Why?If you're going to say that drinking blood is evil, fine.
But murder should be just as "always evil" at that point.Murder is actively robbing somone of all of thier free will in a single moment.
Drinking blood is far from always leathal, and has far less negative effects, then, you know, death.
Well, there isn't actually anything that's stopping the cosmological rules from dictating that murder is a-okay and drinking blood is going straight to the lower planes material.
The problems tend to crop up, when you have these universal conceptual stances ie. murder = okay and blood drinking = not okay, and then apply particular circumstances to them.An eksampel could be, that blood drinking is bad, because it is known that doing so can create, various kinds of, undead creatures under certain circumstances.
However, it could also be know, that a particular horrible death could also create, various kinds of, undead creatures under certain circumstances.
Now if both these particulars are true, then the universals, seem not to make quite as much sense, especially if the goal is trying to prevent the creation of undead creatures.
... Meh.
I don't play organized anyway, due to a lot of these things.
So I'm just gonna butt out.
.
|
Second, I hope everyone realizes that the reason the campaign has black-and-white rulings on things like this is because the campaign has to provide a not-creepy play environment for a diverse set of players. If a subject matter is likely to disturb players, it tends to get hedged out, even if there are players who are completely fine with it.There are people posting here that are putting forth the idea that there's nothing wrong with eating the bodies of sentient beings. That's fine, but there are plenty of people that that will creep right the f**k out, so it's not appropriate for an organized play campaign.
Please stop advocating for cannibalism in PFS.
Technically, it's only of an issue if it is human on human.
However, in reasonableness, it could be extended to 'race of sentient eating of their own race'.
I don't think *anyone* has advocated for either one of these options in this thread, and I find that concept of cannibalism abhorrent and squicky -- yet there are significant organized religions PREDICATED on just this very concept.
The goal post keeps moving, but it feels like I'm the only one trying to push them back to their original position, which was the OP's question and the topic of this thread.
And consistently, my concern has been 'is the target identifiable as sentient', which means pretty much 'if it can communicate or demonstrate effectively, it's on the no-eat list'. I added a tangential portion with 'can the entity be identified as sentient via knowledge rolls(and someone else added Sense Motive)'
If we come down on this completely, then the backlash angle becomes even worse, as PFS agents have to bring along a cleric or a Wand of Create Food/Water on every scenario/module so as to prevent the consumption of *any* opponent, sentient or not.
Please, let's just move back to what the OP asked, please?
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't eat them... but you can skin them, fashion clothing from those skins and wear them while you slaughter more of their race! That's certainly not evil.
Yipes, the goal posts definitely got moved while I was away.
To clarify: Obviously eating members of my own race is bad and cannibalism. I'm trying to clarify from two portions, one from a practical standpoint and one from a meta/character standpoint.
Practical: How do I tell that something is sentient so I don't eat it because weird things are sentient in PFS (Again, blink dogs are the best example I can think off the top of my head. Intelligent, but they don't even talk let alone carry anything)? Well, the GM Has to warn me before I commit a alignment infraction. Okay, cool, if I get the GM warning, I don't eat it, problem solved! Little meta weird that I just get the "Heeby Jeebies" if I'm about to nom on something that will make me evil, but hey i'll take it.
Meta/Character Standpoint: When one is a 4 foot tall talking rat, where do we draw the line at what is acceptable to have for brunch and what is it? Obviously sentient creatures with cultures are out, like elves, dwarves, and yes, even minotaur. But what about dragons, who we slaughter and skin and harvest things from? Or Unicorns, or other beasts that might make good munching but could possibly have higher Int scores and a culture. Sure, I'll get the meta warning if my GM feels chomping down on them would be evil, but what's my justification as a character for why it's okay to eat just about anything else but not the things that randomly give me the heeby jeebies?
|
Second, I hope everyone realizes that the reason the campaign has black-and-white rulings on things like this is because the campaign has to provide a not-creepy play environment for a diverse set of players. If a subject matter is likely to disturb players, it tends to get hedged out, even if there are players who are completely fine with it.
That's an excellent way to put it.
If you are playing with friends, or a group that you know to be seasoned (heh) PFS players, then sure - in the introductions at the start say "As a ratfolk, my character has no problem in using defeated foes, even humanoid ones, as a food source. If anyone has any problem with that, I'll happily not mention it further."
Otherwise, if you don't know people or you are playing in a public space with people who may be new to PFS, don't even bring it up.
In short - the considerate PFS player self-censors.
|
Can't eat them... but you can skin them, fashion clothing from those skins and wear them while you slaughter more of their race! That's certainly not evil.Yipes, the goal posts definitely got moved while I was away.
To clarify: Obviously eating members of my own race is bad and cannibalism. I'm trying to clarify from two portions, one from a practical standpoint and one from a meta/character standpoint.
Practical: How do I tell that something is sentient so I don't eat it because weird things are sentient in PFS (Again, blink dogs are the best example I can think off the top of my head. Intelligent, but they don't even talk let alone carry anything)? Well, the GM Has to warn me before I commit a alignment infraction. Okay, cool, if I get the GM warning, I don't eat it, problem solved! Little meta weird that I just get the "Heeby Jeebies" if I'm about to nom on something that will make me evil, but hey i'll take it.
Meta/Character Standpoint: When one is a 4 foot tall talking rat, where do we draw the line at what is acceptable to have for brunch and what is it? Obviously sentient creatures with cultures are out, like elves, dwarves, and yes, even minotaur. But what about dragons, who we slaughter and skin and harvest things from? Or Unicorns, or other beasts that might make good munching but could possibly have higher Int scores and a culture. Sure, I'll get the meta warning if my GM feels chomping down on them would be evil, but what's my justification as a character for why it's okay to eat just about anything else but not the things that randomly give me the heeby jeebies?
To simplify your life you could just wear a Phylactery of Faithfulness. It would require the GM to advise you if an act would be against your alignment or against your god and it is not meta.
Also, the only real way for your character to know sentience for the odd creatures out would be to make knowledge checks.
|
|
And to reiterate: a ratfolk eating a sentient creature, whether or not that creature was itself a ratfolk, is an evil act in PFS. Even in a group who is comfortable with you doing it, it's still officially an alignment infraction. Please do not try to play as if it isn't.
What region and authority do you represent in this persistence?
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What region and authority do you represent in this persistence?The authority of the then-current Campaign Coordinator explicitly said so. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread. Multiple times.
Actually, that's super helpful, thanks! :)
All this is really helping me get into the mindset of a character who's a connoisseur of the strange.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To simplify your life you could just wear a Phylactery of Faithfulness. It would require the GM to advise you if an act would be against your alignment or against your god and it is not meta.The Phylactery of Faithfulness is considered something of a joke in PFS, because GMs are already required to do exactly that in PFS, and it's even recommended to do so as a "feeling" or "vision" from one's deity.
I brought it up purely because it was a non-meta way to handle it as that was a concern that was brought up. Also, plenty of GMs do not follow that little rule you are talking about.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
Seriously, how is this thread still a thing? At this point it's just trolling, not like it didn't feel like that from the beginning.
Honest to goodness, no trolling, I'm a little shocked by the reaction myself, especially since I forgot I even started this thread for a few days.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Late to the party, but another food that talks is not food comic.
|
|
Quite a few people would consider it evil to eat a dog, cat, or horse. Non-sentient.
Considering that many cultures in the real world make use of dog and horse meat (not sure about cats--although Lions they do) and they aren't evil, just different, I don't think you can use real world animal love sensibilities when considering what is and is not evil to eat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What region and authority do you represent in this persistence?The authority of the then-current Campaign Coordinator explicitly said so. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread. Multiple times.
And while I cannot find the post for some reason, those restrictions were loosened by the current OPC and campaign management team. The squicky stuff is covered in the new v8 Guide's community policy.
Just be cognizant of who you are gaming with and be respectful of others when you choose to create an edgy concept.
If you want to eat your enemies (and yes, I can come up with at least half a dozen (and did in the previous threads) ways in which eating at least a portion of your enemy is spiritual rather than debased and evil) just do it behind the scenes. Allude to it, but don't graphically describe doing so.
In some ways, making sure everyone else around you can witness your squickiness is against the community policy.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in the guide there's a whole section on Alignment infractions.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil might be considered alignment infractions. Ultimately, you are the final authority at the table, but you must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment.
Seems to me that GMs are the arbiters of what constitutes an alignment shift at your table, which is another way of saying Table Variation.
|
Been there, done that. And in the same adventure, no less.
Mike Brock previously ruled that cannabilism is always evil in PFS. I disagree with the ruling, but abide by it.
|
I play with a group of unique players, our pirates have eaten slimes, trolls, a dragon so far and more. We will continue to do so, as we patjfind to seek out new life, new civilizations and eat them, if they attack us, and look to be delicious.So basically your stance is to flaunt your ignoring the campaign ruling, and continue to perform actions that the campaign has officially declared always evil, without regard to the alignment infraction rules.
Or in other words, flagrant and willful disregard of the campaign rules the rest of us have to abide by.
Could we get a Venture Officer or someone from campaign leadership to address that?
Yup.
Atonements are cheap, grilled Dragon flank steaks are forever. Sauteed mimics are marvelous, Hydra head cheese is delightful, and Winter Wolf Chili is divine.If eating those 3+ Intelligent critters is evil, I dont want to be good.
|
|
Not trolling, am very upfront with this. Im not disrespecting campaign leadership, but I think its a bad call, and I'll rail agaisnt the machine to get the ability to freely eat delicious creatures.Yes, you are disrespecting campaign leadership. They made a definitive ruling on cannibalism, and you not only think you know better than them, but that the appropriate response is to publicly advocate ignoring their requests.
That's not just disrespecting them, that's disrespecting the rest of the community by insisting that you don't have to follow the same guidelines that the rest of us do.
You may not represent the campaign, and your status as a four star GM doesn't actually put you in the position to officially be a role model, but it does mean that your statements will carry a certain air of authority with some segment of the player base. As such, it is wholly inappropriate for you to be advocating that people disregard requests from campaign leadership.
Wholly inappropriate, bolded no less? I love bolded. It's got that extra authority behind it.
See I am a 4 star GM, I've put in over six hundred hours of volunteer time to run games for other people. Not everything I have run has been reported or I'd still be a four star GM, just missing them specials. So yes, why shouldn't I rally against something I see as unjust?
You say a lot of things about disrespecting the community, but I don't quite see it that way. I also don't see it as me disrespecting the campaign staff. Mike Brock was a swell guy, but having had the very best season in year 4, we have gone down the yellow bland road.
One post saying don't eat sentient creatures, because it's cannibalism, has set us here. Now hey, you can't eat Dragons. You can skin them, make armor out of them etc, but no, no eating is forbidden. Sorry, I grew up Lizard on a Stick stylized rpg puns, with Red Dragon Inn's menu being actual Dragon.
So yeah, this here is the Hill I'm gonna die on. Why, because my gaming group thinks the same way, and for us it's a fun unique thing to devour magical beasts, and other monsters that may be delicious.
So, you can rail on Campaign leadership to censor me, or slap my wrist because I am defiant on this issue, but hey - at the end of the day, let's say they do that. What they've then lost is an organizer, and volunteer over something that's been a staple in RPG's for years. Eating a Dragon, or a Hydra; or some other monster that isnt a humanoid, all because it was "sentient".
I'm cool with that and ready to roll the dice.
Now, excuse me, this Kraken roll aint gonna eat itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you wouldn't be using them to try and justify your argument for you either.
In PFS it is Cannibalism, you can debate otherwise in a home game, but not in PFS until Campaign Leadership declares otherwise.
To be honest, he wasn't using them to justify in a vacuum. He was attacked over his stars and gave a counter argument.
But, honestly, he isn't banned from having a cannibal character. He just has to suffer the consequences. IE, the GM decides how evil it is and picks a number of offenses before moving the character towards evil. His character can then use the atonement spell to move his alignment back or perform other highly good deeds to achieve the same end.
Silly? Yes. But it is still following the rules. Especially since the spirit of the "don't do x" rules tends to be "don't offend your fellow players." And it sounds as if he is not offending them.
Of course, I still think it is silly that you can skin and wear sentient creatures with no issue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, why limit it to this? Why not start selling boons, too?
This is a touchy subject, as it has happened. The people in question have been identified and banned from the campaign. Charity events are one thing, but selling them for personal gain is an outright bannable offense.
As to the original question of this post, the answer has been given multiple times. As a GM for PFS we are required to follow and enforce all PFS rulings from campaign management. Until Tonya's (or a later OPC's) team revisits it, Mike Brock's post stands as a PFS ruling. At this time, the subject is closed. Getting closer to personal attacks on one another is not the way to handle this type of thread. I ask for every one to take a step back, take a breath and calm down. There is no need for the aggression I've read in this thread.