Alignment discussion:
Neutral Good states:
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Neutral good can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Now there is an arch type “sin eater”:
There is a sect of inquisitors in some religions that believes it is not enough to hunt the enemies of the church—one must also devour those enemies’ sins. More benign versions of the practice believe that sin, or evil, is taken out of the world when a sin is devoured, denying the enemy’s soul to the enemy’s god and purifying the world of its taint. Followers of malevolent churches believe that consuming the sins of good folk not only corrupts the enemy soul to keep it from the celestial planes, but also taints the souls of those who witness the sin-eating or the corpse of its victim. Consuming sins empowers the sin eater, at least for a time.
its level one ability stating:
Eat Sin (Sp)
At 1st level, as a free action, when the sin eater inquisitor kills an enemy, she may eat the sins of that enemy by spending 1 minute adjacent to its corpse. This provokes attacks of opportunity. The inquisitor can rush this ritual, performing it as a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity, but she only gains half the normal benefit (see below).
Eating the enemy’s sins heals the inquisitor of a number of hit points of damage equal to 1d8 + her inquisitor level (maximum +5). The enemy must have been killed by the sin eater within the last hour, and it must have had at least as many Hit Dice as half the inquisitor’s level. The inquisitor can use this ability once for each enemy she kills. This ability has no effect on mindless creatures or those with Intelligence 2 or less.
At 5th level, the healing increases to 2d8 plus her inquisitor level (maximum +10); it increases to 3d8 + her inquisitor level (maximum +15) at 9th level and to 4d8 + her inquisitor level (maximum +20) at 13th level.
In some faiths, this “eating” is a purely symbolic act, while in others, the inquisitor must eat a small amount of food and water as part of the ritual. A few extreme faiths actually require the inquisitor to eat some of the body of the slain enemy.
At 8th level, when a sin eater eats the sins of a creature that would rise as an undead (such as someone slain by a shadow, spectre, or vampire), the sin eater may choose to accept 1 temporary negative level to absorb the taint in the corpse, preventing it from rising as an undead. This negative level can be removed with the appropriate magic, though it automatically expires after 24 hours, and never becomes a permanent negative level. At the GM’s discretion, this ability may prevent a ghost from using its rejuvenation ability.
This ability replaces an inquisitor’s domain.
The question is if for the right reason like true redemption can a mercy killing fall under the umbrella of Neutral good. Not if the sinner is paying for atonement but realized the life they lived did not “invest” in the afterlife so they wanted to attone and they seek out the sin eater. Say he puts them on a quest of redemption (quest depends on how wicked they lived) and upon completion promises to devour thier sin to wipe the slate clean. Still good? Or does that fall in the neutral territory in your opinion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if I understand. Are you asking if a sin-eater is committing a Good act if they agree to...kill someone and eat their sins?
If that's so, I would say that: first, alignment discussions are almost purely opinion-based and subject to table variation, blah blah blah.
Second, I don't think "mercy killing" is immoral in the world I live in. My society on the whole has some hang-ups about it, but progress is being made.
Third, in a world where everyone knows 100% that there is an afterlife and what goes on within it, I think it would make sense to be like "oops. I messed up. Better cut my losses and zero out the scales." Sure, why not?
I’m asking as a GM say there is only one sin eater in the world like avatar if you will. The current one in my world is Neutral Good (past ones have been other alignments) so instead of charging riches for redemption like past ones have; the current one gives out a well detailed holy journey. Once completed he painlessly kills the sinner consumes the sin and they go on to a better afterlife for his in mind they earned the redemption.
making someone earn a redemption, or balancing the scales as it were, sounds lawful to me.
I'd think a NG sin-eater would just do it, seeing the act of redeeming a soul worth it, no matter the person whose sin they ate.
I don't know. It would be lawful if the scales they were balancing were Law and Chaos, but a good person being like "hey, you want me to redeem you? Gotta prove it" seems reasonable to me.
I don't know. It would be lawful if the scales they were balancing were Law and Chaos, but a good person being like "hey, you want me to redeem you? Gotta prove it" seems reasonable to me.
I agree.
While a NG person wants to do the best without biased I don’t see them blindly forgiving say a person who was CE in the past and did a lot of bad s#&* then in the elder years said opps. I see it completely justified as NG to say prove you changed. The only scale they care about is change for the better without bias for law and chaos.
If the character seeking redemption can complete a quest to prove their worth they can already get redemption. At that point if the inquisitor kills the person they have killed a good person for no reason and that would be an evil act.
Sin Eating for a good character would be used on a target the inquisitor had to kill, but did not want the person soul to be doomed to hell (or any other evil outer plane.) It might occasionally be used on a target who is already dying and cannot be saved that did not have time enough to earn redemption.
It looks like you're going with the assumption that the eaten sin is destroyed, no longer helps weigh the soul of the dead and is removed from the world.
My personal take on it:
Not eating the sin of an evil person, no matter their crimes or contrition, means handing a soul to an evil god. It would make sense for a lawful character to feel a soul belonged where it was heading, or that there should be some form of atonement in exchange for reprieve from their fate, but to a neutral good character the evil that's been done can't be undone, so they would just focus on future good or evil.
The sin-eater may have those seeking atonement do acts to appease Pharasma who likely doesn't look kindly on diverting souls along their journey. Not so much balancing the scales as paying a tax for being permitted to continue interfering in rightful judgement.
The question is if for the right reason like true redemption can a mercy killing fall under the umbrella of Neutral good. Not if the sinner is paying for atonement but realized the life they lived did not “invest” in the afterlife so they wanted to attone and they seek out the sin eater. Say he puts them on a quest of redemption (quest depends on how wicked they lived) and upon completion promises to devour thier sin to wipe the slate clean. Still good? Or does that fall in the neutral territory in your opinion
Ask your GM. My two cents:
Can a Mercy Killing be Good? If someone is suffering in great pain and you waited to ease it? Sure. Intentionally dying would probably be against many good and evil deities tenets. More importantly...an Atonement spell does this without all the weird ritual killing nonsense.
Sin Eating for a good character would be used on a target the inquisitor had to kill, but did not want the person soul to be doomed to hell (or any other evil outer plane.) It might occasionally be used on a target who is already dying and cannot be saved that did not have time enough to earn redemption.
A small correction, the ability in question does not actually prevent or change judgement. That is merely what the Sin Eater faith believes, not actually what is mechanically true.
If the character seeking redemption can complete a quest to prove their worth they can already get redemption. At that point if the inquisitor kills the person they have killed a good person for no reason and that would be an evil act.
Disagree. The quest alone doesn’t make an evil person or slightly bad one good but shows they were willing to put the work in to change
The quest itself may not be enough to change the alignment. The point I was trying to make is that if they have time to complete the quest they have time to find redemption without having to be killed. If that is the case you are killing someone for no reason which would be an evil act.
The only way I can see a good sin eater working is if he uses his ability only when necessary. For example if he was in a situation where he has to kill someone to prevent something bad happening. Or maybe if the person who is seeking redemption is already dying, and the inquisitor has no way of saving them.
Don’t forget that Atonement is available to inquisitors and clerics. Why would a good inquisitor not go that route instead of killing someone who could become good? Not having the spell as one known would not be a valid reason to murder someone.
The way I’m validating it is as a Sin Eater of Saenrae; yes he only uses the ability as necessary.
Character background was betrayed and sold into slavery as a gladiator in attempt for a new sin eater to be born. He uses his ability to redeem his “brothers” until he was freed.
However I absolutely agree it is a last method as a free man unless someone is tainted as a higher level sin eater can prevent vampirism and other undead resurrection.
Also for deliberate misdeeds its 3000 gp (500 basic + up-to 2500 depending on the vile deeds) for atonement while a sin eater does so for free at cost of their life.
Atonement is used for one of two things. The first is to restore class abilities that were lost due to an action that goes against a deity’s code. The second is to allow a creature to suddenly change alignments. And there is only a cost if the actions were voluntary.
Someone can change alignments without any kind of magic at all. To earn redemption the person must truly want to be redeemed and be willing to change. As I said if the person agrees to a quest and has time to complete it, they have time to earn redemption. Sarenrae is the deity of redemption and to me taking a life to speed up the process is going directly against her teachings. Any Inquisitor who tried that in a campaign I was running would be an ex-inquisitor or Sarenrae.
Using it Sin Eating to prevent someone from coming back as an undead would be an acceptable use. Killing a healthy person who is in no danger after they complete a holy quest would not be. That is not a mercy killing, that is killing because it is convenient. Mercy killing is when you kill someone to spare them from suffering needlessly.