PDA

View Full Version : Alignment quetion:Mutilating a corpse and other things



actuatedgear
2011-12-16, 11:46 PM
Ok as I understand it, desicrazting a corpse is an evil thing but for the purpose of role playing, ok...
Alright we've got a halforc barbarian. My character. As per the backstory ive written, he has an intense hatred of ogres. Being raised in a orphanage of Cayden Cailey that was raided by ogres-he don't like em too much. He and several other children survived after freeing themselves and then slaying the ogres(at night). Of course this after several of their fellows including the caretaker were subject to ogre games...

These things are evil incarnate and while I can't see any reson he would be torturing them, I can see him having trouble. I can see him needing to ensure each and every one was dead. I can see him stopping the paladin from giving them last rights(as he should regardless of the foe I would think).

I can also see him still hacking away at one of the creatures body, even after all of them are dead.

Is there anything here that might be a problem, even given the circumstances? Am I going the wrong way? Suggestions?

Crossblade
2011-12-17, 12:20 AM
Venting anger on a corpse that mentally scarred you isn't really that bad.

There was a thread less than a week ago where the OP cut off an innocent person's head, thinking they were dead... wont' get into more details; but it was noted that it was fine to take trophies from game/monster kills. Ogres are considered monsters.
I believe even mounting heads of EVIL beings on pikes was accepted.

So if you were to decapitate or just slash your weapon into a corpse to make sure it's dead, you'd be fine. If you cut it open and start eating organs or using bones and intestines as chew toys, then you're going too far.

Denying last rights is merely a moral outlook, even two LG characters could RP about worthiness to receive.

Vknight
2011-12-17, 12:30 AM
Mutilating enemy corpses that were just foes depending of stress can be considered chaotic, evil/neutral. Mutilating a race with a strong hatred towards is always neutral unless it is misplaces racial aggression.
Denying last rites to evil things is a good/neutral action.
Giving last rites to evildoers is justifying the actions they took.

actuatedgear
2011-12-17, 12:31 AM
Thanks that clears up a lot. This is one of those cases where I didn't have the right kind of experience to make a truly objective call here. I think I can do this. Thankyou.

icefractal
2011-12-17, 02:32 AM
Given that the D&D afterlife is actually spelled out, and it has nothing to do with the condition of the corpse, it could be argued that mutilating any corpses is merely a neutral action. It does make it harder for them to be raised from the dead - but assuming you killed them intentionally, and presumably want them to stay dead, that isn't really a factor.

Strawberries
2011-12-17, 10:30 AM
Mutilating enemy corpses that were just foes depending of stress can be considered chaotic, evil/neutral. Mutilating a race with a strong hatred towards is always neutral unless it is misplaces racial aggression.
Denying last rites to evil things is a good/neutral action.
Giving last rites to evildoers is justifying the actions they took.

Well... I wouldn't speak in such absolute terms.

A psychological, uncontrolled reaction as the OP suggests? I'd say it's neither good nor evil (nor particularly Neutral, either...) Just a psycological uncontrolled reaction deriving from trauma, with no ethical effect at all. Now, attacking without provocation a member of that species just because of what s/he is would be another can of worms...

Now...denying last rites to evildoers... that's more of a minefield, alignment-wise. I think it would strongly depend on the character. Anyway, I wouldn't see it as a Good action. Neutral as best, in my opinion.

As for giving last rites to evildoers as justifying the actions they took... I don't see it that way. Not usually, at least. In that case, too, it would fully depend from the character's motivation. Nowhere in the character's motivation should necessary figure the desire to justify the evil they did. I can fully see it as being roleplayed as a final act of mercy. In that case, I'd see it as a Good action.

Yes, alignment threads are fun, because noone will ever agree. It's still fun to argue. :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2011-12-17, 11:53 AM
I tend to view mutilating a corpse as being a chaotic action; transgressing cultural norms, not morality.

gkathellar
2011-12-17, 12:01 PM
Mutilating a corpse out of frustration and rage probably isn't a good act, but it might not be an evil one either. And even were it an evil act, it's not a major one, and good characters sometimes commit evil acts (up to a point) without automatically losing their good alignment.

EDIT: Unless you're in a Greek-type setting, in which case it's basically the equivalent of beating a cripple, and the gods will come after you.


Denying last rites to evil things is a good/neutral action.
Giving last rites to evildoers is justifying the actions they took.

Or it could constitute mercy, forgiveness and higher compassion. You know, those things which are typically associated with good.

theflyingkitty
2011-12-17, 03:22 PM
If you're curious about the nature of evil in D&D, check out the Book of Vile Darkness. I was reading the 3.5 one last night, but 4E comes out in a few days.

Haedrian
2011-12-17, 03:31 PM
If you're curious about the nature of evil in D&D, check out the Book of Vile Darkness. I was reading the 3.5 one last night, but 4E comes out in a few days.

Some of the classes in that book are so horrible its funny.

theflyingkitty
2011-12-17, 03:33 PM
They are... interesting. But the point of note are discussions on evil

Mastikator
2011-12-17, 04:05 PM
Having intense hatred for an entire race or species, ie extreme racism, is evil, even if it's "justified".
That being said, having a "darker and edgier side" is not the same as "being a bad and evil person". Going into a frenzy hacking at corpses seems like there's some anger issues, which may disturb some of the more holier than though characters, but it should absolutely not make him an evil character, I can even see him being a good character if he has other redeeming qualities.

Arbane
2011-12-17, 05:17 PM
What people have said - it's either a really minor evil act, or just a chaotic one.

Also, chopping up corpses is just good common sense if you know there's a necromancer in the area.

the_other_gm
2011-12-17, 05:39 PM
as with all things relating to alignment there is but one final answer: ask your GM.

the main reason i keep hearing for "not mutilating" is some form of respect for the dead & their survivors, which is far more of a cultural thing since many cultures IRL did mutilate the dead in some fashion.

on a "big picture" sense, ask your GM and if it will actually affect your character mechanically. on a "will my adventuring buddies be ok with this?" ask the players on how their characters would react.

Cerlis
2011-12-17, 07:30 PM
yea, it of course depends on the DM.

There are many interpretations of good. I think the most common interpretation is that violation of the rights of Mortal people, or any form of act against a inherently good creature (angels, unicorns) is an evil act (basically). In this same system any form of destruction to evil creatures is alright. I have often seem pictures of angels holding the decapitated heads of demons. its ok because they ARE evil. This is different than doing it to someone who could be redeemed, so usually doing it to a mortal is seen as bad (unless they are so far gone)

Others see it as mostly per the motivation of the person performing the act. For instance the paladin is torturing the demon for vengence, hate, wrath, and sadism. So even though the demon is LITERALLY Evil, that the darkness that fills the paladins heart when he does this thing is the thing that taints him.

WHile others see it as to the subject of the victim. In this case the question is the "right to dignity, even after death" most people view for the dead. This is why its important to find out if the first thing i said is true. If creatures are pure evil than they really dont have a mobile will. They arent REALLY individuals, so violation of their rights is not an issue. its just punishing and destroying evil.

However, if you view morality in the spectrum of , not the state of the soul (Good, evil, or mortal) but in the mind, that harming anything sentient, is bad, then you have issues.

sorry i'm rambling, i thought out a better reply last night.

But basically I think you could classify it as such.

A person is of the mind: What makes a person is their mind, their free thought and individuality. Harming or taking away the rights of any free thinking creature is wrong. This includes mortals, sentient outsiders, free thinking constructs, and even other life forms. As long as it has free will its existance and rights are as important as others.

A Person is of the soul: This is like what i first said. The struggle and "truth" of a person is in their soul. The only real debate is with mortals, as their soul is malliable and can change as they become tainted or purified by their own action and the actions of others. Harming a mortal (souled-creature) is Wrong, or evil. However other lifeforms are different. Harming an angel is Capitol E evil, in the sense that its the opposite of good, while harming a Demon is capitol G good because its the opposite of evil. In this case Good and Evil are not to be confused with good, and evil, as well as right and wrong. Simularly since constructs have no soul, and fey's spirits are just part of the larger wild, destroying them is seen as "sad" or "wrong" but on the planar scale probably not "Evil"

A Person is of the world: The most hardass theology. From what i see most players view the DnD world as the Person is of the Soul, idea, while big issues with Angels, Demons, Paladins, ect...happen when one of the first two plays with a Dm who has this view. A Persons , who and what they are, is Who and WHat they Are. Their existance is concrete. Good and Evil are not only true forces, but forces of nature. You can take good or evil and ball it up and throw it at someone. Deciding if someone is good or evil is like debating if they are a solid or a liquid. Some are water, some are rock, and some are mustard or play-do. But whether you are one or the other, or a mix of both the good and evil physically exist. Whether or not atonement exists (and whether or not that is fair) that means that a Paladin who kills an innocent will always fall. Someone who prevents a soul from passing on (perhaps by desecrating their corpse) is committing an evil act, even if they dont know what they are doing. Like before "right and wrong" are different from "good and evil" but even more so. This has the potential for the most Sadism or controversy as people like to make the "right" thing to do, an evil act and then send angels after you.

SowZ
2011-12-17, 07:40 PM
Anyway, good characters can commit evil actions and neutral characters can commit even greater ones just as evil characters can have redeeming qualities. For example, killing ogres on sight in their camps is evil but with the right background I can still see a neutral character doing it anyway. Racism is evil, but racists aren't necessarily evil. Desecrating corpses for an emotional release may not be good but don't fall into the trap of thinking, "Does this action fall under my alignment?" Instead, think "what would my character do in this situation?" Consider the alignment ramifications later, if you must. But every deed won't fall under your alignment.

If it is in that Paladin's code to give last rights to all enemies slain you won't be able to stop him without resorting to force, possibly alienating him as an ally permanantly.

bloodtide
2011-12-17, 10:04 PM
The thing you need to decide is: is there Cosmic Alignment or Local Alignment. If it's cosmic, then everyone in the mulitverse must follow all the same alignment rules. Local alignment allows for each group to have different rules(but not individuals). Now 'Cosmic alignment' is by the book, as they don't want to deal with all the gray stuff, but it does cause problems.

Example: If harming a dead body is cosmic evil/chaos/bad, then it always is. But say you have a group of nomadic barbarians, they see the body as just a shell and of no special value after the soul is gone. Once a person dies, the body is simply dumped. Or even more so, they eat the dead person. Now this is a perfectly valid cultural belief. But when looked at through 21st century eyes of cosmic alignment, it is seen as evil/bad. As we 21st century humans would never do it, it makes it always wrong.

This makes Local Alignment much more fun and flavorful. Though the trick is for the DM to keep tight control over it. But in the end, it's not so different then Cosmic Alignment. After all, you can spin/interpret every action at least two ways. So everything a person does can be good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral. And a lot of it is where you draw the line. You can say that slavery is illegal, but if your society gives workers absolutely no choice except to work, is that not slavery? If killing is wrong, how do you let some people kill and get away with it? If stealing is wrong, why is it alright to steal from others using the law, but not using a sword? And so on.

Even in our world you can legally 'desecrate' a corpse if you do it in good faith.

Serpentine
2011-12-18, 01:25 AM
My view:
Checking that an enemy is really dead is a neutral act.
Desecrating the corpses of the dead out of hatred is a fairly softly Chaotic Evil act.
Denying the dead their last rites out of spite is a softish Evil act.
Extreme hate of a single species is an Evil trait.

Individual Evil acts and traits do not a full alignment make. A character who particularly enjoys killing creatures of a particular species and have a blind hatred towards them that leads them to treat even their corpses with contempt because of childhood trauma, but who otherwise is noble and selfless would be merely flawed Good.
A character who sets out on an active campaign of genocide against a whole species over a personal grudge and loses sight of all other goals in the name of this one will most likely slip steadily towards Evil.

RndmNumGen
2011-12-18, 02:00 AM
Having intense hatred for an entire race or species, ie extreme racism, is evil, even if it's "justified".
That being said, having a "darker and edgier side" is not the same as "being a bad and evil person". Going into a frenzy hacking at corpses seems like there's some anger issues, which may disturb some of the more holier than though characters, but it should absolutely not make him an evil character, I can even see him being a good character if he has other redeeming qualities.

Just wanted to point this out:


Hatred: Dwarves receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes.
Hatred: Gnomes receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the reptilian and goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes.


Most dwarves are lawful good.

Most gnomes are neutral good.

While I'm not one to argue genocide, I would say that racial hatred itself, while Evil, isn't a strongly Evil trait. The actions that result from that hatred are more important(See Dwarves usually shunning Orcs and Half-Orcs, while on the other hand more Orcs would attack a Dwarf outright.)

hamishspence
2011-12-18, 06:40 AM
Individual Evil acts and traits do not a full alignment make. A character who particularly enjoys killing creatures of a particular species and have a blind hatred towards them that leads them to treat even their corpses with contempt because of childhood trauma, but who otherwise is noble and selfless would be merely flawed Good.

Might depend on how heavily you weight Evil traits compared to Good ones- or how strong they have to be, to pull a character into Neutral or even Evil alignment despite their strong Good personality traits.

Going by Heroes of Horror, mild Evil acts always done for a Good cause, are compatible with a Neutral alignment.

And going by Champions of Ruin, consistant Evil acts, regardless of the Good intentions, is compatible with an Evil alignment.

Very mild Evil deeds, done less "consistantly" might be the maximum level of Evil that's needed for a character to retain their Good alignment.

Mastikator
2011-12-18, 07:14 AM
Just wanted to point this out:
[snip])

If we are to quote the SRD then engarde!

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)

Racism is very clearly a lawful evil trait.
But like I said, you can have evil traits and still be good as long as you have other redeeming qualities.

hamishspence
2011-12-18, 07:18 AM
True- but the evil trait, would need to be one that's strongly overridden by the Good ones.

A character who is racist- but, despite their beliefs, would come to the aid of a member of the disliked race if they need it, for example- say, if they witnessed the other person being mugged.

David Gemmell's Druss, in the Druss the Legend novels, sounds about right.

Vknight
2011-12-18, 06:33 PM
So it all depends on how morally grey the campaign is.

If your playing with my players your scenarios are going to fall under strict rules that have been listed.
Well morally grey things will have it be on a case by case basis among other traits effecting changes to alignment

Mnemnosyne
2011-12-20, 12:54 AM
As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong, since I'm not thoroughly studied on the topic), most of the cultural concepts about 'desecrating' corpses originally stemmed from various widely varied and relatively common superstitions about the corpse being somehow important to the person's ability to enter the afterlife. Sometimes being properly buried, receiving last rites and other such things came into it.

Since in most D&D campaign settings, the afterlife is an objectively known fact that people go to, come back from, and have complete knowledge of, and the status of a person's corpse has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to enter it (indeed, an intact corpse is more likely to be turned into an undead creature, therefore hampering a person's ability to enter the afterlife) I see no reason why 'corpse desecration' would ever have become a thing in most D&D settings in the first place.

Psyren
2011-12-20, 02:50 AM
I tend to view mutilating a corpse as being a chaotic action; transgressing cultural norms, not morality.

It can stray into morality if you do it without heed to the surviving family's grief (like defeating a son in a duel, then carrying his head on your belt in full view of his parents) or to prevent the deceased from being raised if his crimes didn't warrant "permadeath."