure he meant humanoids or native outsiders... But I'm unsure?
No clarification was made in that post about what is meant by sentient.
But yeah, I've seen a couple of instances where someone will kill a dragon and then go off and buy some sort of dragonhide armor as flavor, and nobody cares. Don't see why eating a dragon would be bad, unless it was a good dragon? Hm.
Too many corner cases!
|
|
I'm pretty sure he meant humanoids or native outsiders... But I'm unsure?
No clarification was made in that post about what is meant by sentient.
But yeah, I've seen a couple of instances where someone will kill a dragon and then go off and buy some sort of dragonhide armor as flavor, and nobody cares. Don't see why eating a dragon would be bad, unless it was a good dragon? Hm.
Too many corner cases!
Dragonhide armor isn't flavor. It's an actual game item, and there are specific reasons why it's the best type of armor for certain characters.
My barbarian keeping the head of every dragon he's ever killed, gotten them stuffed, and mounted them on the walls of his home back in Absalom is flavor.
|
|
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies. Because Pathfinders kill people when they don't have to at pretty much EVERY FRIGGIN TABLE.
Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes? How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to, or at least they should have tried talking to before killing them, even if it wouldn't have worked? Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people.
I can honestly say that in over 150 tables of playing/GMing PFS, I can't think of a single table where less than half the PCs did something that would be considered evil by 21st century moral standards. Yet, other stuff that has been considered not only non-evil, but sometimes downright honorable in certain societies, is considered evil in PFS.
I understand and agree the majority of people are like this. I have one character that is a murder hobo and kills easily. Every other one of my characters makes an effort to not kill people if they do not have to.
I find my usually characters apallment usually deters other murder hobos.
My CN barbarian has been known to use the fallen bodies of his enemies as the party rogue, if a living one isn't already present.
It's only practical.
:)
-j
|
|
I'm still lost as to how killing people is considered less evil than desecrating their bodies. Because Pathfinders kill people when they don't have to at pretty much EVERY FRIGGIN TABLE.
Other than a player intentionally role playing their PC as extremely good, when was the last time you saw a group of Pathfinders stabilize fallen foes? How often have adventurers gone in swinging to fight enemies that could have been talked to, or at least they should have tried talking to before killing them, even if it wouldn't have worked? Yet no one ever gets called out for being evil when they kill those sentient people.
I can honestly say that in over 150 tables of playing/GMing PFS, I can't think of a single table where less than half the PCs did something that would be considered evil by 21st century moral standards. Yet, other stuff that has been considered not only non-evil, but sometimes downright honorable in certain societies, is considered evil in PFS.
I haven't yet read any of the responses after this, but I wanted to say. My CG fighter1/cleric(the rest) constantly does this. I always try to stabilize fallen opponents (only after combat). Even get them back on their feet if they're not particularly bad. There was one fight where I healed the big bad guy (he was just bitter, not really bad) after he was down) then one of my party members hit him again. So I turned and said "someone keep him away" and healed him again. Now that I think about it this probably could have been an evil act on his part but the GM didn't say anything and I didn't know anything as it was only my second game. And we've talked others into stabilizing fallen foes--it really just depends on the NPCs. Depending on the scenario we usually leave them there, though. That being said, I also would have fully supported your heads-on-a-pike idea.
As to your first point about "eating anything". The GM has to give you a warning about something being evil before you commit the act (this is for PFS since this is the PFS forum). So go ahead and try and eat whatever you want. I don't know if something like a yeti counts as humanoid, but I'd try to eat it given the right character. If he doesn't warn you, he either has to go with it or give you a chance to rewind it. (unless he's already warned you about similar actions a bunch already, then he'd be within his right to hit you with an alignment shift)
There was another case where the druid in our party wanted to try healing a, uh, some kind of wild cat thing (leopard, lion, pather..I dont' remember) and doing his, uh..animal coercion thing... (you can tell how much I play druids..) Before he had a chance I coup de graced it because the GM said its pelt was worth money. Of course, I didn't consider the fact that the GM would have been obligated to give us the gold at another time. But I definitely wouldn't call that a "good" act. That was definitely the murderhobo coming out in me.
p.s. No
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is yet another case where people are far too quick to label something taboo or distasteful or "squicky" as being evil. As has been said, "not good" does not mean it is automatically "evil" in an environment where there are 3 moral alignments and the vast majority of people would fall in the middle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having consulted the scripture (Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness) I have determined that the following are evil:
- Necrophilia
- Animating the dead
- Creating undead
- Cannibalism
- Damning or harming souls
- using the dead bodies to bring despair to others (e.g. parading their staked heads in front of their family homes)
Other things you do with dead bodies are not evil.