PDA

View Full Version : Is Defiling Corpses For a Good Cause Evil?



Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-12-28, 01:24 AM
So, an issue has come up in a D&D game I'm running. A player, playing a Neutral Good dwarf cleric of Moradin, wants to crucify the corpse of a bandit by the side of the road as a warning to other bandits. Would this go against his alignment?

SowZ
2011-12-28, 01:26 AM
I see no reason why it would hurt his alignment. Even if it isn't Neutral Good, every action a character does won't be in line with their alignment. Since this doesn't hurt anyone, it wouldn't be nearly major enough to cause an alignment shift. If it is an in character thing to do, good on the Dwarves player! Don't discourage it.

Chilingsworth
2011-12-28, 01:27 AM
As long as he wasn't executing them via crucifixion, I don't see why doing that would be particuarly evil.

missmvicious
2011-12-28, 01:35 AM
That's a little more in line with Lawful Neutral than Neutral Good, but like the other posters said, it's not enough to cause an alignment ping... just a red flag. If he starts to display more tyrannical behavior or other forms of fear mongering as a behavioral pattern, it may be time to discuss an alignment shift to LN or even LE depending on the reasons behind the actions.

Reluctance
2011-12-28, 01:37 AM
Little evil. Not worth a fall, an alignment change, or even a comment. If anything, I'd consider it more an evil predictor than evil itself.

Morithias
2011-12-28, 02:08 AM
I still don't see why "defiling corpses" is considered evil. In our world yes it is disrespectful to the people who died, however this is a world where burning a corpse can mean the difference between "evil tyrant gone forever" and "Evil tyrant returns 4 days after being assassination".

Plus, this isn't some noble soldier who died in a war for a cause he believed in even if it did conflict with other forces of good where it was grey and grey morality, it was a bloody bandit who probably jumped the party going "give me gold or I cut you".

Lawful Neutral I'll agree with. However as per the action is lawful neutral, this act moves him toward the LAWFUL side of the alignment chart, NOT the evil side. Therefore this dwarf is now one step closer to Lawful Good.

Remember people Good =/= Nice!

Cirrylius
2011-12-28, 03:50 AM
Well, Moradin is a Lawful god with Protection in his portfolio. Leaving a dead bandit pinned up as a warning to other lawbreakers shouldn't be a big issue. The only problem I could see is the church might consider it too brutal a message to jibe with Moradin's whole Tough But Fair image. IOW, the ACT wouldn't be disapproved of, but how the public at large PERCEIVES the act might.

Mastikator
2011-12-28, 04:13 AM
Change his alignment? No. But neither Moradin nor the Church of Moradin should be OK with it since it can be argued that dead bodies are sacred and should be buried, not crucified, and as previously stated it's a bit on the brutal side.

Killer Angel
2011-12-28, 04:38 AM
So, an issue has come up in a D&D game I'm running. A player, playing a Neutral Good dwarf cleric of Moradin, wants to crucify the corpse of a bandit by the side of the road as a warning to other bandits. Would this go against his alignment?

To be fair, I don't see this as a good cause, but more a lawful cause...

MukkTB
2011-12-28, 05:46 AM
Alignment gets to be a pain. This was not an act that warrants an alignment shift.

If you're the world builder you have to decide how the local entities would feel about it. Its not unreasonable to have a policy of burning the dead. At least the ones that aren't taken care of. Undead are not pleasant. Some governments may crucify or hang criminals. Churches may have their own moral codes. The local magistrate may be pissed that the bandits weren't taken in to town for a fair trial. Maybe you need a writ to be able to execute people. Maybe there is no local law at all and nobody cares.

The only thing about it is, if local conditions are a specific way, you should have warned the player about them. "Everyone knows the magistrate comes down hard on vigilantes," isn't something the player should have to deal with after his actions. If the legal code is obscure he should at least get a knowledge roll. Warn him before he takes the action so he can make an informed decision.

Kurald Galain
2011-12-28, 07:09 AM
So, an issue has come up in a D&D game I'm running. A player, playing a Neutral Good dwarf cleric of Moradin, wants to crucify the corpse of a bandit by the side of the road as a warning to other bandits. Would this go against his alignment?

Yes. "The end justifies the means" is not Good.

(edit) that said, one such act does not warrant an immediate alignment shift; and endless debate about this is the main reason why I stopped using alignment in my games over a decade ago.

Newman
2011-12-28, 08:15 AM
Defiling corpses is perfectly traditional behavior for Good characters, especially when it comes to fighting villains with a healing factor.

Usually decapitation and a stake to the heart work on most everyone.

Medic!
2011-12-28, 09:11 AM
I've always used motivation more than acts to gauge alignment in campaigns. If his motivation is to keep the peace through fear or save those poor bandits' souls through fear, that's more of a LE act, but as has been mentioned many times over, one act isn't sufficient to change someone's alignment. If anything I'd probly secretly assign a player in that situation's character 2 lawful points and maybe 1/2 an evil point. Of course those points work kinda like Who's Line Is It Anyway and are kind of arbitrary until it's like "Ok dawg, here's the deal..."

tl;dr Puting bodies on display as an incentive to uphold the laws is a stereotypical LE act, imo, but alignment changes should be earned over time

Newman
2011-12-28, 10:08 AM
Here's a spiky question: what's the effect of Lelouch and Suzaku's actions on their allignments?

gkathellar
2011-12-28, 12:04 PM
Putting somebody's corpse on a pole to rot "as a warning to others" is not a good cause, because more than likely it's not going to dissuade anyone from anything, and the only likely outcomes are making people angry and upset. Now with that said, I'd think the main ethical issue with defiling a corpse in most fantasy game setting is that you deny it the benefits of a possible Raise Dead spell in so doing. It's much like how you don't defile corpses in Greek mythology, because in so doing you do harm to the person in the afterlife.

There's also the question of respect, and its paramount role in having a good alignment. Just because an action against the corpse doesn't hurt the dead bandit doesn't stop the action from reflecting poorly on you. You killed the guy, you won, good for you — but as long as he's not a threat any more, any further action you take against him is a black mark against you.


Here's a spiky question: what's the effect of Lelouch and Suzaku's actions on their allignments?

Not on topic, they don't have alignments, not an anime forum, blah blah complain complain.

missmvicious
2011-12-28, 12:35 PM
it was a bloody bandit who probably jumped the party going "give me gold or I cut you".

That's a good point, Morithias. I wonder what the bandits backstory was? Was he truly worthy of such a vulgar display of vengeance? Was the bandit simply a boy/girl who ran away from home a little too soon and got caught up in the wrong crowd, or was the bandit a murderous, vile monster who's been given every possible chance to reform and yet refuses to behave within the acceptable confines of structured society?

Was he plagued with poverty and merely doing the only thing he could do to provide for his family? Or was he a mean little bully who got off on destroying other people's lives?

NG (good above all else)= Putting the heads of vicious marauders on pikes as a warning to those who rape and pillage in your kingdom.

LE (tyranny) = Putting the bodies of slain enemy soldiers of lands you have conquered on pikes as a way to inspire fear in all who oppose your army.

LN (the law above all else) = Hosting a fair and impartial trial to determine the guilt of an accused offender, then determining a sentence based on established law and/or precedence, and following through with that sentence without consideration for repentance or a reprieve, even if that punishment involves displaying your corpse in public as a warning.

All three alignments are capable of producing similar results. The difference is in the reason or method that resulted in the act.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-12-28, 01:00 PM
Well, the PCs found an upturned supply cart containing a dead merchant, on a road winding through a lawless forest between two cities. Further examination revealed the fact that the cart had been robbed. The party decided to track down the thief/murderer, and the ranger lead them to a cave containing a group of bandits. They entered the cave, and were ambushed. There was a fight, which the PCs won.

missmvicious
2011-12-28, 01:32 PM
Did anyone bother to investigate the body to determine whether the merchant was murdered or killed accidentally?

Did anyone bother to figure out whether or not these bandits really were the bandits who attacked the merchant caravan, or did they just follow tracks and draw a simple conclusion?

I'm reminded of the book Sojourn, where a party of Rangers and a bounty hunter were seeking out Drizzt for the murder of a simple farmer and his family. On the surface, it really looked like Drizzt was the culprit, and the group was out for blood. But the lead Ranger wanted the truth and investigated the clues impartially. Although it took some digging, she eventually realized that the initial clues were misleading and that Drizzt had actually avenged the ravaged family. She cancelled the pursuit, putting aside her initially racist preconceptions. The bounty hunter, on the other hand, was satisfied by his earlier notions, and wanted the bounty badly enough to overlook the more recent clues.

Does your party sound more like the unbiased Ranger who only sought the truth, or the judgmental bounty hunter who saw a blood-fountain full of GP?

As a DM, here is a good chance for you to explore their motivations. Maybe you could spin this story into a great subplot:

The lord of the town is tyrannical and seeks punishment more than justice. The robbers were an impoverished family who got talked into a life of crime by a diplomatic anarchist, because the legal system was crushing them. New to the game, they meant to do a simple, "Pay the toll, and you can go free" kind of schtick, but the anarchist bandits is a little too chaotic for that and wanted to put a little fear in the merchant, which startled the horses and caused the cart to flip. The family wanted to bolt, but the anarchist threatened to kill them if they didn't help loot the body. So, with no other choice, they helped bring it back to camp, where they were drugged and left behind with enough clues to lead a militia right to them, while the anarchist left with the best loot down a secret path into the woods where only a skilled tracker would've found them.

The adventurers found the obviously guilty party, but the family saw them first. Realizing they would be publicly tortured for a crime they didn't commit if they were brought back to town, they decided to try their luck against these adventurers and see if they can escape alive into the woods. Unlucky for them, the adventurers were stronger. Now, their relatively innocent hides are hanging from a cross for the effort, but a recurring CE villain is now terrorizing the country side!

:smallbiggrin:

It would be interesting to find out how this affects your players' role-playing. What they do next with this new plot hook will tell you everything you need to know about whether or not the Dwarf is getting red-flagged for an alignment ping.

bloodtide
2011-12-28, 02:05 PM
So, an issue has come up in a D&D game I'm running. A player, playing a Neutral Good dwarf cleric of Moradin, wants to crucify the corpse of a bandit by the side of the road as a warning to other bandits. Would this go against his alignment?

No. At least it should not be. Until just a couple dozen years ago, this was very common. And this is still done in parts of the world.

Now the modern (western) view holds that a corpse is sacred and you must 'treat it right', but that's today. Most of the Western world thinks of a dead body as something special, but not the whole world. The belief that a 'dead body is just a shell' is completely valid.

Dwarves are great examples of 'extreme good'. I see them as doing things like 'crucify the corpse of a bandit by the side of the road as a warning to other bandits.' That's common dwarf type justice.

Think of the other side though. If Moradin was to say 'every corpse is a super special snowflake and must be treated with honor and respect', then how would dwarves act? Does this mean they must give every dead body a proper burial? Do they dig graves? Or pyres? Do they need to have a ceremony? Do they need to take the bodies to a graveyard and inform the local authorities who is there? Can they even kill people?

Sgt. Cookie
2011-12-28, 02:43 PM
The real question is: Who is considering the corpse "Defiled"? Moradin? The Dwarf? The general consensus of the fictional world? Or just us, through our meta perception of this fairy tale?

This question is asked from a meta perspective, we are not taking into account that this fictional world has a different set of rules to ours. We are trying to super impose our own morality on a world that is vastly different to our own.

As has been stated before, this fictional world has ways of raising the dead, communing with other worldly forces, hell, even going into other planes to kick the arse of a god.

So by asking this question from a meta perspective, you are by passing the simplest and most important question of them all: Who is considering the corpse "Defiled"?.

If you can answer that, with any answer other than "Me, but from a meta perspective" then you have found your answer.

Cirrylius
2011-12-28, 03:21 PM
[COLOR="Purple"]Maybe you could spin this story into a great subplot:
[SPOILER]

That would be a great scenario in a novel. If my DM sprang it on me, though, I would be LIVID.

SowZ
2011-12-28, 03:26 PM
That would be a great scenario in a novel. If my DM sprang it on me, though, I would be LIVID.

Why? If someone uses lethal force as a first response often they will kill people who don't deserve it often.

It is not as if the story above should be unexpected. Most criminals aren't just horrible people. Most have a reason to have been pressured into it. A good cop will investigate motives behind a crime and try and establish context. A morally ambigous mercenary will see a crime and then go after whoever is involved, ready to kill at the first need.


Did anyone bother to investigate the body to determine whether the merchant was murdered or killed accidentally?

Did anyone bother to figure out whether or not these bandits really were the bandits who attacked the merchant caravan, or did they just follow tracks and draw a simple conclusion?

I'm reminded of the book Sojourn, where a party of Rangers and a bounty hunter were seeking out Drizzt for the murder of a simple farmer and his family. On the surface, it really looked like Drizzt was the culprit, and the group was out for blood. But the lead Ranger wanted the truth and investigated the clues impartially. Although it took some digging, she eventually realized that the initial clues were misleading and that Drizzt had actually avenged the ravaged family. She cancelled the pursuit, putting aside her initially racist preconceptions. The bounty hunter, on the other hand, was satisfied by his earlier notions, and wanted the bounty badly enough to overlook the more recent clues.

Does your party sound more like the unbiased Ranger who only sought the truth, or the judgmental bounty hunter who saw a blood-fountain full of GP?

As a DM, here is a good chance for you to explore their motivations. Maybe you could spin this story into a great subplot:

The lord of the town is tyrannical and seeks punishment more than justice. The robbers were an impoverished family who got talked into a life of crime by a diplomatic anarchist, because the legal system was crushing them. New to the game, they meant to do a simple, "Pay the toll, and you can go free" kind of schtick, but the anarchist bandits is a little too chaotic for that and wanted to put a little fear in the merchant, which startled the horses and caused the cart to flip. The family wanted to bolt, but the anarchist threatened to kill them if they didn't help loot the body. So, with no other choice, they helped bring it back to camp, where they were drugged and left behind with enough clues to lead a militia right to them, while the anarchist left with the best loot down a secret path into the woods where only a skilled tracker would've found them.

The adventurers found the obviously guilty party, but the family saw them first. Realizing they would be publicly tortured for a crime they didn't commit if they were brought back to town, they decided to try their luck against these adventurers and see if they can escape alive into the woods. Unlucky for them, the adventurers were stronger. Now, their relatively innocent hides are hanging from a cross for the effort, but a recurring CE villain is now terrorizing the country side!

:smallbiggrin:

It would be interesting to find out how this affects your players' role-playing. What they do next with this new plot hook will tell you everything you need to know about whether or not the Dwarf is getting red-flagged for an alignment ping.

The initial ranger was a pretty bad person anyway, though. I wouldn't say she looked at clues impartially so much as Drizzt flung them in her face so hard she couldn't ignore it. Still, you bring up a good example as to how it can happen a party is tracking the wrong person.

Winter_Wolf
2011-12-28, 03:33 PM
Crucifixion as a warning to would-be thieves seems like a very dwarven behavior, depending on which sources you consider when deciding "typical dwarf mentality".

At first I thought it would be a definitely non-good activity, but I wouldn't mark it as evil unless there was a degree of torture involved. Because he's putting up a corpse instead of putting up a living being to be ravaged by the torture-to-death, I'd probably look the other way.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-12-28, 03:53 PM
Why would mutilating a corpse be evil for any reason?

It's a corpse, so any killing involved was done beforehand. In D&D, the only effect mutilating a corpse has on the soul it previously housed is that it may be unable to be raised from the dead (as a living person or, IIRC, a zombie) - and cutting off the head can prevent Speak with Dead from working. Two of those aren't likely to be used on a bandit in any case and less zombies is generally only a good thing. And if these were common or garden bandits then Raise Dead may well not have worked anyway, the spell says outright that coming back is an ordeal, and I believe the PHB version implies that ressurection only works on PCs and important NPCs. And that's if they want to come back, if they're in bandintry for any reason other than enjoyment the afterlife may well be better than their life was.

It might be disrespectful, but that's not automaticallly evil (though it can be, if taken to extremes). And a dwarf (or Moradin) might not see it that way anyway. Hatred and respect can go together. To a dwarf, leaving mutilated corpses of foes might be a sign of respect - the dwarf has gone out of their way to discourage others from that path, rather than not being bothered and just leaving as if nothing had happened. It might not be as respectful as proper burial rites, but dwarves have respect for their foes built into their racial features (in D&D 3.5, at least) - they have such a hatred toward some races that they have specific training to combat them. They take their foes seriously, even as they combat them with traditional dwarven sense of duty. Dwarves are a perfect example of good not being nice, seeing as they live in fortresses and are trained for combat as a matter of course - something orcs lack.

Hope that is in some way helpful.

Killer Angel
2011-12-28, 04:49 PM
The real question is: Who is considering the corpse "Defiled"? Moradin? The Dwarf? The general consensus of the fictional world? Or just us, through our meta perception of this fairy tale?

This question is asked from a meta perspective, we are not taking into account that this fictional world has a different set of rules to ours. We are trying to super impose our own morality on a world that is vastly different to our own.


Still, when we apply morality to the behavior of a paladin, we apply our own morality. Slavery was common ad widely accepted in past ages, but we (and the paladin) consider it evil.
So no, unless differently specified, D&D world share our moral PoV.

That said, IMO the act was LN and decisely not worth a change of Al.

SowZ
2011-12-28, 05:03 PM
Still, when we apply morality to the behavior of a paladin, we apply our own morality. Slavery was common ad widely accepted in past ages, but we (and the paladin) consider it evil.
So no, unless differently specified, D&D world share our moral PoV.

That said, IMO the act was LN and decisely not worth a change of Al.

The act itself doesn't have an alignment attached to it. It is all about intentions. I'd say LN is a good qualifier in this case. But the same act could be Chaotic, Good, Evil, etc. depending.

TriForce
2011-12-28, 07:03 PM
striktly speaking, yes, mutulating a corpse, especially for such a trivial thing like a potential warning is against a good alignment.

its obviously not enough to make a alignment shift, and other people might do little more then raise a eyebrow at such a act of cruelty, but it has several implications.

first of all, that bandit likely had family/friends who are completly innocent but still loved him. by pinning him up there, you MIGHT scare off other bandits, but your sure to inflict some minor trauma on any loved one of him who saw him.

also, a corpse is a unhealthy thing, hanging it up is a danger for any innocent passing by there.

and lastly, yes the bandit might possibly have been a murderer. but lets be fair, you dont know that for sure, and all he did to you was defend himself when he got attacked. making a signpost out of the guy is just very disrespectful.

all in all, its a neutral act at best, and a evil act in most times, even tough its only a minor one. its certainly cruel, and it should get at least a "what the hell" out of other good aligned people

Lord Tyger
2011-12-28, 07:29 PM
Hold on- how is it supposed to discourage the bandits? Is it along the lines of "This bandit got killed, and this is just a way to display that fact," (in which case, just hanging from a local tree with a sign seems like it might be a bit easier- and some sort of signification that it's a bandit specifically seems necessary in any case, unless this is a traditional way of dealing with banditry in the area)?

Or is it a more specific warning meant to indicate "Those caught in the course of banditry will have their corpses crucified," in which case, why is post-humous crucifixion such a big deal? Is it percieved to have some effect on the afterlife (plenty of cultures linked burial ceremonies to your comfort or position in the afterlife). If so, does it actually? Condemning the bandit to eternal metaphysical crucifixion might be a bit harsh.

FatJose
2011-12-28, 07:37 PM
What if people take it to mean that there's a crazy bunch out killing and nailing up people? On who's authority is he defacing the roads? How can anyone be sure the guy was a thief? Really, that rotting body is just gonna scare everybody.

Vitruviansquid
2011-12-28, 07:41 PM
My rule of thumb: If it's a question, it's evil.

Anderlith
2011-12-28, 07:57 PM
Indiana Jones says "No it's not"

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-12-28, 09:25 PM
My rule of thumb: If it's a question, it's evil.

That must make for very boring games.

Morithias
2011-12-28, 10:08 PM
That must make for very boring games.

If not boring at least games where it's very black and white morality. The type of games commonly referred to as "kick in the door" games.

FatJose
2011-12-28, 10:27 PM
That must make for very boring games.

It holds some truth, though. If someone has to ask if they're doing some thing that's wrong. They probably are.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-12-28, 10:33 PM
This thread has made me realize how wildly irresponsible my party was being. :smalleek:

Vitruviansquid
2011-12-28, 10:39 PM
Harsh, guys. :(

Here's the way I figure it.

1. Nobody goes around kicking puppies just to be evil. Evil isn't so much a goal as something that just happens because the lack of intention to do good. So if you come across a situation where you're debating, "gee, doing this thing might count as evil, or it might be ethically/morally permissible..." you're already coming into a situation where you're weighing between being good or something else. If you choose that other "something else," you aren't prioritizing being good, so you're running into evil territory already.

2. This stays true even in situations when you're judging utility, as in "if I do this morally ambiguous thing, it might actually benefit people despite possibly being considered evil." This situation is a textbook case of evil means to a good end, which in fiction is often held as evil. Of course, you could point out a lot of fiction where this doesn't turn out to be the case (Watchmen, off the top of my head keeps it ambiguous), but that's not how conscience works, and most of those fictions. Nobody, in my experience, can write off doing a morally questionable act and go on with their merry lives just because the questionable act had good effects. The same holds true for cases where each possible choice is morally questionable.

3. If we're discussing this in an RPG scenario, I find it's actually more interesting to shut down players' attempts to have their cake and eat it, too. When a player suggests a solution like this, you can turn it into a roleplaying opportunity by telling him he can either commit an evil act or fail to warn other bandits, thus having to do more to solve the bandit problem or getting attacked by bandits later.

hamishspence
2011-12-29, 07:15 AM
Dwarfs as a little brutal tends to fit the novels.

In the Icewind Dale trilogy, for example, Bruenor seems to see nothing wrong with torturing orc prisoners (though Drizzt figures that since they're under the command of a wizard, magical charms will work better- and that's what's used). And later, it's mentioned that Mithril Hall had a cabinet full of severed thief hands as a warning to future thieves.

Mastikator
2011-12-29, 08:12 AM
Harsh, guys. :(

Here's the way I figure it.

1. Nobody goes around kicking puppies just to be evil. Evil isn't so much a goal as something that just happens because the lack of intention to do good. So if you come across a situation where you're debating, "gee, doing this thing might count as evil, or it might be ethically/morally permissible..." you're already coming into a situation where you're weighing between being good or something else. If you choose that other "something else," you aren't prioritizing being good, so you're running into evil territory already.

2. This stays true even in situations when you're judging utility, as in "if I do this morally ambiguous thing, it might actually benefit people despite possibly being considered evil." This situation is a textbook case of evil means to a good end, which in fiction is often held as evil. Of course, you could point out a lot of fiction where this doesn't turn out to be the case (Watchmen, off the top of my head keeps it ambiguous), but that's not how conscience works, and most of those fictions. Nobody, in my experience, can write off doing a morally questionable act and go on with their merry lives just because the questionable act had good effects. The same holds true for cases where each possible choice is morally questionable.

3. If we're discussing this in an RPG scenario, I find it's actually more interesting to shut down players' attempts to have their cake and eat it, too. When a player suggests a solution like this, you can turn it into a roleplaying opportunity by telling him he can either commit an evil act or fail to warn other bandits, thus having to do more to solve the bandit problem or getting attacked by bandits later.

1. Wrong, very wrong. Any cleric of an evil deity is arguably doing evil for evil's sake. Those who lack intention to do good tend to fall on the neutral side as they also tend to lack tendency for evil deeds. (granted that killing for the sake of personal benefit is squarely on the evil side).
There are plenty of occasions where you would think of what course of action is most in line with the evil alignment, and take that course. For example, if you're trying to offend a good deity, or impress an evil one. (specifically, a vulgar evil one)
Or if you're trying to show to people that you're not to be messed with doing whatever is the most evil thing is the smartest thing.

On the flip side, how often, really do people do things purely because it's "the right thing to do"? Not very often, granted, it's more often than doing things because it's "the wrong thing to do" but that's probably because A) doing good deeds is more likely to benefit you than evil deeds and b) people are more likely to be good than evil (by D&D morality standards).

2. Yepp.

3. To be honest, crucifying a corpse is probably not the greatest way to break the bandits morale, because, as described in point 1 I made, figuring out what the most evil thing to do for the sake of showing how badass you are is not in line with being a good and upstanding person, and that is basically what defiling a corpse amounts to.

hamishspence
2011-12-30, 07:48 AM
1. Wrong, very wrong. Any cleric of an evil deity is arguably doing evil for evil's sake.

May depend on the cleric, and the deity- sometimes the cleric and the deity are primarily devoted to a certain goal- and their evil deeds are primarily out of ruthlessness rather than "for evil's sake".

Wulfram
2011-12-30, 10:58 AM
It might count as evil if the dead guy comes from a culture in which lack of proper burial has dire consequences for the afterlife. Particularly if this happened to be true, or if the cleric believed the same thing

It might count as chaotic if the cleric's culture has a strong taboo against disrespecting the dead.

dps
2011-12-30, 02:39 PM
Why would mutilating a corpse be evil for any reason?


Well, taking personal pleasure in mutilating others would probably be evil, even if they're already dead.

Otherwise, in a game where looting the dead, even one's own teammates, is perfectly accecptable behavior with most gaming groups, I don't see any problem unless the cleric's god or order had some specific rules about it.


My rule of thumb: If it's a question, it's evil.

Then everything's evil. There's nothing that someone won't question on some level. Even not taken to that extreme, it's probably not a useful POV in a system that has good, neutral, and evil alignments--it would only be a reasonable guideline if combined with common sense in a system with only good or bad alignments possible, with no neutral.

hamishspence
2011-12-30, 03:55 PM
In DMG2, it mentions that "displaying corpses as a warning" tends to be a sign that the local power centre is Lawful Evil- roads lined with gibbets.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-12-30, 05:01 PM
In DMG2, it mentions that "displaying corpses as a warning" tends to be a sign that the local power centre is Lawful Evil- roads lined with gibbets.

Might that be more due to the fact that they're killing people, rather than the display of corpses itself?

hamishspence
2011-12-30, 05:15 PM
Doubt it. BoED points out that execution for serious crimes does not qualify as evil.

Execution for minor crimes might though.

enderlord99
2011-12-30, 05:17 PM
2. This stays true even in situations when you're judging utility, as in "if I do this morally ambiguous thing, it might actually benefit people despite possibly being considered evil." This situation is a textbook case of evil means to a good end, which in fiction is often held as evil. Of course, you could point out a lot of fiction where this doesn't turn out to be the case (Watchmen, off the top of my head keeps it ambiguous), but that's not how conscience works, and most of those fictions. Nobody, in my experience, can write off doing a morally questionable act and go on with their merry lives just because the questionable act had good effects. The same holds true for cases where each possible choice is morally questionable.

So, sometimes, no matter what you do, the fact that you're in the situation in the first place means you're a horrible person?:smallconfused:

Cirrylius
2011-12-30, 05:50 PM
Why? If someone uses lethal force as a first response often they will kill people who don't deserve it often.

Because the way it's being portrayed here, it seems, is that there's no opportunity for the characters to realize their mistake before it happens. No "one of these guys looks like he hates your guts, but the others are terrified", no "the scared guy is going full defense, and he keeps looking back at the leader". The scenario as it's posted here reads more like the DM going "Huh, none of the players caught on to the distant possibility that this isn't a simple bandit attack like they were COMPLETELY EXPECTING. Fine. No reason they should catch on now", then letting them find the captives' diary after the combat. ENJOY ROLEPLAYING YOUR MORAL ANGUISH, SUCKERS! IT'S ON YOU 'CAUSE YOU DIDN'T SPEND TIME TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH!

The D&D mentality takes a certain looseness of responsibility in combat for granted, because 1) it happens a LOT, and 2)too much investigation and introspection before every single combat slows things down. If you tried to play like that, the whole party would need to be proficient in subdual combat and a couple of characters would have to max out their Knowledge: Law and Knowledge: Psychology to make absolutely certain that they got the whole story before executing the criminals themselves. Oh, and Knowledge: Local to make sure that every Humanoid killed was in fact Evil. It stops being fantasy and becomes CSI: Bandit Victims Unit.

I'm fine with messing with players' expectations, but you have to do something to telegraph that it's taking place. Give 'em a goddamn hint. If you're going to force your players into unknowingly doing something reprehensible because they're taking the game's (usually) easy-going attitude towards violence as granted, then your players are gonna react badly.

Vitruviansquid
2011-12-30, 08:19 PM
@dps: This is a rule of thumb, not the god-king of laws dictating morality. You'll have to explain to me why the existence of a neutral morality makes this rule of thumb not useful. To me, it seems if a player or DM asking whether an action is evil in the first place, it isn't too outlandish to suggest that the action is indeed evil. Besides, the rule is also there to generate conflicts where players will have to decide between acting toward a good alignment or doing something for mechanical benefit.

@Pokemon-freak89: No, not at all. It means good people can be forced to do evil deeds.

enderlord99
2011-12-30, 09:08 PM
@Pokemon-freak89: No, not at all. It means good people can be forced to do evil deeds.

And if it happens often... then... that means they're Evil. Right?

joe
2011-12-30, 10:12 PM
I would definitely put this as a point on the evil side. You couldn't just put up signs that say "Warning, Bandits patrol these roads." or "Highwaymen beware, these roadways are protected by the Followers of Moradin!" These might not seem as drastic, but are just as likely to get your point across, especially when bandits start to disappear along the roadways.

The only good aligned cause I can see for desecrating a corpse would be to decapitate someone who was killed by a vampire and has a possibility of turning into one themselves.

I wouldn't say that your proposal is evil necessarily, but I certainly can't think of any figure considered "heroic" who has done this past. Generally leaving bodies as a message is villainous territory.

Vitruviansquid
2011-12-30, 10:20 PM
What? No. How would that work?

horseboy
2011-12-30, 10:59 PM
That would be a great scenario in a novel. If my DM sprang it on me, though, I would be LIVID.

Why? Somebody attacks me with lethal force, they're going to die. Even if they were "just there" that's still accessory. There is on excuse for theft, and only one for murder.

Ehra
2011-12-30, 11:10 PM
Why? If someone uses lethal force as a first response often they will kill people who don't deserve it often.

The OP said the PCs were ambushed when entering the cave, so it was the bandits who first used lethal force. Ironically, your comment actually applies better to the group you're defending. If your hypothetical were true then, by ambushing the party, they were wrongly using lethal force against people who were just investigating a potential murder and would have potentially listened to their side of the story.


edit: As for the main topic, I think the idea of "defiling" a corpse being "good" or "bad" should be more of a cultural issue than moral. If it's a moral issue then, like someone mentioned in a previous post, you've got to come up with an objective reason for why using a body as a warning is more "evil" than looting a corpse (which I'd assume is seen as ok for general adventurer behavior). If your PC spell-slingers were to dabble in necromancy, would that also be an "evil" act?

Should it cause an alignment change or a like "punishment?" No, not on its own. But it could certainly warrant negative reactions from the locals and possibly even attention/suspicion from the law enforcement; depending on how these particular people would feel about such an act. Maybe the party won't be as trusted or welcome after this.

It's important to realize that even people of the same alignment can potentially have disagreements on whether something is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" based on their culture/upbringing.

MukkTB
2011-12-30, 11:59 PM
Any time the DM wants to play a gotcha e is obligated to provide a clue beforehand.

cattoy
2011-12-31, 12:36 AM
So, when captain Mal Reynolds straps a bunch of corpses to Serenity, in order to get by the reaver armada, that's an evil act, then?

Sure, it's distasteful. Disgusting, even. But they're corpses, and captain Mal and the crew didn't have anything to do with killing any of them (except one).

In some cultures, "defiling" a corpse was a necessary and required act. If you wanted to claim a bounty on a bandit or enemy soldier, you might be required to present his head, ear, scalp or other body part.

It feels "off" to us, here in the 21st century, but in most cultures, during most of recorded history, this sort of thing would probably not be out of place. It's not that I don't believe in making people responsible for their actions, but I wouldn't make 'em sweat too much. If you want to send a message, have Moradin express some concern that this is leading down a road they ought to avoid, but that's about it...

horseboy
2011-12-31, 12:38 AM
So, when captain Mal Reynolds straps a bunch of corpses to Serenity, in order to get by the reaver armada, that's an evil act, then?
That's not the question. The question is "How the Hell did they stay on at Mach 23?"

VanBuren
2011-12-31, 01:53 AM
So, when captain Mal Reynolds straps a bunch of corpses to Serenity, in order to get by the reaver armada, that's an evil act, then?

Sure, it's distasteful. Disgusting, even. But they're corpses, and captain Mal and the crew didn't have anything to do with killing any of them (except one).

In some cultures, "defiling" a corpse was a necessary and required act. If you wanted to claim a bounty on a bandit or enemy soldier, you might be required to present his head, ear, scalp or other body part.

It feels "off" to us, here in the 21st century, but in most cultures, during most of recorded history, this sort of thing would probably not be out of place. It's not that I don't believe in making people responsible for their actions, but I wouldn't make 'em sweat too much. If you want to send a message, have Moradin express some concern that this is leading down a road they ought to avoid, but that's about it...

Seems an odd double-standard, no? It's all cultural and medieval except for the Paladin, who must observe 21st century sensibilities?

I rather expect it depends on the kind of game. If you're trying to play something gritty and "dung age'd", then it should be highly cultural. But standard high fantasy? Where the noble and heroic heroes are heroic by modern standards? Not a chance.

Autolykos
2011-12-31, 07:40 AM
My rule of thumb: If it's a question, it's evil.
I think Linus' Law is a much better way to put this:

Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt. Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law.
It doesn't have that much to do about whether you need to ask the question, it's about whom you ask, and how.

Psyren
2011-12-31, 11:28 AM
Mutilating corpses may not be evil, but it's certainly not good either. It shows that you have no regard for the peace of mind or dignity of those whose behavior you are seeking to prevent.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

A character that is willing to nail corpses up along the roadside cares more about preventing crime than the atmosphere of fear/oppression he might create in pursuing that end. Again, I wouldn't call this evil necessarily, but neither would I call it good.

GnomeGninjas
2011-12-31, 03:16 PM
I would definitely put this as a point on the evil side. You couldn't just put up signs that say "Warning, Bandits patrol these roads." or "Highwaymen beware, these roadways are protected by the Followers of Moradin!" These might not seem as drastic, but are just as likely to get your point across, especially when bandits start to disappear along the roadways.

The only good aligned cause I can see for desecrating a corpse would be to decapitate someone who was killed by a vampire and has a possibility of turning into one themselves.

I wouldn't say that your proposal is evil necessarily, but I certainly can't think of any figure considered "heroic" who has done this past. Generally leaving bodies as a message is villainous territory.
What about just leaving them because you are lazy.

Aux-Ash
2012-01-02, 03:14 AM
I believe the first question in this matter ought to be:

Who does it hurt?

Bandits don't just spring out from under rocks when adventurers pass by. They will have friends and family. And to them it might matter a lot to give the poor fool a decent burial. Just because he made all the wrong choices doesn't mean they deserve to be punished by having to see his body displayed in such a way.
Even if they have no way of knowing and no way of finding him, you never know. Burying the dead out of the principle of the thing is a nice thing to do... if nothing else it shows you that you care.

Defiling him knowing that someone will be negatively affected by it means stepping out on iffy ground.

Second question is related to afterlife.

Do you believe that defiling his body have any effect on his afterlife? Does the local culture? Did he?

Because if you make a knowing choice to put him on the cross (or whatever) and that this will affect his afterlife then you're making a choice to hurt him in excess of what was necessary. Or alternatively, you're intimidating anyone who might happen to come across him. That might be other bandits... but it might also be innocent peasants that have no idea what this man did. They might be very disturbed by it and it's implications.

Third question.

In settings that acknowledge the return from the dead. Is it right to deny -anyone- this?

The more you mutilate someone the more difficult it ought to be. Crucifiction is nothing if not very damaging to the body. Is it right to expose someone to that? Regardless of whom it is and what they did in life? Is it right to deny someone a second chance?

But perhaps the most important thing in judging what alignment the deed ought to be is how the player reasons. If they come to a conclusion they are okay with. Satisfied with today's good deed. Then they're on far shakier ground than if they acknowledge: "No, it isn't good/right. But gods forgove me, it might actually help people."

In a lot of cases, I think, the most good thing you can do is to acknowledge that what you did wasn't and repenting for it later. To feel regret over what you did. Life is difficult, and being good doubly so.
Sometimes you cannot make the right decision... but you can acknowledge that it wasn't.

Morithias
2012-01-02, 03:29 AM
In settings that acknowledge the return from the dead. Is it right to deny -anyone- this?

Yes. I do not care what anyone says, certain people should not be allowed to come back. Especially people that would be brutally difficult to contain.

"Ok we raised the epic level evil conjour archmage, and we're going to tell him he gets a second chance if he serves his time"

Archmage: QUICKEN TELEPORT.

Person who said they shouldn't have raised him: Nice job cleric now he's going to raise an army and try to kill everyone again!

There are just some people you don't let come back.

Cirrylius
2012-01-02, 06:27 AM
It shows that you have no regard for the peace of mind or dignity of those whose behavior you are seeking to prevent.
A character that is willing to nail corpses up along the roadside cares more about preventing crime than the atmosphere of fear/oppression he might create in pursuing that end.
I would argue that it would be more accurate to say that a character willing to nail bandit corpses up along the roadside cares more about the lives and dignity of future victims than he does the peace of mind and dignity of thieves and murderers. Present the crucified bodies of bandits to your average townsperson, especially one who's suffered at their hands, and I don't imagine they'll have a great deal of sympathy, or worry overmuch about oppression as long as the criminals' crimes were sufficient to warrant execution in the first place.



In settings that acknowledge the return from the dead. Is it right to deny -anyone- this?
Yes. Restoration from death is not a right, especially if the resurrected was guilty of a capital crime. Moreso, it's not common; what group of bandits has access to a 6th(?) level cleric? Or a fistful of diamonds to spare after every failed raid? How many of them would waste them on their compatriots?



The more you mutilate someone the more difficult it ought to be.
I imagine the spell's chance of failure would be more strongly affected by the damage of the mortal wounds inflicted prior to death, and the natural decay afterwards, than just a piercing of the corpse's wrists and feet.

ScionoftheVoid
2012-01-02, 08:29 AM
I believe the first question in this matter ought to be:

Who does it hurt?

Bandits don't just spring out from under rocks when adventurers pass by. They will have friends and family. And to them it might matter a lot to give the poor fool a decent burial. Just because he made all the wrong choices doesn't mean they deserve to be punished by having to see his body displayed in such a way.
Even if they have no way of knowing and no way of finding him, you never know. Burying the dead out of the principle of the thing is a nice thing to do... if nothing else it shows you that you care.

Defiling him knowing that someone will be negatively affected by it means stepping out on iffy ground.

Second question is related to afterlife.

Do you believe that defiling his body have any effect on his afterlife? Does the local culture? Did he?

Because if you make a knowing choice to put him on the cross (or whatever) and that this will affect his afterlife then you're making a choice to hurt him in excess of what was necessary. Or alternatively, you're intimidating anyone who might happen to come across him. That might be other bandits... but it might also be innocent peasants that have no idea what this man did. They might be very disturbed by it and it's implications.

Third question.

In settings that acknowledge the return from the dead. Is it right to deny -anyone- this?

The more you mutilate someone the more difficult it ought to be. Crucifiction is nothing if not very damaging to the body. Is it right to expose someone to that? Regardless of whom it is and what they did in life? Is it right to deny someone a second chance?

But perhaps the most important thing in judging what alignment the deed ought to be is how the player reasons. If they come to a conclusion they are okay with. Satisfied with today's good deed. Then they're on far shakier ground than if they acknowledge: "No, it isn't good/right. But gods forgove me, it might actually help people."

In a lot of cases, I think, the most good thing you can do is to acknowledge that what you did wasn't and repenting for it later. To feel regret over what you did. Life is difficult, and being good doubly so.
Sometimes you cannot make the right decision... but you can acknowledge that it wasn't.

Spoilered so it doesn't have to be read twice.

On your first and second points, burying a corpse could be defiling it in some cultures, and could very easily be something that is thought to prevent getting to a good afterlife. I could easily imagine Dwarves believing that being underground takes you further from the divine, which is why they live there and leave their dead above the surface. Burying someone could easily be far more disrespectful than leaving their corpse by the roadside, for many reasons. Not least that it suggests you know killing them was wrong in the first place and tried to hide it. You can't just take your own culture's view on proper funeral services and apply it universally. In the area they were in maybe cremation is the accepted service, or leaving the corpses in a specific place to rot and/or be eaten by the local fauna, or even exactly what the Dwarf in this case did. Some things are more likely than others, but you cannot just assume something like that has a default.

On your second point alone, you seem to be assuming that a bandit would get a good afterlife, to the point where separating them from it is punishment on top of killing them in the first place. That may well not be the case, and if it is then either everyone recieves a good afterlife and would be far less keen to be raised (making your third point less useful) or the real dilemma here should be that the Cleric killed them in the first place (unless it's the Evil people who get good afterlives and the Good and Neutral people get no reward or outright suffering).

On your third point, why is it assumed to be something that everyone gets a chance at? Why would bandits ever warrant being raised from the dead, except as something more akin to a zombie or skeleton? Who would be influential and rich enough to get them raised that couldn't have made their turn to banditry unnecessary? If there is someone having them raised then the bandit was probably in that business because they enjoyed it, not because they needed to do it. Either that or their superior thinks it would be more profitable to raise an old bandit than to hire and train a new one. The situation is probably highly illegal, if not Evil with a capital "E". That or someone is going round raising people pretty much at random, in which case why wouldn't you make it harder for criminals to be chosen? Criminals who presumably showed obvious signs of using lethal force if the aftermath of killing them is what has the Cleric on the grubby side of Good, rather than the actual killing them (which is almost certainly a bigger factor unless mutilating corpses is ruled to be Evil with a capital "E" in this world outright, in which case this whole discussion is largely pointless).

Zale
2012-01-02, 09:20 AM
Hold on- how is it supposed to discourage the bandits? Is it along the lines of "This bandit got killed, and this is just a way to display that fact," (in which case, just hanging from a local tree with a sign seems like it might be a bit easier- and some sort of signification that it's a bandit specifically seems necessary in any case, unless this is a traditional way of dealing with banditry in the area)?

Or is it a more specific warning meant to indicate "Those caught in the course of banditry will have their corpses crucified," in which case, why is post-humous crucifixion such a big deal?

Can I second this?

Because most people aren't going to be able to tell the dead person was a bandit. They could easily infer that some loon is running around crucifying people.

Unless the body is of some famous bandit, and even then he's going to be hard to recognize after staying in the sun decaying for awhile.

Cirrylius
2012-01-02, 11:36 AM
Because most people aren't going to be able to tell the dead person was a bandit. They could easily infer that some loon is running around crucifying people.
:smalleek:Oops. I was kind of assuming the corpse had a sign that said "BAndIt". Looking back, I don't think that was ever mentioned. That would be a big factor into how the act was received locally.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2012-01-02, 11:38 AM
:smalleek:Oops. I was kind of assuming the corpse had a sign that said "BAndIt". Looking back, I don't think that was ever mentioned. That would be a big factor into how the act was received locally.

Sorry to have caused confusion. I thought the sign was a given, and didn't need mentioning.

Zale
2012-01-02, 11:49 AM
Sorry to have caused confusion. I thought the sign was a given, and didn't need mentioning.

That seems like an... odd assumption to me.

Considering this is DnD, I find no problems with defiling corpses.

We are talking about murderous wandering hobos.

Aux-Ash
2012-01-02, 02:07 PM
Re: Morithas, Cirrylius, Scionofthevoid:

Ah, I believe my main point escaped notice.

What is important isn't any objective answer. It is the questions themselves. How the character answers them. How quick he is. How conflicted he feels. And perhaps the acknowledgement that there's never a default correct answer.

And just because you do come to the conclusion that "yes, it will hurt someone", "Yes, it might affect the afterlife" and "No, it isn't right to keep someone from the possibility of being raised" (i'm not saying this is Good answers per default, mind) doesn't mean you still shouldn't do it. Like all of you point out, sometimes the reality of the matter makes what truly feels right an unfeasible option.


The only things that makes it evil outright is if the answer to all questions is an honest and rational: "I don't care". In all other cases it varies.

Cirrylius
2012-01-02, 04:53 PM
That seems like an... odd assumption to me.
We are talking about murderous wandering hobos.

:smallfurious:Zale, quit using that phrase! My sides are killing me.:smallbiggrin:

EagleWiz
2012-01-03, 12:47 AM
I dont think crucifiction will prevent raise dead/animate dead , will it? That in mind, the act is obviously LG because it gives the next necromancer to wander along a free corpse to reanimate. Quite considerate really.

Zenos
2012-01-03, 02:21 AM
One point, what if the defilement causes his restless spirit to rise as a ghost and haunt passing merchants? It might be that there is a taboo against defiling corpses in the game world to prevent problems with vengeful undead.

Morithias
2012-01-03, 02:25 AM
One point, what if the defilement causes his restless spirit to rise as a ghost and haunt passing merchants? It might be that there is a taboo against defiling corpses in the game world to prevent problems with vengeful undead.

I love how no matter how you handle an encounter in D&D the DM can just decide to screw you over because he personally (on a metagaming level) disagrees with something you did.

Then again, I'm the DM who regularly uses the soul-locked template. How about that, all the non-pcs are soul-locked and will come back from the dead unless you kill them in a way that an Exalted person would approve of.

Oh! Here's an idea.

A maiden of pain whose soul locked power is "must be tortured to death with a rack of torture from the BOVD".

You choice, kill the powerful cleric, or don't kill her. And if you don't kill her and lock her up, she has rogue contacts who will break her out.

oh and the rogues also have the soul locked template so don't try killing them either.

Seriously people, there's logical arguments for not doing it, and then there's anvilicious railroading. Why is it wrong to do these kind of Morton's forks to the paladin but not ok to do it to other PC's.

Killer Angel
2012-01-03, 03:59 AM
I dont think crucifiction will prevent raise dead/animate dead , will it? That in mind, the act is obviously LG because it gives the next necromancer to wander along a free corpse to reanimate.

Au contraire! in this way, you are in league with the evil necromancer, procuring corpses! :smallwink:

Psyren
2012-01-03, 10:44 AM
I would argue that it would be more accurate to say that a character willing to nail bandit corpses up along the roadside cares more about the lives and dignity of future victims than he does the peace of mind and dignity of thieves and murderers. Present the crucified bodies of bandits to your average townsperson, especially one who's suffered at their hands, and I don't imagine they'll have a great deal of sympathy, or worry overmuch about oppression as long as the criminals' crimes were sufficient to warrant execution in the first place.

There's no way I can agree with this. Unless you have perfect knowledge of the future, you have no way of knowing what effect these extreme measures will have on future crime or even whether the future victims themselves will be comfortable with such extreme measures. Meanwhile, the mental and atmospheric impact that corpses strung up on the roadside will have on the populace now is clear, present and immediately apparent.

As for the sympathy of the townsfolk, civilized society by and large can barely tolerate such things when the executions are carried out behind closed doors and their effects not visible to the general population. Displaying the grisly aftermath of executions along a thoroughfare is likely to be hundreds of times worse. There's a reason we all stopped nailing the heads of criminals and traitors to the city wall you know, and it wasn't because we didn't care about future crime rates.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-03, 11:11 AM
In many ways, defiling a corpse in a D&D setting world with about average magic availability is MORE evil than in the Real World™. After all, mutilating a corpse in D&D means you need to use more expensive spells to get raised, which may be beyond those who want to get raised means.
Basically, it's Murder+ and could also be considered evidence of first degree murder.
After all, if you are taking the time to make sure they can't easily be raised, that could be consider circumstantial evidence of malice aforethought, possibly even strong evidence.