Would this be an evil act?

[ewoods]

My group just finished a pretty significant fight with a succubus and one of my players asked me a pretty unusual question. He wanted to cut off her tail, horns, and wings in order to try to sell them.

This player created his character chaotic evil, but changed it to chaotic neutral when I told him that it would probably conflict pretty heavily with our mostly good-aligned group. However, every now and then he does stuff that's walking the evil/neutral line, and I've told him that he can't just say he's neutral and play evil. I told him that cutting off body parts and trying to sell them would definitely be evil, and he said that it shouldn't be evil because SHE was evil. What do you think?

And do you have any advice for dealing with this type of player?

ETA: Note that this question has no relation to the other current question about an evil player, which I hadn't seen when I asked this. LOL

[Brookshw]

It's evil with a capital E. Her alignment is irrelevant. It's spreading unnecessary suffering and harm for Personal gain. The BoVD is pretty clear this is evil.

[pwykersotz]

It sort of depends on if she's still alive. If she is, then yes, very Evil. Bad people can still do bad things to each other. If she's a corpse though, simple opportunism is more Neutral, though perhaps squicky.

[Zanos]

Meh. Adventurers cut up dragons all the time to make armors out of their hides, spell components out of their blood, and weapons out of their bones. Dragons are plenty sentient, and many of them aren't even evil.

Seems okay to me as long as she isn't actually alive. I doubt the actual body parts would have much value unless they're listed somewhere as being useful, though.


It's evil with a capital E. Her alignment is irrelevant. It's spreading unnecessary suffering and harm for Personal gain. The BoVD is pretty clear this is evil.
I wouldn't take any alignment advice from either BoED or BoVD, considering they're contradictory within themselves and generally full of stupidity regarding the topics they discuss.

[Nettlekid]

I'm pretty sure Paladins, like the proper Lawful Good variety, would give you the thumbs up for the suffering of a Succubus or any other Evil Outsider. Like, them just existing is Evil, and Paladins are all about going out and killing whatever evil they find, so it can't be an evil thing to harm Evil. I think it's appropriate for a CN character to do. Like murdering a murderer, it's not a GOOD thing, but is it really evil? The only evil part of it would be if the CN character was greatly enjoying the suffering of the other creature.

[Icewraith]

Selling the body parts of a creature made from pure evil is likely to spread demonic corruption around. Totally evil. Also, the sort of spells or items that use demon flesh as a component aren't likely to be good aligned, you're probably helping out an evil caster create some nasty armor or spell for his own use.

If it were a dragon, and already dead, things would be a little different. Even a red dragon isn't literally made of evil, even if it's "always CE". Even though disfiguring and then wearing the parts of a sentient creature's corpse is more than a little questionable, the special material is in the DMG.

Edit: Paladins aren't really supposed to go in for unnecessary suffering. The point isn't to make evil suffer, it's to destroy it. You find a demon you kill it outright (you may want to find out how the demon got there first), the longer it's around the more opportunities it has to escape, tempt, or posess people. If you think it has information you need, then you can interrogate it, and maybe even "torture" it with holy water or something. But you don't keep it around any longer than absolutely necessary, and you definitely don't sell bits of it to line your pockets.

If you're going by fiendish codex etc, the parts of a slain outsider will usually all evaporate the second nobody's watching anyways.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm pretty sure Paladins, like the proper Lawful Good variety, would give you the thumbs up for the suffering of a Succubus or any other Evil Outsider. Like, them just existing is Evil, and Paladins are all about going out and killing whatever evil they find, so it can't be an evil thing to harm Evil. I think it's appropriate for a CN character to do. Like murdering a murderer, it's not a GOOD thing, but is it really evil? The only evil part of it would be if the CN character was greatly enjoying the suffering of the other creature.

I'm pretty sure deliberately causing suffering is Evil. (In bold, caps, etc)

*i don't know off hand if harvesting organs off a fallen foe is evil depending on:

Animal - For food? Clothing? Industry? Bounty? Magic?
Intelligent Being - (this seems to cover a succubus and a human)
Unintelligent Being - (do elemental count?)

*I am inclined to think this may be a GNE act partly based on circumstances. Making a hide out of a dangerous animal? Neutral, maybe even good if the motive is to honor the animal. Making one out of those human guards who attacked you? Serial killer evil.

Cutting the parts off a succubus seems vaguely evil unless there's a really good justification beyond profit (greed) which is itself an evil.

[Mordokai]

It's pretty much irrelevant, since Fiendish Codex I states demons disintegrate after death, one way or another. I think there's five percent chance of body remaining after fiend's death, if that. Other times, the body is simply gone, in a way that ranges from hilarious to genuinely disturbing.

So, it's in your power as DM and confirmed by rules to say that it can't be done. Might save you some headache.

[Loreweaver15]

I'm pretty sure Paladins, like the proper Lawful Good variety, would give you the thumbs up for the suffering of a Succubus or any other Evil Outsider. Like, them just existing is Evil, and Paladins are all about going out and killing whatever evil they find, so it can't be an evil thing to harm Evil. I think it's appropriate for a CN character to do. Like murdering a murderer, it's not a GOOD thing, but is it really evil? The only evil part of it would be if the CN character was greatly enjoying the suffering of the other creature.

I, uh, think you may have missed the part where causing things to suffer is very not a Good thing to do.

You're describing the kind of paladin that the very forum you're posting on is a statement against.

[Brookshw]

I wouldn't take any alignment advice from either BoED or BoVD, considering they're contradictory within themselves and generally full of stupidity regarding the topics they discuss.

I'd have called it evil regardless but those are the RAW, as bad as it may be. I'm assuming the succubi is still alive or the body would have desolved (assuming fcI is in play, another source with issues for that matter).

[Shining Wrath]

I assume the succubus is dead. Harvesting the organs of any living creature while it lives, even a cow or a rabbit, sans anesthesia, and leaving it to die? I hope you don't have to ask about that.

The question then becomes, is it Evil to remove salable body parts from a dead foe? I'd say no, although it is very disrespectful to the dead and might go against a code of honor for a Paladin or Knight or some such, it's not inflicting actual pain and suffering on anyone. If the family of the dead are going to find their dismembered body that might make a difference, but a succubus has no family, and a family of demons might very well admire the skill with which she was torn apart rather than take offense.

[graeylin]

Harvesting the organs of any living creature while it lives, even a cow or a rabbit, sans anesthesia, and leaving it to die? I hope you don't have to ask about that.

Eh, we do it all the time in real life and game life. Flowers and Fruits are (typically) the sexual organs of living creatures, and we harvest them all the time while the creature is alive. We even eat some of them while they are still living (usually do, at least).

The problem with good/evil in DnD is that in our world, it's relative. Some folks harvested scalps from their defeated foes, a trick taught to them by the "civilized" traders. Evil? Not to them. Some people practice ritual cannibalism, and eat the organs of slain enemies to gain their mojo. Many hunters in the US still do that, but with deer or elk liver rather than human.

In DnD, however, good and evil aren't supposed to be relative (thank you 1980's Satan fearing Bible thumpers), they are supposed to be bright/dark lines. This is good. That is evil. Period. No matter what the situation, doing that is a bad, bad thing. Killing a baby is evil, period.

So, bottom line to me: tell your player that "if you do X, I will consider that evil in my world." If he does it, he did evil. If he doesn't, he didn't. You stake the line in the sand, just communicate it to him and move along.

[LogosDragon]

I'm pretty sure Paladins, like the proper Lawful Good variety, would give you the thumbs up for the suffering of a Succubus or any other Evil Outsider. Like, them just existing is Evil, and Paladins are all about going out and killing whatever evil they find, so it can't be an evil thing to harm Evil. I think it's appropriate for a CN character to do. Like murdering a murderer, it's not a GOOD thing, but is it really evil? The only evil part of it would be if the CN character was greatly enjoying the suffering of the other creature.

There is a ginormous difference between killing something and needlessly torturing it.

Not all Lawful Goods are the same, and being unforgiving IS allowed within the alignment, especially of creatures like Demons. So kill them in combat, or if they surrender and you find yourself forced to care for them as prisoners, get them in front of fair court ASAP.

Torturing is completely different. That is instant fall territory. It is Evil, wrong, and becoming the monster you seek to stop.

[Elkad]

Torturing is completely different. That is instant fall territory. It is Evil, wrong, and becoming the monster you seek to stop.

Torture for your own pleasure is one thing. As punishment for their evil deeds is something else entirely.

And profiting off an already dead creature by selling it's teeth is no different than selling it's armor.

[Brookshw]

Torture for your own pleasure is one thing. As punishment for their evil deeds is something else entirely.


WHAT?!? Seriously, WHAT?

[Shining Wrath]

Eh, we do it all the time in real life and game life. Flowers and Fruits are (typically) the sexual organs of living creatures, and we harvest them all the time while the creature is alive. We even eat some of them while they are still living (usually do, at least).

The problem with good/evil in DnD is that in our world, it's relative. Some folks harvested scalps from their defeated foes, a trick taught to them by the "civilized" traders. Evil? Not to them. Some people practice ritual cannibalism, and eat the organs of slain enemies to gain their mojo. Many hunters in the US still do that, but with deer or elk liver rather than human.

In DnD, however, good and evil aren't supposed to be relative (thank you 1980's Satan fearing Bible thumpers), they are supposed to be bright/dark lines. This is good. That is evil. Period. No matter what the situation, doing that is a bad, bad thing. Killing a baby is evil, period.

So, bottom line to me: tell your player that "if you do X, I will consider that evil in my world." If he does it, he did evil. If he doesn't, he didn't. You stake the line in the sand, just communicate it to him and move along.

I suppose I should have said "self-aware creature" to exclude plants. And the eating of deer livers is from dead deer. If there are hunters who slice open a fallen - but - still - breathing deer and start dining on pate it's a new one for me. For starters, that's a good way to get a hoof inserted up your nose.

I maintain that harvesting the organs of a self-aware creature while it screams in agony is evil, regardless of the moral state of said creature.

EDIT:

In any game I DM, torture will always be treated as evil, and torturing an evil creature to punish it is no different.

[rollforeigninit]

Torture = Evil. Period.

Anti- Evil does not equal Good.

Anti- Good does not equal Evil.

If it did, Antipaladins would be less playable than Paladins with a DM that Hates the very thought of LG behavior.

[Elkad]

WHAT?!? Seriously, WHAT?

Remember, there is lots of different alignments. I think a CG person wouldn't have any problem torturing a kidnapper to find out where he hid the victim. "The ends justify the means" is a rational point of view (whether or not I personally agree with it is irrelevant).

Burning someone at the stake who burned a house with people inside could be considered "an eye for an eye" and fit even the strictest Lawful Good. Yet that might qualify as torture to someone else of the same alignment but a different religion.

[Brookshw]

Remember, there is lots of different alignments. I think a CG person wouldn't have any problem torturing a kidnapper to find out where he hid the victim. "The ends justify the means" is a rational point of view (whether or not I personally agree with it is irrelevant).

Burning someone at the stake who burned a house with people inside could be considered "an eye for an eye" and fit even the strictest Lawful Good. Yet that might qualify as torture to someone else of the same alignment but a different religion.

The word you used was "punishment". That's not a race against time to save a kidnapping victim who may be in danger. Are you really telling me that 1) intentionally inflicting a horrible way to die meshes with good and 2) "eye for an eye" is good? Really?

[Yanisa]

I suppose I should have said "self-aware creature" to exclude plants.

Plants Are Smarter Than You Think (http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think). You might even call them self-aware.

Besides in DnD plants can talk with druids, and there are magical plants who can even use some minor tactics.

[sonofzeal]

Torturing an evil creature for no other reason than to inflict pain is, itself, evil. No question. That doesn't mean a CN char's alignment should change just from that, but it's a significant strike against.

"An eye for an eye" isn't a Good attitude. Legal punishment for crimes committed is a Lawful attitude though, and may amount to the same thing without violating Goodness.

[Shining Wrath]

Plants Are Smarter Than You Think (http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think). You might even call them self-aware.

Besides in DnD plants can talk with druids, and there are magical plants who can even use some minor tactics.

None the less, I hold that picking an apple is different than slicing off a succubus' horns.

[Mordokai]

Torture for your own pleasure is one thing. As punishment for their evil deeds is something else entirely.

No. Just... no.

Punishment for evil deeds is incarceration. If decided by lawful good/neutral authority, death penalty. But torture?

That evil. Period.

[Elkad]

The word you used was "punishment". That's not a race against time to save a kidnapping victim who may be in danger. Are you really telling me that 1) intentionally inflicting a horrible way to die meshes with good and 2) "eye for an eye" is good? Really?

I can fit those into good alignments. I could also see not including them. Depends on the religion of the character, not just the alignment.

How about chopping off a thief's hand? I'd tend to put that in Lawful Neutral on it's own, but it could fit a good alignment. Punishment? Torture? The dividing line is fuzzy.

Does the paladin execute the baby orcs? Leave them to starve? Drop them off at another orc tribe where they can be raised to be evil? Take them to town and hope the human orphanage can raise them up to be Good?

Edit: Removed reference to real world religions.

[Yanisa]

None the less, I hold that picking an apple is different than slicing off a succubus' horns.

Or slicing of a cow's horn. We do feel different levels of empathy based on the intelligence (or cuteness) of the creature. I believe intend is a bigger factor, are you doing it with malice and enjoying the suffering, or is it just a whatever succubus's horns are cheap dollars attitude? I don't think the intelligence of the creature should matter.

In the end it's the DM personal judgement call, governed by the DnD party.

[Loreweaver15]

Holy crap, I come back to the thread to see what's going on and I find someone arguing that torturing somebody because you think they have it coming is Good behavior.

Sheesh, people.

[Elkad]

Holy crap, I come back to the thread to see what's going on and I find someone arguing that torturing somebody because you think they have it coming is Good behavior.

Sheesh, people.

So what is acceptable punishment for Good to inflict on Evil? Would imprisoning a creature for potentially thousands of years be acceptable? I find the idea of that closer to torture than inflicting a swift but more immediately painful punishment.

[pwykersotz]

I can fit those into good alignments. I could also see not including them. Depends on the religion of the character, not just the alignment.

How about chopping off a thief's hand? I'd tend to put that in Lawful Neutral on it's own, but it could fit a good alignment. Punishment? Torture? The dividing line is fuzzy.

Does the paladin execute the baby orcs? Leave them to starve? Drop them off at another orc tribe where they can be raised to be evil? Take them to town and hope the human orphanage can raise them up to be Good?

Yeah, best leave all real world references out.

Presumably the Paladin will not encounter baby orcs. He is a warrior on the front lines of goodness, he's not invading orc day-laborer homes and killing their families. If he did run into a situation like that, I would say bringing them into the care of his order or a reputable orphanage would be an excellent choice.

[Nettlekid]

Holy crap, I come back to the thread to see what's going on and I find someone arguing that torturing somebody because you think they have it coming is Good behavior.

Sheesh, people.

I want to point out, I didn't say TORTURE, I said suffering. Suffering includes pain and death. Torture, especially when there's nothing else to be gained, is for the benefit of the torturer, and yes, is evil. But to slice into the flesh of an outsider with your Holy Avenger is causing that outsider suffering. And Paladins are pretty gung-ho about that aspect of it. If the part that you slice off happens to be valuable, all the better for you, especially if you use either the part itself or the proceeds of selling it for Good purposes.

And to follow, I wasn't saying that the suffering/harvesting of Evil Outsiders was good, I was saying that it fit the scheme of Chaotic Neutral without being Chaotic Evil. If Paladins are okay with slicing and killing evil things, then doing so is not evil, was my rationale. If you cut them apart for personal gain, and don't really care about the pain you're causing, then Chaotic Neutral is fair. If you're enjoying causing agony to the creature you're dissecting, that's Chaotic Evil.

[Loreweaver15]

So what is acceptable punishment for Good to inflict on Evil? Would imprisoning a creature for potentially thousands of years be acceptable? I find the idea of that closer to torture than inflicting a swift but more immediately painful punishment.

If the Evil is an active threat, you kill it if you have to; otherwise, you drive it off or imprison it so it can't hurt anybody again. Once you've beaten it, all torture is pointless and for the giggles; about the only time I can see a Good character torturing someone and it not really being an Evil act is the aforementioned example of torturing someone when it's the only way to get information necessary to save people, and even so a Paladin would still fall for that.

Paying actual evil unto evil is still evil.

[Brookshw]

I can fit those into good alignments. I could also see not including them. Depends on the religion of the character, not just the alignment.

Please feel free to try


How about chopping off a thief's hand? I'd tend to put that in Lawful Neutral on it's own, but it could fit a good alignment. Punishment? Torture? The dividing line is fuzzy. LN maybe but you stated LG. Explain please. Remember, GOOD DOES NOT RECOGINIZE MORAL RELATIVITY. its an absolute fact of d&d.


Does the paladin execute the baby orcs? Leave them to starve? Drop them off at another orc tribe where they can be raised to be evil? Take the to town and hope the human orphanage can raise them up to be Good? better questions, you're on the right track.


And, sorry to bring real life into it, but if "an eye for an eye" isn't good, then Christianity and Judaism are evil. Nevermind the punishments that seem completely out of whack for the crime. Stoning adulterers is in the Bible, and that surely counts as a horrible way to die.

I'm not touching real world but suggest you keep reading and discuss. If you want to discuss with me, my inbox is open and I'll be happy to respond.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So what is acceptable punishment for Good to inflict on Evil? Would imprisoning a creature for potentially thousands of years be acceptable? I find the idea of that closer to torture than inflicting a swift but more immediately painful punishment.

Killing or imprisoning an Evil creature (who is actively committing evil, which I assume a demon is doing at almost all times) is done by Good characters with the purpose and demonstrable effect of stopping it from inflicting evil on others. Torture or cold-blooded disfigurement has no such effect, and in fact will probably just give the offending creature more reason to inflict pain on others without really preventing it from doing so.

That said, harvesting bits off a dead monster is pretty much Neutral, even if it was intelligent in life. At least as far as D&D's cultures and objective alignment judgments go. Cutting bits off a living creature, though? First of all: why? Second of all: yes, that's Evil, what the hell.



Also, picking an apple off a tree isn't harming it, guys. Those are supposed to come off; it's how they reproduce.

[Icewraith]

I can fit those into good alignments. I could also see not including them. Depends on the religion of the character, not just the alignment.

How about chopping off a thief's hand? I'd tend to put that in Lawful Neutral on it's own, but it could fit a good alignment. Punishment? Torture? The dividing line is fuzzy.

Does the paladin execute the baby orcs? Leave them to starve? Drop them off at another orc tribe where they can be raised to be evil? Take them to town and hope the human orphanage can raise them up to be Good?

And, sorry to bring real life into it, but if "an eye for an eye" isn't good, then Christianity and Judaism are evil. Nevermind the punishments that seem completely out of whack for the crime. Stoning adulterers is in the Bible, and that surely counts as a horrible way to die.

You're confusing legal punishment within a society and ending a threat that operates outside the bounds of normal society. And violating forum rules by bringing real world religion into it.

A thief's hand is cut off to prevent him from stealing, while not killing him since what he did isn't considered to be worthy of death. The thief operates within the bounds of society and has violated the local laws. Also note that the thief's hand is chopped off, not ground off with a belt sander or something that causes unnecessary suffering.

A demon is congealed pure evil. It doesn't operate within the bounds of mortal society, it actively seeks to corrupt and kill mortals in order to tip the balance of the multiverse in the favor of evil. It is not capable of redemption (with the exception of one or two weird, uncommon, controversial, and avoided spells). The whole point of punishment is to dissuade whoever is breaking the law from doing whatever it was they did in the future and to serve as a warning to others who might perform the same actions.

You don't punish demons. You punish members of your society that break the law, and the law is normally set up to stop people (not demons) from comitting evil acts. You eradicate, banish, or otherwise destroy demons by any means necessary and as rapidly as possible.

Paladins don't torture anything because the act of torturing is in itself evil. Torturing demons for retribution serves no purpose even if it wasn't evil. Furthermore, anything the Paladin can come up with pain-wise can be far outdone by other evil outsiders, so by torturing the demon he'd still be doing it a favor by extending the period of time before the bigger demons punish him for failure/weakness.

Ok, so you can maybe bathe the demon in holy water or rip up its flesh with a nasty machine and cause it "severe" pain.

The demon lords back home will turn it inside out, suspend it from fifteen different giant meathooks, and have it used as a practice target for the arrow demon squads for the next hundred years while forcing it to stay alive and conscious of the whole thing, then pack it full of explosives and use it as a formation breaker in the blood war. Anything the paladin can do just isn't in the same ballpark.

You don't punish pure evil, you eradicate it.

You punish mortals that have free will and a shot at redemption in the future if they break the law.

[NoACWarrior]

While there are a lot of arguments for calling the "salvage" evil, and my gut response is that he is a sinner, I can't stop to think if the things he salvaged are commodities.

Hes not exactly torturing the succubus, shes dead, her corpse isn't unlike a slain direbear, or dragon for that matter. Adventurers salvage the bear's pelt, they also descale the dragon for material components and armor materials. This PC is attempting to do the same thing. The issue is, whether his attempts at making money are fruitful, and a simple intelligence / wisdom check would tell him if its possible to sell it. If its not possible to sell it - theres no point and hes salvaging with full knowledge of not getting a profit - and that makes it questionable.

And back to other thoughts - what if the king required the head of said succubus to be shown to him, not the body, just the head. Would it then be evil to cut off the head to present to the king?

[Elkad]

If the Evil is an active threat, you kill it if you have to; otherwise, you drive it off or imprison it so it can't hurt anybody again. Once you've beaten it, all torture is pointless and for the giggles; about the only time I can see a Good character torturing someone and it not really being an Evil act is the aforementioned example of torturing someone when it's the only way to get information necessary to save people, and even so a Paladin would still fall for that.

Paying actual evil unto evil is still evil.

Great. I killed the evil guy. His evil buddy comes along and rezzes him, and I'm right back where I started.

OK, lets try imprisonment. What if the bad guy needs his victims in some way for his well-being (feeds on fear, blood, souls of the innocent, etc). Now I'm torturing him, or sentencing him to slow starvation (which he may not even die from, just get eternally weaker and more insane).

So what's left? Destroy his soul along with killing him?

If a blind orc can't raid the village anymore, maybe he'll turn to farming or eating worms or something. So hot pokers in the eyes could be considered a viable option as a "good" punishment.

There are as many ways to rationalize an action with an alignment as there are players.

One paladin traces the missing villagers to an orc lair. He kills all the orcs, including the infants, because the village can't feed them anyway.

The next paladin spares the infants and spends months changing orc diapers and selling his armor to buy food until he finds a good home for them.

Both work equally well for me, as long as the player is consistent.

[Icewraith]

While there are a lot of arguments for calling the "salvage" evil, and my gut response is that he is a sinner, I can't stop to think if the things he salvaged are commodities.

Hes not exactly torturing the succubus, shes dead, her corpse isn't unlike a slain direbear, or dragon for that matter. Adventurers salvage the bear's pelt, they also descale the dragon for material components and armor materials. This PC is attempting to do the same thing. The issue is, whether his attempts at making money are fruitful, and a simple intelligence / wisdom check would tell him if its possible to sell it. If its not possible to sell it - theres no point and hes salvaging with full knowledge of not getting a profit - and that makes it questionable.

And back to other thoughts - what if the king required the head of said succubus to be shown to him, not the body, just the head. Would it then be evil to cut off the head to present to the king?

This isn't a dragon or a dire bear though. If using FC1 it'll probably evaporate anyways, even if not using those rules no (semi-normal) king is going to want adventurers dragging something containing the essence of pure evil back to the keep where he presumably keeps his family and staff and showing it off. Demon blood might desecrate the local roads and bring bad luck or abyssal rat swarms or something equally nasty.

The "bring me the head of X" thing is something you do for mortals, not outsiders.

If you need proof, send a reliable witness (or, say, your best and most trustworthy knight who's actually a PC, or maybe a lower-level cleric to give the party some extra healing and stay out of combat otherwise) to make sure the job gets done and report back.

Edit: Elkad, you are not distinguishing between outsiders and mortals. Outsiders are composed of the essence of the plane they hail from, they're literally made of pure good or pure evil. Only mortals can make what you might call "moral choices".

Furthermore, if there's another evil guy out there that can rez, assuming we're still talking about paladins, WTF are you doing standing around flaying a defeated opponent when you could just end it there and get your armored, non-fallen behind out hunting the other evil guy? If you're talking about outsiders, ressurection is impossible unless using some of the FC/BOED material and uncommon even then.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Great. I killed the evil guy. His evil buddy comes along and rezzes him, and I'm right back where I started.

OK, lets try imprisonment. What if the bad guy needs his victims in some way for his well-being (feeds on fear, blood, souls of the innocent, etc). Now I'm torturing him, or sentencing him to slow starvation (which he may not even die from, just get eternally weaker and more insane).

So what's left? Destroy his soul along with killing him?

If a blind orc can't raid the village anymore, maybe he'll turn to farming or eating worms or something. So hot pokers in the eyes could be considered a viable option as a "good" punishment.

There are as many ways to rationalize an action with an alignment as there are players.

One paladin traces the missing villagers to an orc lair. He kills all the orcs, including the infants, because the village can't feed them anyway.

The next paladin spares the infants and spends months changing orc diapers and selling his armor to buy food until he finds a good home for them. Both work equally well for me, as long as the player is consistent.

Congratulations on not being the kind of jackass DM that forces "you Fall or you Fall" decisions on his Paladins, but remember this thread started off talking about a Demon, which when killed is either banished from the Material Plane for a sizeable period of time or destroyed, do not pass Go, do not receive Resurrections, depending on where it is and how it got there.

Also, you'd be surprised how effective burning the body can be at preventing the return of all but high level or extremely well-supported bad guys, since that knocks out most life-giving spells below level 7, as well as most corporeal undead.

[BrokenChord]

A demon is congealed pure evil. It doesn't operate within the bounds of mortal society, it actively seeks to corrupt and kill mortals in order to tip the balance of the multiverse in the favor of evil. It is not capable of redemption (with the exception of one or two weird, uncommon, controversial, and avoided spells).

Funny, the people who wrote the rules seem to disagree with you. Meet Eludicia (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

EDIT: Fixed link.

[Icewraith]

Funny, the people who wrote the rules seem to disagree with you. Meet Eludicia (http://https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

Blocked from here. IIRC there's a succubus from one of those books that was a target of a sanctify the wicked spell (one of the spells mentioned in my quote) or a helm of opposite alignment or such. In any case I even noted that there are some exceptions (most of them magical in nature), but the point, which you are actually reinforcing, is that those exceptions are so incredibly rare that they make Drizzt look like the flu virus (or some other thing that's extremely common).

The probability that you are dealing with a full-on irredeemably evil demon following the normal fluff for demons instead of a heroic individual exception in any given campaign approaches one. Rapidly.

Also, you are making the appeal to authority on the same set of boards that has a five-thread long dysfunctional rules discussion and where many of the discussions involve the phrases "rules as intended" and "rules as written". Using what is quite possibly the one singular example in all of 3.5 that runs contrary to all of the other rules and fluff printed.

[Brookshw]

Funny, the people who wrote the rules seem to disagree with you. Meet Eludicia (http://https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

No, screw the exception (and a bad link). That is evidence which opposed Canon, is the exception that proves the rule as they say, and doesn't count as either Canon nor rule as I understand them. Bull pucky to that being a valid argument.

I still whole heartedly disagree that the action under evaluation is anything other than evil and none of the op's posts give me reason to reconsider that.

[Loreweaver15]

The link you're looking for is here. (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

Eludecia the Succubus Paladin is a succubus that fell in love with a mortal paladin and changed alignments to be with him. She walks a razor edge of willpower and self-control in order to not succumb to her old habits, and she's a prime example of the nuanced look at aligned outsiders that I prefer--i.e. the one where they have as much free will as any mortal.

Also, "exception that proves the rule" is a ridiculously fallacious argument used by those who have just been proven wrong about whatever they're arguing about. Try something that actually makes logical sense.

[Shining Wrath]

No, screw the exception (and a bad link). That is evidence which opposed Canon, is the exception that proves the rule as they say, and doesn't count as either Canon nor rule as I understand them. Bull pucky to that being a valid argument.

I still whole heartedly disagree that the action under evaluation is anything other than evil and none of the op's posts give me reason to reconsider that.

As a semantic note, "Exception that proves the rule" doesn't mean what it is often taken to mean.

It's not "proves" in the sense of "validates, confirms"; it's "proves" in the now somewhat archaic sense of "tests".

[BrokenChord]

Fixed the link. Accidentally forgot to erase the http from the link function, so the link broke. Sigh.

No magic or magic items were used in Eludicia's example (unless you count love as magic, which some fantasy seems too). Whether or not you think it's valid, the people who wrote the rulebooks wrote or at least posted that on their own website, so they appear to agree with it.

Again, how meaningful that is depends on your stance on web articles. But even in the official rulebooks (I'm AFB, I can quote it later) they say that creatures with the "Always _____" alignment aren't actually ALWAYS like that unless they are Mindless or have 2 or lower Int. A Succubus Paladin doesn't seem like something to rage over as impossible.

There's a bit more logic on the side of people who would rather try to redeem a thief than a Demon, and by RAW killing a creature with the [Evil] subtype is always a Good act. But they aren't impossible to redeem, even without "weird, controversial spells". Or at least, I wouldn't think so logically. I mean, Angels fall all the time; why can't Demons/Devils rise, even if it is exceptionally rare?

[Icewraith]

The link you're looking for is here. (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

Eludecia the Succubus Paladin is a succubus that fell in love with a mortal paladin and changed alignments to be with him. She walks a razor edge of willpower and self-control in order to not succumb to her old habits, and she's a prime example of the nuanced look at aligned outsiders that I prefer--i.e. the one where they have as much free will as any mortal.

Also, "exception that proves the rule" is a ridiculously fallacious argument used by those who have just been proven wrong about whatever they're arguing about. Try something that actually makes logical sense.

Hence why I specifically refrained from using that phrase, *sigh*.

Try this instead:

That one data point is an exceptional outlier and can be safely neglected for the purposes of discussion about a far more vast (technically infinite) general population that does fit the standard description.

Edit: Even if Demons are capable of making moral choices in a particular campaign setting, or you break the fluff for exceptional individuals, that simply throws them back into the barrel with all of the other sentient beings. Hence, torture is STILL either evil or useless.

[squiggit]

That one data point is an exceptional outlier and can be safely neglected for the purposes of discussion about a far more vast (technically infinite) general population that does fit the standard description.

That's still incorrect though because you were speaking in absolute terms.

[yoshi67]

In response to the original question:

I play a true neutral Hexblade in one campaign, and that's because he dips into both good and evil sometimes. A neutral character doesn't have a tendency towards either end of the spectrum, and can lean one way or the other, and frequency flips between somewhat good and somewhat evil acts. However, a neutral character can step over the line either way with incredibly blatant acts or prolonged acts on one side.

In this case, if the succubus is dead, i would consider trying to sell body parts slightly evil. If he has been doing a lot of slightly evil or blatantly evil things, this might be the tipping point. However, just because he does what seems to be an evil act doesn't make him jump to evil.

I would try to find what his motive and end game is. If he simply is looking for some extra coin and thinks those parts might be novel enough to bring in something in the next village, I would consider letting him do it, but he might find the parts evaporate, no one is willing to buy them, or if you want to teach him a lesson, have them burst into flame in his pack or pocket.

[Icewraith]

That's still incorrect though because you were speaking in absolute terms.

I can't possibly be speaking in absolute terms if I include an exception in the very post BrokenChord was quoting from. Because of how the "Always Evil" descriptor ends up working, you can safely assume any creatures that aren't exceptional outliers fit the normal description of a particular race, and one of the things about D&D is that the alignment is baked in to the mechanics for outsiders.

[BrokenChord]

Hence why I specifically refrained from using that phrase, *sigh*.

Try this instead:

That one data point is an exceptional outlier and can be safely neglected for the purposes of discussion about a far more vast (technically infinite) general population that does fit the standard description.

Edit: Even if Demons are capable of making moral choices in a particular campaign setting, or you break the fluff for exceptional individuals, that simply throws them back into the barrel with all of the other sentient beings. Hence, torture is STILL either evil or useless.

Technically, "throwing them back in the barrel" wouldn't be a wrong thing to do. Based on that example as well as the rule I mentioned earlier, some percentage of Succubi are going to be Good. However, if you extrapolate the infinity of Demons to mean there are infinite Succubi as well, then ANY percentage, no matter how low, of Succubi being Good would mean there are an infinite number of Good Succubi.

Edit: Note that I don't consider torture to be a very useful method of redemption despite its popularity. I only entered this discussion in debate of the specific part of your post that I quoted.

[graeylin]

In any game I DM, torture will always be treated as evil, and torturing an evil creature to punish it is no different.

And I think Shining has the best solution to the problem. Simply tell the players, clearly, what is evil in the world, and let them decide what their PC's do.

[Brookshw]

T

Also, "exception that proves the rule" is a ridiculously fallacious argument used by those who have just been proven wrong about whatever they're arguing about. Try something that actually makes logical sense.

not really, a hyothesis without a falsifiable condition can be disregarded in any academic conversation I'm aware of as they tend to be meaningless. That there is a potential or realized condition gives weight to these concepts until such opposition becomes overwhelming. Considering were talking about the realm of make believe, well, you decide.

Also its a red herring in this context, not relevant to whether effectively torturing a (i assume) living creature is evil or not.

[Shining Wrath]

And I think Shining has the best solution to the problem. Simply tell the players, clearly, what is evil in the world, and let them decide what their PC's do.

After all, the DM gets to play the role of the gods as needed, and that includes the conceptual gods like "Law" and "Evil".

Since real people in the real world have real debates over what constitutes good and evil, a PC can make a mistake and do something that violates their ethical code. The DM can't provide guidance on every thing, but you can give clues in advance. This is especially necessary for Paladins and others who can "fall".

[cakellene]

I see only two instances where harvesting organs from an evil foe is evil.

1) They are still alive.

2) Said organs are directly stated in rules to corrupt those around them by their mere presence.

If it does not fall under those two points, to me it is a neutral act at worst.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Aligned organs!?

Liver of Law? Kidney of Chaos? Heart of Horribleness? Gallbladder of Goodness? Rib of Righteousness? Wait, no, ribs are bones...

The possibilities are endless. I MUST utilize this if I ever work up the courage to DM.

[rmnimoc]

I see only two instances where harvesting organs from an evil foe is evil.

1) They are still alive.

2) Said organs are directly stated in rules to corrupt those around them by their mere presence.

If it does not fall under those two points, to me it is a neutral act at worst.

Since we are taking this as far as we can, let's clarify that with:

1. Unless the organs are immediately necessary for a good purpose and can only be aquired from the foe while alive (Let's say a demon with an organ that produces a superpoison (poisoned an orphanage), that can only be cured with that organ (can cure everyone in the orphanage), where the demon's body immediately vanished upon death).


EDIT: You are still good Vrock, bones are organs.

[Vrock_Summoner]

EDIT: You are still good Vrock, bones are organs.

... Wut.

Mind=blown.

And hey, I know nobody listens to its opinions on morality (y'all are hurting its feelings) but BoED does in fact say that using Evil such as torture to Good ends is still Evil.

Let those babies die so you can keep hold of your precious Exalted feats. Allowing innocents to die to keep a disconnected and rather arbitrary cosmic balance heavier on the Good energy side; this is the path of true Good.

[Segev]

That's why you use ravagements, which are totally not poisons and thus aren't evil, on the evil creatures until they beg you to stop and tell you want you want to know. It's not torture! Honest.

[rmnimoc]

... Wut.

Mind=blown.

And hey, I know nobody listens to its opinions on morality (y'all are hurting its feelings) but BoED does in fact say that using Evil such as torture to Good ends is still Evil.

Let those babies die so you can keep hold of your precious Exalted feats. Allowing innocents to die to keep a disconnected and rather arbitrary cosmic balance heavier on the Good energy side; this is the path of true Good.

Nearly any good character I play will always be willing to sacrifice their own morality for the cause of [Good] if need be. If that means falling to LN or LE as a result, so be it. I'll get an atonement when I'm done.

[Good] needs me to harvest the organs of a demon that is still alive? You got it. I may feel horrible after I'm done, but I'm not going to allow [Evil] to win because I'm too much of a coward to do what needs to be done.

Sometimes, you've just got to do what you've got to do.

[Segev]

Nearly any good character I play will always be willing to sacrifice their own morality for the cause of [Good] if need be. If that means falling to LN or LE as a result, so be it. I'll get an atonement when I'm done.

[Good] needs me to harvest the organs of a demon that is still alive? You got it. I may feel horrible after I'm done, but I'm not going to allow [Evil] to win because I'm too much of a coward to do what needs to be done.

Sometimes, you've just got to do what you've got to do.

It is generally very circumstantial, and there is a point at which it truly isn't good anymore. Usually, that line is "actively harm this innocent to avoid allowing harm to come to these others." And, if you're playing a true hero, you will instead find a third option. (Good luck; it's not always possible. But you'll TRY to the bitter end.)

[rmnimoc]

It is generally very circumstantial, and there is a point at which it truly isn't good anymore. Usually, that line is "actively harm this innocent to avoid allowing harm to come to these others." And, if you're playing a true hero, you will instead find a third option. (Good luck; it's not always possible. But you'll TRY to the bitter end.)

The fact that if a better option exists you take it shouldn't have to be said.

[Jeff the Green]

Plants Are Smarter Than You Think (http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think). You might even call them self-aware.

Besides in DnD plants can talk with druids, and there are magical plants who can even use some minor tactics.

:smallsigh: I knew when I read that article it was going to be used to support a wholly indefensible argument someday. No, one cannot cay plants are self aware, unless you're willing to redefine self-aware completely out of usefulness. Every single one of those items (with the possible exception of camouflage, and I'm not entirely sure of that) is true of single-called organisms. They're very basic, highly mechanistic, and generally well-elucidated chemical responses to their immediate environment. They're "clever" in the same way evolution is "ingenious"—by analogy only.

And while Druids are capable of speaking with nonsentient plants, they're still nonsentient, with RAW no way to perceive the outside world and no sense of self. And there are plenty of other entirely nonsentient objects that can be spoken with in D&D, so that's not a particular argument for plants' sentience.


And, sorry to bring real life into it, but if "an eye for an eye" isn't good, then Christianity and Judaism are evil. Nevermind the punishments that seem completely out of whack for the crime. Stoning adulterers is in the Bible, and that surely counts as a horrible way to die.

First, real-life religion is verboten here. However, as the Lex Talionis is neither unique to Judaeo-Christian thought, nor even really a big part of the law, I feel fairly safe saying this: "An eye for an eye" was never a rule of punishment the way we might think of it today. In fact, a more accurate translation would be "only one eye for an eye."

Remember that most law codes that include it came out of periods where blood feuds were not just common but expected. The Lex was developed independently in various places as a way of keeping peace between families (i.e. you can go this far, no further, in your pursuit of vengeance), not as a normative statement of what is just. It was recognized by philosophers and theologians of various stripes at various periods as being unjust in some circumstances, though necessary to curb violence.

So you could say that Judaeo-Christian law (or Roman law, or Greek law, or Babylonian law, or any of the other legal systems that included the Lex) is the most just or the least just system ever devised (though not here), but if you say either based on the Lex Talionis you'd be wrong.

[hamishspence]

I can't possibly be speaking in absolute terms if I include an exception in the very post BrokenChord was quoting from. Because of how the "Always Evil" descriptor ends up working, you can safely assume any creatures that aren't exceptional outliers fit the normal description of a particular race, and one of the things about D&D is that the alignment is baked in to the mechanics for outsiders.

One of the things about the MM- is that it specifically states that, when exceptions to the [Evil] subtype exist - those exceptions still detect as Evil.

Thus - even before Eludecia was invented, there was text discussing "non-evil beings with [Evil] subtype"

And if we go into pre-3rd ed materials - redeemed fiends are so common they've formed their own army that fights for Good.

[Brookshw]

And if we go into pre-3rd ed materials - redeemed fiends are so common they've formed their own army that fights for Good.

Well you've peaked my curiosity there, can't think of any offhand. Which are you referring to?

[hamishspence]

K'rand Vahlix, from Faces of Evil: The Fiends. (2e).

[Yahzi]

Selling the body parts of a creature made from pure evil is likely to spread demonic corruption around. Totally evil. Also, the sort of spells or items that use demon flesh as a component aren't likely to be good aligned, you're probably helping out an evil caster create some nasty armor or spell for his own use.
Exactly what I was going to say.

[Shining Wrath]

:smallsigh: I knew when I read that article it was going to be used to support a wholly indefensible argument someday. No, one cannot cay plants are self aware, unless you're willing to redefine self-aware completely out of usefulness. Every single one of those items (with the possible exception of camouflage, and I'm not entirely sure of that) is true of single-called organisms. They're very basic, highly mechanistic, and generally well-elucidated chemical responses to their immediate environment. They're "clever" in the same way evolution is "ingenious"—by analogy only.

And while Druids are capable of speaking with nonsentient plants, they're still nonsentient, with RAW no way to perceive the outside world and no sense of self. And there are plenty of other entirely nonsentient objects that can be spoken with in D&D, so that's not a particular argument for plants' sentience.



First, real-life religion is verboten here. However, as the Lex Talionis is neither unique to Judaeo-Christian thought, nor even really a big part of the law, I feel fairly safe saying this: "An eye for an eye" was never a rule of punishment the way we might think of it today. In fact, a more accurate translation would be "only one eye for an eye."

Remember that most law codes that include it came out of periods where blood feuds were not just common but expected. The Lex was developed independently in various places as a way of keeping peace between families (i.e. you can go this far, no further, in your pursuit of vengeance), not as a normative statement of what is just. It was recognized by philosophers and theologians of various stripes at various periods as being unjust in some circumstances, though necessary to curb violence.

So you could say that Judaeo-Christian law (or Roman law, or Greek law, or Babylonian law, or any of the other legal systems that included the Lex) is the most just or the least just system ever devised (though not here), but if you say either based on the Lex Talionis you'd be wrong.

Also, Talmudic tradition is to read that as "the value of an eye for an eye"; that is, instead of cutting someone's eye out, you set a price in coin that is consistent as repayment for that injury. I used to have an insurance policy that would pay off 50% of the value of my life insurance if I lost an eye ... same idea.

[Jeff the Green]

Also, Talmudic tradition is to read that as "the value of an eye for an eye"; that is, instead of cutting someone's eye out, you set a price in coin that is consistent as repayment for that injury. I used to have an insurance policy that would pay off 50% of the value of my life insurance if I lost an eye ... same idea.

Yeah, most traditions interpreted the Lex that way as things went on. Even Hammurabi's Code only applied the literal rule to people who pluck out eyes, break bones, etc. of citizens. I'm not as familiar with Babylonian society, but if it's anything like Greek or Roman, the freemen and the slaves probably greatly outnumbered the citizens, and so the mirror retribution was only applied in a minority of cases.

[ewoods]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this to be such a big discussion! Thanks for all the replies and sorry I couldn't get back to this until now. To clarify, yes, they had already killed the succubus. I've never looked through Fiendish Codex before, so I wasn't aware that there were rules about demon bodies disappearing.

I hadn't considered that characters totally do harvest stuff from dragons and other monsters to create armor and other items. I think the part that makes me think it's evil though is as much the intention as the action. If I thought he would be fashioning the horns into daggers to use to fight other evil creatures, that might be different, but his motives seem more along the lines of just making money, and I suspect when the time comes he's not going to really care if the buyer is going to use them for some dark magic (although I could be wrong).

I'd like to make a rule saying that it's evil, but how would I frame that to exclude things that they're actually allowed to harvest, like dragon scales? I'm leaning towards yoshi67's idea of letting him do it as a neutral act, and then creating in-game consequences, like maybe when he tries to sell them the people form a mob to drive him out of the town, or maybe having the parts in his possession draws the attention of a local paladin who thinks it's evil to be carrying demon parts around.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Also, Talmudic tradition is to read that as "the value of an eye for an eye"; that is, instead of cutting someone's eye out, you set a price in coin that is consistent as repayment for that injury. I used to have an insurance policy that would pay off 50% of the value of my life insurance if I lost an eye ... same idea.

Yeah without going into details of real world religions I can say that that the religious-civil law of that one is more about setting up specific recompenses for specific offenses.

Even the earlier Hammurabic code defines explicit fines to be paid to the victims of violence, after the more poetic "they shall destroy his eye" introduction. I'm not really clear on whether you were supposed to put out the offender's eye and make him pay the victim a mana of silver, or if it was actually just the fine.

[hemming]

Harvesting creature parts has come up in every game I have ever played in - as long as the creature is dead, there is really nothing evil about harvesting its parts for profit

To be evil, some harm or intent to harm needs to be going on

I can see some characters having a code of honor or religious commitment that prevents it (desecrating a corpse)

Although it is a really gross way to make a profit - probably stinks to high heaven after a few days - and unless properly covered or wrapped up, probably not something you want to throw in with the rest of your stuff

Your characters checking out their magical components/potions/alchemical solutions etc for a label that reads - no animal or monstrous humanoid parts were used in the creation of this item

[Jeff the Green]

Oh, if she was already dead it's almost certainly neutral. Probably to be looked askance at, though, because cutting up a human-looking corpse is uncomfortably close to cutting up a human for most people, and most people don't want their dead desecrated.

Also, as has been mentioned, you're sure not going to be casting any happy feel-good spells with a demon's body.


Yeah without going into details of real world religions I can say that that the religious-civil law of that one is more about setting up specific recompenses for specific offenses.

Even the earlier Hammurabic code defines explicit fines to be paid to the victims of violence, after the more poetic "they shall destroy his eye" introduction. I'm not really clear on whether you were supposed to put out the offender's eye and make him pay the victim a mana of silver, or if it was actually just the fine.

See my above post. The actual mirror retribution only applies to people injuring one of the amelu, what would in Rome be called Citizens. They had full legal rights, but also had increased penalties for some crimes. Freemen received monetary compensation for crimes against their person, and slaves' masters received compensation for crimes against their slaves' persons. The confusion comes from the fact that by the time of Hammurabi "amelu" was also a meaningless honorific like "Mr." and so can also be translated as "man".

[Shining Wrath]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this to be such a big discussion! Thanks for all the replies and sorry I couldn't get back to this until now. To clarify, yes, they had already killed the succubus. I've never looked through Fiendish Codex before, so I wasn't aware that there were rules about demon bodies disappearing.

I hadn't considered that characters totally do harvest stuff from dragons and other monsters to create armor and other items. I think the part that makes me think it's evil though is as much the intention as the action. If I thought he would be fashioning the horns into daggers to use to fight other evil creatures, that might be different, but his motives seem more along the lines of just making money, and I suspect when the time comes he's not going to really care if the buyer is going to use them for some dark magic (although I could be wrong).

I'd like to make a rule saying that it's evil, but how would I frame that to exclude things that they're actually allowed to harvest, like dragon scales? I'm leaning towards yoshi67's idea of letting him do it as a neutral act, and then creating in-game consequences, like maybe when he tries to sell them the people form a mob to drive him out of the town, or maybe having the parts in his possession draws the attention of a local paladin who thinks it's evil to be carrying demon parts around.

In modern society, we have laws against desecration of corpses, and there was a contretemps some time back about soldiers urinating on corpses of fallen enemies. Now is your local butcher evil? Not usually, although you might want to avoid asking a druid. Is harvesting hide from a dragon evil? It's pretty customary, when we did that a few campaigns back the Paladin didn't fall. Would pulling the wings off of a dead pixie to use for lampshades be evil? Maybe not, but it's pretty tasteless.

So desecration of a corpse of a sentient being might be against the Law or customs of a community while not being actually evil. And it might depend somewhat on the cuteness of the creature.

As DM, you can make selling pieces of a demon to someone who wants to use them for spell components an evil act simply by having the potential purchaser make clear that the spell in question is something along the lines of Kill All Puppies.

[cakellene]

In modern society, we have laws against desecration of corpses, and there was a contretemps some time back about soldiers urinating on corpses of fallen enemies. Now is your local butcher evil? Not usually, although you might want to avoid asking a druid. Is harvesting hide from a dragon evil? It's pretty customary, when we did that a few campaigns back the Paladin didn't fall. Would pulling the wings off of a dead pixie to use for lampshades be evil? Maybe not, but it's pretty tasteless.

So desecration of a corpse of a sentient being might be against the Law or customs of a community while not being actually evil. And it might depend somewhat on the cuteness of the creature.

As DM, you can make selling pieces of a demon to someone who wants to use them for spell components an evil act simply by having the potential purchaser make clear that the spell in question is something along the lines of Kill All Puppies.

But, Kill All Puppies is clearly a [Good] spell.

[Shining Wrath]

But, Kill All Puppies is clearly a [Good] spell.

Sorry, I cast Protection from Sarcasm [Abjuration, Internet] a few minutes ago and therefore I saved against your comment.

[rollforeigninit]

As to the Paladin coming across a village of helpless Orcs, there is an applicable thread regarding optimal child rearing for that that has been making the rounds in the last few weeks. Built in army of Orcs here we come.

[Icewraith]

Technically, "throwing them back in the barrel" wouldn't be a wrong thing to do. Based on that example as well as the rule I mentioned earlier, some percentage of Succubi are going to be Good. However, if you extrapolate the infinity of Demons to mean there are infinite Succubi as well, then ANY percentage, no matter how low, of Succubi being Good would mean there are an infinite number of Good Succubi.

Edit: Note that I don't consider torture to be a very useful method of redemption despite its popularity. I only entered this discussion in debate of the specific part of your post that I quoted.

Not necessarily. Think of the number of demons as represented by the set of all integers. Think of the overall succubus population as represented by the set of Prime numbers. Still infinite.

Think of the good aligned succubus population as potentially represented by a set of Mersenne Primes (or a set of Fermat Primes).

At least in 3.0/3.5, we don't seem to have any "naturally ocurring" good aligned succubi, they only seem to exist under very specific circumstances requiring the interference of a significant outside force (magic or love so far). Even though you may have a larger population that is certainly infinite, if the set of circumstances that result in a good aligned succubus is sufficiently rare or unique you may still be able to only generate a finite set of individuals (a particular class of prime) from an infinite population (set of all primes). Similarly, we haven't been able to prove whether or not there are an infinite number of Mersenne Primes (Fermat Primes are even more likely to be finite, but still not proven either way) yet.

It's all a matter of how unique the individual actually is. If there are a finite number of good aligned succubi then when you talk about expressing the number of good aligned succubi as a percentage of the overall population, that percentage is zero. Even if there were an infinite number of good aligned succubi, the percentage of the population would be undefined, or would apporach zero if you took surveys of larger and larger succubus populations. Good aligned succubi aren't a particularly special case of drawing a finite set of individuals from an infinite population- over all the multiverse there is exactly one (known) Demogorgon, for instance, and nine (existant and ruling) lords of hell (Belial is officially a Lord of Hell Emeritus last I checked, otherwise there would be ten).

Assuming no rule zero interference, of course.

[ElBeardo]

Here's my view on the situation. People use parts of monsters in fantasy settings all the time. Look at a wizards components list. Half of them are body parts of one creature or another. Also, think about how many times the party HIT THE MONSTER WITH A SWORD! Sorry to say this, but in the real world when you hit something with a sword, parts are bound to fly off. This guy's just making some cash off what everyone else was already doing.

[Segev]

The fact that if a better option exists you take it shouldn't have to be said.

Well, yes, but the point is that you attempt to even if you don't know that there is one. You fight the evil rather than sacrificing the innocent to it, even if it looks hopeless or futile.

[Icewraith]

Here's my view on the situation. People use parts of monsters in fantasy settings all the time. Look at a wizards components list. Half of them are body parts of one creature or another. Also, think about how many times the party HIT THE MONSTER WITH A SWORD! Sorry to say this, but in the real world when you hit something with a sword, parts are bound to fly off. This guy's just making some cash off what everyone else was already doing.

Trade in aligned monster body parts gets a bit weirder. If it's a good-based monster body parts you're essentially admitting you killed an angel (or if it's tears or something that you've probably got exalted feats), if it's an evil-based monster than most of the components are used in [evil] or [vile] spells or as additional material components to corrupt normal spells in some fashion. Or as demonic grafts.

Dragons and such are just magical, and so their bits are useful for magic. Trading in evil outsider body parts is like opening up carl's onyx emporium next to the city graveyard- in theory something fishy might not be going on, but it probably is.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Great. I killed the evil guy. His evil buddy comes along and rezzes him, and I'm right back where I started.

OK, lets try imprisonment. What if the bad guy needs his victims in some way for his well-being (feeds on fear, blood, souls of the innocent, etc). Now I'm torturing him, or sentencing him to slow starvation (which he may not even die from, just get eternally weaker and more insane).

So what's left? Destroy his soul along with killing him?

If a blind orc can't raid the village anymore, maybe he'll turn to farming or eating worms or something. So hot pokers in the eyes could be considered a viable option as a "good" punishment.

There are as many ways to rationalize an action with an alignment as there are players.

One paladin traces the missing villagers to an orc lair. He kills all the orcs, including the infants, because the village can't feed them anyway.

The next paladin spares the infants and spends months changing orc diapers and selling his armor to buy food until he finds a good home for them.

Both work equally well for me, as long as the player is consistent.


I think you're looking for the Grey(Gray?) Guard. Paladins who can do horrible things in the name of good. Captured a demon and need info? Torture would be ok for them. Killing an unarmed opponent? Easy breezy.

[cakellene]

I think you're looking for the Grey(Gray?) Guard. Paladins who can do horrible things in the name of good. Captured a demon and need info? Torture would be ok for them. Killing an unarmed opponent? Easy breezy.

They can still fall, just have more leeway than normal paladins.