|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This actually doesn't work, as it changes the meaning of the statement. Killing them for 'no reason at all' would, at least debatably, no longer count with this wording, while it clearly does in the original. This wording would make things less clear, not more.or less formally
"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for no reason other than personal gain."
Obviously, I disagree. I would interpret this statement to mean that personal profit is the only acceptable reason, not that it's a required reason. I do however see that "no reason other than" is often used conversationally with the second meaning. So I would recommend perhaps "for no reason other than personal gain or satisfaction." I think this actually more accurately represents the type of killings meant to be included than "no reason at all" because as I pointed out upthread "no reason" would rule out killings performed out of petty vengeance ("he insulted me") or pure sadism ("I like to see people bleed"). Both of these are reasons to kill, if unjustifiable ones.
Note how I said 'in conversational English' in regards to my assertion. I'm well aware of the rules of formal logic, thanks. I just don't agree that those are the standards that should necessarily apply here.
And, for the record, I'm fine with getting it via the backgrounds as a non-Evil character (that's pretty explicitly rules-allowed), I just abhor intentional misreadings of the clear intent of a bit of text in order to utilize loopholes.
The thing about conversational English is it has layers. You have what the text actually says, and then what we infer about its meaning from context or likely intent, like in this case the title "Innocent Blood."
Many of the people arguing that an executioner could take this feat agree that it probably isn't the intent - but believe that reading what the text actually says without the associations created by the title results in interesting story opportunities. (If this were called "Practiced Killer" I think there would be less resistance to the idea that an executioner could qualify.) Personally, I think that since the ultimate intent of the story feat is to create story, it is reasonable to consider all possible stories that a feat could create rather than just the ones that the designers were thinking of at the time they wrote it.
Obviously you don't have to agree with me. But I don't appreciate the implication that I'm somehow immoral (as some posters have implied) or at least engaging in "complete b$!&$#~!" because we're assigning different weight to the different layers of meaning in this feat.
My point is all three of these examples show how this feat is applied and meant to be used. The man who killed the cop would have fulfilled the feat requirements. And you still want to call this feat good? So you have no problem about these people doing all these things. You can seemingly justify their actions?
We're not calling the feat good. We're saying it doesn't have to be evil if you read the title as a suggestion rather than a requirement.
I want to underline this again, because "cause" is the ambiguous word in the feat.
Cause in this context can mean either:
- A reason for doing something.
or
- A movement or higher ideal someone believes in.
"Killing someone because they're a slaver and you hate slavers and you want to do away with slavery entirely" is killing someone for a cause in the second sense. "Killing someone because they looked at you funny, or you found them rifling through your stuff, or they cheated you at cards" is killing someone for a cause in the first sense. "I don't like people stealing from me" is not exactly a goal, movement, or ideal.
So how you look at this feat probably cleaves on how you're choosing to read "cause" in the wording of the feat. There are plenty of reasons for killing someone that aren't instances of a greater ideal or calling. Killing someone in their sleep because they murdered a family member of yours is probably more on the shady side of neutral than purely evil, after all. It shouldn't make a huge difference alignment wise whether you hacked their head off with an axe, you smothered them with a pillow, or you poisoned them, you're still killing someone who's asleep.
It's an extreme stretch to put it on a good character, but a neutral character who went on a spree of bloody revenge for being wronged somehow is fine. The question is simply whether the neutral character who went on a spree of bloody revenge is eligible for the feat. Which is really a function of how you choose to read the qualifications, as they are worded ambiguously.
It's actually quite easy to put it on a Good character if you assume that they don't kill people for no reason anymore.
I thought I had made it clear earlier, sorry if I haven't, the PC fully intends to kill an additional 200 people, minimum. He isn't reformed, it isn't his background, he considers whomever he killed in his backstory as a starting point.
In that case, probably evil. Or heavily Lawful.
What's his backstory exactly? Maybe we can help flesh that out and help you find a compromise where he's still a moderately decent person (Neutral at worst) and you can provide the chance for him to build his personal skull throne without sliding down to 'NPC heroes appear now and then to try and defeat you' levels of evil.
You know what?
Play this smart.
Let him start neutral. If he starts acting evil, he turns evil. Case-by-case basis. No sense debating hypothetical possibilities here. If you aren't comfortable GMing for such a PC, make it clear to him beforehand that a serious moral slide will lead to his character becoming an NPC.
|
Note how I said 'in conversational English' in regards to my assertion. I'm well aware of the rules of formal logic, thanks. I just don't agree that those are the standards that should necessarily apply here.
The only difference in the use of the word "or" in conversational English vs. logic is that in conversational English it is sometimes an exclusive or. Since my conclusions are equally valid if the or is exclusive or inclusive, I do not think your complaint has much merit.
|
|
Again, I think you need a refresher (or perhaps a course) in logic. (As an aside, as a mid 40's Ph.D. mathematician, I regret that geometry is no longer taught in high school with all of the logical rules that it used to be.As a mid 40's Ph.D. mathematician, you should be aware that suggesting people disagree with you because they lack education is poor form.
Ouch!
That feat is absolutely evil. 50 innocent people killed to further your own personal gain or for no reason at all? Yeah...Well, a lawful neutral, sworn to his lord, ordered to kill a small village of peasants (effectively noncombatants), or if you will imagine, the female and children of a humanoid (gnoll, orc, kobold) tribe whose combatants had been acting as raiders and had been slain. Might, just might, not count as evil.
Eh, that's a pretty questionable area. Also, with the exception of orcs, females of a tribe aren't any more likely to be noncombatants than males—especially with gnolls, who are matriarchal, and kobolds, who have no real gender boundaries that I know of (everyone can be fodder!).
If the setting is a "monsters are universally pure evil with no exceptions at all nuh-uh no", killing noncombatants is fine—they'd just grow up to be killers, or slip poison into wells, or that sort of thing. But most settings are a bit more gray on that.
Your post seems liable to escalate this thread into another big tangential argument.
Many of the people arguing that an executioner could take this feat agree that it probably isn't the intent - but believe that reading what the text actually says without the associations created by the title results in interesting story opportunities. (If this were called "Practiced Killer" I think there would be less resistance to the idea that an executioner could qualify.) Personally, I think that since the ultimate intent of the story feat is to create story, it is reasonable to consider all possible stories that a feat could create rather than just the ones that the designers were thinking of at the time they wrote it.
To anyone who doubts this, would yell at a player because they decided to take the feat "Hammer the Gap", who only ever wielded axes?
Who would yell at a player for taking "Clustered Shots", for a backstory that doesn't involve being a drunken Irishman (or insert equally horrible racial stereotype here. I am willing to offend everyone equally, in this case :P)
There are hundreds of feats in Pathfinder and the precursor of 3.5, and the rules text has always been the controlling language, and not the name of the feat. - Who here hasn't looked at the name of the feat, or the flavor text and thought to themselves "Awesome!" only to find it was neutered in the actual rules language?
I want to underline this again, because "cause" is the ambiguous word in the feat.
Cause in this context can mean either:
- A reason for doing something.
or
- A movement or higher ideal someone believes in.
I can see taking that tack, but even with taking that tack it, applying this standard works out to be the same. Either the feat is open to everyone who can meat one of the criteria or it restricts everyone from qualifying for the feat, because no one could ever possibly qualify.
Reductio ad absurdum:
1) If you want to completely exclude "fighting for a cause" in the 1st definition, it is silly. It is completely impossible to divorce action from a reason for taking the action.
Question: "Why didn't he kill Bobby instead of Sue"
Answer: "Well, you see, Sue lives three miles away and Bobby happened to be within convenient choking distance."
Question: "Why did he kill gate guard?"
Answer: "He was in the way."
See? Silly, and impossible to divorce the action from all contributing factors that constitute 'a reason for action'.
2) If you want to completely exclude "fighting for a cause" in the 2nd definition, this is equally silly. The Orc known as 'War Pig' fights for money. However, 'War Pig' is hired on behalf of a patron that fights for <insert righteous cause here>. Since 'War Pig' is fighting for this patron, he is therefore also fighting on behalf of this same righteous cause. Thusly: 'War Pig' cannot have the benefit of this feat, because he is fighting for a cause.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Now, I've read over this feat, and is there ANY WAY this isn't deep into evil territory? You're going around killing helpless people, you can't really justify that as even arguably neutral, can you?
@nennafir & @PossibleCabbage (and others, like myself, who were focusing on the wording when framing their arguments) - I couldn't resist taking another stab at the argument from the logical point of view. However, I am now going tot rack back to the original intent of the thread.
The OP basically wanted to make sure that a character taking this feat wouldn't immediately derail his campaign by introducing a chaotic evil scourge.
I think we've managed to prove that it is quite possible for there to be an interpretation that works with every possible alignment - regardless of whether or not we (as individuals) have to say in terms of morality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay I know I gave my viewpoint a bit more succinctly earlier on in this thread. Counter points have arisen and I feel the need to break this feat down and explain exactly why I view this as 'evil' only.
(Story)
With their deaths, the pitiful wretches that inhabit this world open your path to greatness.
Right off the bat, the theme of this story feat suggests using the lives of others as a stepping stone to your own personal glory. Do you think of LG or even TN characters when you read this? I do not.
You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at all, or have the Bloodthirsty, First Kill, or The Kill background.
Obviously the original prereq seems morally questionable. You are seeking out people who mean you no harm and taking their lives. This is a vital part of your character's narrative. How many neutral or good aligned characters do you know of that go out of their way to take the lives of this many noncombatants during the course of a campaign? How many DM's do you know that would allow that character to maintain a neutral or good alignment while doing so?
Then we come across some alternative prereqs: Bloodthirsty, First Kill, and The Kill Background. Lets take a look at those!
The first time you spilled a deserving foe's blood and watched the thing's life ebb out onto the hard ground, you found yourself filled with a mad, euphoric ecstasy like none other. The memory of this visceral experience returns to you in every battle, like an insatiable addiction that can only be abated with further bloodshed. You gain access to the Bloodthirsty combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
Okay so you don't have to kill 50 noncombatants to qualify for this feat. The initial victim may have even been deserving. But the very description states that taking a life is the one thing that fulfills you more than anything else. Killing is your drug. Sound like a Lawful good character? Sound like a Neutral character? My vote goes no.
You killed someone when you were relatively young. You might have done it in self-defense, in anger, or as part of an initiation ritual, and it was easier than you suspected. Afterward, some individuals or groups started paying you to kill for them, and you made a lucrative career of assassination. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
Okay so you only killed one person. And you liked it! So much so that you made a career out of it. You are an Assassin for hire. Evil by definition. Not much more to say.
You've had blood on your hands since your youth, when you first took the life of another creature. Whether this act repulsed you or gave you pleasure, it was a formative experience. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
Okay so here is at least ONE possible prerequisite that doesn't require you to be a murderhobo right off the bat! One concrete background that leaves the door open to the possibility that you may be repentant for what you've done! I call this Progress! (With a capital P for some reason)
Now on to the Benefit...
You gain a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in Intimidate, this bonus increases to +4. Each time you slay an intelligent creature, you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute (this bonus does not stack with itself).
You are a scary guy.. This doesn't necessarily make you evil. You could generally flavor the 'getting a rush from defeating a foe' part as the adrenaline that any warrior could experience. However, since the 'intelligent creature' definition does not discriminate between a CR 20 Balor or a CR 0 newborn baby in a crib, a character can benefit from this from killing either. Taking lives gives you bonuses. Pretty straight forward.
Slay at least 200 more intelligent noncombatants, then slay a challenging foe that seeks to either bring you to justice for your crimes or usurp your position.
Here, we come to another problem. Even assuming you took the ONE character background that allowed you to avoid the initial murder spree, you now have incentive to similarly kill TWO HUNDRED noncombatants. This means you are actively seeking out people who mean you no legitimate harm and ending their lives either just for the sake of doing so, or because you benefit directly from their deaths (Kill and take their stuff, kill them because they inconvenienced you in some way). You are taking the lives of people who would either not take up arms against you, or lack the means or doing so.
As if Fifty people wasn't bad enough... Can you honestly say that you remember a non evil character that went out of their way to kill TWO HUNDRED noncombatants over the course of a campaign? It's a real stretch. This is a feat that rewards you for looking for fights where there would be none, otherwise. Causing undue suffering and death. That is evil.
As for those who make the 'executioner' argument seem to have a good point. Although executioners generally kill to serve a justice system. Even if this justice system is corrupt and vile, you are serving a cause other than your own by performing the killings in this manner. Or you could say the guy just took the job for the money. "Nothing personal guy. But my wallet gets fatter when your head rolls." Remind you of anyone? (looking at you Assassin)
This leads me back to the feat description: "With their deaths, the pitiful wretches that inhabit this world open your path to greatness." You are using the deaths of noncombatants as a stepping stone for your personal benefit and for no other reason. You do not value the life of another person enough to even come close to regretting your actions. This is something you could do TWO HUNDRED TIMES and never bat an eye. In fact this is something you WANT to do TWO HUNDRED TIMES. It is your personal goal to take the lives of two hundred people who would have otherwise done real harm to you.
And for this murderhobo achievement, you get:
Any shaken creature takes double the normal penalties when attacking you, making saves against your abilities, or resolving skill checks with you as a target.
Assuming you fulfilled the ONE entry requirement that would leave the door open for you initially being non-evil aligned.. Can you honestly say that non evil alignment would even be a remote possibility after you have acquired this 'Completion Benefit'? I would say certainly not.
I think whether you can start the feat without being evil and whether you can finish the feat without being evil are different questions.
If the player can come up with a plausible explanation for why they have so much blood on their hands, then they can take the feat. Then if they want to stay non-evil, it's a roleplaying challenge to resolve out how to balance their code of ethics with their killing spree.
But if you can kill one intelligent non-combatant for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act, it should be possible to kill 200 intelligent non-combatants for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act. Simply repeating the exculpatory circumstances of the first time 199 more times should be sufficient.
Assuming you fulfilled the ONE entry requirement that would leave the door open for you initially being non-evil aligned.. Can you honestly say that non evil alignment would even be a remote possibility after you have acquired this 'Completion Benefit'? I would say certainly not
Yes, actually. I'm not saying that being Evil (with a capital 'E')doesn't make this feat much, much, easier to qualify for. - I maintain, simply, that it is both plausible and possible for a character of a non-evil alignment to qualify and complete.
I take it as a given that semantic discussions on the word "cause" are completely irrelevant, because trying to push this to extremes only serves to make it completely impossible to qualify for the feat, or makes it so everyone qualifies for the feat. (I went into more detail on this earlier)
---
1) If you're a Holy Paladim of Pharasma eradicating as many undead as you can come across, without exception, you're automatically Lawful Good. It maters not one whit whether or not the undead that you're destroying serve a benefical purpose in society, nor does it matter whether or not they become undead willingly or not. They all must die.
A local church happens to find out that you're a travelling Paladin, so they hire you and your follows to seek out a known undead and kill it. - It's out of your way, but... in order to gain renown and glory with your sect and that having a few extra gold crowns to your pocket wouldnt' hurt when it comes to travelling expenses, you take on the job.
You find out that a wizard wanted to see his wife again, so he raises her as a ghoul, eating only animal flesh. She dislikes her form, but loves her husband, and chooses to continue to exist to offer whatever peace to his tortured soul that she can. (Trite, sure, but this is an RPG). Aforementioned holy Paladin kills her on sight.
Now there is no one left to check the wizard from going on a murder spree of his own in bloodlust. The villages that bear the brunt of this seek their revenge against the paladin, because the grief stricken wizard would never have gone on his rampage if not for his wife's second death. (Again kind of trite, but plausible in an RPG setting)
Or, a slightly more M. Night Shyamalan approach - The surrounding village is some sort of blited place where grieving family members have taken to placing their dead in order that they're guaranteed to come back as some form of undead, with the aggrieved family members reaminin there to monitor, and keep them from becoming harmful.
Could not one see a Paladin of Pharasma absolutely destroying such a heinous affront against the nature of things? This is a lawful good act, and completely in keeping with the Paladin code... technically. Or wait..., is it evil? You just murdered a bunch of innocents who hadn't actually harmed anyone. Hmm... - Could it just be possible for a Lawful Good character to kill a bunch of non-combatants too, and find people who want to see justifiable revenge as much?
2) You're an adventurer hired by a group of townsfolk to eradicate the local goblin menace in order to prevent them from raiding and being a general nuisance. So far, none of the villagers have actually ever been harmed in the raids, except financially, but it is significant to them because this particular tribe is larger than normal.
You go ahead and kill off the goblins, accept your payment, and shove off. You return to the village a month latter for friendly R&R, and you find the village devoid of all life. - Little did you know, the goblins had been busily eating of a very poisonous and fast growing fungus, preventing it from spreading into the countryside. Your actions directly caused the death and dissolution of the village.
Sooner or later relatives of the former villagers (from neighboring villages) find out how your action caused the death of loved ones, and they hire another adventurer to find you and bring you to justice.
Alternate scenario: A group of hobgoblins that have been relying on the local goblin tribe for tithes decide they don't like you killling off the breeding stock of their lesser cousins and send one of their best fighters after you.
3)You're a knight (or mercenary if that makes you feel better) besieging the castle of an enemy king. The dastardly coward decides to relocate entire families to the walls in order to discourage the use of trebuchet, catapults, and ballistae. - You're a knight (realistically) only because this is what you had to be in order to be prosperous, and actually own land in your kingdom (feudal system at work), and lay siege to the castle at the expense of the innocents at the walls.
You're found to have been the major reason for the success of the battle, and the besieged king seeks you out for it. (Or family members of the deceased if that makes you feel better, because how could an "Evil" person what to punish others for the violation of his laws?)
---
(EDIT) It's really, really, easy to come up with plausible reasons for this feat to apply to all sorts of situations if you think on it. The very, very, funny thing about trying to take a position of moral superiority here is that the more you try to be absolute, the more credence you lend to the argument I propose simply because of alignment as it is applied in Pathfinder.
Is killing noncombatants always evil? Nope. It's OK as long as the noncombatants are Orc or Goblin.
What about the Lawful Good Paladin killing a bunch of noncombatant villagers because they were complicit in a mass "animate dead" ceremony to bring back loved ones? That's absolutely good, because after all a Paladin must be lawful good in order to be a paladin.
Are laws always written by good people? Could not an evil society also have its own laws? Ravenloft? Anyone?
---
Seriously, whether or not the predominat majority of characters would be evil in order to take this feat is not at issue. - What is at issue is the fact that characters of any alignment could manage to take, and complete this feat- even if the road is a little bit more interesting than the stock answer of: "He's got to be evil, and just love killing people"
(EDIT) - If it helps, I can think of a probably one of the best examples from popular culture:
Sam & Dean Winchester - How many innocents do you think that these chuckleheads managed to kill? (both on purpose and not) Which of them hasn't made the requisite kill tally in spades by alternating selfish-bouts of getting the other brother resurrected at great cost to the rest of the world? Who here wants to make the argument that they are outright evil? (Discounting the odd bout of slumming it with the demons, depending on the season) Think someone, somewhere want's revenge? (Oops. Forgot. That plot-point was overdone by the time the 11th season rolled around)
Point is: Evil people don't have a monopoly on evil acts.
Okay I know I gave my viewpoint a bit more succinctly earlier on in this thread. Counter points have arisen and I feel the need to break this feat down and explain exactly why I view this as 'evil' only.
You're not getting it. The people that disagree with you mostly care about rules, not descriptive text. The feat could be called Supreme Evil Overlord, but if there was no evil alignment requirement, they'd make the case that you don't have to be evil.
If you want to try to see it from their eyes, imagine that you are a lawyer and your client is charged with not following the rules. Your job is to defend your client. With that mindset, read the feat again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think whether you can start the feat without being evil and whether you can finish the feat without being evil are different questions.
If the player can come up with a plausible explanation for why they have so much blood on their hands, then they can take the feat. Then if they want to stay non-evil, it's a roleplaying challenge to resolve out how to balance their code of ethics with their killing spree.
But if you can kill one intelligent non-combatant for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act, it should be possible to kill 200 intelligent non-combatants for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act. Simply repeating the exculpatory circumstances of the first time 199 more times should be sufficient.
Whether or not it is possible to do this once or two hundred times and maintain your current alignment is irrelevant. This story feat makes it a personal GOAL to do this 200 times.
But before we continue, lets define the word "Goal"
'Goal: the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.'
That means this is something on your bucket list. It's not just some circumstance that you'll face sometime in your life where you're put in the position where you HAVE TO SLAY 200 NON COMBATANTS. You are actively seeking these people out at every opportunity and getting a (mechanically definable) rush from killing them.
Yes, actually. I'm not saying that being Evil (with a capital 'E')doesn't make this feat much, much, easier to qualify for. - I maintain, simply, that it is both plausible and possible for a character of a non-evil alignment to qualify and complete.
I take it as a given that semantic discussions on the word "cause" are completely irrelevant, because trying to push this to extremes only serves to make it completely impossible to qualify for the feat, or makes it so everyone qualifies for the feat. (I went into more detail on this earlier)
I have to disagree with you on this. I already stated that it is quite possible for a non evil person to meet the prerequisites for this feat. What makes this feat evil is the 'goal' that I mentioned earlier. Goals aren't something you meet by happenstance. They are your ambitions. They are the thing you go to sleep thinking about at night. You have a quota to fill and you want to fill it.
The fact that this story feat does not require an evil alignment as a prerequisite is more of a design failure than an admission that lawful good characters can be murderhobos too.
1) If you're a Holy Paladim of Pharasma eradicating as many undead as you can come across, without exception, you're automatically Lawful Good. It maters not one whit whether or not the undead that you're destroying serve a benefical purpose in society, nor does it matter whether or not they become undead willingly or not. They all must die.
You are a lawful good paladin of Pharasma. You serve a higher purpose and are slaying these undead because you are sworn to. Does not count as 'for personal gain or no reason at all.'
Now there is no one left to check the wizard from going on a murder spree of his own in bloodlust. The villages that bear the brunt of this seek their revenge against the paladin, because the grief stricken wizard would never have gone on his rampage if not for his wife's second death. (Again kind of trite, but plausible in an RPG setting)
At which point the villagers are no longer 'noncombatants' as they are now seeking to do the Paladin harm. Again, this will not fill the quota.
Or, a slightly more M. Night Shyamalan approach - The surrounding village is some sort of blited place where grieving family members have taken to placing their dead in order that they're guaranteed to come back as some form of undead, with the aggrieved family members reaminin there to monitor, and keep them from becoming harmful.
Could not one see a Paladin of Pharasma absolutely destroying such a heinous affront against the nature of things? This is a lawful good act, and completely in keeping with the Paladin code... technically. Or wait..., is it evil? You just murdered a bunch of innocents who hadn't actually harmed anyone. Hmm... - Could it just be possible for a Lawful Good character to kill a bunch of non-combatants too, and find people who want to see justifiable revenge as much?
And again, as a Paladin that is sworn to destroy undead in order to serve a higher purpose, you are not destroying these creatures 'for personal gain or for no reason at all'.
2) You're an adventurer hired by a group of townsfolk to eradicate the local goblin menace in order to prevent them from raiding and being a general nuisance. So far, none of the villagers have actually ever been harmed in the raids, except financially, but it is significant to them because this particular tribe is larger than normal.
You go ahead and kill off the goblins, accept your payment, and shove off. You return to the village a month latter for friendly R&R, and you find the village devoid of all life. - Little did you know, the goblins had been busily eating of a very poisonous and fast growing fungus, preventing it from spreading into the countryside. Your actions directly caused the death and dissolution of the village.
You are trying to blur the line between directly and indirectly. To quote common rules in the Story Feats section of the PFSRD:
"Slay: Slaying a foe includes killing it, destroying it, turning it to stone, banishing it to the Abyss, or otherwise eliminating it in a fashion reversible only by powerful magic. Unless otherwise noted, you must deal the final blow yourself to slay a creature."
Your Goal: 'SLAY' 200 intelligent noncombatants.
You must be the one to deliver the killing blow. Not be the one that dealt with a problem that led to another unforeseen problem that led to people dying. This does not qualify.
Sooner or later relatives of the former villagers (from neighboring villages) find out how your action caused the death of loved ones, and they hire another adventurer to find you and bring you to justice.
See my response about aforementioned deaths not qualifying. Also an adventurer that comes to bring you to 'justice' would not count as a noncombatant. So unless the aforementioned 'relatives of former villagers' came and took up arms, this would have absolutely no bearing on this story feat.
Alternate scenario: A group of hobgoblins that have been relying on the local goblin tribe for tithes decide they don't like you killling off the breeding stock of their lesser cousins and send one of their best fighters after you.
Then a bounty has been placed on your head. This is neither someone trying to bring you to justice, nor someone trying to usurp your position. It is someone going after you because you hurt their business.
3)You're a knight (or mercenary if that makes you feel better) besieging the castle of an enemy king. The dastardly coward decides to relocate entire families to the walls in order to discourage the use of trebuchet, catapults, and ballistae. - You're a knight (realistically) only because this is what you had to be in order to be prosperous, and actually own land in your kingdom (feudal system at work), and lay siege to the castle at the expense of the innocents at the walls.
You're found to have been the major reason for the success of the battle, and the besieged king seeks you out for it. (Or family members of the deceased if that makes you feel better, because how could an "Evil" person what to punish others for the violation of his laws?)
The king that put families on a wall being besieged by siege weapons is just as responsible for the deaths of these people. Also, you are in the service of a king, you are attacking those walls because the king ordered you to. You are serving a higher authority. Does not meet the 'for personal gain or no reason at all' quota requirement. There is a reason you are there, it is to take the castle in service of a king. And assuming the besieged king seeks you out for any reason, it will be because you brought down his walls, not because you mercilessly slaughtered the helpless people HE put there in the first place. As for family members of the deceased, I'd think they would be a little more angry at the king who put their loved ones in a war zone where they were guaranteed to die.
(EDIT) It's really, really, easy to come up with plausible reasons for this feat to apply to all sorts of situations if you think on it. The very, very, funny thing about trying to take a position of moral superiority here is that the more you try to be absolute, the more credence you lend to the argument I propose simply because of alignment as it is applied in Pathfinder.
It's very funny that you would accuse me of taking a position of 'moral superiority' when all I have done is used sound reasoning to analyze this story feat and address contrived scenarios that try to rationalize a character's life long goal of wholesale slaughter. This character is the very definition of a Psychopath. Psychology 101 bro.
Is killing noncombatants always evil? Nope. It's OK as long as the noncombatants are Orc or Goblin.
GR8B8M8
What about the Lawful Good Paladin killing a bunch of noncombatant villagers because they were complicit in a mass "animate dead" ceremony to bring back loved ones? That's absolutely good, because after all a Paladin must be lawful good in order to be a paladin.
GR8RB8M8
Are laws always written by good people? Could not an evil society also have its own laws? Ravenloft? Anyone?
How is this relevant? I still have yet to see a credible scenario of non evil character personally slaying 200 noncombatants for simply 'personal gain or no reason at all'. No use in skipping to the endgame, right?
Seriously, whether or not the predominat majority of characters would be evil in order to take this feat is not at issue. - What is at issue is the fact that characters of any alignment could manage to take, and complete this feat- even if the road is a little bit more interesting than the stock answer of: "He's got to be evil, and just love killing people"
You are right about the first part. Non evil characters can indeed qualify for this feat. But taking this STORY feat means accepting that your characters goal in life involves seeking out those who would do you no harm and ending their lives. Not because they were ordered to. Not because circumstances led to it. Because they want to. Because they choose to. Unlike normal feats, the very mechanics of the feat dictate your characters motivation for filling this quota. "Personal gain or no reason at all." This isn't 'power attack' or 'dodge' where your mechanical bonuses don't imply a moral standpoint. This story feat dictates things about your character whether you want It to or not. It gives you a background and a goal. Kill people who don't or can't fight back because you get mechanical bonuses from it and if you do it enough, get even BIGGER mechanical bonuses from it. Don't do it to serve a higher purpose, do it because you want to do it. Do it because you personally benefit from it or just because you feel like it. Despite people disagreeing with me, I fail to see anyone other than an evil character having this mindset.
(EDIT) - If it helps, I can think of a probably one of the best examples from popular culture:
Sam & Dean Winchester - How many innocents do you think that these chuckleheads managed to kill? (both on purpose and not) Which of them hasn't made the requisite kill tally in spades by alternating selfish-bouts of getting the other brother resurrected at great cost to the rest of the world? Who here wants to make the argument that they are outright evil? (Discounting the odd bout of slumming it with the demons, depending on the season) Think someone, somewhere want's revenge? (Oops. Forgot. That plot-point was overdone by the time the 11th season rolled around)
SUPERNATURAL! Having seen just about every episode of this show, I can pretty much say without a doubt that these two characters wouldn't fit the bill for this feat. Neither of them seem to go after innocent people who can't fight back and personally slay them in order to get a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute. And I highly doubt either of them wake up in the morning thinking about confronting those 'evil noncombatants who are plaguing nobody'. Yes, their actions have collateral damage. But the story feat being discussed has more specific requirements.
Point is: Evil people don't have a monopoly on evil acts.
They most certainly do by definition.
You're not getting it. The people that disagree with you mostly care about rules, not descriptive text. The feat could be called Supreme Evil Overlord, but if there was no evil alignment requirement, they'd make the case that you don't have to be evil.
If you want to try to see it from their eyes, imagine that you are a lawyer and your client is charged with not following the rules. Your job is to defend your client. With that mindset, read the feat again.
You are wrong. I totally get it. I care about rules too. You act as if I have solely addressed the fluff of this feat when I have in fact addressed the mechanics of it as well. There are rules about alignment and what it means to be good and evil.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil 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.
Neutral 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.
OP made this post because they had reservations about what it would lead to. If you disagree with me after I have made my case, that is totally fine. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. It just means that perhaps we have different ideas of what a story feat (that makes you look at innocent life as just another notch in your murderhobo quota) will lead to.
|
|
While a neutral person has compunctions against killing the innocent, they don't have compunctions against killing the guilty.
The title isn't binding rules text, and there are ways to qualify as a "non-combatant" without being innocent. Poisoning your spouse, for example.
As for those who make the 'executioner' argument seem to have a good point. Although executioners generally kill to serve a justice system. Even if this justice system is corrupt and vile, you are serving a cause other than your own by performing the killings in this manner. Or you could say the guy just took the job for the money. "Nothing personal guy. But my wallet gets fatter when your head rolls." Remind you of anyone? (looking at you Assassin)
Actually, it reminds me of a good portion of neutral-aligned adventurers.
Nothing personal, bandits, but the local lord put a bounty on your head and so I'm going to take it off.
Now, the people that adventurers kill are typically combatants because it makes a better game. But adventurers are often the ones starting combat, in which case it no longer qualifies as self-defense. I really see no moral difference between an adventurer ambushing and killing a bunch of bandits to collect a bounty and an executioner lopping off the head of a poisoner to collect a paycheck.
This story feat makes it a personal GOAL to do this 200 times.
I disagree. While the text claims that story feats represent a goal that motivates you, I think it should be a valid roleplaying choice to qualify for the story feat because of your background details without actually having any intent to reach the completion criterion. You can be better at intimidating people because of all the innocent blood on your hands, but that doesn't mean you necessarily want more. You could stack both this feat and skill focus (intimidate). That story feats claim to represent character goals and not player goals is I think an overreach and I would personally advise GMs ignore it since mechanical effects like feats should be about what you can do, not what you want to do
This is mechanically sub-optimal, but I see no reason not to allow a player to take innocent blood if their backstory includes "I killed a lot of people and I liked it but now I feel bad about it and I want to be a better person." If a character wanted to play, say, Logan Ninefingers they could totally go with "I'm scary as hell because I've killed scores of people for no reason, I want to be a better person, but I'll probably fail at it eventually" as a concept.
Actually, it reminds me of a good portion of neutral-aligned adventurers.
Nothing personal, bandits, but the local lord put a bounty on your head and so I'm going to take it off.
Now, the people that adventurers kill are typically combatants because it makes a better game. But adventurers are often the ones starting combat, in which case it no longer qualifies as self-defense. I really see no moral difference between an adventurer ambushing and killing a bunch of bandits to collect a bounty and an executioner lopping off the head of a poisoner to collect a paycheck.
Perhaps we should review the definition of 'noncombatant':
"1: a person (such as a military chaplain or doctor) who is in the army, navy, etc., but does not fight
2: a person who is not in the army, navy, etc."
In the case of pathfinder, a noncombatant is someone who is not part of an armed force or who can't or otherwise chooses not to take up arms in a fight, like a civilian who might be able to throw a feeble punch in a fight but would rather run to ensure his safety. Bandits are part of an armed force and have the capability to fight back, be they innocent or guilty. They are certainly able and willing to fight no matter who initiates combat.
Moral arguments aside. For the purposes of this story feat, there really IS no difference between bandit hunting and an executioner doing his job. Both fail to qualify for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Goal. Both actions are carried out under a justice system which you are playing a part in. Even if that justice system is ultimately a farce, it is a higher purpose. Bandits do not count as noncombatants. In the case of the executioner, the poisoner's head is on the chopping block for a reason. He is being punished for his crimes. His head isn't rolling solely for the purpose of you benefitting from his death or because you just felt like it.
I disagree. While the text claims that story feats represent a goal that motivates you, I think it should be a valid roleplaying choice to qualify for the story feat because of your background details without actually having any intent to reach the completion criterion. You can be better at intimidating people because of all the innocent blood on your hands, but that doesn't mean you necessarily want more. You could stack both this feat and skill focus (intimidate). That story feats claim to represent character goals and not player goals is I think an overreach and I would personally advise GMs ignore it since mechanical effects like feats should be about what you can do, not what you want to do.
Assuming you were playing that kind of character. Why would you choose a feat that incentivizes slaying noncombatants with a juicy +1 bonus to attack and caster level checks? You wanna be scary? Skillfocus(Intimidate) + some trait like bruising intellect that synergizes with your character idea. You don't need a feat that gives you a +2 to intimidate along with a mechanically defined 'rush from slaying people who didn't want to fight you just because'.
You are right, feats should be about what you can do. This feat gives you bonuses for killing noncombatants for selfish reasons or no reason at all. Why do you need that for your character concept if you never plan to use it? Is the lawful good paladin going to accidentally slip and plunge his longsword into an orphan walking by and notice he's somehow a little more competent at combat for a little while? Is the level 8 wizard who fireballs a peasant on a whim going to just happen to notice that his next magic missile spell shoots five missiles instead of four? Like players, your characters are fully conscious of what they are capable of. You know how strong you are, how fast you are, how smart you are, how skillful you are, and what other abilities you possess. All this feat does initially (aside from a pitiful skill bonus) is make you want to find excuses to kill people who in all likelihood don't need killing. You can be 'the guy with blood on his hands' without being 'the guy who wants MORE blood on his hands' easily enough without this feat.
I think the disconnect here is that I am looking at this feat and analyzing it's literal meaning from both a narrative standpoint and a rules standpoint. I use rules definitions to explore how the wording of the feat should be interpreted. I use dictionary definitions to clarify why certain scenarios don't really count. If you feel I am being too strict or unfair, it is likely because you don't quite realize exactly how strict the wording of this feat really is and why scenarios like 'paladins without foresight' and 'hunting bandits' and 'executioners doing their job' don't really fall into this purview. I have made an extremely clear case why they do not.
I can understand if the theme of the feat appeals to others in a 'dark past' sort of way. That does not change the fact that, as is, it's a very specific type of feat for a very specific type of killer. From both a narrative and mechanical perspective, this feat is the type you'd find on a homicidal psychopath.
If you feel inclined to tweak the feat to include combatants and perhaps remove the goal altogether, I can see this working for non evil characters. And as I said before, you are free to play your games however you'd like. I am not going to stop you from doing so. Doesn't mean I won't lay out my opinion on something that is obviously a bit more complex than it appears to be on the surface.
I think you're misreading the feat. The only time the feat mentions "noncombatants" is when you're talking about qualifying for or finishing it, the bonus for in-combat before completion is not +1 when you slay an intelligent noncombatant it's:
Each time you slay an intelligent creature, you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute (this bonus does not stack with itself).
So that orc who's trying to hew you in half with a battleaxe? That guy's intelligent (though perhaps not very) and if you kill him you get the +1 bonus to hit his buddies. That, and the intimidate bonus is probably worth a feat to a player who wants to RP that kind of person even if you never have any intention of killing even one more noncombatant without a really good reason for doing so.
So here's a character concept. Barbarian, who in his past has lost control of himself during rages and has killed everyone in his path indiscriminately. By reputation and by skill, he's a terrifying person, and is happy to use his reputation and mien to frighten others, but understands that what he did was wrong and wants to make up for it as best he can by being a good person. This character stacks both "Innocent Blood" and "Skill Focus(Intimidate)" to get +20 to intimidate at level 10 (on top of the +1 to hit when you kill anything with a brain). Insofar as he's liable to lose control of himself mid-rage, he might complete the feat, but has no intention of ever doing so. While certainly not the strongest way you could build this character, it is very flavorful and I think it would be fun to play.
I did misread that. Still kind of gives the impression of you getting a 'rush from killing' that reflects pure bloodlust. And you still get mechanical bonuses later down the line from killing 200 intelligent noncombatants. DOUBLING the penalties from shaken is a huge boon and it further reflects the 'I am an indiscriminate and bloodthirsty killer who has been around the block 8 dozen times, you are more scared of me because of this'
As I said before. Reflavor it and remove the prerequisite of 'kill 50 intelligent noncombatants' and the goal of 'kill 200 more intelligent noncombatants' and I would not have any qualms about putting this on a non-evil character as a normal feat.
I could be sold for the PC being non-evil if they were evil in the past and have since changed their ways. They could still posses the same bloodlust and get the same rush from a kill, but now they are no longer a butcher of the defenseless and cannot complete the story feat (at least not without turning evil again).
But beyond something like that, my take is that this feat is unoquivically evil.
You know sense its personal gain, it could be to save someone that would help you gain stuff because oh its so and so good deity.
Actually, it reminds me of a good portion of neutral-aligned adventurers.
Nothing personal, bandits, but the local lord put a bounty on your head and so I'm going to take it off.
Now, the people that adventurers kill are typically combatants because it makes a better game. But adventurers are often the ones starting combat, in which case it no longer qualifies as self-defense. I really see no moral difference between an adventurer ambushing and killing a bunch of bandits to collect a bounty and an executioner lopping off the head of a poisoner to collect a paycheck.
Perhaps we should review the definition of 'noncombatant':
"1: a person (such as a military chaplain or doctor) who is in the army, navy, etc., but does not fight
2: a person who is not in the army, navy, etc."
In the case of pathfinder, a noncombatant is someone who is not part of an armed force or who can't or otherwise chooses not to take up arms in a fight, like a civilian who might be able to throw a feeble punch in a fight but would rather run to ensure his safety. Bandits are part of an armed force and have the capability to fight back, be they innocent or guilty. They are certainly able and willing to fight no matter who initiates combat.
Moral arguments aside. For the purposes of this story feat, there really IS no difference between bandit hunting and an executioner doing his job. Both fail to qualify for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Goal. Both actions are carried out under a justice system which you are playing a part in. Even if that justice system is ultimately a farce, it is a higher purpose. Bandits do not count as noncombatants. In the case of the executioner, the poisoner's head is on the chopping block for a reason. He is being punished for his crimes. His head isn't rolling solely for the purpose of you benefitting from his death or because you just felt like it.
I disagree. While the text claims that story feats...
While being an executioner does mean you work for the government, it does not mean that you're not motivated my self interest. I have a job in security and I have no real interest in helping people beyond the time I punch out, I'm not a patriot, and I personally think that the government is screwed up beyond any real repair - I'm definitely just doing it for a paycheck.
The executioner example makes perfect sense, as would a hired mercenary that has to kill criminals, even if they don't get the chance to fight back - thus being non-combatants.