The trouble with beasts and alignment

[GPS]

I've been wondering about this for a long time. It's a hypothetical that definitely didn't happen in a campaign a few months back. Say you have a fiend warlock wandering with his party through the mansion of an evil cleric lady. He's heavily wounded, down to 1 HP, and kind of needs some healing. Unfortunately, one healer is absent, the other out of lay on hands for the day. The warlock is in need of some dark one's blessing temp HP. Say he happens upon a cat. The cat isn't acting agressive, it doesn't seem to notice the warlock. It's just being a cat. Now in this scenario, it's a well known fact in game that beasts are for the most part unaligned and therefore a common house cat is either unaligned or likely evil if by some infinitesimaly slim chance it turns out to be a magical genius cat. Say the warlock, seizing on the opportunity, kills the housecat and reaps the small temp HP benefit. Is this an evil act? Can killing a completely docile unaligned beast be considered an evil act? This has been bugging me for a while, I genuinely can't figure out the answer. What are your thoughts?

If you figure that one out, here's the other part of this hypothetical that's been bugging me. If say, the party paladin's alignmentdar picks up a Lawful Evil spy of the cleric lady sitting on the porch, drinking wine, unable to harm the party now that the lady is dead and not currently trying to harm them in any way, is it an evil action for the warlock to also immediately kill that man without letting him plead his case? He is lawful evil, but at the same time he's not really hurting the party and they have no real proof of him hurting anyone else. He had the HP of a commoner.

Again, any resemblance to past campaign events is completely coincidental.

[Cybren]

Killing a cat for no reason other than temp HP is a jerk move, he should at least cook it. Also, is the spy a celestial, fiend, or undead? How did the Paladins sense learn that it's evil?

[RickAllison]

If the cat really is docile (and not a spy), it won't be hostile. If the cat isn't hostile when the Fiendlock kills it, the 'Lock won't get any temporary HP anyway (the ability is bound to hostile creatures, as opposed to Long Death Monks who could get it by beating down their allies).

[MeeposFire]

Killing a random animal is certainly not a good act but an evil one that takes some thinking. Part of the problem is that in this example you are using what is known in the USA as a pet animal and those animals tend to get treated differently even though objectively it makes little sense to think of them as being different from other animals.

FOr example would killing the cat for survival be bad if you were killing it to eat it? If not then how is killing it to keep yourself alive in a combat situation really any different? Granted one could say there is an expectation of killing it quickly and as painlessly as possible but using EB is probably about as quick as any other method honestly.

Certainly this choice is more on the pragmatic side which can be seen in D&D circles as a non-good or evil act but pragmatic actions can become evil actions in D&D if one is not careful depending on how you view things.

[pwykersotz]

In my book, killing beasts is not an evil act at all. It can become one if your motives for doing so are evil, such as if you just want to make the creature suffer. But killing an animal to use it, whether for food, clothing, or temp hp should not be considered evil in my book. Otherwise, the books would go into much greater detail about how being vegan is the only way to have a pure soul. And given the feasting in Ysgard...

The trouble comes in when you start needlessly killing animals, and HP is a nebulous thing. I would argue that HP is a primary form of vital health, and that claiming it from a beast is perfectly acceptable. Now on the other hand, if HP is treated as mere fatigue without relation to injury or dire threat to one's life when losing it, you might be edging over the line into "pointless killing" and be more in danger of it being an evil act. But yeah, turn your example into a squirrel or a pidgeon and ask the question again. It's a little more clear when not dealing with a domesticated animal.

And on the domestication note, one should probably be wary of treating domesticated animals in such a way. It is likely to make little children sad, make witches angry, and generally garner you a bad reputation.


With regard to the person, that would absolutely be evil. You should never kill for alignment alone. Especially since the Paladin can't detect alignment anymore, and if he tells you he can, HE'S probably the BBEG in disguise. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

I wouldn't call it evil - if killing an animal for meat is acceptable than killing them for medicine is definitely fine.

[Kane0]

I got three words for you mate: Secret Cow Level.

But seriously, I like to think about it this way: Would it be evil to kill [insert critter here] to save yourself from dying from starvation? Now replace 'starvation' with 'life-threatening injuries' and you have your answer.

[JellyPooga]

I got three words for you mate: Secret Cow Level.

But seriously, I like to think about it this way: Would it be evil to kill [insert critter here] to save yourself from dying from starvation? Now replace 'starvation' with 'life-threatening injuries' and you have your answer.

The Warlock in this case does not have life threatening injuries. He is mildly inconvenienced at worst (a few minor cuts and bruises), perhaps and he's certainly in need of rest, but his life is only in jeopardy due to his location, not his injuries.

Killing an otherwise innocent and uninvolved creature for a benefit that is as nebulous as temporary HP should definitely register on the Evilometer, beast or otherwise. Temporary HP are not healing, they're not saving your life...they're a cup of coffee in the morning, the sweet sweet high of boosted moral, the unholy vigour bestowed by your Infernal patron...they're like a drug; desirable, but not essential and probably addictive (who wouldn't enjoy feeling better than their physiology and experience would otherwise dictate on a refular basis?). Killing for a "quick fix high"? Yeah, that's pretty evil.

[Beelzebubba]

If the cat really is docile (and not a spy), it won't be hostile. If the cat isn't hostile when the Fiendlock kills it, the 'Lock won't get any temporary HP anyway (the ability is bound to hostile creatures, as opposed to Long Death Monks who could get it by beating down their allies).

So, the Warlock could piss it off first (like, put tape on it's paws), then kill it? :smallbiggrin:

[Spacehamster]

Would be so amazing if he attacked the cat, misses and the cat scratches him for 1 damage knocking him out and he fails his 3 death saves. xD

[Kane0]

The Warlock in this case does not have life threatening injuries. He is mildly inconvenienced at worst (a few minor cuts and bruises), perhaps and he's certainly in need of rest, but his life is only in jeopardy due to his location, not his injuries.



Say you have a fiend warlock wandering with his party through the mansion of an evil cleric lady. He's heavily wounded, down to 1 HP, and kind of needs some healing.


That doesnt sound like what's been presented.

But killing for a high, definitely leaning towards evil.

[JellyPooga]

That doesnt sound like what's been presented.

But killing for a high, definitely leaning towards evil.

Being on 1 HP is a state in which you might want healing, but you do not need it. Your life is not threatened by whatever injuries put you there. An act performed for a mere desire rather than a requirement must be weighed carefully; yes, killing for need can and often does mitigate some moral implications of that action. Killing for desire is almost always considered morally repugnant.

Consider this; our erstwhile Hero is on 1 HP; fatigued, bruised and in need of a break. Does he;

A) Continue on, throwing caution to the wind, the true Hero that he is, knowing that time is of the essence and if he gives up now, the quest will fail.

B) Go and have a rest. He knows time is precious, but it would be foolhardy to press on, knowing that his ability to succeed would be greatly increased by a quick meal and a little nap.

C) Invoke the dark powers of his infernal patron by the slaughter of beasts, black fire running through his veins as he snuffs out the living soul of his sacrificial victim, invigorating himself for the trials ahead in the name of the greater good, discarding the now empty shell of his victims carcass for the dogs to chew on.

[Clone]

I think something which needs to be taken into consideration here is the views of today versus the views of someone in a magical medieval world. Back then killing animals for whatever reason, such as for survival or if there was a risk of disease, wouldn't be looked at twice. Heck, on farms which had too many kittens it wasn't uncommon for them to be... put down, and thats only a few decades ago from today (or even less, I'm not sure).

To answer the question, no I don't think it was an evil act as it was done out of survival and the views of animal life would be rather different to the views we have now. If you don't like the idea at all, then just tell the players that you weren't comfortable with that kind of act being done so freely. Talk it out, just because they're your players doesn't mean you have to deal with things you aren't comfortable with for the sake of their fun.

It was also mentioned that the Warlock shouldn't have gotten the THP due to the cat not being hostile, but that isn't the issue. It's not the nicest thing in the world and I don't like the idea of them doing it in the first place, but people do crazy things to survive.

[Beelzebubba]

Well, be careful about extrapolating too much about Middle Age values - or lack thereof - to the D&D world. You'll quickly get led into the horrible torture, sexism, and other stuff that doesn't really belong.

I'd stick to - at the worst - cats are great pest control, so it's stupid and unwise to kill them. Otherwise you'll be overrun with rats in no time.

[Gastronomie]

Alignment (as well as its actual importance) is completely up to the DM, and as for the record, I don't ever consider it in my games, but at least if I were the DM and a player asked me, I would say that:

1) Cat case: Since it's mentioned that the Warlock is "heavily wounded, down to 1 HP, and kind of needs some healing", this would be the same as "hunting animals for food". This is not evil at all.
Even if the Warlock had maximum HP, if the killing was done under the assumption that the cleric he is going to fight is very powerful, and he will need that THP to win (either that, or he doesn't take risks), it would not be evil either (though I would be bugged if he's stated as being Lawful Good or anything on his character sheet).
Of course, if it was done for sadistic motivations, it would be unmistakenly "evil".

2) Spy human case: This is not really about good or evil, but rather about smart or stupid (asking the spy some questions and then killing him is obviously better), but if asked whether it's evil I'd say "it's not".
It is my understanding that killing evildoers is considered completely fine in the D&D world, where there are countless murderhobo races and mad wizard overlords running around and destroying settlements, or at times even whole civilizations.
In such a world, the whole act of simply allying with, or working for those forces of evil will be enough to be considered a terrible crime against humanity, regardless of whether that spy has actually done something evil under orders from his lord. Even if the evil cleric's already dead, the fact he has once decided to work under her is by that alone enough of a sin to give him the death sentence.
Since the heroes are sorta like the policemen of the real world, them killing the spy would be nothing of a problem.

[JellyPooga]

1) Cat case: Since it's mentioned that the Warlock is "heavily wounded, down to 1 HP, and kind of needs some healing", this would be the same as "hunting animals for food". This is not evil at all.

Wow, really? :smallconfused: You associate "I want more energy to fight a villain" with "I need food because without it I'll die"? And further are willing to ignore the whole "I'm going to wilfully end a life for a marginal advantage in an upcoming battle" thing? That's...coldly calculating to put it mildly.

[Cybren]

Wow, really? :smallconfused: You associate "I want more energy to fight a villain" with "I need food because without it I'll die"? And further are willing to ignore the whole "I'm going to wilfully end a life for a marginal advantage in an upcoming battle" thing? That's...coldly calculating to put it mildly.

1hp changes the scenario. It's fairy close to "I need to do this to survive" was the point they were making

[JellyPooga]

1hp changes the scenario. It's fairy close to "I need to do this to survive" was the point they were making

The difference between "I need this to survive" and "this will give me a marginally higher chance of survival" is pretty big on a moral scale, when it involves taking life.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I agree with JellyPooga. The warlock's life is only in danger because he plans to fight a villain; he doesn't need to kill the cat. He's choosing to end an innocent life in order to drain its life energy and invoke powers he got from a devil, for a marginal benefit to himself. It's not the biggest sin ever, but it's definitely something a good character would avoid doing.

Killing the spy in cold blood is clearly evil, and most likely unlawful too. Just because someone has 'evil' written on their character sheet, it doesn't mean their life is forfeit and they're fair game wherever they go. Besides, unless the warlock has a sprite familiar (which seems unlikely), there's no way the party can know for sure that the spy is evil.

[JAL_1138]

Would be so amazing if he attacked the cat, misses and the cat scratches him for 1 damage knocking him out and he fails his 3 death saves. xD

Welcome to 2nd Edition.

[GPS]

Killing a cat for no reason other than temp HP is a jerk move, he should at least cook it. Also, is the spy a celestial, fiend, or undead? How did the Paladins sense learn that it's evil?
Well, let's say this *theoretically* took place during a CoS campaign, where detect good and evil detects alignment (because it maybe might have totally taken place during such a campaign, but totally didn't, donworryboutit)

[Regitnui]

Well, I'd mark it down, but wouldn't force the player to change their alignment. At least on the cat. As for the spy, thats a definitely evil act; murder is murder, and especially in Ravenloft where evil literally taints your soul and attracts the attention of the Powers that Be.

[Regwon]

If you replaced 'cat' with 'cockroach' I don't think anyone would have too much trouble with the morality of it.

Even if you did consider it to be non-good act, I still don't think it becomes evil. One could argue that not gaining every advantage to stop an evil person tormenting the land is less good than simply killing the cat. The opportunity cost of not killing the cat, and not stopping the BBEG is too great.

A righteously good character may feel differently, but if the victim was less fluffy and cute, I doubt even they would care too much.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If you replaced 'cat' with 'cockroach' I don't think anyone would have too much trouble with the morality of it.

Perhaps, but the D&D system prevents this issue by not giving stat blocks to cockroaches. Anything large enough to count as a 'beast' is large enough to warrant consideration from an ethical perspective.

[JellyPooga]

One could argue that not gaining every advantage to stop an evil person tormenting the land is less good than simply killing the cat. The opportunity cost of not killing the cat, and not stopping the BBEG is too great.

That there is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line at which acts are deemed "necessary" to stop the greater evil? A cockroach is, perhaps, an insignificance. A cat? Ok, we'll sacrifice that on the dark altar; it's "only" a cat. How about a person? Even a willing one? Is sending that soul to your dark patron a non-evil action if it's for the "greater good"? Shall we sacrifice a village? A town? If it's to stop the Big Bad decimating the country, is that an acceptable price?

We are, after all, talking about an ability that is granted by an inherently evil creature, which grants short term power (i.e. temporary HP) in exchange for taking the life of your foes. By it's very nature, the ability rates pretty high on the evilometer. When innocence and non-cooperation enter the equation, "not good" starts looking more like "actively evil".

[RickAllison]

I think something which needs to be taken into consideration here is the views of today versus the views of someone in a magical medieval world. Back then killing animals for whatever reason, such as for survival or if there was a risk of disease, wouldn't be looked at twice. Heck, on farms which had too many kittens it wasn't uncommon for them to be... put down, and thats only a few decades ago from today (or even less, I'm not sure).

That isn't truly uncommon today. Raising a kitten or puppy requires significant investment for owners to bring them to a point of being viable in the world, and many of these young animals are put down because if they are brought to adulthood they will just be contributing to the overpopulation of such animals. Painlessly putting them down when they are young, haven't even taken a glimpse of the world, and can't survive on their own is considered subjectively more humane than causing six or so older dogs who know what is happening to them to languish in a pound until death.

[Joe the Rat]

Swarms get stat blocks. How many roaches constitute a swarm?

...and this is where we start edging into weird Utilitarian mathematic equivalencies. How many insects do you have to kill to have the moral impact of killing a housecat? And are we weighing the existential threat housecats present to the average commoner? Don't go there.


On standing at 1 hp
Bloodied is no longer a concept, but half hit points appears in several abilities. Considering someone under half to have been wounded is a reasonable interpretation. Heavily wounded, perhaps. Life-threatening wounds, no. They aren't bleeding out.

But hit points are not just a meat meter (meatometer?), but a measure of how much more you can take before pain, fatigue, morale, etc. gives out. At 1 hp, you are battered, and bruised, and flat out tired. You don't think you can take much more punishment before collapsing. Temp HP could be a short-term mystical heal, or an ablative shield, but it could just as easily be a morale boost - Inspiring Leader being an example. Killing the cat for for the DOB may just be about getting a kick of confidence from the act of snuffing something out. Or you are getting a magical bolstering, channeling power from an evil source. Neither of these strikes me as being on the high side of morality. Unless you are doing some ends and means (kill this now, better chance of stopping evil later), which puts you neutral at best.


The moral here? Carrying healing potions is a moral imperative for adventurers.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Swarms get stat blocks. How many roaches constitute a swarm?

Just on this one point: the MM specifically says that swarms with stat blocks are unnatural, formed by a "sinister or unwholesome influence." The default position for a swarm is 'hostile' and adventurers would generally be able to justify attacking them as self-defense. It goes so far as to say "even druids can't charm these swarms," which implies that you can't befriend or 'handle' a beast swarm the way you could with a cat.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think killing the lawful evil guy unprovoked in cold blood is definitely evil.

The cat... I'm not too sure. Evil seems too strong a word, and yet it's a housecat. I have this impression that it's status as a domesticated pet weighs more in this than the fact that it is an unaligned beast. People consider their pets to be part of the family. I don't know. I wouldn't be so quick to excuse the warlock's killing of the cat. I'm still sort of undecided, but leaning towards evil.

[Naanomi]

Killing because of a magically detected alignment: evil (though may be cause for investigation or suspicion... if the king is poisoned by one of his servants and they are all lawful good except one chaotic evil guy I know where the focus of my investigation would be, abscent other evidence)

I'd say killing animals for personal power is evil but not extremely so, if they make a habit of it then a deeper scrutiny of their stated alignment may be in order; but not as a one-off situation

[Beelzebubba]

If you replaced 'cat' with 'cockroach' I don't think anyone would have too much trouble with the morality of it.

What if you replaced 'cat' with 'your mom'

[Beaureguard]

Wow, really? :smallconfused: You associate "I want more energy to fight a villain" with "I need food because without it I'll die"? And further are willing to ignore the whole "I'm going to wilfully end a life for a marginal advantage in an upcoming battle" thing? That's...coldly calculating to put it mildly.

This equivalency has been the basis of a lot of the points made, and I'm not sure I get it. Yes you need food to survive, but rarely are you only eating when death by starvation is immanent. You could have had a big breakfast and a large lunch, and still feel morally justified eating an animal for dinner. Did you need it to survive? No. You'd have lived to the next day, and the day after that, with what you'd already eaten. If you load up on food before running a marathon are we saying that any meat you use is therefore immoral because you don't NEED it to not die, but only because you're choosing to run?

I don't see how the HP are different. If they're not replenished, you'll die. Maybe not right now, but eventually. You'll cut yourself making a salad, fall down some stairs, or trip over that damn cat and lose that last hp you have unless you do something to restore them. Yes you could get a cleric, or take a rest, but you could have eaten beans a rice for lunch instead of that porkchop.

The killing of the house cat is no different than killing for food. If you do it quickly and cleanly for the purpose of taking its energy, it's probably a neutral act. If you take pleasure in the act of killing, prolong the suffering unnecessarily, or draw a pentagram and sacrifice its soul to your evil liege, then it's probably not so good.

[Gastronomie]

Wow, really? :smallconfused: You associate "I want more energy to fight a villain" with "I need food because without it I'll die"? And further are willing to ignore the whole "I'm going to wilfully end a life for a marginal advantage in an upcoming battle" thing? That's...coldly calculating to put it mildly.
This equivalency has been the basis of a lot of the points made, and I'm not sure I get it. Yes you need food to survive, but rarely are you only eating when death by starvation is immanent. You could have had a big breakfast and a large lunch, and still feel morally justified eating an animal for dinner. Did you need it to survive? No. You'd have lived to the next day, and the day after that, with what you'd already eaten. If you load up on food before running a marathon are we saying that any meat you use is therefore immoral because you don't NEED it to not die, but only because you're choosing to run?

I don't see how the HP are different. If they're not replenished, you'll die. Maybe not right now, but eventually. You'll cut yourself making a salad, fall down some stairs, or trip over that damn cat and lose that last hp you have unless you do something to restore them. Yes you could get a cleric, or take a rest, but you could have eaten beans a rice for lunch instead of that porkchop.

The killing of the house cat is no different than killing for food. If you do it quickly and cleanly for the purpose of taking its energy, it's probably a neutral act. If you take pleasure in the act of killing, prolong the suffering unnecessarily, or draw a pentagram and sacrifice its soul to your evil liege, then it's probably not so good.Beauregard pretty much summed up my thoughts. In fact he wrote it even better than I would have. Thanks :3

Well, apart from that, of course it may have to do with how I personally am really uninterested in animal rights in general. (It's not like I'm gonna willingly kill animals or anything; just that I really don't care if someone else does that. Hell, from the viewpoint of people who strive to protect the lives of dolphins and stuff, I might be classified "Chaotic Evil".)
Obviously, I would say that killing a normal commoner instead of a cat in the same situation would be a terribly evil act. That's because I consider human lives much more important than animal lives.
Alignment is one of those topics that doesn't have a single, right answer. Especially when it comes to drawing the line between animal life and human life, it's really purely a matter of personal perspective - definitely not a matter of logic.
Different people might have different answers. And in the end, I don't think I will be able to persuade them, and I don't think other people will be able to persuade me. If it was logic, you could easily sway someone's opinion, but when it's a matter of perspective, that's quite impossible to achieve.

[Knaight]

Wow, really? :smallconfused: You associate "I want more energy to fight a villain" with "I need food because without it I'll die"? And further are willing to ignore the whole "I'm going to wilfully end a life for a marginal advantage in an upcoming battle" thing? That's...coldly calculating to put it mildly.

You don't need meat - that can be cut entirely. The society as a whole might need it as a food source, but adventurers tend to be pretty flush and likely have access to food spells anyways. As for willfully ending a life, it's a cat. We like cats, we get sentimental about cats, but this is a survival situation where its the cat or the person, and the person weighs more heavily there.

[SharkForce]

i'd say killing the cat was slightly evil, but not by a huge amount. like if you made a number line of evilness with -1000 being the most evil possible and +1000 being the most possible good, killing the cat for some temporary HP was, like, a -5 or something (the smaller numbers are for stuff like deliberately making grammar errors to annoy someone that you know hates grammar errors :P ). if you're doing it over and over, it might add up, but doing it once, well, you're still far more neutral than evil, and if you do a bunch of good stuff, you're probably fine.

killing the person depends a lot on what they did, why they did it, and whether you have any reason to believe that they're going to keep doing it or something similar.

if the person was kidnapping babies to sacrifice to their evil god so they could bathe in the blood and stay youthful, and you have reason to believe they'll find some other way to sacrifice people for their own selfish gain in the future... probably not evil to kill them.

if the person was informing the BBEG of your location and actions in hopes that the BBEG would spare their town, and you're just really annoyed at the person and want them dead because you're angry... probably an evil act, whether the person was lawful evil or not.

[Regitnui]

i'd say killing the cat was slightly evil, but not by a huge amount. like if you made a number line of evilness with -1000 being the most evil possible and +1000 being the most possible good, killing the cat for some temporary HP was, like, a -5 or something

So it's very low on the kilonazi rankings?

[SharkForce]

So it's very low on the kilonazi rankings?

oh, definitely.

just, uhhh... don't pick belkar's cat. that will make your temporary HP *very* temporary :P

[Maxilian]

2) Spy human case: This is not really about good or evil, but rather about smart or stupid (asking the spy some questions and then killing him is obviously better), but if asked whether it's evil I'd say "it's not".
It is my understanding that killing evildoers is considered completely fine in the D&D world, where there are countless murderhobo races and mad wizard overlords running around and destroying settlements, or at times even whole civilizations.
In such a world, the whole act of simply allying with, or working for those forces of evil will be enough to be considered a terrible crime against humanity, regardless of whether that spy has actually done something evil under orders from his lord. Even if the evil cleric's already dead, the fact he has once decided to work under her is by that alone enough of a sin to give him the death sentence.
Since the heroes are sorta like the policemen of the real world, them killing the spy would be nothing of a problem.

I agree, only because they knew he was working with the Evil Cleric (She was dead, but who knows when this guy were going to take his misstress plan as his own -i would have questioned him-).

Though its a jerk move to kill someone only because "The Paladin told me he is evil!" (again in this case they knew that he was working with the Cleric so meh)

[Mellack]

I don't see how it would be any more evil than killing a pig because you want some tasty bacon.

[Maxilian]

I don't see how it would be any more evil than killing a pig because you want some tasty bacon.

If the pig start crying out for Mercy before you cut them down, then yes.

Note: I expected people to discuss more the part where they kill the servant of the dead BBEG without mercy, than the cat's death. I guess people like cats more than people.

[Mellack]

If the pig start crying out for Mercy before you cut them down, then yes.

Note: I expected people to discuss more the part where they kill the servant of the dead BBEG without mercy, than the cat's death. I guess people like cats more than people.

I was talking about the cat, so it would be pretty odd for it to cry out for mercy. I was not doing the other because we have never used paladin radar like that for people. It only did that on other-planer creatures made of good or evil in our game.

[Maxilian]

I was talking about the cat, so it would be pretty odd for it to cry out for mercy. I was not doing the other because we have never used paladin radar like that for people. It only did that on other-planer creatures made of good or evil.

I know you were talking about the cat, my answer was basically "Unless the cat happens to be a setient creature that actually cried for mercy before being killed, then no, there is no difference than killing a Pig for bacon" (not like the player killed it for the lolz).

I think that just because you know someones alignment (be it any type of evil) does not justify the action. (But in this case as they knew he was working for the BBEG is "ok")

[Naanomi]

From a classic narrative standpoint, sacrificing animals to empower your demonic magics for personal gain is Evil 101

[Phoenix042]

Can killing a completely docile unaligned beast be considered an evil act?

People kill completely docile and unaligned beasts for the sake of convenience and comfort all the time, or else pay for others to do it for them.

This warlock may actually *need* those HP to survive the coming trials. Arguably, this isn't an evil act at all.

Take a similar case: A man is starving and has no food. He catches an animal, kills it, and eats it. The nutrients he absorbs because of its death sustain him, keeping him alive a little longer. Is this evil?

On the contrary, a different man who is simply hungry pays another man to kill a docile, unaligned beast, simply for the convenience and comfort of food he is used to and that tastes good.

Another man hunts and kills a deer for fun, then feeds his family with it even though they could of course eat other food instead, and at a lower cost of time and resources, without sacrificing health or nutrition.

Are these things evil?

[Squiddish]

Now, let us assume a non-hypothetical scenario that actually happened. We were exploring the manor of an evil cleric lady, and, after a partially self-induced close call, our warlock was reduced to zero. I (the paladin) healed him up to 5 HP, as I wasn't expecting combat before the next short rest. However, I kept five or so points in reserve, just in case. Had he asked, I could also have healed him with a spell. Then, when we walked into a room with a cat, he immediately blasted its head off for temp HP. Which also proved to be unnecessary, as we took a rest soon after.
So, now, we are presented with a different question. Is killing a cat to gain a resource more easily obtained by not killing the cat an evil act?

[Phoenix042]

He is lawful evil, but at the same time he's not really hurting the party and they have no real proof of him hurting anyone else.

So this one is interesting, because alignment should follow from actions, and if he is evil, that means he's done evil things.

Of course, how evil do you have to be to register as "evil" when detect spells are cast on you?

And in any case, is that sufficient proof of crimes you've committed that warrant execution?

Is that sufficient evidence of your intent to continue doing harm?

By my measure, simply detecting that it is evil is not enough to justify killing it.

As an example in real life, there are probably a few evil people in politics, and maybe one or two in the white house at the moment.

Does their alignment, their selfishness, lack of empathy, and desire to muddle the truth and pass harmful legislation justify killing them at the first opportunity?

Probably not.

[JellyPooga]

From a classic narrative standpoint, sacrificing animals to empower your demonic magics for personal gain is Evil 101

This is the point I think some people are missing. The Warlock has the option to either A) heal by other means (i.e. rest and continue the quest later) B) continue on at risk to himself or C) kill a living and otherwise innocent being to fuel his dark (and evil-sourced) powers and carry on. Of those, (C) definitely rates on the evilometer, greater good or not.

[Maxilian]

From a classic narrative standpoint, sacrificing animals to empower your demonic magics for personal gain is Evil 101

But its not for the sake of power, its for the sake of survival. Also animal sacrifice is a common religious practice

[Maxilian]

So this one is interesting, because alignment should follow from actions, and if he is evil, that means he's done evil things.

Most cases, yes (not all), A human that was raised by Evil parents, its most likely going to be Evil even if he have not done anything evil (yet).

Note: Or if a good alignment party go to any of the Nine planes of Hell (have a LG NPC, become LE because she insisted on going with the party -She is the wife of one of the player -Ingame--



Of course, how evil do you have to be to register as "evil" when detect spells are cast on you?

And in any case, is that sufficient proof of crimes you've committed that warrant execution?

Is that sufficient evidence of your intent to continue doing harm?

By my measure, simply detecting that it is evil is not enough to justify killing it.

As an example in real life, there are probably a few evil people in politics, and maybe one or two in the white house at the moment.

Does their alignment, their selfishness, lack of empathy, and desire to muddle the truth and pass harmful legislation justify killing them at the first opportunity?

Probably not.

And yes, i totally agree with you here (just because the paladin "detected him as Evil" is no excuse to kill him or anyone)

[Phoenix042]

So, now, we are presented with a different question. Is killing a cat to gain a resource more easily obtained by not killing the cat an evil act?

The answer to this question is the answer to the question "is eating meat during daily life and under normal circumstances an evil act?"

Although still not quite. That warlock might have been attacked during the rest before getting a chance to heal more, and that extra healing spell is a limited resource you could have needed for healing allies later on.



For the record, as to the "is killing animals to gain a resource more easily obtainable by not killing them an evil act?" I have yet to come up with a counter-argument that satisfies me in nearly 5 years of thinking about it, and so I do not eat meat.

I miss the taste of bacon, so if anyone out there has a really strong ethical argument for eating meat in daily modern life, I'd love to hear it.

[pwykersotz]

Now, let us assume a non-hypothetical scenario that actually happened. We were exploring the manor of an evil cleric lady, and, after a partially self-induced close call, our warlock was reduced to zero. I (the paladin) healed him up to 5 HP, as I wasn't expecting combat before the next short rest. However, I kept five or so points in reserve, just in case. Had he asked, I could also have healed him with a spell. Then, when we walked into a room with a cat, he immediately blasted its head off for temp HP. Which also proved to be unnecessary, as we took a rest soon after.
So, now, we are presented with a different question. Is killing a cat to gain a resource more easily obtained by not killing the cat an evil act?

Ooh, nice change-up.

I stick by my assertion that the act is not evil, but I think rather that the act reflects the nature of the Warlock. Pulling wings off of dragonflies is not an act worthy of alignment shift, but it does indicate what sort of person you are. Killing the cat because he saw no value in its continued life and it was expedient is not evil, but it does show what considerations the Warlock has. It's kind of like killing a whole cow because you want a steak (even if perfectly serviceable food is available elsewhere) and then vaporizing the rest of the cow. Nothing about the act is inherently evil, but it does show your character.

[Demonslayer666]

Cats are most certainly not innocent.

They torment mice by playing with them just to murder them later, and then leave them on the porch as a present. They spill drinks and knock over plants just to watch the chaos. They beg to go outside just to turn around and beg be let right back in. They are soft and cuddly until you pet their stomach, and then they shred your arm. They sleep all day and then tear across the house at 2 am, "PLAY TIME, everyone wake up!!" They run from the dog to get the dog to chase because they know it gets the dog in trouble.

[Phoenix042]

Also animal sacrifice is a common religious practice

Common does not mean right. It doesn't mean ****.

Slavery was once very common.

Taking other people's land because they didn't talk or look like you was once very common.

Human trafficking is pretty common.

Rape is pretty common.

For a very long time in human history, it was considered acceptable and common to beat your wife if she displeased you, and equally acceptable and common to rape her whenever you wanted.

People commonly believe that sugar causes hyperactivity (it doesn't), that scientific theories are like guesses (they aren't), that cooking food in alcohol removes almost all of the alcohol (it usually only removes a little), that seasons are caused by earth being closer to or further from the sun at different parts of its orbit, or that unlike all of those foolish people who lived before us, we actually examine our beliefs and discard those that are evil or wrong. That we, uniquely, have learned from history.


Sorry for the rant, by the way, it was in no way directed at you. Personally, I think killing the cat in this case was fine, ethically speaking.

[Maxilian]

Cats are most certainly not innocent.

They torment mice by playing with them just to murder them later, and then leave them on the porch as a present. They spill drinks and knock over plants just to watch the chaos. They beg to go outside just to turn around and beg be let right back in. They are soft and cuddly until you pet their stomach, and then they shred your arm. They sleep all day and then tear across the house at 2 am, "PLAY TIME, everyone wake up!!" They run from the dog to get the dog to chase because they know it gets the dog in trouble.

This sounds like the voice of painful experience.

[Maxilian]

Common does not mean right. It doesn't mean ****.

That's true, but i think it mostly show that the detail comes with, "How is it done?" "Why is it done?" "Who is the victim?"

By how is it done i mean, that sometimes it is done in a way that non-needed suffering is done (that's why the idea of merciful kills exist), why was it done? was it done as a need? was it done to protect someone? was it done for survival?, and lastly who is the victim (this change a lot, and it is qualified under our human condition, AKA sentient, is this creature sentient? is this creature an actual threat? or is there a true need for this action, and is this the best way to do things? (maybe the act of killing can not be avoided, but what about the way it was done, was it "Human" (You know, like war where we have things that we see as inhuman even though people are trying to kill each other)



Slavery was once very common.

Taking other people's land because they didn't talk or look like you was once very common.

Human trafficking is pretty common.

Rape is pretty common.

For a very long time in human history, it was considered acceptable and common to beat your wife if she displeased you, and equally acceptable and common to rape her whenever you wanted.

People commonly believe that sugar causes hyperactivity (it doesn't), that scientific theories are like guesses (they aren't), that cooking food in alcohol removes almost all of the alcohol (it usually only removes a little), that seasons are caused by earth being closer to or further from the sun at different parts of its orbit, or that unlike all of those foolish people who lived before us, we actually examine our beliefs and discard those that are evil or wrong. That we, uniquely, have learned from history.


Sorry for the rant, by the way, it was in no way directed at you. Personally, I think killing the cat in this case was fine, ethically speaking.

Yes, i agree, that's why i mostly go with what i pointed out over.

You are causing pain to sentient creature but then come the fact that people have used the idea of "They are more animal than people" to do horrible things to others (so there is still a limit of "what can be done to other creatures that are alive") -Like the over explotation of anything (be it a human or an animal *That's basically the same as senseless pain applied to others*)

[Naanomi]

But its not for the sake of power, its for the sake of survival. Also animal sacrifice is a common religious practice
Many religions are explicitly big-E 'Evil' in the common DnD cosmology, it isn't a defense... and supernatural endurance and protection is definitely 'power' (though actually I didn't say 'power' I said 'personal gain')

[Maxilian]

Many religions are explicitly big-E 'Evil' in the common DnD cosmology, it isn't a defense... and supernatural endurance and protection is definitely 'power' (though actually I didn't say 'power' I said 'personal gain')

Yeah, but its irrelevant if the religion is evil or not, the point in general is what they are doing that for "A Ritual to honor the god of Rape and senseless murder!" that's kind of evil, but "a Ritual to honor the god of Harmony!" MAY not be evil, depending what the ritual requires.

Also well... yeah its "power" but you know what i mean, it was actually for survival (Survival is personal gain, but i will go mostly with "It is senseless or purely selfish?"

[MeeposFire]

This is also ignoring how hunting for sport is an actual thing and unless you are a person who does not beilieve in hunting for sport (or against killing animals in general such as in some Hindu groups) then that is not wrong and that has no mitigating factors.

Assuming the warlock was not cruel in how they killed the cat then you really cannot say he killing was evil unless you want to argue any killing of an animal is evil such as hunting for sport. Of course arguing this might become too political and get this shut down but that is really where this eventually will go.

Note that I am stating this in the idea that the warlock is acting in the manner that most would consider ethical as a hunter such as not killing the animal in a needlessly cruel manner and things like that. Also note I am not a hunter myself and do not find the idea of killing animals in any way appealing so I am not the best for actually defending the idea of hunting for sport (or sport fishing for that matter).

[RickAllison]

If you ever do try catch-and-release fishing, I recommend going for flies rather than reels. There is a steeper learning curve to fly fishing, but the hooks used for that are much safer than for reel-based systems.

I am personally against hunting for sport, excepting things like hunting predators so they don't overpopulate. I grew up in a very pro-hunting area, but you were taught to use what you kill or to give it to someone who would. Which was great, the poorer population enjoyed a rather nice standard of living because they would have a store of venison or other meat for when times were hard. People made food out of elk, deer, antelope, and even occasionally other animals. Loved my friend Krystal's jerky, so delicious and she would make a baggy for me to take home...

[Malifice]

I've been wondering about this for a long time. It's a hypothetical that definitely didn't happen in a campaign a few months back. Say you have a fiend warlock wandering with his party through the mansion of an evil cleric lady. He's heavily wounded, down to 1 HP, and kind of needs some healing. Unfortunately, one healer is absent, the other out of lay on hands for the day. The warlock is in need of some dark one's blessing temp HP. Say he happens upon a cat. The cat isn't acting agressive, it doesn't seem to notice the warlock. It's just being a cat. Now in this scenario, it's a well known fact in game that beasts are for the most part unaligned and therefore a common house cat is either unaligned or likely evil if by some infinitesimaly slim chance it turns out to be a magical genius cat. Say the warlock, seizing on the opportunity, kills the housecat and reaps the small temp HP benefit. Is this an evil act? Can killing a completely docile unaligned beast be considered an evil act? This has been bugging me for a while, I genuinely can't figure out the answer. What are your thoughts?

Killing an animal for no other reason than to obtain vigor from your hellish daemonic patron?

Yeah, evil.

Killing it for food would be neutral. Doing so in a needlessly cruel manner, or just for fun would be evil.


If you figure that one out, here's the other part of this hypothetical that's been bugging me. If say, the party paladin's alignmentdar picks up a Lawful Evil spy of the cleric lady sitting on the porch, drinking wine, unable to harm the party now that the lady is dead and not currently trying to harm them in any way, is it an evil action for the warlock to also immediately kill that man without letting him plead his case? He is lawful evil, but at the same time he's not really hurting the party and they have no real proof of him hurting anyone else. He had the HP of a commoner.

Yes, of course it is. Murdering someone for no other reason than they are evilly aligned makes you evil.

Pretty much any killing (other than killing in self defense or the defense of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself) is evil.

The alignment of your victim doesn't matter. Rape, murder and torture are evil acts, regardless of whether your victim is LG or CE.

[MeeposFire]

Killing an animal for no other reason than to obtain vigor from your hellish daemonic patron?

Yeah, evil.

Killing it for food would be neutral. Doing so in a needlessly cruel manner, or just for fun would be evil.



Yes, of course it is. Murdering someone for no other reason than they are evilly aligned makes you evil.

Pretty much any killing (other than killing in self defense or the defense of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself) is evil.

The alignment of your victim doesn't matter. Rape, murder and torture are evil acts, regardless of whether your victim is LG or CE.

AH so hunting as practiced in much of the USA is therefor evil in your eyes along with non catch release sports fishing (yes much of the hunting and fishing is not eaten and even if done so the killing of the animal was not needed for survival and was mostly done for fun).

[Malifice]

This thread presupposes that murder, rape and torture are either 'good' acts (or at the very least 'not evil' acts) when when your victim is evil.

Which of course leads us to a position where we have a bunch of people (the 'good' people) running around murdering, raping and torturing a bunch of other people (the 'evil' people). Its ridiculous.

The thing that separates good from evil is your actions and methods; not your choice of victim.

A good person absolutely doesn't murder, torture or rape people. He only resorts to killing as an absolute last resort, for self defense or the defense of others, and when no other option reasonably presents itself. He is kind, merciful and benevolent. He goes out of his way to help other people, with no thought for reward. He doesn't torture people, and has deep compassion for the suffering of others.

An evil person might torture, murder or rape someone. They have only minor qualms with killing other people for personal benefit, but only if there is no other way to deal with that person, and they know they wont get caught. A very rare few are actually deranged psychopaths, who actually enjoy such killing, or kill for fun or sport or in the name of a dark master, political cause or religion. They generally have no inclination to help other people unless they stand to gain something out of it, and most use other people for personal gain. They have no issue with harming others, as long as that harm benefits them in some way. They lack empathy for the suffering of others, and a rare few might even enjoy it. Thats what makes them evil.

[Malifice]

AH so hunting as practiced in much of the USA is therefor evil in your eyes along with non catch release sports fishing (yes much of the hunting and fishing is not eaten and even if done so the killing of the animal was not needed for survival and was mostly done for fun).

Yes, killing an animal for no other reason than 'fun' is morally evil. If I got my gun out of my closet, and shot my dog in the face for no other reason than I enjoyed killing him, I'm an evil SOB. I have no empathy for the suffering of that creature and no regard to its right to life.

Same deal if I tortured my dog, or similar. I'd be evil.

Killing an animal to survive however (food, clothing to protect me from the elements) is morally neutral.

You know; actual hunting.

[MeeposFire]

Yes, killing an animal for no other reason than 'fun' is morally evil. If I got my gun out of my closet, and shot my dog in the face for no other reason than I enjoyed killing him, I'm an evil SOB. I have no empathy for the suffering of that creature and no regard to its right to life.

Same deal if I tortured my dog, or similar. I'd be evil.

Killing an animal to survive however (food, clothing to protect me from the elements) is morally neutral.

You know; actual hunting.

So then state it outright then hunting as practiced in the US is therefor evil. The hunting done in the USA is NOT required for sustenance and is done primarily for enjoyment. That is why it is called SPORT. The fact many hunters then use the meat later certainly makes the killing more efficient and gives it more meaning but in reality does not change the fact the animal died primarily as sport.

Same goes with fishing that is not catch and release or food fishing (such as stuffing the fish to mount on your wall).

I would also say that I do not think many people would argue that torturing the animal before you killed would be wrong. Also even hunters would balk at how you describe killing the dog as it would not be sporting (though how it makes a difference is a question for somebody that actually likes hunting which is not me).


I do think that arguing the way hunting works for the most part in the USA is evil can be argued without being hypocritical but I would also say that there would be many people that would vehemently disagree with your categorizing them as evil or as evil acts.

However I do not think it will be tenable if you try to argue that hunting as it is generally practiced in the USA is not evil but killing this cat is.

[Malifice]

So then state it outright then hunting as practiced in the US is therefor evil. The hunting done in the USA is NOT required for sustenance and is done primarily for enjoyment. That is why it is called SPORT.

OK then, if you're the kind of person who blows away or stabs an animal to death for no other reason than you enjoy watching it die, get pleasure from killing it, or simply for fun, you're probably evil.

That clear enough for you?


The fact many hunters then use the meat later certainly makes the killing more efficient and gives it more meaning but in reality does not change the fact the animal died primarily as sport.

Killing the animal for food (and not simply for pleasure at its death) is a different story. Killing an animal for food (its meat) or its hide (protection from the elements) is morally neutral.


Same goes with fishing that is not catch and release or food fishing (such as stuffing the fish to mount on your wall).

Yes. Its an evil thing to do.

Its on the lower end of the evil scale mind you. Like how a millionaire flipping a beggar a copper piece is on the lower end of the good scale.


However I do not think it will be tenable if you try to argue that hunting as it is generally practiced in the USA is not evil but killing this cat is.

Cat, dog, pig, sheep, deer, kangaroo. Whats the difference? Unless you're killing the animal for sustenance or protection, killing it is evil.

Not 'evil' in the same degree as mass genocide, or locking people up in a rape dungeon, but evil nonetheless.

It also doesn't mean that every person who goes out hunting every now and then and blows away an animal just for ****s and giggles is 'evil'. The occasional minor evil act doesn't make one evil, any more than does the occasional good act makes one good.

But yeah, I'd have no hesitation in calling my devil worshiping neighbor (the Warlock) 'evil' if he slaughtered Snuggles (my pet cat) in the name of his fiendish patron, simply to make himself feel a bit better.

I mean, imagine it. Actually imagine it.

[Logosloki]

In the case of the cat I would say that it is either a neutral act, or if it is part of a continual narrative (the Warlock is usually looking for animals for temp hp) I might consider it a chaotic act. I feel people out too much stock in things being good or evil when there are three other basics (neutral, lawful and chaotic) and 9 basic dual actions (the 9 alignments).

I'm the case of the spy. I would say it is more neutral or chaotic rather than evil. A spy traditionally was considered exempt from a lot of the niceties of conflicts and typically would expect the worst being caught. That being said it is a very wasteful act to kill a potential asset instead of bringing them in and getting information.

[NNescio]

If the cat really is docile (and not a spy), it won't be hostile. If the cat isn't hostile when the Fiendlock kills it, the 'Lock won't get any temporary HP anyway (the ability is bound to hostile creatures, as opposed to Long Death Monks who could get it by beating down their allies).

Well if you punch the kitty first I bet it'll turn hostile. Maybe grapple it too for good measure if it flees and fleeing doesn't count as being hostile.

(Disclaimer: NNescio does not advocate punching kitties.)

[Malifice]

In the case of the cat I would say that it is either a neutral act, or if it is part of a continual narrative (the Warlock is usually looking for animals for temp hp) I might consider it a chaotic act. I feel people out too much stock in things being good or evil when there are three other basics (neutral, lawful and chaotic) and 9 basic dual actions (the 9 alignments).

Do you have a pet? Lets assume you do, he's a cat, and his name is Mr Whiskers.

Now imagine your neighbor (an active Devil worshiper, who claims to have entered a pact with Satan) slaughtered Mr Whiskers last night in the name of Satan, in order to make him feel a bit better (he claims the Devil grants him strength when he kills a living creature).

Imagine it. Actually imagine it.

That's neither 'chaotic' nor is it 'neutral'. It's very clearly; evil.


I'm the case of the spy. I would say it is more neutral or chaotic rather than evil. A spy traditionally was considered exempt from a lot of the niceties of conflicts and typically would expect the worst being caught. That being said it is a very wasteful act to kill a potential asset instead of bringing them in and getting information.

Err, no. Walking up to someone and killing them in cold blood for no other reason than you assume (they are a jerk to their friends, prepared to kill someone if the going got tough, and not above hurting people for personal gain) is also evil.

Very evil in fact.

[Malifice]

Well if you punch the kitty first I bet it'll turn hostile. Maybe grapple it too for good measure if it flees and fleeing doesn't count as being hostile.

(Disclaimer: NNescio does not advocate punching kitties.)

Lol. Now we're tormenting and beating the cat first, just so we can kill it and make ourselves feel temporarily a bit better (an ability we gained as part of our pact with a Devil, and wouldn't be doing but for our dark pact with said Devil).

You are (quite literally) tormenting and killing a cat simply to feel better, as part of a pact made with Asmodeus.

Only on a DnD internet forum would there be a debate around the evilness (or not) of this action.

Hilarious. I shouldnt be surprised I guess. Ive seen people advocating outright genocide and baby murder as 'good' actions on here. Whats the life of a cat or two in the name of your dark master?

[MeeposFire]

OK then, if you're the kind of person who blows away or stabs an animal to death for no other reason than you enjoy watching it die, get pleasure from killing it, or simply for fun, you're probably evil.

That clear enough for you?



Killing the animal for food (and not simply for pleasure at its death) is a different story. Killing an animal for food (its meat) or its hide (protection from the elements) is morally neutral.



Yes. Its an evil thing to do.

Its on the lower end of the evil scale mind you. Like how a millionaire flipping a beggar a copper piece is on the lower end of the good scale.



Cat, dog, pig, sheep, deer, kangaroo. Whats the difference? Unless you're killing the animal for sustenance or protection, killing it is evil.

Not 'evil' in the same degree as mass genocide, or locking people up in a rape dungeon, but evil nonetheless.

It also doesn't mean that every person who goes out hunting every now and then and blows away an animal just for ****s and giggles is 'evil'. The occasional minor evil act doesn't make one evil, any more than does the occasional good act makes one good.

But yeah, I'd have no hesitation in calling my devil worshiping neighbor (the Warlock) 'evil' if he slaughtered Snuggles (my pet cat) in the name of his fiendish patron, simply to make himself feel a bit better.

I mean, imagine it. Actually imagine it.

So your answer is yes hunting as practiced in the USA is predominately evil. The view would not be popular in certain parts of the country but then you would find support from other areas (though some in groups like PETA may not like that you are OK with killing animals for food).


That being said you are mischaractorizing the position of the basic premise here. You said that killing for pleasure is wrong but doing so for food is OK. The original example was not killing the cat for pleasure, in fact as I recall the warlock in question was never said to be enjoying the act of killing the act in any way, but that the warlock was killed the cat for a purpose which was to increase his chances at surviving in the near future. If it is OK to kill an animal so long as you are doing to help ensure your continued survival then really you cannot go after the warlock that kills a cat to give himself the THP if he does it specifically to help himself survive a bad situation. Remember this cat was NOT killed to fuel a devil or anything liek that the animal was killed specifically to make himself more likely to survive the coming attacks. Talking about the feeding the devils means you are arguing against the warlock in general and not against the killing of the cat. If you want to argue that any killing the warlock does feeds the fiends and therefor is evil then the whole conversation is moot for you since the killing of the cat was not specifically evil all the killing this warlock does is evil since it feeds the fiends. If killing something that feeds the fiends is only evil depending on outside factors then it does not need to be brought up at all since the original scenario dd not involve killing to feed the fiends specifically so it would not be up for debate.

As a different example you are trapped by a bear and you have one bullet in your rifle. Your rifle is not strong enough to kill a bear in one shot but you notice there is a rabbit nearby. Perhaps if you shoot the rabbit the bear will take the easier meal and you can escape. If you honestly believed this was your best plan to survive the encounter would it be evil to kill the innocent rabbit to give yourself a slightly better chance at living in the near future?

The rabbit is the cat. The warlock was you and the bear is the upcoming encounter. By killing the cat you increased your chance of surviving the encounter but you did have to kill an animal to do it. If the warlock thought that was his best chance of surviving the next encounter was it an evil thing to do.

[RickAllison]

Do you have a pet? Lets assume you do, he's a cat, and his name is Mr Whiskers.

Now imagine your neighbor (an active Devil worshiper, who claims to have entered a pact with Satan) slaughtered Mr Whiskers last night in the name of Satan, in order to make him feel a bit better (he claims the Devil grants him strength when he kills a living creature).


False analogy for this particular case. The Warlock isn't looking to feel "a bit better", but instead is currently at risk of passing out from even a small injury. It is being in a hostile area and so damaged that the floor giving out beneath you or any other small injury will likely knock you out for hours and may even kill you. It doesn't matter for alignment whether the owner of Mr. Snuggles knows what is going on with the Warlock, but the PC truly is at the point where killing the cat can be a matter of survival. Killing that cat is the difference between dying from an innocuous accident or surviving.

So dismissing your awful over-simplification, how does the alignment matter when killing the animal through the Fiend Pact is actually the difference between life and death. A single punch, or a cat's scratch (irony) is enough to not just disable the person for hours, but to actually kill them.

[Gastronomie]

I've already mentioned this in a previous post, but there will be no end to this argument.

Some people don't care about animals dying. Others do. There's no right or wrong here - it's just an opinion.
Arguments based not on logic, but personal perspective, will never come to a conclusion.

[Malifice]

False analogy for this particular case. The Warlock isn't looking to feel "a bit better", but instead is currently at risk of passing out from even a small injury.

Hit points are 'resolve, luck and the will to live' (in addition to physical health). Obtaining a small number of temporary HP would be basically just you feeling a bit better. A pep up. You'd feel infinitely better from a hour long rest (a short nap or a breather) by comparison (you get to spend hit dice, restoring far more HP, and 'real' HPs at that).

The Warlock doesn't know how many hit points he has (or has left). He feels beat up, and down on his luck, and wants to crawl up in the corner and rest. He may even have a few bruises or minor cuts.


It is being in a hostile area and so damaged that the floor giving out beneath you or any other small injury will likely knock you out for hours and may even kill you.

Which is you employing an entirely selfish reason to kill something (neutral-evil reasoning) when not reasonably necessary for your own survial.


It doesn't matter for alignment whether the owner of Mr. Snuggles knows what is going on with the Warlock,

It matters a lot. That's all extra harm and suffering the Warlock is causing via his actions (to those who own the Cat), which he clearly doesn't give a toss about, instead putting his own selfish needs ahead of those people (and the life of the Cat).

So he proceeds to strangle the cat in order to benefit from an ability granted to him (by a Devil) to feel slightly stronger when he takes a living creatures life.

As he throttles the terrified cat, and its struggles slowly cease, he starts to feel slightly stronger... a boon from his dark fiendish master.

Its pretty cleary evil dude. Not on the scale of mass murder and so forth, but it certainly aint a good act.

[pwykersotz]

Hit points are 'resolve, luck and the will to live' (in addition to physical health). Obtaining a small number of temporary HP would be basically just you feeling a bit better. A pep up. You'd feel infinitely better from a hour long rest (a short nap or a breather) by comparison (you get to spend hit dice, restoring far more HP, and 'real' HPs at that).

The Warlock doesn't know how many hit points he has (or has left). He feels beat up, and down on his luck, and wants to crawl up in the corner and rest. He may even have a few bruises or minor cuts.

Which is you employing an entirely selfish reason to kill something (neutral-evil reasoning) when not reasonably necessary for your own survial.

It matters a lot. That's all extra harm and suffering the Warlock is causing via his actions (to those who own the Cat), which he clearly doesn't give a toss about, instead putting his own selfish needs ahead of those people (and the life of the Cat).

So he proceeds to strangle the cat in order to benefit from an ability granted to him (by a Devil) to feel slightly stronger when he takes a living creatures life.

As he throttles the terrified cat, and its struggles slowly cease, he starts to feel slightly stronger... a boon from his dark fiendish master.

Its pretty cleary evil dude. Not on the scale of mass murder and so forth, but it certainly aint a good act.

Please. It doesn't matter whether hit points are meat, resolve, or a mix of both. Being at next to none is being close to death. That's blatantly obvious out of character and clearly discernible in character. If you don't run it that way, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're style is pretty weird in this regard, and likely not a reflection of the OP's game. I will await OP confirmation in this regard.

Also, you sure like injecting a lot of things into the scenario that aren't initially present. He didn't slowly throttle a cat, he blasted it into oblivion. Very quick. It wasn't torturous. Yes, Warlocks probably have dark powers. Their patrons are mostly pretty dark creatures. But that doesn't necessitate that every application of their powers is full-stop Evil. You can say that the Eldritch Blast is siphoned soul energy from the damned that was tortured out of them, but that's a pretty niche custom world right there, and not the default. Otherwise all Warlock powers would be tagged with [Evil], or at least given a sidebar like Animate Dead.

It's not a good act, but it's definitely not inherently evil. Motive matters. The Warlock is a predator in this scenario, nothing more.

[Malifice]

So your answer is yes hunting as practiced in the USA is predominately evil. The view would not be popular in certain parts of the country but then you would find support from other areas (though some in groups like PETA may not like that you are OK with killing animals for food).

I dont know how much clearer I can make this.

Yes, the killing of an animal for no other reason than to obtain pleasure in its death, or simply for 'fun', is an evil act.

Its not morally good. Its not morally neutral. Its morally evil.

Not that it makes all who kill animals for fun from time to time evilly aligned. Most would be, but many more would be neutral. Maybe even a small few might be good aligned (they only do so infrequently, enjoy the outdoors, and are internally conflicted about the killing. They are otherwise good people).

You're aware that killing or torturing animals for fun or pleasure is regarded as one of the main signs of a potential serial killer right?


As a different example you are trapped by a bear and you have one bullet in your rifle. Your rifle is not strong enough to kill a bear in one shot but you notice there is a rabbit nearby. Perhaps if you shoot the rabbit the bear will take the easier meal and you can escape. If you honestly believed this was your best plan to survive the encounter would it be evil to kill the innocent rabbit to give yourself a slightly better chance at living in the near future?

Now I'm trapped and in a survival situation with no other option reasonably open to me. No one could call me evil for shooting the rabbit in that scenario.

But that a different scenario than a Devil worshiping Warlock throttling someone else's housecat to death in order to feel slightly refreshed and strengthening his resolve to live (via using an ability gifted to him by the devil). Most people would call that person evil in that scenario.

Go down the street and poll the next 10 people that walk past if you don't believe me.

Also note how the Warlock had other options reasonably open to him (that I didn't have in your bear scenario). Hiding and resting was one of those options. The bear scenario also has the element of imminent and apparent threat to life (a bear standing next to me) that I cant avoid (I'm somehow trapped) that are missing in the Warlocks case, and I'm also not relying on a dark gift granted to me by the Devil to bail me out of trouble either.

[MeeposFire]

Hit points are 'resolve, luck and the will to live' (in addition to physical health). Obtaining a small number of temporary HP would be basically just you feeling a bit better. A pep up. You'd feel infinitely better from a hour long rest (a short nap or a breather) by comparison (you get to spend hit dice, restoring far more HP, and 'real' HPs at that).

The Warlock doesn't know how many hit points he has (or has left). He feels beat up, and down on his luck, and wants to crawl up in the corner and rest. He may even have a few bruises or minor cuts.



Which is you employing an entirely selfish reason to kill something (neutral-evil reasoning) when not reasonably necessary for your own survial.



It matters a lot. That's all extra harm and suffering the Warlock is causing via his actions (to those who own the Cat), which he clearly doesn't give a toss about, instead putting his own selfish needs ahead of those people (and the life of the Cat).

So he proceeds to strangle the cat in order to benefit from an ability granted to him (by a Devil) to feel slightly stronger when he takes a living creatures life.

As he throttles the terrified cat, and its struggles slowly cease, he starts to feel slightly stronger... a boon from his dark fiendish master.

Its pretty cleary evil dude. Not on the scale of mass murder and so forth, but it certainly aint a good act.

You are once again misconstruing the situation.

Yes HP can represent all sorts of things but when the decision of the player is made the player knows that at one HP that any damage will knock him out or kill him. Due to this the warlock explicitly is killing this cat because the warlock feels this will give him his best chance of survival. Yes this means we have a metagaming issue here but since we are not discussing the ability of a player being able to creatively say metagame concepts in the eyes of his character I think we should stick with thinking this through with the intent of the player thinking as his character even if it involves knowing their HP. IF that is the case it does not matter that YOU feel like he should not feel that way the situation says the warlock kills the animal for that reason so the argument needs to be based off of this bit of information.

As for "selfish reasoning" how is that really any more selfish than any other reason for trying to stay alive. "Killing the cat to make myself less likely to die from hunger" and "killing the cat to make myself less likely to die from an an enemy" really do not sound that much different and neither seems really any more selfish than the other as they both come down to "killing something so I am less likely to die".

You also characterize the warlock as strangling and torturing the cat WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE SCENARIO. The warlock was not stated to be doing anything of the sort. Chances are the warlock would blast the cat with EB and kill it instantly which is fairly close to how you would do it if you were hunting an animal and used a weapon.

[Malifice]

Please. It doesn't matter whether hit points are meat, resolve, or a mix of both. Being at next to none is being close to death. That's blatantly obvious out of character and clearly discernible in character. If you don't run it that way, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're style is pretty weird in this regard, and likely not a reflection of the OP's game. I will await OP confirmation in this regard.

Oh I agree he feels terrible at 1 hit point. But seeing as he is not hampered in the least in any of his abilities, I wouldn't say he considers himself 'badly injured' even at 1 hit point.

He just feels beat up, needing to muster all his resolve to push himself onwards, and is plain out of luck. He likely sports a bruise or minor cut or two, but nothing that would be considered hampering (no broken bones or similar).


Yes, Warlocks probably have dark powers. Their patrons are mostly pretty dark creatures. But that doesn't necessitate that every application of their powers is full-stop Evil.

Killing an animal simply in order to activate that dark power gifted by that evil patron, for purely selfish reasons, is most definitely evil.

If he hadn't have made the pact with the Devil, he wouldn't be killing the cat.

Heck; its probably why the Devil granted him the power in the first place. To push him towards evil acts when desperate, by providing a material benefit for committing acts of evil.

[Gastronomie]

Well, just saying,

I dont know how much clearer I can make this.
Yes, the killing of an animal for no other reason than to obtain pleasure in its death, or simply for 'fun', is an evil act.
Its not morally good. Its not morally neutral. Its morally evil.The topic creator wasn't talking about a warlock who's obtaining pleasure or having fun by killing the cat.

EDIT:
Killing an animal simply in order to activate that dark power gifted by that evil patron, for purely selfish reasons, is most definitely evil.

If he hadn't have made the pact with the Devil, he wouldn't be killing the cat.

Heck; its probably why the Devil granted him the power in the first place. To push him towards evil acts when desperate, by providing a material benefit for committing acts of evil.Well, there's really no way this argument can come to an end, because while some people (including Malifice) think that "killing animals for selfish reasons" is evil, other people don't.

Like, at least, I don't think it is.
I slap at and kill mosquitos which come to suck my blood.
I kill cockroachs in my house by suffocating them with fly spray.
And I'm perfectly fine with people who kill animals for sport, though I don't practice that myself.
The example given before about that neighbor who killed Mr. Whiskers - I think that's a terribly evil act, but not really because he killed a cat. Rather because he destroyed something a neighbor owns, and something that can't be repaired. That's sorta different.

[Malifice]

Yes HP can represent all sorts of things but when the decision of the player is made the player knows that at one HP that any damage will knock him out or kill him.

I dont care what the player thinks. The player has access to knowledge the Warlock doesn't have. A 20th level Warlock with 100 hit points thinks a single crossbow bolt can slay him. The player knows this cant happen because crossbows only deal 1d8 points of damage.

We're judging the Warlocks actions here. Not the players.

[Malifice]

Well, just saying,
The topic creator wasn't talking about a warlock who's obtaining pleasure or having fun by killing the cat.

I was responding to a different post that was banging on about hunting (killing animals) for no other reason than obtaining pleasure or fun from from the killing. The poster in question asked me if I considered such 'hunting' to be evil, to which I answered 'Yes'.

Not that this makes all who participate in such an act evil. Just like beating the crap out of someone in anger once or twice in your lifetime doesnt make you evil.

Make a habit of it however, and youre evil.

[Malifice]

The example given before about that neighbor who killed Mr. Whiskers - I think that's a terribly evil act, but not really because he killed a cat. Rather because he destroyed something a neighbor owns, and something that can't be repaired.

Vale Mr Whiskers. Vale.

Edit: I also agree that killing a pet animal is 'more evil' than killing a wild animal. You not only harm the animal, but you also harm the pets owners, amplifying the suffering caused by your killing.

[Gastronomie]

I was responding to a different post that was banging on about hunting (killing animals) for no other reason than obtaining pleasure or fun from from the killing. The poster in question asked me if I considered such 'hunting' to be evil, to which I answered 'Yes'.

Not that this makes all who participate in such an act evil. Just like beating the crap out of someone in anger once or twice in your lifetime doesnt make you evil.

Make a habit of it however, and youre evil.I see. Understood~

[pwykersotz]

Oh I agree he feels terrible at 1 hit point. But seeing as he is not hampered in the least in any of his abilities, I wouldn't say he considers himself 'badly injured' even at 1 hit point.

He just feels beat up, needing to muster all his resolve to push himself onwards, and is plain out of luck. He likely sports a bruise or minor cut or two, but nothing that would be considered hampering (no broken bones or similar).



Killing an animal simply in order to activate that dark power gifted by that evil patron, for purely selfish reasons, is most definitely evil.

If he hadn't have made the pact with the Devil, he wouldn't be killing the cat.

Heck; its probably why the Devil granted him the power in the first place. To push him towards evil acts when desperate, by providing a material benefit for committing acts of evil.

Isn't it a noble reason to ready oneself to challenge an evil cleric? Why was that 'purely selfish'? Killing the animal and gaining the temp hp shows pragmatism, not evil. Don't get me wrong, his motivation can still make it evil, but the act itself is one of basic self preservation in the service of a good quest. Sure the Paladin had a little spare healing, but every point the Paladin healed was a point someone else didn't have.

Using your example, killing your dog would be bad. Killing your dog after you had been beaten up and needing to muster all your resolve to push onwards so that you can not be caught off guard and die is hasty. It proves you don't really hold your dog in great esteem. It might even hint at a darkness within you that prioritizes such things. But it's still not a necessarily evil act. As I said before, it demonstrates the type of character you are more than it sends you down a particular path. I won't comment on the circumstances of the pact, because I don't know them nor how the GM interprets them in that game.

Now if you took pleasure in the act? If you made your dog suffer? If you truly knew it was unnecessary to do this act but did it anyway? Then yes, that would tip it to evil.

[Malifice]

Isn't it a noble reason to ready oneself to challenge an evil cleric?


Without the sacrifice of a helpless animal to obtain vigor and resolve via your unholy powers (granted to you by your dark patron) yeah.


Why was that 'purely selfish'? Killing the animal and gaining the temp hp shows pragmatism, not evil.

Pragmatic things are often evil. Superman and Batman would be pragmatic killing Luthor and the Joker, but they don't because they're good. Ditto Daredevil (but he's not beyond roughing people up and beating them senseless).

The Punisher is pragmatic and much more final with his methods. He's also clearly evil.

Anyways, I detest alignment debates online, yet I always get sucked into them. If you view this act as not evil, thats up to you. Personally, I view it as evil. Not evil enough to warrant an alignment change, or evil on the scale of imprisoning someone in your rape dungeon and torturing them for a few days, but its tainted with evil nonetheless.

Im weighing out to get back to work designing this dragon helm idea ive just come up with.

[MeeposFire]

I dont know how much clearer I can make this.

Yes, the killing of an animal for no other reason than to obtain pleasure in its death, or simply for 'fun', is an evil act.

Its not morally good. Its not morally neutral. Its morally evil.

Not that it makes all who kill animals for fun from time to time evilly aligned. Most would be, but many more would be neutral. Maybe even a small few might be good aligned (they only do so infrequently, enjoy the outdoors, and are internally conflicted about the killing. They are otherwise good people).

You're aware that killing or torturing animals for fun or pleasure is regarded as one of the main signs of a potential serial killer right?



Now I'm trapped and in a survival situation with no other option reasonably open to me. No one could call me evil for shooting the rabbit in that scenario.

But that a different scenario than a Devil worshiping Warlock throttling someone else's housecat to death in order to feel slightly refreshed and strengthening his resolve to live (via using an ability gifted to him by the devil). Most people would call that person evil in that scenario.

Go down the street and poll the next 10 people that walk past if you don't believe me.

Also note how the Warlock had other options reasonably open to him (that I didn't have in your bear scenario). Hiding and resting was one of those options. The bear scenario also has the element of imminent and apparent threat to life (a bear standing next to me) that I cant avoid (I'm somehow trapped) that are missing in the Warlocks case, and I'm also not relying on a dark gift granted to me by the Devil to bail me out of trouble either.

You cannot make it anymore clear. Clarity is not the problem. The problem is that I find your arguments not persuasive.

You assume that the warlock character knows that there are other options AND agrees that those options present him a better chance of survival than his killing of the cat. Remember in my example that you said you would agree with the action was saying that you thought that was the best option for you to survive so that means all the warlock has to do is believe that the cat killing option was his best option for survival and it is therefor justified.


When you just stick with the part that hunting is wrong I can live with that as it does not defeat itself. This means you do not have to make the harder argument of trying to explain why hunting in the USA (which is for fun even if you do later eat some of it) is ok but killing an animal to potentially save your life is not. Remember though that is not the main argument just merely a way to point out that for many people around the USA they are committing what you call an evil act.

Later though you try to say it is alright to kill the cat for various reasons but the warlocks reason is not good enough but the reason it is not good enough is because the player knows he is in trouble but the warlock shouldn't in your view and in order to make it evil you then fabricate stories of the warlock doing things like torturing the animal which is not in the original prompt or that the warlock is doing it to feed his fiendish patrons desires which is also not supported. I find it very hard to be persuaded by a person who is apparently unable to make a point without fabricating additional evil acts since in my mind it is due to you being unable to otherwise prove your point. To me it sounds like you already decided that the warlock was doing an evil act and are now rationalizing it by having the warlock do other evil actions to justify your position, actions that were not stated to have happened.

[MeeposFire]

I dont care what the player thinks. The player has access to knowledge the Warlock doesn't have. A 20th level Warlock with 100 hit points thinks a single crossbow bolt can slay him. The player knows this cant happen because crossbows only deal 1d8 points of damage.

We're judging the Warlocks actions here. Not the players.

Except the warlocks choice is made by the player and his knowledge of what happens in the game. You may wish it isn't so but clearly this happens. In this case you want to punish a warlock because his player was not creative to ceom up with a non-meta way of showing that his character knows he is in trouble and may need to consider options he would not normally do in order to survive.

What I can say for sure is if any character that I DM for in my games is down to 1HP and they normally have more I would say it is reasonable that the character probably knows in some fashion that he is on his last legs of stamina and will likely be in lots of trouble (very possibly death) if anything happens to him and if he is a warlock he also knows that he can reduce his chances of death potentially by killing that cat. Therefor I do not feel I can omit ho wth player is feeling there because I think it is reasonable that the character will also feel imperiled at that point.

I agree with you that the warlock character will not know his exact HP total (and of course would not know that he HAS an HP total) but I would fight the assertion that the warlock would be unable to know that he is near full HP or on his last bit of HP. The warlock would certainly be some combo of exhausted, sore, wounded, or feeling unlucky (depending on how you flavored all the damage on the character) and I can see how the warlock would feel that if anything else happens to him he could be going down and not getting back up.

[pwykersotz]

Without the sacrifice of a helpless animal to obtain vigor and resolve via your unholy powers (granted to you by your dark patron) yeah.



Pragmatic things are often evil. Superman and Batman would be pragmatic killing Luthor and the Joker, but they don't because they're good. Ditto Daredevil (but he's not beyond roughing people up and beating them senseless).

The Punisher is pragmatic and much more final with his methods. He's also clearly evil.

Anyways, I detest alignment debates online, yet I always get sucked into them. If you view this act as not evil, thats up to you. Personally, I view it as evil. Not evil enough to warrant an alignment change, or evil on the scale of imprisoning someone in your rape dungeon and torturing them for a few days, but its tainted with evil nonetheless.

Im weighing out to get back to work designing this dragon helm idea ive just come up with.

That's too bad, I was quite enjoying the discussion.

Also, I wasn't saying pragmatism can't be evil, just that this was a point where they were not the same. Killing an animal out of a perceived necessity (food, warmth, safety) doesn't ping on the alignment scale unless you have another motive riding on it as well. You have phrased it with your own perceived other motives that do definitely push it over the line. But without those, it's just a neutral act.

Also, I don't agree that hunting for sport is evil in any sense. Too much is wasteful, and doing it because you take a sick pleasure in the death of another living creature is evil, but the act itself is not evil. I would like one day to hunt for sport and respectfully and responsibly use (or donate) the creatures I kill to their fullest extent. Buying meat at a store is overly sanitized by comparison. It leads to a lack of respect for the animals, and it's how we get those awful chicken farms that treat the animals terribly. (<-Personal opinion)

[Malifice]

Except the warlocks choice is made by the player and his knowledge of what happens in the game.

Then hes a bad player and is using metagame knowledge. To some extent that's unavoidable of course.

For example, when navigating if the Fighter (Survival +10) flubs his check and gets us lost, and the next time the Wizard (Survival +2) rolls a natural 20 and gets us where we need to go, my character assumes that the Fighter sucks at navigation, and the Wizard is the best at it.

I roleplay that in game, by refusing to follow the fighter when he navigates, and deferring to the Wizard. Same deal when someone draws a crossbow on me. I dont care if I have a hundred hit points, or just the one hit point; from my characters POV that bolt could kill me, and I roleplay it accordingly.

I also detest when players defer to the person with the highest skill bonus to do a task. Or when they always send in 'Mr Perception +12' to search every room. In some cases its appropriate of course (I defer to someone with a physics degree to answer a question on gravity) but in many cases its not.


You may wish it isn't so but clearly this happens.

Of course it happens. But player knowledge that the warlock does not have access to is not relevant in judging the alignment, actions or motivations of the Warlock.


In this case you want to punish a warlock

No I don't. Where have I said I would 'punish' anyone?

Its an evil act IMO. (And if I was DMing, that is the only opinion that matters).

He kills the cat, gets some temporary hit points and the game moves on. (I mentally note that his Fiendish patron is pleased with the killing. I may even in the future urge him to use the ability more, suggesting he kill a helpless bad guy he takes prisoner for the extra hit points 'just to be in good shape for the next encounter' and 'because it prudent and for the greater good').

He keeps it up and I change his alignment on his character sheet. And the game goes on.

[Malifice]

That's too bad, I was quite enjoying the discussion.


Im weighing out of discussing who's opinion is 'right' regarding the morality of the cat killing is all.

For the record, in my games, I use an objective standard of alignment (as in there is subjective alignment that the character thinks they are, and an objective standard that applies regardless of the characters self perception), and one that uses modern values (no need to impose medieval European values on the game world, seeing as its not medieval Europe).

IMG, Evil is [harming and killing others, while avoiding altruism and kindness]. Good is [avoiding harming others, and helping others via personal sacrifice]. The only time a good person kills is when that killing is done in self defense, or the defense of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

In short, if the act would be illegal today on moral grounds (murder, rape, slavery) it is morally evil in my games.

Chaos is unpredictability, untrustworthyness, impulsiveness or individualism. Law is having a code, sense of honor, restraint and playing by the rules.

IMG, following are examples of alignments:

LG: Superman, Batman, Jean-Luc Picard, Glenn Rhee (TWD), Caramon Majere, Hector (Troy, Eric Bana)
NG: Daredevil, Luke Skywalker, Tanis Half-elven
CG: Wolverine (later versions, much more CN in earlier depictions), Robin Hood, Daryl Nixon (TWD; started CN), Han Solo (post Ep IV), James Kirk, Anakin Skywalker

LN: Lucius Vorenus (HBOs Rome), Rick Grimes (TWD some evil and some good), Judge Dredd, Spock, Odysseus (Troy, Sean Bean)
TN: Dr Manhattan, Mordenkainen
CN: Achillies (Troy, Brad Pitt), Jack Sparrow, Deadpool (with evil tendencies), Myself

LE: The Punisher, Negan, Hitler (lol thread Godwinned!), Steel Brightblade, Lord Soth, Artemis Entreri, Dexter
NE: Walter White (by season 5), Tony Soprano, Kitiara Uth Matar
CE: The Joker, Darth Vader, Titus Pullo (HBO's Rome), Raistlin Majere (formerly CN while wearing red robes)

Obviously we'll differ on many of those alignments, and probably even differ on the method by which I judge alignments (via the lens of a modern morality) and possibly even differ on if it should be an objective standard at all, before we even get down to our own biases, prejudices and morality so its somewhat of a waste of time even trying to argue it.

[pwykersotz]

Im weighing out of discussing who's opinion is 'right' regarding the morality of the cat killing is all.

For the record, in my games, I use an objective standard of alignment (as in there is subjective alignment that the character thinks they are, and an objective standard that applies regardless of the characters self perception), and one that uses modern values (no need to impose medieval European values on the game world, seeing as its not medieval Europe).

IMG, Evil is [harming and killing others, while avoiding altruism and kindness]. Good is [avoiding harming others, and helping others via personal sacrifice]. The only time a good person kills is when that killing is done in self defense, or the defense of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

In short, if the act would be illegal today on moral grounds (murder, rape, slavery) it is morally evil in my games.

Chaos is unpredictability, untrustworthyness, impulsiveness or individualism. Law is having a code, sense of honor, restraint and playing by the rules.

IMG, following are examples of alignments:

LG: Superman, Batman, Jean-Luc Picard, Glenn Rhee (TWD), Caramon Majere, Hector (Troy, Eric Bana)
NG: Daredevil, Luke Skywalker, Tanis Half-elven
CG: Wolverine (later versions, much more CN in earlier depictions), Robin Hood, Daryl Nixon (TWD; started CN), Han Solo (post Ep IV), James Kirk, Anakin Skywalker

LN: Lucius Vorenus (HBOs Rome), Rick Grimes (TWD some evil and some good), Judge Dredd, Spock, Odysseus (Troy, Sean Bean)
TN: Dr Manhattan, Mordenkainen
CN: Achillies (Troy, Brad Pitt), Jack Sparrow, Deadpool (with evil tendencies), Myself

LE: The Punisher, Negan, Hitler (lol thread Godwinned!), Steel Brightblade, Lord Soth, Artemis Entreri, Dexter
NE: Walter White (by season 5), Tony Soprano, Kitiara Uth Matar
CE: The Joker, Darth Vader, Titus Pullo (HBO's Rome), Raistlin Majere (formerly CN while wearing red robes)

Obviously we'll differ on many of those alignments, and probably even differ on the method by which I judge alignments (via the lens of a modern morality) and possibly even differ on if it should be an objective standard at all, before we even get down to our own biases, prejudices and morality so its somewhat of a waste of time even trying to argue it.

I've seen your alignment discussions before many times. And I largely agree with it. I like objective alignment, and I think your examples are strong, though I'm sure a nitpick argument could last forever.

I just don't think that killing a creature without moral agency (cat, cockroach, mouse, ooze) can be evil in and of itself. It's not that their life has no value (it does), it's just that the actual killing isn't what's moral or immoral. It's the purpose and method. It's a one-sided moral interaction. That's where we disagree. With regard to people, I'm largely in agreement.

[Malifice]

I just don't think that killing a creature without moral agency (cat, cockroach, mouse, ooze) can be evil in and of itself. It's not that their life has no value (it does), it's just that the actual killing isn't what's moral or immoral. It's the purpose and method. It's a one-sided moral interaction. That's where we disagree. With regard to people, I'm largely in agreement.

If we're determining alignment objectively your reason for killing the animal (beyond self defence/ survival when no other option reasonably presents itself) isnt relevant. Its relevant to your subjective alignment and how you view yourself of course.

You could rationalise the shooting of elephants to extinction for their tusks, or the shooting of a tiger for a trophy, or the killing of a housecat to gain temporary hit points all you wanted. Those actions are intentionally causing unnecessary harm to living creatures, and intentionally causing unnecessary harm in my games is evil.

I dont mind DMing evil PCs. In fact I enjoy it (as long as its a mature player, with genuine human motivations, and not some cardboard cut out evil, or some immature 'lol I kill the bartender because he overcharged me 2 copper/ sneak into the NPCs house at night and kill him for being rude to me lulz' kind of evil.'

[JellyPooga]

I suspect the point that the "it's not evil to kill the cat" camp is missing is that the fact it's a cat is largely irrelevant. The point of morality is about the choice you make under whatever circumstances you find yourself. Yes, it can be morally neutral to kill, such as for food or for survival (including self-defence), but the scenario presented was not one of immediate survival; wounded, yes, in danger, yes, but the Warlock has the choice between killing the cat or not. If he makes the choice to kill for the sake of expediency (because that's what this is; other options that don't involve killing are present, including continuing on without healing up, despite the risk to oneself), greater good or not, that's an evil act. The fact that it's as part of a Pact with an inherently evil creature tips in firmly into the realms of "outright evil".

The Warlock does not know that he'll need those temporary HP; he suspects it. If he goes to fight the big bad and wins without taking any damage, what purpose did killing the cat serve except as insurance? What if he does take damage but it was more than the tempHP he got anyway (assuming it was a single instance of damage)? In either case, the cat died for nothing. A senseless death is not morally neutral.

It's not pragmatic to kill the cat; pragmatic would be to go rest or find an alternative advantage/healing. It's convenient to kill the cat, because the opportunity has presented itself. Killing for convenience definitely rates on the evilometer, however slightly. Killing to earn the favour of your dark lord and master rates somewhat higher on that same scale.

[Gastronomie]

I suspect the point that the "it's not evil to kill the cat" camp is missing is that the fact it's a cat is largely irrelevant. Well, I'm in the "it's not evil to kill the cat" camp, and I very much do realize the cat is largely irrelevant, but I think it's still okay because, as already mentioned, I don't value the lives of irrelevant animals very much.

Killing animals for pleasure will be evil, but killing them to "possibly increase chances of your survival" is fine in my eyes. I mean, it's perfectly fine to kill mosquitos and cockroachs, which don't even relate to your death (unless they carry some fatal disease, but that's not the case in Japan where I live). Don't see how killing wild cats for THP is any different.
(BTW, all above is mentioned under the assumption that there was a reason why the Warlock didn't go back to rest instead, because if there was lot of time, that would obviously be the better choice. Maybe there was a time limit, like the Cleric attempting a vile ritual that very night. Maybe turning his back could be even more dangerous. If there was no reason whatsoever, that's more like Chaotic Stupid than Good or Evil, but anyways.)

[Malifice]

Killing animals for pleasure will be evil, but killing them to "possibly increase chances of your survival" is fine in my eyes. I mean, it's perfectly fine to kill mosquitos and cockroachs, which don't even relate to your death (unless they carry some fatal disease, but that's not the case in Japan where I live).

You might want to google 'Japanese encephalitis' and 'Mosquito'.

Both cockroaches and mosquitoes do carry and spread diseases. Lots of diseases in fact. In the case of the mosquito, they are the primary vector of the zika virus, malaria and dengue fever just to name a few (which are potentially fatal or debilitating diseases affecting millions).

Where I live (Western Australia) they also are the primary vector of the Ross river virus. Add to the fact they feed on us, and killing them is fair game.

Just think of them as tiny stirges ;)

Cockroaches are proven (or suspected) carriers of the organisms that cause the following infections:

Salmonellosis
Typhoid Fever
Cholera
Gastroenteritis
Dysentery
Leprosy
Plague
Campylobacteriosis
Listeriosis
Giardia

Cockroaches can also trigger asthma and other allergies as well as spread E.coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus.

We cant exactly politely ask them to leave our property, and no other method exists of removing them from your house when they're in there uninvited (unlike say, with a stray cat or a snake), plus they pose a direct threat to human health if not exterminated, so killing them is fair game as well.

[JellyPooga]

Well, I'm in the "it's not evil to kill the cat" camp, and I very much do realize the cat is largely irrelevant, but I think it's still okay because, as already mentioned, I don't value the lives of irrelevant animals very much.

That's exactly what I mean. You're position changes when it's a person and not a cat. The fact that it's a cat doesn't matter. The choice to act in a certain way (in this case, an extreme action i.e. taking a life, for a convenient insurance) is what matters from a moral standpoint.

[pwykersotz]

If we're determining alignment objectively your reason for killing the animal (beyond self defence/ survival when no other option reasonably presents itself) isnt relevant. Its relevant to your subjective alignment and how you view yourself of course.

You could rationalise the shooting of elephants to extinction for their tusks, or the shooting of a tiger for a trophy, or the killing of a housecat to gain temporary hit points all you wanted. Those actions are intentionally causing unnecessary harm to living creatures, and intentionally causing unnecessary harm in my games is evil.

That's not what I was saying. I run it like this. Objectively, killing a creature with no moral agency has no moral value. Objectively, desiring the suffering of other creatures is an evil. Thus, objectively, killing the cat isn't evil, unless there is another objectively evil aspect such as sadism at play. They are two discrete actions/ideas and can be separated from each other.

With the elephant example, no, shooting an elephant for its tusks isn't evil. Choosing to do so in spite of knowing the excessive harm it will do is. Separate ideas that can either coexist or not.

[hamishspence]

"Life" has some moral value - thus, any time you take life, even "life with no moral agency" - you need a justification, in order for the act to not qualify as Evil in D&D terms.

[Malifice]

That's not what I was saying. I run it like this. Objectively, killing a creature with no moral agency has no moral value.

I fundamentally disagree on this point. Its not your victims morality that matters, only your own.

Animals are neutral because they dont have moral agency. A dog isnt put on trial for assault when it bites or mauls someone, nor is it considered to be 'evil' (although it may be put down as a threat to human life). It has no moral agency.

The same doesn't apply in reverse. If a human mauls a dog, they get put on trial for animal cruelty, because society judges that action as being morally wrong.

Again; IMG for creatures with moral agency killing and harming others = evil. 'Others' in this context isnt just humans, it includes animals as well.

And yes, this means vegetarianism is a form of ultimate expression of good. Capital punishment OTOH is evil. Torturing or being cruel to animals is the same as doing it to people (who are also animals).

Again; this is IMG. I dont want to start an argument about peoples subjective views on the above practices.


Objectively, desiring the suffering of other creatures is an evil.

No, the desire to cause suffering isn't the evil. The evil is acting on those desires. A person with evil thoughts who never commits an evil act, isn't evil. A person who genuinely desires (and even genuinely believes themselves to be) a good man, but commits acts of evil, isn't a good man.

Actions speak louder than words. A man is judged by his deeds not his thoughts.

If I come home and find a man standing over my dead family, and he surrenders to me, I will desire to kill him. I will likely desire his death for the rest of my life. But a good man doesn't give in to those desires. He takes the moral high ground. He avoids killing and harming others. The truly good man finds it in his heart to forgive the killer, and goes out of his way to help his redemption (but men like that are truly rare).

[Naanomi]

In regards to this vegetarianism idea... I'd probably consider burning down a tree to feed your demonic Magic for unnatural endurance also an evil act

[Malifice]

In regards to this vegetarianism idea... I'd probably consider burning down a tree to feed your demonic Magic for unnatural endurance also an evil act

Burning down a tree I dont consider evil. Demonic Magic on the other hand...

[Demonslayer666]

This sounds like the voice of painful experience.

/nod
<- owns two cats and two dogs

[Malifice]

/nod
<- owns two cats and two dogs

I may have to kill one so my demonic patron can pep me up and reinvigorate me a bit.

Its totally cool though because its not evil.

[Mellack]

I dont know how much clearer I can make this.

Yes, the killing of an animal for no other reason than to obtain pleasure in its death, or simply for 'fun', is an evil act.

Its not morally good. Its not morally neutral. Its morally evil.



If that were true, then cats themselves cannot be neutral. They will often torture and kill animals such as mice without eating them, for just the enjoyment.

[pwykersotz]

I fundamentally disagree on this point. Its not your victims morality that matters, only your own.

Your point is sensible, but I still disagree because of the thematics I like to use in my game. A wild beast that develops a taste for human flesh would be evil for me, regardless of its initial unaligned state, because preying ruthlessly upon those who have potentiality for good is evil. Which, since neither of us will concede this point, is where we agree to disagree I suppose.


No, the desire to cause suffering isn't the evil. The evil is acting on those desires. A person with evil thoughts who never commits an evil act, isn't evil. A person who genuinely desires (and even genuinely believes themselves to be) a good man, but commits acts of evil, isn't a good man.

I would argue that both are evil. Both thoughts and actions. I was referring to when the Warlock killed the cat quickly. If he did so out of malice, out of a dark desire to see that cat's life end, that action becomes evil. If he did so without it, then it's neutral. And if he did so out of purely altruistic desires with due respect to the cat's life even as he killed it, and without committing any other evil in the process, then that would be good. Again rolling back to my preferred thematics of unaligned creatures not affecting the moral state by default. And of course, you are correct. Taking an evil action with good intentions doesn't neutralize the evil of the action. I'm simply saying that both have discrete alignment value.

On a slightly related topic, have you read the Seven Souls (http://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2017/03/heaven-hell-and-souls-betwixt.html) setup on Goblin Punch? Fun stuff. :smallsmile:

[Malifice]

If that were true, then cats themselves cannot be neutral. They will often torture and kill animals such as mice without eating them, for just the enjoyment.

Cats don't have moral agency. Neither do sharks or zebras. Thats why the game lists them as neutral.

[hamishspence]

If that were true, then cats themselves cannot be neutral. They will often torture and kill animals such as mice without eating them, for just the enjoyment.

That's a human anthropomorphism. A more likely reason I've seen given - well fed housecats never lose their "chase" instinct - but they sometimes don't get their "kill" instinct active, because they're so well-fed - thus, they keep "chasing and releasing" since nothing is driving them to actually make the kill. "Sadism" is more of a human thing.

The alternative reason I've seen given - to exhaust the prey completely so the cat can kill it with minimal risk of injury.

[Mellack]

Cats don't have moral agency. Neither do sharks or zebras. Thats why the game lists them as neutral.

The game has given other animals alignments before. I remember that the wolverine was listed as having evil tendencies previously.

[hamishspence]

Pre-3rd-ed, yes (dolphins, for example, were Good-aligned). Not in the 3e and beyond era though.

[Unoriginal]

Cats don't have moral agency. Neither do sharks or zebras. Thats why the game lists them as neutral.

5e doesn't. 5e list them as unaligned.

[NecroDancer]

In the warlock's defense

1). He was 1 hit away from death

2).The cat had a key that we needed

3). The cat could have been awakened and evil

4). The cat could have had monk levels

5). The cat could have taken the tavern brawler feat

6). It could have been an evil ranger's animal companion or an evil familiar

7). It could have been an evil person who was true polymorphed into a cat

8). The cat could have had levels in a homwbrew prestige class that requires you to be evil and a cat


(I have multiple cats IRL, I do not endorse hurting cats IRL)

[GPS]

In the itwarlock's defense

1). He was 1 hit away from death

2).The cat had a key that we needed

3). The cat could have been awakened and evil

4). The cat could have had monk levels

5). The cat could have taken the tavern brawler feat

6). It could have been an evil ranger's animal companion or an evil familiar

7). It could have been an evil person who was true polymorphed into a cat

8). The cat could have had levels in a homwbrew prestige class that requires you to be evil and a cat


(I have multiple cats IRL, I do not endorse hurting cats IRL)
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Demonslayer666]

I may have to kill one so my demonic patron can pep me up and reinvigorate me a bit.

Its totally cool though because its not evil.

You cannot equate killing my pet in our world to killing a pet in D&D.

You don't have HP, abilities that grant you temp HP, and we don't fight evil clerics. There is no real world situation you can use, because it doesn't exist.

The closest you can come is killing it for sustenance. Actually...now that I think of it, if you were in a Saw movie, and had to kill my pet in order to live (or even save your hands) because some sick bastard's trap, that's neutral. I would not blame you for killing the cat, I would blame him for making it happen. He's evil, not you.

Oh, and a 100 HP Warlock knows without meta gaming that a crossbow bolt is not deadly to him through first hand experience. Every time he is shot, every single time, it only scratches him. He's that good, and he is absolutely aware of it.

[Drackolus]

The real trouble with this question is that you're trying to use a game mechanic to measure morality. That's like trying to explain the entirety of quantum physics in a single sentence, including the parts nobody even knows. It's absurd. Throw the whole system in the garbage where it belongs.

[GPS]

The real trouble with this question is that you're trying to use a game mechanic to measure morality. That's like trying to explain the entirety of quantum physics in a single sentence, including the parts nobody even knows. It's absurd. Throw the whole system in the garbage where it belongs.
CoS relies pretty heavily on the alignment system. It's one of the few campaigns, maybe the only published 5e campaign that you straight up can't run without alignment

[Knaight]

That's exactly what I mean. You're position changes when it's a person and not a cat. The fact that it's a cat doesn't matter. The choice to act in a certain way (in this case, an extreme action i.e. taking a life, for a convenient insurance) is what matters from a moral standpoint.

This isn't something people are missing - this is something people fundamentally disagree with you on. Take a step back to food hunting - most of the people in the thread have said that they have no issue with killing a deer for food. I'd be very surprised if there was even a single person in this thread who thought killing a human for food was okay. That there are various phrases which would include both cats and humans, such as "taking a life" or "slaying a mammal" or "causing a large cluster of cells to shift from homeostasis towards equilibrium" doesn't mean that there aren't differences.

[Drackolus]

CoS relies pretty heavily on the alignment system. It's one of the few campaigns, maybe the only published 5e campaign that you straight up can't run without alignment

Only in the temple, right? Where the players have to make the save if they are non-evil? That part is easy enough to modify.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I think it comes down to how people think A) what having one HP is like and 2. how temporary HP works. There are temp HP effects that are explicitly a function of food or morale, and people have discussed both. Dark One's Blessing just tells you you get X if Y. If the fiend is as described in the PHB? Then yes, probably an evil act, since the blessing is likely based on the pleasure of destruction, or given in the name of furthering the patron's ends.

"It depends" is a pretty true neutral answer, but I gotta play to type.

[GPS]

Only in the temple, right? Where the players have to make the save if they are non-evil? That part is easy enough to modify.
There are a few other things, like the assasin mirror, the large number of good aligned or sentient items that attack evil people when they touch them or can't be used by evil or neutral people (mostly on Vallaki or Strahd's castle), etc. There are a lot of alignment traps spread throughout the campaign. Then there's other stuff, like paladins and detect evil and good being able to detect alignment (a CoS exclusive feature, most published 5e campaigns stay away from this), which gives the method of detecting the alignment of the fallen angel, and other characters. CoS is pretty heavily imbued with alignment

[Malifice]

Oh, and a 100 HP Warlock knows without meta gaming that a crossbow bolt is not deadly to him through first hand experience

Don't be silly. That's literally the silliest thing you've ever said on here.


. Every time he is shot, every single time, it only scratches him. He's that good, and he is absolutely aware of it.

Um, no. A hit on an attack roll doesnt necessarily mean that youve been physically struck, you realise?

Like, for a fighter with 100 hit points, in a duel with another guy with a sword, the loss of the first 99 hit points could represent him dodging, parrying and ducking out of the way, and/or blows glancing off armor and him tiring as the battle progresses. Not him getting physically clocked 15 times.

Despite the first 15 attacks 'hitting' him on the d20, he hasn't been actually physically struck yet. The 16th attack that reduces him to 0 hit points, may be the first and only attack that actually physically strikes him.

RAW, Hit points are a measure of your resolve. They are implicitly also a measure of your combat skill and experience (your parrying and dodging ability). They are expressly 'luck points' and a measure of your will to live. An element of them is also your physical health and ability to withstand punishment. They are an element of plot armor, that your in game world character has absolutely no ability to measure.

Also seeing as most characters go from first level to 20th level in a matter of months, it was only a couple of weeks ago that one Crossbow bolt was most definitely putting him on his ass.

Also this is 5E mate. For all your warlock knows that guy pointing the crossbow at him has this ability: Lethal shot. Ranged weapon attack, +12. Hit: (23) 4d8+5 piercing damage. The target must succeed in a DC 20 Constitution save or be reduced to 0 HP.

[Drackolus]

Um, no. A hit on an attack roll doesnt necessarily mean that youve been physically struck, you realise?


And then you drink a healing potion or have one administered, which either physically heals wounds or is just an energy shot, depending on which hit points it was healing.

Hp as exhaustion is equally absurd as hp as physical health. I think you can explain it however you damn well please at that point.

[GPS]

And then you drink a healing potion or have one administered, which either physically heals wounds or is just an energy shot, depending on which hit points it was healing.

Hp as exhaustion is equally absurd as hp as physical health. I think you can explain it however you damn well please at that point.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with this statement. As much as we here on GitP love to theorize about what HP really means, that's irrelevant to weapon attacks. A successful melee attack, also known to some in the D&D community as a "hit", means you were struck, or "hit", with a weapon, and a ranged attack means you were struck with a projectile. A missed attack, or "miss" means you are able to dodge being struck, as the opponent's attack "missed" you. When taking a Dodge action it is clear you are trying to dodge an attack on your person, not a feeling of crushing defeat. When you hit someone's armor class, you're striking them against that armor. That's concrete and basically non-negotiable unless you're running physical attacks using weird houserules. If we were talking spell attacks, I could see the argument that they're not physical (minus fire, acid, and possibly force), but these are not spell attakcs, they are physical and visible. The PHB combat section should explain all of this better than I can sum it up, I'd advise reading it more thoroughly.

In fact, here, since we're all busy people, I'll post the RAW proof here for ranged attacks, like your crossbow example. There's more in the combat section, but this is the most relevant tidbit:

"When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a Handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

I think my work on this subject is done, I'll go back to observing for now.

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, I'm going to agree with this statement. As much as we here on GitP love to theorize about what HP really means, that's irrelevant to weapon attacks. A successful melee attack, also known to some in the D&D community as a "hit", means you were struck, or "hit", with a weapon, and a ranged attack means you were struck with a projectile. A missed attack, or "miss" means you are able to dodge being struck, as the opponent's attack "missed" you. When taking a Dodge action it is clear you are trying to dodge an attack on your person, not a feeling of crushing defeat. That's concrete and basically non-negotiable unless you're running physical attacks using weird houserules. If we were talking spell attacks, I could see the argument that they're not physical (minus fire, acid, and possibly force), but these are not spell attakcs, they are physical and visible. The PHB combat section should explain all of this better than I can sum it up, I'd advise reading it more thoroughly. I think my work on this subject is done, I'll go back to observing for now.

There's a different interpretation that also works, which is what I use (and might qualify under your weird houserules definition). Hit points represent the ability of a character to turn a hit into a near miss through skill, luck, or other factors. Hence why it can lead to bruises and scrapes and why poison hits and fire burns you, but also explaining why you don't shatter bones when hit with a Warmaul. That miss from rolling low is due to the attacker failing to land the blow. That near miss from hit points is the defender managing to mitigate what would otherwise be a potentially fatal blow.

[Drackolus]

There's a different interpretation that also works, which is what I use (and might qualify under your weird houserules definition). Hit points represent the ability of a character to turn a hit into a near miss through skill, luck, or other factors. Hence why it can lead to bruises and scrapes and why poison hits and fire burns you, but also explaining why you don't shatter bones when hit with a Warmaul. That miss from rolling low is due to the attacker failing to land the blow. That near miss from hit points is the defender managing to mitigate what would otherwise be a potentially fatal blow.
This is probably the happiest medium. It makes healing make more sense, as well as hit points. It's only weakness is, still healing - assuming 10% injuries on a lvl 5 and lvl 15 fighter is the same physical injuries, the higher hp fighter is just harder to apply those injuries... Why does it take more magical healing to heal the same injury? But you can just make the addendum that it is still a bit of the fact that higher hp does still somewhat represent real grit. 20 hp is still more than 10, and the more battle-hardened a warrior, the more real punishment they can take.

[GPS]

There's a different interpretation that also works, which is what I use (and might qualify under your weird houserules definition). Hit points represent the ability of a character to turn a hit into a near miss through skill, luck, or other factors. Hence why it can lead to bruises and scrapes and why poison hits and fire burns you, but also explaining why you don't shatter bones when hit with a Warmaul. That miss from rolling low is due to the attacker failing to land the blow. That near miss from hit points is the defender managing to mitigate what would otherwise be a potentially fatal blow.
Got ready to get all defensive like I usually do, but I actually kind of like this interpretation. I'm going to screenshot this and send it to the group discord chat, see what they think of it.

[Malifice]

A successful melee attack, also known to some in the D&D community as a "hit", means you were struck, or "hit", with a weapon, and a ranged attack means you were struck with a projectile.

No, it doesn't.

[Drackolus]

No, it doesn't.


Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

That's the only explanation the book gives. It is intentionally vague so that different people can flavor the game mechanic however they want. Probably best used to fit the genre. High or epic fantasy may want to say you were struck, whereas gritty realist probably doesn't. Saying definitively what hp represents isn't correct. Unless you're a dm talking to your table :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

HIT POINTS
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile. A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing. Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.


DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE
Dungeon Masters deseribe hit pointloss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum. you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.



Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points: they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.
[...]
lf you have 0 hit points, receiving temporary hit points doesn't restore you to consciousness or stabilize you. They can still absorb damage directed at you while


Hit points are not meat points. You only take a real, direct hit when you drop to 0 hp, and temporary HP are just added resistance.

So the question is: is is moral for a cut, bruised and tired guy to kill an animal in order to be somewhat tougher for a while, given said guy is in a pretty perilous situation?

[Cybren]

Hit points are not meat points. You only take a real, direct hit when you drop to 0 hp, and temporary HP are just added resistance.

So the question is: is is moral for a cut, bruised and tired guy to kill an animal in order to be somewhat tougher for a while, given said guy is in a pretty perilous situation?

You show signs of wear and damage at below half, so you are objectively wrong if you only describe the blow that takes you to 0 as a real hit. It's literally in the text you quote

[Unoriginal]

You show signs of wear and damage at below half, so you are objectively wrong if you only describe the blow that takes you to 0 as a real hit. It's literally in the text you quote

... what.

I said "real, direct hit". Otherwise, they're glancing blows, small hits that can be shaken off easily or the like, but nothing that connect enough to cause real harm.

I've literally wrote that someone close to 0 hp like in OP's exemple as "cut, bruised and tired."

[Cybren]

... what.

I said "real, direct hit". Otherwise, they're glancing blows, small hits that can be shaken off easily or the like, but nothing that connect enough to cause real harm.

I've literally wrote that someone close to 0 hp like in OP's exemple as "cut, bruised and tired."

That doesn't follow from the quoted text. They could be glancing hits, they could be near misses, and they could be solid blows that the character shrugged off. HP don't direcrly correlate to "meat", but they still have a relationship. To say that only the last strike is a direct hit is pointless editorializing not supported by the text, and a serious limitation on narration. In summation, you are wrong and should feel bad

[Unoriginal]

That doesn't follow from the quoted text. They could be glancing hits, they could be near misses, and they could be solid blows that the character shrugged off. HP don't direcrly correlate to "meat", but they still have a relationship. To say that only the last strike is a direct hit is pointless editorializing not supported by the text, and a serious limitation on narration. In summation, you are wrong and should feel bad


An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

If an attack that doesn't reduce you to 0 hp strikes you directly and leave a serious trauma, why does the text make the distinction?

[RickAllison]

.

If an attack that doesn't reduce you to 0 hp strikes you directly and leave a serious trauma, why does the text make the distinction?

Because it establishes the distinction that the final blow is the one that lands someone in the hospital. It is the blow to the head that could knock you out for hours, it is the slashing of an artery so blood loss will kill them shortly, and it is the psychic damage that makes us forget to breathe. It is distinguished by being the one truly lethal hit of the fight, though a person may be covered in smaller wounds that only become dangerous in sheer quantity.

But what it all amounts to is that the character definitely knows they are on their last legs. It could mean that the warlock is sufficiently tired that they are too sluggish to respond to danger, or that they are covered in wounds that are life-threatening by their quantity. Either way, the PC knows that if they try to fight an evildoer in that state, death will quickly follow.

[Unoriginal]

Because it establishes the distinction that the final blow is the one that lands someone in the hospital. It is the blow to the head that could knock you out for hours, it is the slashing of an artery so blood loss will kill them shortly, and it is the psychic damage that makes us forget to breathe. It is distinguished by being the one truly lethal hit of the fight, though a person may be covered in smaller wounds that only become dangerous in sheer quantity.

And that's what I call the real, direct hit.



But what it all amounts to is that the character definitely knows they are on their last legs

I know, I've never denied that. In fact, I've actually said so.



It could mean that the warlock is sufficiently tired that they are too sluggish to respond to danger, or that they are covered in wounds that are life-threatening by their quantity. Either way, the PC knows that if they try to fight an evildoer in that state, death will quickly follow.

Which brought my question: is it moral to kill a pet to become a bit tougher, in a moment like that?

[Malifice]

That's the only explanation the book gives. It is intentionally vague so that different people can flavor the game mechanic however they want. Probably best used to fit the genre. High or epic fantasy may want to say you were struck, whereas gritty realist probably doesn't. Saying definitively what hp represents isn't correct. Unless you're a dm talking to your table :smalltongue:

Its not vague at all. By the book hit points (expressly) represent:

1) Luck
2) The will to live (resolve)
3) Physical durability (endurance)
4) Mental durability (willpower)

They implicitly also represent combat skill (fighters get more per level than wizards) and experience (you get more as you advance in level).

You losing 50 'hit points' is you temporarily using up 50 points of (luck, resolve, endurance, willpower, combat skill, and experience) in any combination that narratively makes sense.

Lose 200 hit points from lava damage due to falling into a volcano? You narrate it as you getting snagged on a branch on the way down, freakishly saving you at the last second, or you landing on a rocky outcropping surrounded by magma (i.e. you were saved by luck, and a ****load of it).

You have the kind of plot armor that James Kirk would be proud of. A PC with 200 hit points isnt a redshirt. He's a central character to the story.

Same deal when your 20th level fighter with 200 hit points gets 'hit' by a frost giants sword for 50 points of damage. You narrate it as you leaping and ducking in bullet time as the massive blade swings overhead narrowly missing you, but instead leaving you temporarily winded, shaken and off balance by the force of the swing (lose 50 hit points).

If you were a 1st level redshirt fighter with 10 hit points, that hit for 50 points of damage would have instead actually physically struck you, cleaving you in half.

[MeeposFire]

HP is whatever you need it to be at any given point of time. Whether it be luck, making near misses, bruising, and yes at times real actual cuts and injuries they are all part of the equation.

Anybody saying that HP damage is "all meat" or "100% not meat" are both wrong. The proportion depends on the table and how you want to visualize the damage. The reason is that you get absurd results if you go too far in any one direction. That is why it is important to realize that damage is what you want it to be so you can always explain away any issues with little problems and you can get back to the game. Perhaps at one point you want damage to be more physical to make the character living sound more epic. IN another situation perhaps you want to describe how lucky the character was to survive that giant 10.000 foot fall that probably should have killed him (but he still had HP left). The versatility of HP is a tool to be used for your benefit and the more you try to pin them down the less effective of a tool they become.

As for a character it is clear that a character knows he is low on HP. He would not know he is at 1 HP but he knows he is low and depending on you the HP damage is described then that changes the symptoms that tell he character how he knows. If a character had no way of knowing he was low on HP how would a character know to yell to the cleric to get a cure wounds spell? If the character had now way of knowing he was low on HP then asking for that healing spell would be meta gaming and I do not buy that. So to me it is clear that characters know their relative HP. They do not know their actual numbers (and of course the number itself does not exist in game) but they do know that they are fully recovered and feel good (near max HP) or about to collapse (near 0 HP).