Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Northwestern Indiana
|
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.
I feel that it is important to abide by campaign rulings. I can see some variation in how to handle rulings as GMs also serve as arbiters.
As I generally run games at a family-friendly shop and some of my players are young, I would say no to eating sentient beings. (Yes, I am familiar with the myths and legends of eating a dragon heart to gain courage. However, I have to consider the tables and also want to encourage players to return.)
I am afraid that we are seeing a lot of tension in this thread and I have to wonder if it can do any good to continue it. Still, I have to say that we should try to treat each other and our views with respect. I think that ultimately we all want to have fun at the gaming table but have some disagreements over what is appropriate. So, if we are to discuss this topic further, perhaps we can try to be a bit more respectful of each other. If not, I see the thread being locked soon.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 10 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And this ruling was superseded by another Coordinator when we issued the community guidelines.
The community guidelines were written to allow groups that play PFS together to determine what they want from their games. Public games or games that bring strangers together are situations where edgy characters are not appropriate.
|
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?
Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.
Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.
|
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.
Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.
Except Tonya just said that ruling that Cannibalism is evil has been superseded and so in PFS it is not Evil.
Unless I (hopefully) misunderstood what she was stating, in which case I apologize.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.
Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.Except Tonya just said that ruling that Cannibalism is evil has been superseded and so in PFS it is not Evil.
Unless I (hopefully) misunderstood what she was stating, in which case I apologize.
Does PFS need a ruling that fighters get bonus feats?
No, because it is part of being a fighter.When referencing cannibalism the text of the game usually considers the act evil(with a noted exception in an early book which can be found in this thread). Being that it is in a Paizo book... doesn't that mean we don't need a PFS specific ruling?
But even then it is still up to the individual GM to decide how evil the act is... some may consider it lightly evil and thus requires many infractions. Some may consider it on par with murder. Some may have not paid that much attention to the issue and have to come up with something on the spot.
So, really... not much has changed with this. Other than the campaign recognizing that some groups will find some things offensive that others may not. So, they have decided to let the individual GMs limit some kinds of behavior as needed instead of limiting everyone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end it is better than I think you are imagining. Because all it takes is one player having an issue to limit the behavior. So you shouldn't have any issues at any table you sit at. And, honestly, it will be limited at most tables for the same reason.
I have included the relevant, but long, text. Bolding mine where found.
The full Pathfinder Society Community Standards policy may be found paizo.com/pathfindersociety/policies. Roleplaying Guild games that take place on paizo.com are also subject to the Community Guidelines that exist for the forums in addition to the Community Standards policy, and may be subject to moderation as needed.
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table. We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. To this end, we reserve the right to refuse participation to any person for inappropriate or illegal conduct. All refusals of participation must be accompanied by a reason, duration of refusal, and the criteria for rejoining PFS activities.
Inappropriate conduct includes, but is not limited to, the excessive use of foul language, physical or verbal aggression/intimidation, lewd conduct, inappropriate physical contact, unwelcome sexual attention, slander, stalking and harassment/discrimination based on gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, or religion.
Complaints under this policy should be brought to the Event Organizer or a Venture-Officer, who will work to resolve the issue or escalate the issue to the next level of Venture-Officer. As an alternative, issues may be reported to the Organized Play Coordinator (OPC) via email at pathfindersociety@paizo.com. Issues will be resolved at the lowest level possible. In case of escalation, the OPC is the final arbiter of any dispute arising from application of this policy.
Nothing in this policy is intended to discourage any person from calling the police or other appropriate organizations. Event organizers or Venture-Officers are available to help participants contact local law enforcement, provide escorts, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the event. We value your attendance.
While not illegal or even necessarily inappropriate, we recognize that PFS organized play campaign includes themes that may result in uncomfortable situations arising at the gaming table. In these instances, we request players identify the issue to the table Game Master (GM), whether vocally or by passing a note. We ask that GMs help the table respect attendees' sensibilities and reduce/redirect problematic themes once identified. Participants asked to stop any problematic behavior are expected to comply immediately or will be asked to leave the table.
It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table. We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences. Once again, the intention of PFS org play is to provide a safe and fun environment. The above guidelines reference how we may achieve our goals. By sitting at a PFS table, participants are agreeing to the terms and conditions of Pathfinder Society organized play."
|
|
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.
Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.Except Tonya just said that ruling that Cannibalism is evil has been superseded and so in PFS it is not Evil.
Unless I (hopefully) misunderstood what she was stating, in which case I apologize.
Does PFS need a ruling that fighters get bonus feats?
No, because it is part of being a fighter.
When referencing cannibalism the text of the game usually considers the act evil(with a noted exception in an early book which can be found in this thread). Being that it is in a Paizo book... doesn't that mean we don't need a PFS specific ruling?But even then it is still up to the individual GM to decide how evil the act is... some may consider it lightly evil and thus requires many infractions. Some may consider it on par with murder. Some may have not paid that much attention to the issue and have to come up with something on the spot.
So, really... not much has changed with this. Other than the campaign recognizing that some groups will find some things offensive that others may not. So, they have decided to let the individual GMs limit some kinds of behavior as needed instead of limiting everyone.
I had forgotten about the Witch Hex where it is called out (don't know of any other sources) so when Mike's post had been declared superseded it seemed like we now had 0 rulings in PFS or Pathfinder itself stating cannibalism is Evil.
Thankies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had forgotten about the Witch Hex where it is called out (don't know of any other sources) so when Mike's post had been declared superseded it seemed like we now had 0 rulings in PFS or Pathfinder itself stating cannibalism is Evil.
Thankies.
Glad to help. ^.^
For reference, the cannibalism domain includes such text as well.|
|
I had forgotten about the Witch Hex where it is called out (don't know of any other sources) so when Mike's post had been declared superseded it seemed like we now had 0 rulings in PFS or Pathfinder itself stating cannibalism is Evil.
Thankies.
Glad to help. ^.^
For reference, the cannibalism domain includes such text as well.
Cool, Thankies :3
|
|
And this ruling was superseded by another Coordinator when we issued the community guidelines.If that's the way you want to go, so be it; you won't hear me complain about that.
But I think you should probably been a little more explicit about that; this is the first time I've heard about that being the intention (even Sin seems to have been unaware of it).
This isn't the first time you've heard of this intention. I told you several days ago above that this was the intention.
But who the heck am I, right? I don't know anything apparently.
|
|
So PFS groups can arbitrarily decide what is evil and what isn't now, really?Not what's evil... what is non-offensive to the group.
Again, it is still evil since it is treated so in official paizo material(sometimes...). It just isn't banned behavior unless the GM says so(since it's a group game that is always an option). You still have to deal with the consequences.Except Tonya just said that ruling that Cannibalism is evil has been superseded and so in PFS it is not Evil.
Unless I (hopefully) misunderstood what she was stating, in which case I apologize.
Does PFS need a ruling that fighters get bonus feats?
No, because it is part of being a fighter.
When referencing cannibalism the text of the game usually considers the act evil(with a noted exception in an early book which can be found in this thread). Being that it is in a Paizo book... doesn't that mean we don't need a PFS specific ruling?But even then it is still up to the individual GM to decide how evil the act is... some may consider it lightly evil and thus requires many infractions. Some may consider it on par with murder. Some may have not paid that much attention to the issue and have to come up with something on the spot.
So, really... not much has changed with this. Other than the campaign recognizing that some groups will find some things offensive that others may not. So, they have decided to let the individual GMs limit some kinds of behavior as needed instead of limiting everyone.
Pretty much this. This allows for people who treat some themes with respect to still do so, and allows GMs to make decisions based on squicky play.
I would have no problem with someone who created a Shoanti barbarian who felt it was honoring their fallen enemies by consuming an organ (usually a heart, liver, gall bladder, kidney, spleen or pancreas) of that fallen enemy so their power can live on in them. But squicky play always comes out during play, no matter what the back story for a character is.
If a player is being gratuitously gross to troll the other players, darn right its an evil act. And that's assuming we can salvage that player as someone we even want to keep around in our community.
What about the Sanguine Sorcerer?
Are they committing canibalism?
Are they evil?
If I'm not mistaken, that would be the one (original) wildblooded mutated bloodline not legal for Pathfinder Society play. So it's probably not a major issue.What about the Sanguine Sorcerer?
Are they committing canibalism?
Are they evil?
Really!?? Aw maaan!
When did that change?Damm!
I was so hoping to play one!
|
|
This isn't the first time you've heard of this intention. I told you several days ago above that this was the intention.
But who the heck am I, right? I don't know anything apparently.
Sorry, but I've heard so many "I've seen a rule, honest!" arguments that I pretty much ignore them if they can't cite something (which I asked you to do, and you didn't). There's a big difference between hearing unsubstantiated rumors of it and actually seeing it from someone with the authority to declare it.
But was there a productive reason you wanted to call me out on this?
I did cite one of the posts I was referring to, but not only could I not find the other post, I couldn't find the slavery thread where intent was made clear about the community policy. All the key words of that thread don't eve bring up any hits.
The point is, I have rarely been wrong on issues like this.
|
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.Except that table GMs are required to obey the rulings of the campaign staff, so table GMs are required to treat cannibalism as an evil act.
That said, while it being officially an evil act in PFS, and thus automatically an alignment infraction, that doesn't mean the first occurrence is automatically an alignment shift.
I don't consider a giant-rat like creature eating a bull (aka BEEF)-like creature as cannibalism. Therefore I don't consider it an evil act.
If a person eats a dolphin, and if some people propose a dolphin is sentient, does that make that person a cannibal? NOOOOO!!!!
|
|
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.Except that table GMs are required to obey the rulings of the campaign staff, so table GMs are required to treat cannibalism as an evil act.
That said, while it being officially an evil act in PFS, and thus automatically an alignment infraction, that doesn't mean the first occurrence is automatically an alignment shift.
I don't consider a giant-rat like creature eating a bull (aka BEEF)-like creature as cannibalism. Therefore I don't consider it an evil act.
If a person eats a dolphin, and if some people propose a dolphin is sentient, does that make that person a cannibal? NOOOOO!!!!
The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.
So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Except that table GMs are required to obey the rulings of the campaign staff, so table GMs are required to treat cannibalism as an evil act.
That said, while it being officially an evil act in PFS, and thus automatically an alignment infraction, that doesn't mean the first occurrence is automatically an alignment shift.
I don't consider a giant-rat like creature eating a bull (aka BEEF)-like creature as cannibalism. Therefore I don't consider it an evil act.
If a person eats a dolphin, and if some people propose a dolphin is sentient, does that make that person a cannibal? NOOOOO!!!!
The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.
So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.
*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*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.Except that table GMs are required to obey the rulings of the campaign staff, so table GMs are required to treat cannibalism as an evil act.
That said, while it being officially an evil act in PFS, and thus automatically an alignment infraction, that doesn't mean the first occurrence is automatically an alignment shift.
I don't consider a giant-rat like creature eating a bull (aka BEEF)-like creature as cannibalism. Therefore I don't consider it an evil act.
If a person eats a dolphin, and if some people propose a dolphin is sentient, does that make that person a cannibal? NOOOOO!!!!
The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.
So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.
No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*...
And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.
|
|
Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*...
And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
*scratches head*
Hydras are not sapient either I believe, do you need 2 or 3 INT to be sapient?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*...
And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
Okay, so, remember the Flinstones? How in the opening song they go to a restaurant and order dinosaur ribs? Now, remember that all those dinosaurs can speak and are sentient...
The Flintstones is actually about cannibals.|
|
Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*...
And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
*scratches head*
Hydras are not sapient either I believe, do you need 2 or 3 INT to be sapient?
The magic number is 3 so long as you are not an animal.
|
|
The magic number is 3 so long as you are not an animal.Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*...
And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.No.
*bops with newspaper*
No.
*scratches head*
Hydras are not sapient either I believe, do you need 2 or 3 INT to be sapient?
Gotcha.
|
|
The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.
So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.
Not at my table.
NOUN
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings:
"cannibal tribes"
synonyms: man-eater · people-eater · anthropophagite · anthropophagist
an animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
synonyms: man-eater · people-eater · anthropophagite · anthropophagist
|
|
The real world definition of cannibalism is constrained because we have only humans. But in a fantasy world like Golarion we have HUNDREDS of fully sapient creatures, so cannibalism means eating something fully sapient there, just because it's not humanoid in shape doesn't change that.
So for your example, yes, a ratfolk eating a Minotaur is still cannibalism.
Not at my table.
NOUN
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings:
"cannibal tribes"
synonyms: man-eater · people-eater · anthropophagite · anthropophagist
an animal that feeds on flesh of its own species.
synonyms: man-eater · people-eater · anthropophagite · anthropophagist
... and as I've pointed out that comes from a world where ONLY humans are. That's expanded in Golarion with multiple humanoid and fully sapient species
Otherwise by your overly strict reading it's not cannibalism for an elf to eat a human, or a human to eat a dwarf. It is.
In fantasy when there are other sapient creatures cannibalism comes down to "sapient creature that eats other sapient creatures" more or less.
|
|
The witch can create fabulous spells by cooking an intelligent humanoid creature in her cauldron, either alive or dead. Using this hex creates one meal or serving of food of the witch's choice, typically a delicious stew or a dough suitable for cookies, pastries, or other desserts. Cooking the victim takes 1 hour. Eating the food provides one of the following benefits for 1 hour: age resistance, bear's endurance, bull's strength, cat's grace, eagle's splendor, fox's cunning, neutralize poison (instantaneous) owl's wisdom, remove disease (instantaneous). Alternatively, the witch can shape the dough into a Small, humanlike creature, animating it as a homunculus for 1 hour. The witch must have the cauldron hex to select this hex. Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act.
As a full-round action that is considered an evil act and provokes attacks of opportunity, you can bite a helpless living or freshly killed creature, dealing 1d3 points of damage. By consuming the creature’s flesh, you gain a +1 profane bonus on saving throw DCs for all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities you use against creatures of the same type (and subtype, if humanoid or outsider) as the cannibalized creature. This effect lasts for a number of minutes equal to 1/2 your cleric level or until you use this ability against a different creature. At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, this bonus increases by 1 (+5 maximum). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Consuming blood reinvigorates you.
Prerequisites: Dhampir.
Benefit: Choose one humanoid subtype, such as "goblinoid" (this subtype cannot be "dhampir"). You have acquired a taste for the blood of creatures with this subtype. Whenever you drink fresh blood from such a creature, you gain 5 temporary hit points and a +1 bonus on checks and saves based on Constitution. The effects last 1 hour. If you feed multiple times, you continue to gain hit points to a maximum of 5 temporary hit points for every three Hit Dice you have, but the +1 bonus on Constitution-based skill checks and saving throws does not stack.
Normal: Normally, you can only drink blood from an opponent who is helpless, grappled, paralyzed, pinned, unconscious, or similarly disabled. If you have a bite attack, you can drink blood automatically as part of your bite attack; otherwise, you must first cut your target by dealing 1 hit point of damage with a slashing or piercing weapon (though you may feed upon a creature with severe wounds or a bleed effect without cutting it first). Once you cut the target, you can drink from its wound as a standard action. Drinking blood deals 2 points of Constitution damage to the creature you feed upon.
The blood must come from a living creature of the specified humanoid subtype. It cannot come from a dead or summoned creature. Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures is an evil act.
Thankies, Lorewalker, for pointing these out to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... and as I've pointed out that comes from a world where ONLY humans are. That's expanded in Golarion with multiple humanoid and fully sapient species
NOUN
a person who eats the flesh of other human beings:
"cannibal tribes"
synonyms: man-eater · people-eater · anthropophagite · anthropophagist
For precedent, "Cannibal Halflings" in Athas (Dark Sun settings) do not eat other halflings (that I know of), but rather any other intelligent/edible creature they capture.
|
I will also point out that saying that one species may not eat another sapient species is a bit ethnocentric. Just because YOUR culture believes it's evil doesn't mean mine does! Or is the claim that all the sentient non-evil races on Golarion are one big homogeneous blob of opinions on this subject?
This thread is making me wish I didn't rebuild my flesh eating gnome chef who was delaying the bleaching by trying to eat EVERYTHING.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also point out that saying that one species may not eat another sapient species is a bit ethnocentric. Just because YOUR culture believes it's evil doesn't mean mine does! Or is the claim that all the sentient non-evil races on Golarion are one big homogeneous blob of opinions on this subject?
This thread is making me wish I didn't rebuild my flesh eating gnome chef who was delaying the bleaching by trying to eat EVERYTHING.
Sure. Just like the drow culture of child sacrifice. It's their culture! Who are the forces of good to say that literally murdering children is evil?
Ergo: my drow paladin can sacrifice children. Don't worry, it's cool.
(or the record, I prefer that cannibalism not be Always Evil. I'm just amused by the logic here.)
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...
Summon an angel and ask them. Or cast detect evil. That'll straighten it right out, no muss, no fuss. ^_^
And for the record, in a fantasy world it could be argue that murdering demon possessed children isn't evil, it's necessity.
I don't see "demonic possession" anywhere in my post. I assume that's what you claim when the rest of the party asks why you murdered the children, right before you skulk off to UMD a scroll of atonement?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...
Not only evil... you might want to check to see if they are ghouls now. As that's what tends to happen when you are give into cannibalism in a crisis in Pathfinder.
|
|
I don't see "demonic possession" anywhere in my post. I assume that's what you claim when the rest of the party asks why you murdered the children, right before you skulk off to UMD a scroll of atonement?
You said Drow. Where there are Drow there are demons. Fun fact: Drow kill only children infested with demons. It's on page 49.
My point still stands. This is a fantasy world. Unless everybody is a massive homogeneous culture, there will be differences in opinion on what is culturally appropriate. Said differences in opinion should not be considered inherently evil because the culture you most closely associate with calls it such. Case in point: An Andoran army, marches into a nation to "bring freedom" and decimates their army (to the point they're never coming back to their families) finishing by burring the dead. This is apparently considered "not evil". Another culture also saves an enslaved country killing their armies. They don't bury enemies though, their their social standard for honoring the dead is consuming their livers in order to 'honor their opponent's valor' and 'to ensure their spirit lives on'. Both entirely reasonable options in a fantasy world, but one is evil and the other is not? You've got to be kidding me.
There's also going to be sociological differences in killing/cannibalism a live opponent for survival (food), killing/cannibalism a live opponent for sport, and consuming the body of something killed for entirely different reasons for survival. Each will have varied sociological reasons which (again in a fantasy world) should be considered (such as were all the murdered children demonspawn?) Any opinions any of us have on this topic are each of us placing our distinctly modern and in most cases, Western opinion on this topic.
I for one am happy Tonya decided that it's a case-by-case basis.
|
|
Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...Not only evil... you might want to check to see if they are ghouls now. As that's what tends to happen when you are give into cannibalism in a crisis in Pathfinder.
Or a Wendigo! Don't forget the Wendigos! ^w^
|
|
Drow kill only children infested with demons. It's on page 49.... of?
Any opinions any of us have on this topic are each of us placing our distinctly modern and in most cases, Western opinion on this topic.
You mean in a fantasy world made in modern times by modern people played by modern players? This isn't some culture from history, it's a purely fictional one made by a modern mindset. Just like in real life, just because one culture or group may consider it not-evil doesn't mean it isn't.
Also Cannibalism was kinda big no no in lots of places throughout history, it's not just a "modern" taboo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or a Wendigo! Don't forget the Wendigos! ^w^Got it. The people of Fiji, the survivors of the Essex and the Uruguayan Rugby team are Eeeeeeeeeevil...Not only evil... you might want to check to see if they are ghouls now. As that's what tends to happen when you are give into cannibalism in a crisis in Pathfinder.
Can't forget them. As wendigos are pretty awesome.
|
|
You mean in a fantasy world made in modern times by modern people played by modern players? This isn't some culture from history, it's a purely fictional one made by a modern mindset. Just like in real life, just because one culture or group may consider it not-evil doesn't mean it isn't.
I have heard this argument in the past and I still don't buy it. I read fantasy/sci-fi because it does a good job at exploring complex topics, not so I can ignore them. Am I going to discuss/roleplay these complexities with a 9 year old or somebody that had their brother eaten by a serial killer? No...but I find the gray world a whole hell of a lot more interesting than the black and white one.
And again, your argument that one culture is the de-facto arbitrator of "evil" reeks of ethnocentrism. I would again ask...how is one culture burying the dead of their defeated as a sign of respect (which the defeated consider a slight on their culture) not evil, but the culture that eats an organ of their opponent as a sign of respect (which the defeated consider a slight on their culture) evil with a capital E?
Also Cannibalism was kinda big no no in lots of places throughout history, it's not just a "modern" taboo.
There are more biological reasons for this than strictly cultural ones. But as we're not talking about human/human cannibalism, we're talking human/dragon consumption, those arguments carry less weight.
So yet again - Tonya, I agree with your decision and support it wholheartedly.
|
|
On Golarion, evil isn't cultural, it's scientific. You can measure the increase in evil particles you get from engaging in cannibalism. Arguing that canibalism shouldn't turn you evil because you had noble reasons for it is like arguing that radiation shouldn't give you cancer if you had a really good reason for being exposed.
|
|
On Golarion, evil isn't cultural, it's scientific. You can measure the increase in evil particles you get from engaging in cannibalism. Arguing that canibalism shouldn't turn you evil because you had noble reasons for it is like arguing that radiation shouldn't give you cancer if you had a really good reason for being exposed.
At least this argument sufficiently covers the fact it's a fantasy world and this kind of crap is entirely reasonable.
Chuck and Frank are adventuring in the wilds of Irisen. Chuck is slain by a winter witch, and Frank mourns his friend by swearing that he will return his body to be raised. He hikes a hundred miles across snow covered terrain, Chuck's body strapped to a sled he drags behind him. One day a giant blizzard rolls in, and Frank, low on supplies and nearly hopeless does the unthinkable. He consumed Chuck's delicious, delicious heart.
When Frank arrives at the temple, Chuck is raised with no ill after effects. Standing before his friend.
"Thank you Frank for bringing me back to this temple and ensuring I survive!" says Chuck.
"Yeah, but no thanks to you and your evil particles, I'm going to Hell because of it. Thanks a lot..." mourns Frank.
