|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A bit of background: I've got a CN vigilante who decided it would be a good idea to poke and prod at an effigy of Kabriri in a temple dedicated to the Demon Lords. Each of the statues in the area have consequences for irreverent contact, and contact with Kabriri gives the PC the Ghoul corruption.
In the description for the corruption, it states that you must consume a portion of flesh from a sentient creature (for purposes of the campaign, this is read as "any creature with an intelligence of 3 or higher"). The corruption progresses when you feed on the flesh of an innocent sentient creature. What the player and I are trying to figure out is, as the title states, "What constitutes an innocent?"
For now, we're starting with that the idea creature would need to be of Good alignment to be considered innocent, and children would also be considered as such.
My problem with this is that there can be plenty of people who are Good that aren't innocent. A benevolent king who has done things he regrets in the course of his reign might be good, but I don't think he'd be considered innocent. Even children aren't always innocent; street urchins will do plenty of awful things just to survive.
I'm inclined to play it as "innocent of the situation," meaning if the victim was not doing anything against the character, either actively or passively, but this would mean that anyone who hasn't attacked the character would be considered innocent. The player doesn't like this definition, because that might make the corruption progress too quickly if they don't make the Will saves.
How would you define an innocent?
For the purposes of this effect, I'd define innocent as "a being who has not attacked, harmed, or taken non-defensive aggressive action against the character or party".
Basically a non-combatant or civilian. The corruption requires you to feed, but grows when you kill solely to feed. Feeding only on those that are your enemies will keep it at bay.
Scythia wrote: For the purposes of this effect, I'd define innocent as "a being who has not attacked, harmed, or taken non-defensive aggressive action against the character or party". But what if the party comes across a mass murderer that has done them no harm? If they were hired to track him down and the murderer only defends himself, but the party wins and the character eats him, would the murderer be considered innocent?
By your response (which both I and the player like, and will probably be going with), the answer would be yes, but in no other definition would he be considered innocent.
I'm probably coming up with issues that aren't likely to arise, and will have to decide who's innocent case-by-case, but I'm trying to solve some problems before they come up.
Iryani Calahan wrote:
I'm probably coming up with issues that aren't likely to arise, and will have to decide who's innocent case-by-case, but I'm trying to solve some problems before they come up.
Here, as in most of life, that is a fool's errand born of (likely) misplaced insecurity; trust your instincts as a rule, and beyond that, be situational.
|
