So... We all know that Geb is an evil world because undead - yada yada - slaves - yada yada - they eat people - yada yada, but I'm curious... Would someone who sees the necessity of eating humans for certain species be considered evil?
Like... if anyone has watched Yu Yu Hakusho (and if you haven't - watch it because its good), after he finds out about his demon heritage, he gets confronted by demons who wish to take him to his master.
He notices that they are human-eating demons, but doesn't confront them about this. Instead, he compares them to eating humans as he is eating a Hamburger in front of Vegans/Vegetarians.
Obviously his spiritual trainer/protector overheard this and got super pissy about him comparing them eating humans to humans eating Hamburger... but the more I think about it... the more it seems right.
Is it really an evil act not to judge human-eating species as "evil" due to their bloodlust for humans as they do not do so recklessly and without reason?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, demons don't need to eat so they're just being @$$#°\€$.
They also specifically target the innocent and prolong suffering.
Lizardfolk however practice cannibalism due to scarce resources, and see it as honoring the person. Your sacrifice will give the tribe life, and wasting the body would disrespect you.
It's like how in Dune they recycle the water from the dead. It's so scarce on Arrakis (that's the name right?) you'd be stupid not to.
@MageHunter - Technically in Yu Yu Hakusho, they DID need to eat and human was considered the most... "nutritious"(?) meal for them with how long it could sustain them. Also, Vampires and other "Undead" species need to consume humans to survive technically speaking - and one of the biggest reasons Geb is LE is BECAUSE they are undead and eat humans.
Though - I'm not arguing that eating humans is not evil. I'm just wondering, if you were to look at a Demon/Undead/Whatever consuming another Human without judging them, what would that end up being?
I.e.: He's a Vegan who is watching a Human eat a Hamburger but doesn't make a big deal about it... Except instead of being Vegan he is Human, and instead of a Human eating a Hamburger it's another inhuman species eating a Human.
Pathfinder vampires can live off animal or alchemical blood, it just doesn't taste as good. I don't know about other undead.
I also know nothing about Yu Yu Hakusho. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be like a sentient cow watching a human eat a hamburger in front of them.
The evil part is killing a sentient being and using them for food. It's not a soulless, mindless living thing, like a tree or grass.
That's what makes it evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the argument against undead is "you are dead, but you are killing us so you are remain slightly less dead. Kill yourself and go to Pharasma already."
Now, lets toss the 'unnatural' undead to the side and just focus on races that are just born that way and have to deal with that. Maybe some "not vampires" or something- something that NEEDS to feed on sentient creatures. Lets also assume that you can't just make a deal with the undertaker or something- you need it 'fresh'.
...honestly, it seems like Paizo mostly avoided things like this, in order to avoid these moral quandaries. They made it so 'vampires don't need human blood- they just crave it', and most undead are either 'completely evil/insane' or 'hopelessly tortured and needs to be put down'.
@Soulgear - The question is - What Alignment is that sentient cow that goes "eh, that's life. He gots to be eaten cuz they need meat." To be fair, no one NEEDS a Hamburger, we just like it because it's the most convenience meat source.
People keep arguing that it's Neutral Evil because I don't care about sentience or sympathize for "the victim". I just don't see indifference to a human being eaten by something that needs to eat humans evil. I'm not going out of my way to harm someone nor help someone. I'm just watching nature take its course.
People keep arguing that it's Neutral Evil because I don't care about sentience or sympathize for "the victim". I just don't see indifference to a human being eaten by something that needs to eat humans evil. I'm not going out of my way to harm someone nor help someone. I'm just watching nature take its course.
What if said creature chose you? Or your child? Or your spouse? Or your X family member?
Why is it an evil act to kill a unicorn? Or an angel?
Maybe I'm missing something and you are speaking/thinking from the perspective of a character that is N in alignment?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone Good would likely be compelled to at a minimum speak out against such actions, if not try to stop them.
Someone Evil might cheer them on.
Someone Neutral would be more on the "Not my problem" or "That's life" frame of mind.
Lawful/Chaotic probably wouldn't apply in this situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... We all know that Geb is an evil world because undead - yada yada - slaves - yada yada - they eat people - yada yada, but I'm curious... Would someone who sees the necessity of eating humans for certain species be considered evil?
Like... if anyone has watched Yu Yu Hakusho (and if you haven't - watch it because its good), after he finds out about his demon heritage, he gets confronted by demons who wish to take him to his master.
He notices that they are human-eating demons, but doesn't confront them about this. Instead, he compares them to eating humans as he is eating a Hamburger in front of Vegans/Vegetarians.
Obviously his spiritual trainer/protector overheard this and got super pissy about him comparing them eating humans to humans eating Hamburger... but the more I think about it... the more it seems right.
Is it really an evil act not to judge human-eating species as "evil" due to their bloodlust for humans as they do not do so recklessly and without reason?
I doubt this is RAW, but this is just my opinion:
If a sentient, intelligent being, (maybe Int7ish+) like any humanoid in the world, or even a Wendigo, considers eating humans and other humanoid species as a food source, they are evil. They are smart enough to make a moral choice between what they eat or don't eat, and that choice is to target humanoids, therefore they're evil.
If a non-intelligent (maybe Int6 or less) being, like a wolf or a shark, or even a Remorhaz, considers eating humans and other humanoid species as a food source, they are neutral. They are not smart enough to make moral choices; there's only a few things that drives them: Eat, Drink, Sex, Survive, Find Shelter when its cold, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PFS alignment system is about moral relativism. Nobody who is evil thinks they are evil. Devils just make binding contracts, it is the stupid soul's fault if they fail to complete it and are damned to hell because of it. Undead (mostly) have no Intellect, so they don't think they are evil. A zombie doesn't even know what good and evil is.
So to ask "do you think this person thinks they are evil" - the answer is almost always "no." Most people think they are doing what is best, either for themselves, or for other people, or both.
But a LG paladin can still kill things. And we still consider them less evil than a zombie that has never eaten or killed anyone (thoughtlessly, I would point out - the paladin killed things ON PURPOSE). And it is that PURPOSE which is where the moral relativism comes in and denotes GOOD and EVIL. To what end does one do something.
Demons/devils are a corruption of "good souls" and thus when they do something the purpose is to corrupt/destroy more souls. Thus it is said to be evil. Even if summoned through no fault of their own and forced into contract.
Paladins are saving souls (good or otherwise) and thus when they do something the purpose is to save/redeem more souls. Thus it is said to be good. Even if committing mass genocide against devils and demons spilling forth from the Worldwound for the minor infraction of setting foot on the Prime Material plane.
Throw in 100 deities and it all, of course, gets hazy. But the moral relativism remains: Just because YOU think you are good doesn't mean that they system set up of alignments in PFS thinks you are good. It explains what each alignment means, and if you fall into it. Moral proselytizing about how righteous you are to eat humans probably won't get you very far in a human dominated culture.
But I hear Dwarf jerky is good eating!
Is it really an evil act not to judge human-eating species as "evil" due to their bloodlust for humans as they do not do so recklessly and without reason?
"Failing to judge" is a non-Lawful act. That's all there is to it, in my opinion. It's not Evil, it's not Good or Chaotic... it's just non-Lawful.
@Soulfear: Of course I would attempt to fight back because that is the only natural thing to do. The Gazelle does not lay in wait for the Lion to eat it, nor does any prey species. The only species that would not resist slaughter are the cattle raised to become meat. And even then, the cattle will resist the wolf because they were bred to be humans food not the wolves.
@maouse33: I believe you misunderstood the question, which it would appear at least half of the new replies have.
I'm not asking if eating humans is an evil act - that much is a given. What I am asking is, if a Human does not condemn such actions from monsters who eat humans, would that label him as evil himself? Would it be an evil act to compare a demon eating humans to a human eating a hamburger? The person isn't the one trying to eat the humans, but he isn't condemning the human eaters for their preferences.
Firstly, have you ever seen prey in real life? There's a nature documentary with two wolves hunting a doe. The doe does eventually give up. It's weird. It gets tagged, and I guess realizes that's it for it and just lays there alive while the wolves close in. It's odd, but that's animal intelligence (Int <= 3), they know when there's no coming back and they'd be a burden.
As for the question though, in simple terms, it is not evil to not condemn something evil. It's just not good. Not good, does not equate to evil. Comparing a species or creature that eats humans to something humans hunt is a very natural and neutral concept. Very druid ideal, and thus not evil.
Circumstance though is everything. A wolf, is a true neutral thing and would eat a humanoid if it had to. Accepting this is behaviour of an animal is neutral. If this was a cannibalistic community you stumbled into, neutral, evil, and even potentially lawful characters wouldn't bat an eye, it's just how things are. A good character, would have a moral quandary though, or a particularly zealous chaotic character. An invasive outsider taking sacrifices, an evil character wouldn't care and perhaps even bargain, a neutral character though can choose to ignore it, but if they condone it, it is evil (or one step towards).
EDIT: I should make it clear, I'm explaining these examples in terms of the character being actively able to do something about it. A low level paladin even would know it suicide to take on an outsider of that caliber. Good, not stupid, he may put it on his list to inform someone else though, or vow to return when he is capable of doing something. It is not evil to be smart, like not pissing off the cannibal community.
(Personal Opinion) Cannibalism is generally considered to be an evil act unless done for the sake of survival or necessity. (/Personal Opinion)
In terms of the objective morality of the setting, the only gods I can find with Cannibalism as their tenant are both evil.
Being an Obligate Cannibal (Wendigo, etc.) does not remove the fact that it is generally going to be an evil act to knowingly eat a sapient creature. Its good story fodder imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
It seems that the OP accepts that the cannibalism is evil. His question is how much he is obligated to protest and oppose that evil in order to not be evil himself.
There certainly isn't any simple answer, either in the game or in the real world. How culpable were ordinary Germans in the Holocaust? How should we view non-slave owners who were part of slaving societies, what about the decendants of slave owners, or slave owners that did good things as well (Jefferson)?
I think we can agree that the ideal would be to oppose evil, regardless of the cost, and that at a certain point, not opposing it can easily become actively enabling it, but where those particular lines are isn't easy to determine.
|
|
If the question is "when you see evil do you have to confront, if you don't you are just as evil" is relatively silly when you think on it. The answer is "no." You aren't evil because you don't fight evil. You can be pious and gentle and kind and never raise a word against evil beings. Unless you go by the idea that Mother Theresa was the most evil person on the planet because she never openly picked up a sword and fought the oppressive governments of India while she was there doing charity work with the poor.
in short; good is still good, even if it never openly wars (even verbally) with evil. To remain silent and accept that your enemies will not change is not evil. To go on and do good despite the evil in your face all the time is perhaps "more good"? So in this instance, asking for an alternate meal if offered would be just as "good" as killing them for their meal choice. Maybe more good, because it shows them a redeeming option they may not have otherwise knew existed. Buddha would have dined with them, since one of his "good" tenants was to never refuse a meal offered (which is kinda what killed him, by the way). Offending someone by denying charity was considered by Buddha to be aggressive and evil. "My will trumps yours"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you go by the idea that Mother Theresa was the most evil person on the planet because she never openly picked up a sword and fought the oppressive governments of India while she was there doing charity work with the poor.
No, she was the most evil person on the planet because
Mother Teresa’s Calcutta home for the sick had a mortality rate of more than 40 percent. But in her view, this wasn’t a bad thing, as she believed that the suffering of the poor and sick was more of a glory than a burden.
Allowing and actively encouraging suffering is an evil act. This is but a brief excerpt of the things she said and was involved in.
If we argue that not actively fighting evil is evil, that allowing evil to exist rather than striving with all your time and ability until it exists no longer is a moral failing, we're arguing that the vast majority of people, myself included, are evil.
That sounds reasonable to me. But it'll never be a popular stance.
Holding this opinion does not make you evil. However, condoning it and allowing injustice or cruelty to take place because you hold it would make you evil. A woman trapped in the mountains with no food who cooks the body of her already dead husband to feed her starving children isn't evil, just extremely desperate. A woman who murders her husband because she's curious what his liver would taste like with some fava beans and a nice chianti is definitely evil.
I generally view neutral as avoiding evil, but not doing much more than that.
The person that just accepts demons eat people is probably neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holding this opinion does not make you evil. However, condoning it and allowing injustice or cruelty to take place because you hold it would make you evil. A woman trapped in the mountains with no food who cooks the body of her already dead husband to feed her starving children isn't evil, just extremely desperate. A woman who murders her husband because she's curious what his liver would taste like with some fava beans and a nice chianti is definitely evil.
Agreed. Eating fava beans is just wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally view neutral as avoiding evil, but not doing much more than that.
The person that just accepts demons eat people is probably neutral.
It is neutral when you don't risk your life to save someone from being eaten by a demon hoard.
It is evil when you trip that person so they get eaten by the horde (thus distracting them, allowing you to escape).
Of course, this again- is relative to the circumstances. There can be an amoral amount of indifference. This would typically require the action to be exceedingly simple and low risk in return for saving a life. For example- it is evil to watch a toddler for 20 minutes as it slowly waddles over towards a cliff. Obviously, stopping the toddler would be relatively simple given the time frame I just gave and the acts required.
Basically, it isn't evil to be a coward or indifferent, but it is certainly a problem to be actively cold hearted.
@lemeres: I suppose you have a valid point regarding being openly cold to others, but in my defense - that is the character's major defining personality trait. CHA Score 7, INT Score 20 and he has the Dead Inside feat. He is an investigator who pretty much spent his whole life pent up in a library because he was the family's disappointment (unable to cast magic despite having a prodigy heritage).
He functions as the party's main linguist and diplomat due to his knowledge of the human emotion and ability to replicate it (as shown with his Student of Philosophy and Empirical Archetype).
Unfortunately, a Nat 1 on one of his Diplomacy check accidentally revealed just how cold he actually was - revealing that he believes that humans and other humanoids are a naturally prey species.
Hope this better explains the situation, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's another thread about Old Ones deities and if they are truly evil, most people agree they exist in an entirely different realm of morality than humans. We are bacteria to them, at best, not sentient, barely even alive.
You don't care if the scum around your toilet thinks you are evil when you bleach the bathroom, killing hundreds of millions of bacterium.
If humans aren't considered sentient by whoever is eating them, nothing evil is occurring. Same as humans not considering cows to be sentient.
Nobody worries if potatoes feel pain.
If you are sentient enough to recognize other sentient beings, and you eat them anyways, you are an evil @$$#0[3. If you're obligated by a code of conduct to stop evil acts as you see them, you should probably step in to stop whatever is eating people in front of you. If you have no such code, then being intelligent, yet detached, enough to simply watch it happen and contemplate humans position on the food chain in no way makes you evil.
There's another thread about Old Ones deities and if they are truly evil, most people agree they exist in an entirely different realm of morality than humans. We are bacteria to them, at best, not sentient, barely even alive.
You don't care if the scum around your toilet thinks you are evil when you bleach the bathroom, killing hundreds of millions of bacterium.
If humans aren't considered sentient by whoever is eating them, nothing evil is occurring. Same as humans not considering cows to be sentient.
Nobody worries if potatoes feel pain.
If you are sentient enough to recognize other sentient beings, and you eat them anyways, you are an evil @$$#0[3. If you're obligated by a code of conduct to stop evil acts as you see them, you should probably step in to stop whatever is eating people in front of you. If you have no such code, then being intelligent, yet detached, enough to simply watch it happen and contemplate humans position on the food chain in no way makes you evil.
I wonder if I can write "Quixotic Blue" down as my alignment...?
@lemeres: I suppose you have a valid point regarding being openly cold to others, but in my defense - that is the character's major defining personality trait. CHA Score 7, INT Score 20 and he has the Dead Inside feat. He is an investigator who pretty much spent his whole life pent up in a library because he was the family's disappointment (unable to cast magic despite having a prodigy heritage).
He functions as the party's main linguist and diplomat due to his knowledge of the human emotion and ability to replicate it (as shown with his Student of Philosophy and Empirical Archetype).
Unfortunately, a Nat 1 on one of his Diplomacy check accidentally revealed just how cold he actually was - revealing that he believes that humans and other humanoids are a naturally prey species.
Hope this better explains the situation, lol.
Ah. Only looking at the specifics of your character concept now... yeah. That attitude might dip towards evil.
You can think that others are blind sheep, and it is not your responsibility to save them from the wolves. But when you are the wolf (and this isn't just a metaphor for 'being fierce when dealing with people')... then yeah. You might be dipping towards evil.
Even if you are dealing with cannibalism, you should generally tend towards honorable ritual kind, such as 'letting the dead live on through me' or maybe a carrion kind (they are dead anyway style)
Maybe a form of cannibalism that developed from situational cannibalism- he originally had to eat the dead to survive (Donner Party situation), but now he always takes a bit of those that pass on in order to reaffirm he is a survivor. That sounds mentally ill, but not necessarily evil.
But straight up standard predator/prey variety? Yeah, that tends to be hard to justify as anything other than evil. Maybe you should try to backtrack his attitude so he only verbally SAYS he is the predator/prey kind when he is more of the 'crazed survivor' kind that looks down on others as helpless sheep.
@lemeres - Lol, woops, only half of that nat 1 diplomacy roll came out. Long story short: King wants party to kill a dragon believed to be responsible for consuming dozens of villagers, despite contradicting evidence that the dragon was saving said villagers from another outside force.
I rolled to try and convince the king that the dragon is possibly innocent and that killing it would be irresponsible.
Nat 1 occurred, and I basically said: "Look, even IF the dragon was eating humans, its only natural. We are a prey species after all."
He wasn't implying being the wolf himself - just that humans being eaten by other species was natural due to how week we are. When he says that humans and humanoids are prey species: He MEANS that we can fight back against our consumers, but that doesn't mean it will stop humans from getting eaten by something else.
It looks like my Nat 1 from the campaign carried over to the forums. xD
@VoodistMonk Actually... I might steal that logic the next time I roll a nat 1 on a diplomacy check with a religious person. "We're all basically just bacteria to the 'gods', so I highly doubt we would be anything interesting to them other than a slight annoyance occasionally. Besides, it's highly unlikely that they are truly divine - just exceptionally powerful beings due to circumstance."
Don't worry. I accidentally caught up in other people's discussion of cannibalism, and assumed. So I had a -10 on my sense motive check myself.
Yeah. It is not necessarily evil if you don't want to risk yourself for the sheep. It is the king's problem- dealing with stuff like this is why people pay him taxes- they are the king's herd of sheep, so he should be the one to fight off the wolf. Hiring adventurers is usually just a short cut because he doesn't want to pay for the military expenses. So let him use his own sheep dogs (soldiers) deal with it. The majority of problems can be solved by throwing enough arrows at it.
Most of the time, the world doesn't need YOU to go save it- there are other options available. And usually, nobility only look to outside powers to handle a problem when it is too big for them to handle or has too much risk that would eat up their resources- they look to adventurers as tools that can be wasted. You are within your right to be skeptical.