Is vengeful mutilation evil?


Advice

Liberty's Edge

The story is that, I'm playing an abberant bloodrager who gained those powers through failed drow fleshwarping experiments.

Now he is the minimum age for a half-orc (14) and most of the time he speaks in broken english and tends to be very nice to people.
He however suffers from nightmares of these experiments, think needles,blood and other unsavory things.

If he runs into one of the drow that performed these experiments, he would obviously lose it but my question is : after the interrogation(if still alive) could my NG bloodrager vengefully mutilate the drow to death and remain good or neutral?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't call vengeance in any form good. At the very best it might ride the line between neutral and evil. Mutilating people while they're still alive is very evil. Doing it after they're dead, maybe not. It depends on what the character believe about the afterlife, and on the effect it is likely to have on others who witness the mutilation.

However, in this context it really doesn't matter what I think. This is something you'll have to ask your GM about.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As you're describing it, yes, it's probably an evil act. At the very best it's not good. But, so what? It's appropriate for your character, and a single evil act shouldn't shift your alignment, and even if it did, you are a bloodrager. There are no alignment restrictions on your class.

The real fun is where do you go from there? Do you feel remorse for sinking as low as your oppressors? You you feel empowered by it and develop a taste for torture? Do you embrace that or go back to what you know?

These are life events, don't feel constrained by what's written on your sheet. Real life is very hard to fit into nine boxes.


Depends. Losing it is fine for a neutral character. Vengefully mutilate is a no-no for any sort of good, though a murder may be forgiven.

Effectively: a slow mutilation implies he's enjoying it or receiving some satisfaction in the act. this is not any form of righteous anger, this is drawn out and evil in nature. A Rant, a sworn oath and a relatively quick murder is also technically evil (assuming an already helpless foe) but can be forgiven given the backstory.

Batts


What god do they worship? I tend not to view this from a moral perspective because then it's just a lengthy debate. So please just answer what god and let me do some research into how they may feel about it to see whether or not atonement is needed.


As noted, revenge is generally not a "good-aligned" impulse. But alignment shifts don't actually happen from acting "out of line" like that.

Think of alignment as a scatter plot of your character's behavior. All characters are individual, sentient beings, and have a plethora of emotions, impulses, desires, and opinions, which can change and fluctuate as circumstance and time changes. Your alignment, then, is the general trend between all these different moments, these points of behavioral data.

So you are playing a Neutral Good character. well, there's nothing COMPELLING him towards neutral good-trending behavior. it's just how he generally acts, and that cna change in a moment, as circumstances do. so, this guy finds a Drow, and flips his lid. he takes it down, and tortures it, mutilates it like you describe.

Is revenge a good motive? No, it's inherently selfish and usually violently enacted agaisnt others, and is clearly an evil impulse. But this hasn't been the focus of the character, this drive for vengeance. It's something that might pop up, now and again. if he dedicated his life to exacting vengeance on drow, he'd likely have shifted towards Evil.

Torture too, is an evil - and in most circumstances chaotic - ct. It defies bounds of law and common decency, does nothing but cuase suffering, and usually for the personal pleasure of the sadist conducting hte torture. It's evuil, unquestionably. But does your character make a habit of it? probably not, right?

So, your neutral good character does this and... and what then? Is he horrified by what he's done/ Disgusted? remorseful in some way? If so, his "Good" impulse is still there, still domiannt, and he's had a personal failing, a dark moment in his life, which in a world like Golarion (or any other medieval fantasy world) isn't unexpected for anyone. Depending on how tight-fisted the DM is, he might have to Atone, if he has class powers that rely on good alignment, but his actual alignment probably doesn't shift.

But what if hr had no regrets, what if he enjoyed it? What if the rush of power he felt makes him want to do it gain, to continue a war of revenge against drow/ well... then not only has he committed evil acts, but he is unrepentant about htem and is actively embracing them. THAT will pull his alignment towards evil. later down the road, he might realize the error of his ways and wobble back towards good, who knows?

[/i]Most likely[/i], your character would be pretty upset at what he's found himself doing there. He's neutral good after ll, that's the way he would most logically sing. But... this is totally up to you, the player. Maybe you want him to swing towards evil. or maybe just neutral, "It was this drow. This time. I won't apologize." Or maybe even he swaps on the law-chaos scale, even! Sure, what he did was wrong... but... no one else was there to help him. people need to look out for themselves! (chaotic good) or maybe... mutilating the elf was fine by you, but on hind sight, maybe it should have been the local baron who does it (he probably has a professional torturer, after all) - Lawful evil.

all up to you


Expect table variation. You really need to speak with your gm personally, because this likely has a wide range of what may happen to you. Personally, i may consider this more on the law/chaos axis personally, I'd need to know more of your back story to be sure. Loosing control (whole generally nice and good) to someone that tortured you in grotesque ways for years may very simply be a snapping moment. But that's just me, a lot of gms will certainly see this as a good/Evil issue and how quickly they cause an alignment shift (if even ever) will vary as well.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reid Richter wrote:
...If he runs into one of the drow that performed these experiments, he would obviously lose it but my question is: after the interrogation (if [the drow is] still alive) could my NG bloodrager vengefully mutilate the drow to death and remain good or neutral?

You (the player) presumably aren't uncomfortable with the idea of the character's actions, but you may want to double-check with your fellow players - this act might make you "one of them" from the viewpoint of other PCs and seriously stress the cohesion of your adventuring party. In general, it's not good to be the guy whose actions break up the party: it'd be good manners to either foreshadow your actions in-character or give the other players an out-of-character warning, depending on your table's style.

Dark Archive

Speak with DM, if you're going by Golarion rules then no revenge is not inherently evil. Ragathiel is an angel who has vengeance as part of his portfolio, and the obedience for him is killing someone who broke the law or committed an evil act. Therefore vengeance is not inherently evil from a setting standpoint.(Just an aside, angels tend to be lawful good and Ragathiel is. His father may not be/have been an upstanding citizen being a demon lord and all, but he is still good.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Reid Richter wrote:
...If he runs into one of the drow that performed these experiments, he would obviously lose it but my question is: after the interrogation (if [the drow is] still alive) could my NG bloodrager vengefully mutilate the drow to death and remain good or neutral?
You (the player) presumably aren't uncomfortable with the idea of the character's actions, but you may want to double-check with your fellow players - this act might make you "one of them" from the viewpoint of other PCs and seriously stress the cohesion of your adventuring party. In general, it's not good to be the guy whose actions break up the party: it'd be good manners to either foreshadow your actions in-character or give the other players an out-of-character warning, depending on your table's style.

And also, note that it's not just about how the other characters might feel about your character: For many tables, explicit torture and similar is just not something that's appropriate for the table. It might make other players - not just characters - very uncomfortable.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Reid Richter wrote:
...If he runs into one of the drow that performed these experiments, he would obviously lose it but my question is: after the interrogation (if [the drow is] still alive) could my NG bloodrager vengefully mutilate the drow to death and remain good or neutral?
You (the player) presumably aren't uncomfortable with the idea of the character's actions, but you may want to double-check with your fellow players - this act might make you "one of them" from the viewpoint of other PCs and seriously stress the cohesion of your adventuring party. In general, it's not good to be the guy whose actions break up the party: it'd be good manners to either foreshadow your actions in-character or give the other players an out-of-character warning, depending on your table's style.
And also, note that it's not just about how the other characters might feel about your character: For many tables, explicit torture and similar is just not something that's appropriate for the table. It might make other players - not just characters - very uncomfortable.

While, sure, you are right this brings up another problem: Would the others ask before playing their pc as they see it? If you ask them and the answer is: Don't do this and later another player does something that you, as a player, feel uncompfortable, how will that be for you?


expect to fall from grace if paladin.
if bloodrager though? /shrug

a single event CAN change your alignment (i walk into the village and slaughter the children) but alignment system is a bit hit or miss either way.

Just do what it feels right FOR YOUR CHARACTER and let him evolve through that.

He may feel remorse, even sickened by the experience, he may delight on it, he may decide that dancing over the mutilated corpse is fun, why does it matter what the alignment box say?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definitely expect table variation. IMO:

Hurting someone for the sake of hurt is an evil act, regardless of whether it's made sympathetic by circumstances and backstory. "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.... Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Good in PF gets some leeway to hurt Evil but this is typically done in order to protect innocents from Evil. The only good-aligned revenge is "I will stop you so that others don't suffer as I have suffered." That doesn't sound like what you're describing.

That said, good characters can absolutely mess up and do evil things and a neutral character can even engage in petty evils like most forms of revenge pretty regularly. Whether the act causes an immediate alignment shift depends on how brutal or casual it is. I can see a good character cutting off the hand that tortured him in a fit of anger but I can't see him pulling out someone's fingernails one by one. Where the line is drawn is pretty subjective so talk to your GM. I would not knock your character all the way to evil for this unless there are lasting effects on your character's behavior.

Helcack wrote:
Speak with DM, if you're going by Golarion rules then no revenge is not inherently evil. Ragathiel is an angel who has vengeance as part of his portfolio, and the obedience for him is killing someone who broke the law or committed an evil act. Therefore vengeance is not inherently evil from a setting standpoint.(Just an aside, angels tend to be lawful good and Ragathiel is. His father may not be/have been an upstanding citizen being a demon lord and all, but he is still good.)

First, Angels are good with no preference as a whole for law vs chaos. Ragathiel happens to be LG. Second, Ragathiel's father is an archdevil, not a demon lord. Third, while it's true that Ragathiel proves revenge is not incompatible with a strongly good alignment, his write-up makes it clear that his drives aren't entirely pure: "Ragathiel's tainted heritage has left him with a wrathful heart, and the angel struggles constantly to master his baser impulses in service to the light." Which of course is part of what makes him interesting as an empyreal lord, but it suggests that good characters seeking revenge are at the least playing with fire.

My2Copper wrote:
While, sure, you are right this brings up another problem: Would the others ask before playing their pc as they see it? If you ask them and the answer is: Don't do this and later another player does something that you, as a player, feel uncompfortable, how will that be for you?

In this event the appropriate response is to talk OOC to the player who made you uncomfortable and say "Remember how I decided not to revenge-torture that drow because it made Player X uncomfortable? I'd like you to return the favour by not making me uncomfortable at table." It's sometimes a good idea to establish ground rules about what players are or are not OK with before a game starts - especially if what would make you uncomfortable is non-obvious (for example, you're really creeped out by Charm Person). If OP's group hasn't done this already, now's a good time.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is vengeful mutilation evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.