|
Isn't cannibalism not inherently Evil? I seem to recall that there are examples of creatures who practice (ritual?) cannibalism but are just plain neutral....
Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.
...
Hmm, we do have Gnolls and Lizardfolk societies that don't have taboos against eating people (tangent: which means they're not subject to Wendigoism), but I don't believe they've ever said it wasn't Evil.
I think the closest we've ever had a developer weigh in was along the lines of "If you happen to kill them and you're starving and you eat them, it's not Evil, but if you kill them for the express purpose of eating them then it's evil." or something to that effect.
So basically how you go about it. Ritual cannibalism as a way to honor the deceased would probably not be Evil (either 3.5 or Pathfinder had a whole article about Gnolls use of this and the various ways they would prepare the body depending on who the person was) but sacrificing a person for the purpose of consumption in a ritual would be.
They do it out of convenience and naked pragmatism, it seems.Hmm do they hunt and kill sentient creatures to eat or is it more of a convenience thing?Isn't cannibalism not inherently Evil? I seem to recall that there are examples of creatures who practice (ritual?) cannibalism but are just plain neutral....
Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.
...
As for their tendency to consume the bodies of dead friends and enemies alike, the practical lizardfolk are quick to point out that life is hard in the swamp, and nothing should go to waste.
There might also be a few other examples of non-evil cannibalism...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case i would say not evil <agree with rysky on this one.>
|
|
We're getting in Book of Exalted Deeds territory with that spell -_-
I'd be a little more okay with that spell if it had, whatever the term is, for spells to autofail if the person you're casting it on doesn't want it happening to them. That way they're at least consenting to it.
Back to the Lizardfolk that makes sense, as opposed to hunting a person down just for the sake of eating them, which would be Evil. It's the malice inherent in the act.
|
Are you sure that the player is going to be OK with you intentionally putting them in a more morally difficult situation than is necessary?
I'm discussing that thing from the perspective of the situation as presented. In which the player already stated that he is ok with being put in a morally difficult situation.
But that's not what you want to know. So no, in my own game, you would most certainly have a third solution that enables you to get healed without having to commit an evil act. Probably that scroll of remove disease, though I can imagine that, depending on how the game develops I would probably invent a more unique and more creative solution that would only work with the group of PCs at hand.
Though on a more general note, I don't see that as intentionally putting the player in a more morally difficult situation. I'm just saying that you can't just commit an horrifically evil act (which is one of the points of contention) and expect me to accept your redifinition of that act as something that is actually endorsed by your lawful good deity (another point of contention). I'm also not fond of going for RAI loopholes just because that is enabled by RAW (third point of contention).
This said: If you can't live with the consequences of a PC getting kissed by a Vargouille, then the easiest solution is not to use it. I mean, if I had simply killed the PC via another monster, everybody would be fine with it. But now that I used a monster that inflicted a curse but gave the PC a chance to survive, I'm to blame because I don't go too easy on him? Really?
Interesting. Some could call it sacrifice some could call it charity.
I'm not an anthropologist either. My guess would be (based on the experience I have with religious people), that being religious doesn't mean that you can't have a practical mind. Especially if it shows how merciful your deity is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright let me think about this.
So say i'm LG (but not a paladin gives me more wriggle room plus disease immunity it out)
Now I'm still human. Humans make mistakes and compromises all the time. unlike say an angel who will always be that alignment and really can't do something that not their alignment as a human I can.
Now depending on my back story and character I might go well I won't sacrifice another life for my life (about as good an action That I can think of). I'll die with dignity.
However Human survival instinct is pretty strong. I don't want to die. So I say well I guess if this is the only way to survive I will break my alignment and do this this one time. Then spend my life making up for it to make it worth the sacrifice. Not a Good act but maybe not terribly evil but definitely departing from good. Motivation probably fear of death.
Assuming i'm grabbing an evil creature to sacrifice it might be less evil then If I grab a neutral or a good character (and a lot less evil then If I grabbed a child or party member.)
(also don't blame the dm as long as its an appropriate CR fight its not his fault. especially since its a pre-made dungeon.)
The witch can create fabulous spells by cooking an intelligent humanoid creature in her cauldron, either alive or dead.Effect: 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, human-like 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.
The Witch's Cook People hex strongly implies that knowingly cannibalizing a sentient creature is an evil act, regardless of if they were alive or dead before you started cooking them.
|
|
The Witch's Cook People hex strongly implies that knowingly cannibalizing a sentient creature is an evil act, regardless of if they were alive or dead before you started cooking them.
The witch can create fabulous spells by cooking an intelligent humanoid creature in her cauldron, either alive or dead.Effect: 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, human-like 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.
In regard to that Hex, yes, since it's only purpose is for hunting down people to nom on, it has no other purpose than that. You have to pick that Hex way ahead of time, it's not something of convenience.
It also points out out that eating the food is only an Evil act if you know what you're eating, meaning intent is what's important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THIS AM WHY POSSIBLE OPTION FOR BARBARIAN AM TAKING UNKNOWLEDGABLE, AM ONLY GETTING KNOWLEDGE ARCANA.
SO LONG AS BARBARIAN NOT KNOW WHAT MEAT IN FRONT OF BARBARIAN AM, BARBARIAN NOT NEED WORRY ABOUT KARMIC PENALTY FOR EATING MEAT. THIS AM ALSO WHY BARBARIAN AM MIGHTYGLAD PROFESSION AM ABLE ANSWER ALL ENGINEERING QUESTIONS BARBARIAN AM POSSIBLY HAVING, ANYWAY.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:3
In my opinion, comparing drinking a potion you bought or stealing a turkey sandwich to killing a person for the sole purpose of eating their heart is nonsensical.
I mean that isn't what we're talking about though...
We're talking about killing an evil thing and eating its heart for the soul purpose of not dying and turning into an evil monster in the process.The "I will die if I don't do this" and the "I am doing this to a definitely evil thing" and "if I don't I will be actively allowing myself to turn into another definitively evil thing" are the significant factors in this debate. Your examples don't have any of these factors, therefore they're at best irrelevant at worst misleading.
This argument keeps going back to the fact that you're only dealing in extremes, and that every action has equal weight. Something is Good and if it is not, it is Evil. Which is simply not true.
if you believe that 1 single act can
A - justify requiring atonementB - shift the alignment of of an actively good person
then you must believe that the 1 single act is evil.
1 neutral act does not justify atonement or an alignment shift.
if you do not believe that they should shift alignment or atone, then you agree with me.
Whether because the action itself balances out or is simply unaligned there are Neutral options.Kill an animal to eat, Neutral.
Kill a sapient creature to eat, Evil, because cannibalism.
Cannibalism isn't evil. It can be depending on context.
Nor is it relevant because the knife does not need a human to work, and again you're ignoring the thing I'm killing is evil factor.So either you believe they should shift alignment and atone for killing an evil creature and in doing so saving your own life or you don't.
If you do believe that you must also believe any good god, which includes Ragahtheil, Torag, Vildeis and Iomadea would rather you spare the life of an evil being and through in action die yourself. Than kill an evil being and save yourself and prevent the creation of another evil being.
I think you and I both know that none of those gods would rather you do that therefore I cannot understand how anyone can possibly believe killing an evil being to save your own life can require atonement.
Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you and you killing them in self-defense is neither Good nor Evil.
I again believe context is important.
Though on a more general note, I don't see that as intentionally putting the player in a more morally difficult situation.
how can you possibly argue this is anything other than exactly that. Did you not intend that the creature infect the player? if you didn't why would it ever happen, did you not intend that the dagger be a potential way out? if you didn't why was it ever there?
I find a lot of what you say extremely hard to believe.
I'm just saying that you can't just commit an horrifically evil act (which is one of the points of contention) and expect me to accept your redifinition of that act as something that is actually endorsed by your lawful good deity (another point of contention).
you've refused to ever justify your opinion that lawful good deities such as Ragahtheil, Torag, Vildeis and Iomadea would rather an evil being be spared than their own worshiper kill an evil being and in doing so save themselves.
For these points to points of contention you have to actually assert some evidence for your opinion, otherwise you're just disagreeing with evidence based argument due to your own as yet unsupported opinion.
I'm also not fond of going for RAI loopholes just because that is enabled by RAW (third point of contention).
it is not a loophole is is how the item works there is nothing in the flavor text or the mechanics or indeed the manufacturing of the item that supports the idea that it must be used on a humanoid at all. You are just making the game more difficult for the player for no reason other than because that is how you'd make it work. Thats a pretty hard pill to swallow.
This said: If you can't live with the consequences of a PC getting kissed by a Vargouille, then the easiest solution is not to use it.
this I agree with.
I mean, if I had simply killed the PC via another monster, everybody would be fine with it.
yep
But now that I used a monster that inflicted a curse but gave the PC a chance to survive, I'm to blame because I don't go too easy on him? Really?
No you're blamed for creating a catch 22 wherein the player can choose to let their character die (much more difficult than simply being killed) or let you punish them purely based on a poorly supported in view of both alignment and the function of a magic item, which you're dangling before them like a cursed magical carrot.
its a damned if you do, damned if you don't and one of the damnings doesn't even make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So according to Lizard-folk Cannibalism (defined as consuming a sentient being) for pragmatic purposes is ok.
Cook people state's it's explicitly an evil act to use the hex.
I don't take this as something that can be generalized to "all cannibalism is inherently/automatically an evil act"
Given that precedent for it not not being so exists. And if cook people wanted it to be a generalism then it would say "knowingly Consuming sentient beings is always an evil act" or something to that effect.
Wearing the skin of sentient things / crafting trophies out of their flesh are also non-aligned actions (Dragonhide, monstercrafting).
Presumably tearing chunks out of an enemy's flesh with our teethe /claws (bite attacks) are not inherently evil acts as you can be a Good aligned druid / natural attacker.
I believe tearing out a slain foes heart and destroying it to prevent resurrection is at worse pragmatic and not an evil act.
So why is consuming the heart of an evil monstrous enemy that you will be killing regardless in order to prevent yourself from becoming an evil monstrous enemy an evil act? It's at worse pragmatic which is already established as a non-evil form of cannibalism.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you're in a bad situation does not make things you do less Evil. Just because you're selfish does not justify what you do.
Your examples are irrelevant as they compare drinking a potion or stealing a sandwhich to sacreificing someone to prevent a horrible fate. They prevent the same thing, but the acts themselves are magnitudes apart.
I single act can require atonement, depending on how severe the act is.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
It's talking about spells instead of magic weapons but it's kinda thin line I think. Sacrificing someone to save yourself is Evil, it doesn't matter if you're Good or not. You do not "deserve" to live more than any other person, so you can't justify "we'll they detect as evil so it's okay to sacrifice them". You're trying to put yourself above others, that you're more important, that is not something Good would do.
(If your GM allows you to use the blade on an animal then more power to you)
You have to use the blade as a coup de grace so it's not really viable to use in a fight, and if you knock someone out for the sole purpose of sacrificing them then that's Evil. This isn't a case of Good person dies, Evil person lives, since what's preventing you from killing the Evil person in the fight? If you just go around looking for someone Evil to sacrifice, a la the old "detect then smite" then you're just a murderer.
|
|
So according to Lizard-folk Cannibalism (defined as consuming a sentient being) for pragmatic purposes is ok.
Cook people state's it's explicitly an evil act to use the hex.
I don't take this as something that can be generalized to "all cannibalism is inherently/automatically an evil act"
Given that precedent for it not not being so exists. And if cook people wanted it to be a generalism then it would say "knowingly Consuming sentient beings is always an evil act" or something to that effect.
Wearing the skin of sentient things / crafting trophies out of their flesh are also non-aligned actions (Dragonhide, monstercrafting).
Presumably tearing chunks out of an enemy's flesh with our teethe /claws (bite attacks) are not inherently evil acts as you can be a Good aligned druid / natural attacker.
I believe tearing out a slain foes heart and destroying it to prevent resurrection is at worse pragmatic and not an evil act.
So why is consuming the heart of an evil monstrous enemy that you will be killing regardless in order to prevent yourself from becoming an evil monstrous enemy an evil act? It's at worse pragmatic which is already established as a non-evil form of cannibalism.
Because there's a difference in killing someone in self defense or to stop them from doing something evil, and sacrificing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im breaking and entering into their lair it's hardly self defense. And breaking and entering into monster lairs is already OK for lawful good characters to do, in fact they are expect to.
So why is consuming the heart of an evil monstrous enemy that you will be killing regardless in order to prevent yourself from becoming an evil monstrous enemy an evil act? It's at worse pragmatic which is already established as a non-evil form of cannibalism.
it isn't evil at all, the people who say it is have yet to provide any actual reason why a god would rather you die and spare an evil than kill an evil thing and in doing so stop yourself from dying and becoming an evil thing yourself.
Until they do it cannot possibly require atonement and it can't possibly shift a person who has been doing good their entire adventuring career to evil either.
Hey guys
so my players are slowly working through Crown of the Kobold King. My LG War Priest has succumbed to the kiss of a Vargouille.
Now the only solution I can see out of this situation is the Heartripper Blade at the end of the dungeon. But using he has to sacrifice a creature which I would consider an evil act
do you think that using it should have ramifications on his alignment/spells/abilities in some way?
IMHO
GMs don't shift PC alignments. Players shift their PC alignment when they feel it is appropriate.
Expectations being when the GM feels the player is not engaged in roleplaying and is using the alignment from purely mechanical standpoint or when certain magics change alignment in the GMs world like becoming a lich.
|
|
So why is consuming the heart of an evil monstrous enemy that you will be killing regardless in order to prevent yourself from becoming an evil monstrous enemy an evil act? It's at worse pragmatic which is already established as a non-evil form of cannibalism.
it isn't evil at all, the people who say it is have yet to provide any actual reason why a god would rather you die and spare an evil than kill an evil thing and in doing so stop yourself from dying and becoming an evil thing yourself.
Until they do it cannot possibly require atonement and it can't possibly shift a person who has been doing good their entire adventuring career to evil either.
Why is it the scenario is only sacrifice an evil person or let them go free? What's preventing you from killing the evil person in a fight?
Sacrificing someone to save yourself is Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im breaking and entering into their lair it's hardly self defense. And breaking and entering into monster lairs is already OK for lawful good characters to do, in fact they are expect to.That falls into stopping them from committing further evil acts.
Breaking into a monster lair (read dungeon) is not an evil act. Otherwise the Paladin would not be a Class.
|
|
Breaking into a monster lair (read dungeon) is not an evil act. Otherwise the Paladin would not be a Class.Im breaking and entering into their lair it's hardly self defense. And breaking and entering into monster lairs is already OK for lawful good characters to do, in fact they are expect to.That falls into stopping them from committing further evil acts.
... I didn't say it was?
I read "further evil" as implying that evil had already been committed
I read "further evil" as implying that evil had already been committedI was talking about the person you were going after, stopping them from committing Evils, aka you know they're Evil because they've done/are doing Evil stuff.
Ah I see. My bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you're in a bad situation does not make things you do less Evil.
killing evil being to save self not evil.
Just because you're selfish does not justify what you do.
I don't think anyone said being selfish makes it less evil....
Your examples are irrelevant as they compare drinking a potion or stealing a sandwhich to sacreificing someone to prevent a horrible fate.
no actually you made that comparison, I showed you why they're contextually so far apart they're irrelevant.
the bolded is all you, nothing to do with what I said.
They prevent the same thing, but the acts themselves are magnitudes apart.
you've yet to show how killing evil to save the self is in anyway evil. You've asserted cannibalism is evil but have not proven it.
I single act can require atonement, depending on how severe the act is.
none of which the player is in question is doing and you've yet to explain why exactly Torag, Iomadea, Ragatheil ETC, would rather you die than and spare an evil being than kill an evil being and spare yourself. You can't just ignore this factor because its inconvenient.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period.
no evil spell is being cast and the act of killing an eating an evil thing is not truly abhorrent.
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil.
if you enforce this rule than the whole debate is pointless because the player casts protection from evil twice no harm done.
It's talking about spells instead of magic weapons but it's kinda thin line I think.
The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
point me to the spell in the list of those involved in the dagger that is evil please, here is the list for your convenience.
flame blade, keen edge, restoration, scrying - would you like a stool? because you don't have a leg to stand on.
Sacrificing someone to save yourself is Evil, it doesn't matter if you're Good or not.
when Ragatheil kills dispater and earns the respect of the higher ups in heaven it'll be might awkward for them when the DM makes Ragatheil fall won't it.
You do not "deserve" to live more than any other person,
theres that person word again.
so you can't justify "we'll they detect as evil so it's okay to sacrifice them". You're trying to put yourself above others, that you're more important, that is not something Good would do.
So you believe that the gods of heaven, Ragatheil, Torag, Iomadea and Vilneas would rather you let the evil guy live and die yourself?
You believe they gave this priest powers to fight evil, but will take them away if in fighting evil he saves himself. He is in their opinion not to use them to fight evil if in doing so he will not die of a debilitating disease?
(If your GM allows you to use the blade on an animal then more power to you)
I've yet to see any reason why he wouldn't beyond varius people saying "I say so"
You have to use the blade as a coup de grace so it's not really viable to use in a fight
not even remotely true.
and if you knock someone out for the sole purpose of sacrificing them then that's Evil.
and there you have it folks, everyone who has ever used slumber in an encounter is evil. or does changing the word kill to sacrifice change something? or is it the fact that the warpreist is dying that makes them evil?
This isn't a case of Good person dies, Evil person lives, since what's preventing you from killing the Evil person in the fight?
So you can kill an evil thing
But if that same evil thing that you were going to kill is knocked out they receive immunity from the mercy society set up by Ragathiel and Vildeis as these same gods that you worship watch you suffer and die and think thats for the best? makes sense.
If you just go around looking for someone
there is that someone word again
Evil to sacrifice, a la the old "detect then smite" then you're just a murderer.
so just to clarify Vildeis is just a murderer and anyone that follows her example is too? Here is me thinking the LG thing next to her name meant she was lawful good.
Because there's a difference in killing someone in self defense or to stop them from doing something evil, and sacrificing them.
every adventurer who ever went into a dungeon or an evil wizards tower is evil then. Good to know.
Im breaking and entering into their lair it's hardly self defense. And breaking and entering into monster lairs is already OK for lawful good characters to do, in fact they are expect to.That falls into stopping them from committing further evil acts.
isn't killing every evil person going to stop them doing further evil then? Not to mention further implying they have already done evil and are evil doers?
don't they need punishing? or again is it more important that good people let themselves die and spawn an evil monster than punish evil doers.
it seems to me that all evil doers got immunity from good doers so long as the good doer would benefit from killing them which is insane.
also saving yourself is preventing the birth of another evil monster. Still think we should be sparing the evil guy and letting yourself die. Inspite of the fact he is evil and has done evil things before you should die rather than kill him?
seems like you're jumping through an awful lot hoops.
Since people have already suggested slightly tampering with the module's content, to avoid the whole "What to do when a LG character needs to do an evil act?".
Why not just slightly adjust the Heatripper blades flavor text, to exclude the baleful wording, and include an alternative origin, as a sacrificial tool used by tribal druids, shamans or priests in fertility rites, where animal sacrifices were common.
No more evil association, dust of lightly and the jobs a good un'.
That would be how I would wing it, if the player/group isn't interested in the nitty-gritty of alignment conflicts.
Just to be clear here, the item itself has an questionable flavor text, but no real Evil crafting or mechanical effects, so this is just one of those items that can be read both ways...
Put it in a dark dungeon, with crazy cultists sacrificing abducted villiges to empower themselves -> Evil
Put it in a remote villige, where its the only means to keep particular dangerous diseases, effects caused by dangerous monster attacks or curing scraped knees, from decimating the population its becomes much more of a context case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baleful according to the oxford living dictionary
Threatening harm; menacing.
Having a harmful or destructive effect.
None of that is evil, their are lawful good deities with the destruction domain for hecks sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's amazing that once the rules give a way to 'meta the #*$# out of alignment' that's what people will do.
This is - of course - the end result of taking a purely subjective system and applying an objective measurement to it, thus reducing it to just a single 'tick' sheet of good vs evil deeds.
Just remember that if you feel like casting 2-3 protection from evil spells to restore your alignment is cheezy - you should feel the same about changing alignment after 2-3 casts of an [evil] spell - protection from evil after all is [good] and so just as strongly aligned as infernal healing.
again, you keep on oversimplifying things and ignoring aspects of what I write to the point you 're putting words in my mouth I never said. I've already made my point clear enough, so I certainly won't do it over and over again.
The implications of your opinion that killing anything and in doing so saving your own life is evil enough that is would shift a good person who has lived a good life's alignment and would require atonement are all I'm talking about. I'm not oversimplifying or ignoring anything.
The implication is that good gods such as Ragatheil and Vildies, would rather that you die and spare an evil thing's life than kill it and save your own life.
Yet you also hold the opinion that good things can kill evil things without an alignment shift.
Therefore you believe it is not the killing that is an evil thing. Rather its the fact that through killing a good person spares their own life, and you feel that Ragatheil and Vildeis have a problem with this and would rather you spare the evil thing and let the good person die.
These are the implications of your opinion if you don't agree with any of those things yet still hold your own opinion please explain to me how that can be?
|
|
It's amazing that once the rules give a way to 'meta the #*$# out of alignment' that's what people will do.
This is - of course - the end result of taking a purely subjective system and applying an objective measurement to it, thus reducing it to just a single 'tick' sheet of good vs evil deeds.
Just remember that if you feel like casting 2-3 protection from evil spells to restore your alignment is cheezy - you should feel the same about changing alignment after 2-3 casts of an [evil] spell - protection from evil after all is [good] and so just as strongly aligned as infernal healing.
It's not that spells affecting your alignment is cheezy, it's the meta of well I cast 1 spell of this alignment so I'll cast this completely unrelated spell of the opposite alignment for no other purpose than to counteract the metagame construct of alignment and alignment shifts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Vargouilles, they are one of my favorite monsters.
One moment you're busy adventuring, the next you're frantically looking for a Cleric who can cast Remove Disease. It's not that you die when you fail. In fact, you don't die at all. You become an Outsider with all the nasty consequences. The most foremost is that you can't be raised because you're not dead. And even if they do manage to kill the Vargouille you've become, they still wouldn't be able to raise you as you're now a dead outsider and outsiders can't be raised. They are nasty, especially when you consider that their CR is so low.
Now I'm not sure that the players are supposed to know about Heartripper in this module. If they don't their only option is to go back to town and find a Cleric. This is a problem though, because the players have a deadline in this module. (You gotta love mister Logue.)
I don't think using Heartripper on animals is an evil act, and as written it should be possible to use it in this manner. If you're the kind of GM that wants the players to run into ethic dilemmas every now and then you could make Heartripper evil and only usable on sentient creatures. To be honest, if you're running all the modules in this series it would be very appropiate and fit in perfectly.
|
Hope they have Knowledge Planes
Then they know they have 4 stages, each lasting between 1 and 6 hours before the LG character becomes a NE Outsider
When there are no chances left for being saved, the LG character should kill himself or ask his buddies to kill him before he becomes a Vargouille so that his soul goes to its LG reward
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Vargouilles, they are one of my favorite monsters.
One moment you're busy adventuring, the next you're frantically looking for a Cleric who can cast Remove Disease. It's not that you die when you fail. In fact, you don't die at all. You become an Outsider with all the nasty consequences.
this is worse than dying from the perspective of a good god and probably most good holy men too I would think.
And actually it changes my argument slightly, if someone argues for atonement and alignment shift after those actions then you are saying Ragathiel would rather his warriors kill themselves than evil beings, if in killing the evil being the good warrior saves himself from his own terrible disease. If the good warrior has nothing to gain then apparently killing evil is still fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I think the last rites one sets a dangerous president. Sometimes you're in a time crunch and won't be able to perform last rights, does that mean you can't kill your opposition in a time crunch?A LG adventurer is hunting down an evil mass murderer who she knows to be unrepentant and who she believes it is morally justified to kill. She locates the murderer's hideout, kicks down the door, and...
...knocks the murderer out, performs last rites, and then personally executes him, because she believes that it is important for even evil creatures to be properly prepared for the afterlife.
Oh, I certainly wouldn't penalize a PC for failing to perform last rites - but I also wouldn't tell a player that if they keep enemies alive long enough to perform last rites they're no longer acting in self defense and therefore doing something morally wrong.
You have to use the blade as a coup de grace so it's not really viable to use in a fight, and if you knock someone out for the sole purpose of sacrificing them then that's Evil. This isn't a case of Good person dies, Evil person lives, since what's preventing you from killing the Evil person in the fight?
So Good person dies, Evil person dies (in the fight) is OK, but Good person lives, Evil person dies (from a CdG after the fight) is not OK? Why?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replying to WormysQueue separately because it's a long post...
Are you sure that the player is going to be OK with you intentionally putting them in a more morally difficult situation than is necessary?I'm discussing that thing from the perspective of the situation as presented. In which the player already stated that he is ok with being put in a morally difficult situation.
But that's not what you want to know. So no, in my own game, you would most certainly have a third solution that enables you to get healed without having to commit an evil act. Probably that scroll of remove disease, though I can imagine that, depending on how the game develops I would probably invent a more unique and more creative solution that would only work with the group of PCs at hand.
No, my main concern really is whether you're confident the player will be on board with however you decide to run this. I know at least two players whose main motivation is to tell an interesting story with lots of emotional character-forming moments, and who would be perfectly happy to either have their character either sacrifice themselves or descend into evil. One of those those players might even be disappointed to be handed a completely consequence-free option like a scroll. On the other hand, some players might quit the campaign over being placed in an apparent "fall or die" situation, especially if a clean way out did not eventually materialize.
Make sure you know what kind of player you're dealing with - and I personally would want to have a more specific idea than "they are OK with a morally difficult situation."
I mean, if I had simply killed the PC via another monster, everybody would be fine with it. But now that I used a monster that inflicted a curse but gave the PC a chance to survive, I'm to blame because I don't go too easy on him? Really?
For me, it's not that the character has a chance to survive but that survival requires an action that essentially destroys the character as I envisioned them. I would experience this as a "sadistic choice" situation that would cause more emotional distress than simply having the character die.
Though on a more general note, I don't see that as intentionally putting the player in a more morally difficult situation. I'm just saying that you can't just commit an horrifically evil act (which is one of the points of contention) and expect me to accept your redifinition of that act as something that is actually endorsed by your lawful good deity (another point of contention). I'm also not fond of going for RAI loopholes just because that is enabled by RAW (third point of contention).
We don't know the RAI of the item. The tone is somewhat sinister but it's ambiguous. Some similar effects like Blood Drinker or Cook People specifically require a sentient target, others like Death Knell don't require a sentient target but get the [evil] tag anyway, and others like Blood of the Martyr or Baleful Polymorph are very definitively not evil.
So there's three ways to read this.
(1) The sinister theming of the item (and its current evil use) doesn't imply that it's intended to actually be inherently [evil].
(2) Like Death Knell it probably is intended to be [evil] but doesn't require a sentient victim.
(3) Not only was the item intended to be [evil], but it was also intended to require a sentient sacrifice.
For me, the tone - particularly the word "blasphemous" - is strong enough to make me think that (2) is more likely than (1), but I don't think there are grounds to infer an additional restriction to sentient sacrifices (3). It certainly isn't necessary to take the harshest possible interpretation of an ambiguous item. Narratively, the baggage attached to [evil] magic is plenty to give good characters pause before using the item - though probably not enough to make a player feel like they've destroyed their character by using it on a deer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, depends on the interpretation. The description uses words like "baleful" and "blasphemous", which are terms you normally not use in a non-evil context. Also it grants those powers "when used in bloody sacrifice". So even when it is possible by RAW, it's obvious that it isn't intended to be used as a simple +1 weapon in combat or for animal sacrifices.
So we're not talking about hunting animals here. We're talking about hunting sentient humanoid beings with the express purpose to murder them in cold blood (you can't even kill them simply in combat, you have to make them helpless before so as to be able to do a CDG. And all that to eat their still-beating heart to save yourself (and we're not talking self-defense here).
"This +1 dagger is granted baleful powers when used in bloody sacrifice. Whenever used to deliver a coup de grace, the Heartripper Blade pulls the victim’s still-beating heart free from his body. You may then consume the heart to gain any of the following abilities.
You may eat the heart to gain a simultaneous remove disease, restoration, and cure serious wounds effect. This consumes the heart.
You may utter a command word and cause the heart to burst into flames, after which the Blade becomes a +2 flaming burst dagger for 1 hour. This consumes the heart.
You may speak a blasphemous second command word to cause the heart to boil and smoke. Breathing in the smoke gives you glimpses of the future or far off places and objects, granting you the ability to use divination or scrying. This consumes the heart."
I see nothing at all that implies that the victim must a "sentient humanoid being". A animal would do just fine.
|
|
Make sure you know what kind of player you're dealing with - and I personally would want to have a more specific idea than "they are OK with a morally difficult situation."
We're in total agreement here.
For me, it's not that the character has a chance to survive but that survival requires an action that essentially destroys the character as I envisioned them. I would experience this as a "sadistic choice" situation that would cause more emotional distress than simply having the character die.
Which is why I would look for another solution to insert in the game (as long as I'm not sure that my player could handle that conundrum.) I'm a bit averse to the idea that nothing in the game can happen that might change the character as you envisioned it before the start, but that's a matter of preference so if you don't like it, I won't do it.
We don't know the RAI of the item.
Not for sure, that's true, but given the author and the adventure's circumstances, we can make an informed guess. I'm still pretty sure that this item was never designed with use on animals in mind, but yeah, we would have to ask Nick Logue himself to get a 100% correct answer. 'til then I can only say how I would handle it in my own game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that the blade calls out "victim" rather than "target" or "prey" heavily points towards needing to use it on a sapient creature I believe.
An animal can be a victim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. It looks like Victim actual has a specific useasge when used in conjunction with sacrifice
Definitions of 'victim" Include:
war victims.
So actually it would seem that it implies it could be anything, sentient being or animal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the assist :). Also:
The implications of your opinion that killing anything and in doing so saving your own life is evil enough that is would shift a good person who has lived a good life's alignment and would require atonement are all I'm talking about. I'm not oversimplifying or ignoring anything.
The implication is that good gods such as Ragatheil and Vildies, would rather that you die and spare an evil thing's life than kill it and save your own life.
Yet you also hold the opinion that good things can kill evil things without an alignment shift.Therefore you believe it is not the killing that is an evil thing. Rather its the fact that through killing a good person spares their own life, and you feel that Ragatheil and Vildeis have a problem with this and would rather you spare the evil thing and let the good person die.
These are the implications of your opinion if you don't agree with any of those things yet still hold your own opinion please explain to me how that can be?
Ok, I'll bite and try it one more time.
First off, to get that out of the way, in my very first post in this thread, I admitted that by RAW, there's nothing stopping you from using an animal to do the sacrifice and just in case, if you did that, I would not consider it to be an evil act.
This said:
your opinion that killing anything and in doing so saving your own life is evil enough that is would shift a good person who has lived a good life's alignment and would require atonement are all I'm talking about.
bolded the relevant part. And I'm quite sure that I never said that. Also, it's not my opinion. What I did say in the same post was that using an evil weapon for an evil sacrifice in which you rip the victims heart out and eat it is something „I actually can't see LG characters do that and keep their alignments. „
You can disagree with me about the premises to my conclusion as much as you want, but that still doesn't make my conclusion to a general statement about killing anything and in doing so saving your own life is evil.
On to the atonement thing. I just reread all my posts in this thread and not once did I say that atonement was a required thing. I suggested to the OP that if his player is up for atonement, this could make for an interesting storyline, but even then I didn't mean atonement in a technical sense required to get any abilities back, but just in the general sense of the PC trying to make up for the evil deed he had to do to save his life.
The implication is that good gods such as Ragatheil and Vildies, would rather that you die and spare an evil thing's life than kill it and save your own life.
Again, I actually never said that. Under the premises I suggest you have (in this specific case) to violate the teachings of your chosen LG deity by doing an actual evil deed to save your life. That's quite a specific example for „killing an evil life to save your own“, not a general statement.
You're right I don't think that killing (within the frame of this game) is an evil thing by itself. Also I don't consider „killing an evil thing to save your own life“ to be an evil generally. But: using an evil weapon for an evil sacrifice in which you rip the victims heart out and eat it just to save your own life. That I consider in fact to be a very evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, to get that out of the way, in my very first post in this thread, I admitted that by RAW, there's nothing stopping you from using an animal to do the sacrifice and just in case, if you did that
you also called it a loop hole, implying you basically thinking it would be
1) bad form or cheating in some way.
I would not consider it to be an evil act.
animals can be intelligent sentient beings, why is killing them to live any less evil than killing an evil person?
This said:
bolded the relevant part. And I'm quite sure that I never said that.
I have twice quoted you saying that you think the character could have an alignment shift and need to atone for those actions.
implication the action of saving one self at the cost of something evil is evil and against the will of the good god which gave you the powers with which you killed the evil thing. Which would apparently be fine, were it not for the fact that in doing so you also saved your own life. One of my main issues with your logic.
Also, it's not my opinion. What I did say in the same post was that using an evil weapon for an evil sacrifice
please point me to the evil weapon and evil sacrifice because I don't remember one coming up.
in which you rip the victims heart out and eat it is something „I actually can't see LG characters do that and keep their alignments. „
Depends what they did it to and why in my opinion. Not that those actions are the ones being carried out here. In which a none aligned knife is being used to carry out a none aligned ritual to heal a good aligned person by killing an evil thing.
You can disagree with me about the premises to my conclusion as much as you want, but that still doesn't make my conclusion to a general statement about killing anything and in doing so saving your own life is evil.
So you do believe that a person could kill something things and in doing so save their own life and it not be evil? then how is this even a debate?
On to the atonement thing. I just reread all my posts in this thread and not once did I say that atonement was a required thing. I suggested to the OP that if his player is up for atonement, this could make for an interesting storyline, but even then I didn't mean atonement in a technical sense required to get any abilities back, but just in the general sense of the PC trying to make up for the evil deed he had to do to save his life.
actually no you did rather a lot more than that
depending on the GM include alignment shifts and the need to atone for that deed
now either you think a GM could do that but it would be unreasonable. In which case thats not worth saying, there are hundreds of things GMs can do unreasonably.
or you think it would actually be reasonable that
1) Good person has their alignment shift - therefore you must feel the action is Evil, because no way in hell is one neutral action shifting an alignment. Frankly not even one evil one should.
2) You think the god would rather their holy warrior spare the evil thing and in the process die and allow another evil outsider to be born. Than kill the evil thing and save themselves. Otherwise what exactly do they have to atone for?
Again, I actually never said that.
Your arguments imply that it is your opinion. Explain why on earth they would need to atone for something their god would not mind them doing?
Under the premises I suggest you have (in this specific case) to violate the teachings of your chosen LG deity by doing an actual evil deed to save your life. That's quite a specific example for „killing an evil life to save your own“, not a general statement.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here...
You're right I don't think that killing (within the frame of this game) is an evil thing by itself. Also I don't consider „killing an evil thing to save your own life“ to be an evil generally.
We agree.
But: using an evil weapon for an evil sacrifice in which you rip the victims heart out and eat it just to save your own life. That I consider in fact to be a very evil act.
It isn't an evil weapon. Nothing about its mechanics is evil, nothing about its creation uses evil magic. Not even its flavor is explicitly evil. Your interpretation of RAI are at best very poorly supported to not at all, shifting an alignment and forcing an atonement on those grounds is pretty harsh GMing in my opinion. GMs get the final word, that doesn't mean they shouldn't seek for an agreement or compromise or rule by diktat.
the only thing we can actually agree is happening
rip the victims heart out and eat it just to save your own life.
Without context that is scary, gross, not evil
with the right context is could be evil (killing innocence)with the right context it isn't (killing an evil doer) - That is literally what your god gave you your powers for, it is not atonement worthy.
Also the word "just" implies that somehow saving your life (a good person trying to help people) is somehow a meager cause not worth much. It isn't Heroes might have a self sacrifice kick, that doesn't mean their life isn't worthy or valuable, it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chromantic Durgon, I can understand why you are frustrated but you are no longer adding anything to the discussion.
We've already agreed that the knife doesn't explicitly say it's evil or that it requires a sentient sacrifice. We are currently arguing about the intent. If you want to add to that discussion - or argue that the RAW matters more than the intent - go ahead. Don't just repeat that the knife doesn't say it's evil.
Also, your analogies are not identifying the real issues involved in this situation. In particular:
animals can be intelligent sentient beings, why is killing them to live any less evil than killing an evil person?
The general assumption in PF is that animals are not sentient beings, with a few fringe exceptions (eg animal companions with an Int increase). Even awakened animals change type to "magical beast." The game and indeed the majority of real-world moral thinking does value human(oid) lives more than animals. I don't think that you can productively argue against that assumption in this forum.
So Good person dies, Evil person dies (in the fight) is OK, but Good person lives, Evil person dies (from a CdG after the fight) is not OK? Why?Because you are sacrificing a now helpless person to save yourself.
So what is it about sacrifice that makes it more evil than other forms of killing? Is execution of a helpless creature OK?
A rather gruesome method of sacrifice that involved you eating the person's heart.
Why does something being "gruesome" make it evil? Is slicing someone up with a pair of daggers more evil than shooting them with a pistol? Is burning someone alive with a fireball more evil than disintegrating them? Is acid damage more evil than cold damage?
I'm a bit averse to the idea that nothing in the game can happen that might change the character as you envisioned it before the start, but that's a matter of preference so if you don't like it, I won't do it.
For me, there are some things about my character I'm OK with changing and some things I'm not OK with changing. Usually I prefer to see my character change in ways I see as positive - such as discarding prejudice or gaining attachments, responsibilities, or self confidence. I am generally not interested in "fall arcs" - I find them depressing.
Can you not get to town or get a cure disease spell in the morning?
They still have a lot of the dungeon left and he only has 18 hours. The dungeon is more than a day from the village