Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ahiman 03-06-06, 10:50 PM	So I was in my world pre-history class today and they where talking about the Aztecs and how they would sacrifice people and if you where selected as a sacrifice it was an honor if you weren't a slave. So that having been said, what about human sacrifice in D&D? Can it be a good thing? Or is it always evil? So what do you think? Me I would say it’s not evil just because it is done. If done for the right reasons then if can be good. But only if.
High Octane 03-06-06, 10:58 PM	That would be up to the DM. Personally, I can't imagine a GOOD deity requiring human sacrifices, but I am probably culturally biased. it seems to me that a good deity may require other sacrifices as proof of virtue and humility, but I dont see them requiring people to give up their lives. A particularly strict neutral deity may require WILLING human sacrifices, but I dont see anything but an evil deity requiring live sacrificial killings of unwilling persons. No good deity would want innocent blood on his hands when it could be so easily prevented. Of course thats just the way I roll. The first statement I made holds true.
Rhone_Ethenkhar 03-06-06, 11:14 PM	Well, I'm not sure trying to compare ethics from world history (Aztec sacrifice) and those of a fantasy game world setting really makes any sense, but I'll bite. I'm gonna have to say no, sacrifice (of the human sort in particular, and in my opinion animal as well) is not cool and generally done by those of an evil nature. But remember; we're talking about a fantasy world here that ain't real and is generally black and white, doesn't jibe too wellwhen compared to our world of shades of grey.
eigch 03-06-06, 11:23 PM	early egyptians, babylonians, chinese, celts, and greeks all practiced human sacrifice at one point in time. In the progression of most of these cultures, the practice starts being viewed as taboo and immoral at some point. Most human sacrifice in egypt was done by willing participants who wanted to help the pharoh on his journey into the afterlife. They viewed it as a free ride to the afterlife, which was usually only reached by royalty or upper class. So, I'd say it all depends on the time period and cultural advancement of the world you are playing in.
ahiman 03-06-06, 11:27 PM	Well since the after life is not in doubt you could see it as a very good person who gets to go to heaven first because the clerics said that they where good enough. Also it could be that they might need some extra power for something (like the rules in BOVD say) and some one might say "For the Grater Good!" And die for the others. Just keep in mind that there is such a thing as culture in D&D, so the acceptance of something might have some variation. I am not going to argue alignment here (even though I want to) because this has to do with what is "ok" in a culture where magic is real. I think that the line between Aztecs and D&D is better then most just because to them magic was as real as it is in D&D. So they really did think that they needed to die for the good of the people. Hey a god can only do so much and if you can get him (her) to listen to you when you ask for food then why not. 100 people die and there is food for 100,000. For the Grater Good!
High Octane 03-07-06, 01:35 AM	I think that its worth noting that the Aztecs had WILLING sacrifices last I recall, involving a man throwing himself on a bonfire. Also, the Aztecs hardly thought of their gods as merciful and good.
CorpseLight 03-07-06, 03:57 AM	D&D represents a fantasy world where deities are very real and a characters' reverance or lack thereof can have immediate and direct consequences. It is also one where good and evil are not ambigious philosophical concerns, but rather essential constants of the universe. What constitutes good and evil, right and wrong, law and chaos is finally up to the DM. It should, however, remain as constant as a compass pointing North: to entitle such subtle allowances as human sacrifice is acceptable under certain conditions and within a certain context is to open Pandora's Box. Acts such as human sacrifice, even willing ones, are what differenciate the proverbial good guys from the bad guys. Start blurring those lines and the clarity of a character's alignment no longer hold sway. A paladin, for example, is steadfast in her code of cunduct because she has clearly defined boundries. She knows what evil is because of what evil does: it destroys, it murders, it enslaves, it deceives. If you as a DM start playing with how morality and ethical behavior is defined (or how it isn't) you may be in for more than you bargain for. Not that the alignment mechanic is wholly essential: other d20 mechanics have effectively dispensed with the paradigm altogether. The Wheel of Time functions well without it, as does Call of Cthulhu and d20 Modern (just to name a few). None of them rely upon such things as detect evil, however. My advice would be to tread carefully. :devil:
ManTimeForgot 03-07-06, 04:29 AM	It would depend on the context of the sacrifices. The D&D requirements for evil essentially require that your action be disrespectful of life, selfish, and/or unconcerned with the dignity of sentients... That said I could easily imagine a situation under which I am fairly certain that the sacrifice could not be considered anything but a good act. Your party wizard has discoverd a defect in the structural integrity of the multiverse. After consulting several planar sages the wizard and the cleric agree that only the energies of a soul would be of the correct nature to repair the defect and prevent a possible rupture in the near future. The cleric has divined the means by which the ritual sacrifice could be performed. The group's fighter has offered himself up willingly to be sacrificed in order to repair the multiverse. The cleric ritually sacrifices the fighter. Now I think anyone would be hard-pressed to say that the fighter of the cleric did anything except good (by D&D's definition of the above) in the above. The aztecs certainly were a bloody and warlike culture. Engaging in human sacrifices seems barbaric, but if your knowledge of the universe told you that if you did not engage in human sacrifice the universe was going to end, then that would put a whole new spin on human sacrifices. Now from a "rational" western stand point the notion that the universe would come to an end if human sacrifice wasn't performed is ludicrous, but is wasn't for the aztecs. Now I'm not going to sit here and try and justify what the aztecs did in its entirety (they were savage, cruel, elitist, and torturous); the only relevant part of the discussion here is sacrifice in the context of D&D. Human sacrifice of an unwilling participant barring some rather extraordinary circumstances would be without a doubt evil. The only situation under which a human sacrifice of an unwilling participant could possibly NOT be evil is if there were NO other choice. As in the ritual to save the universe from complete annihilation required the cabal of 9 mages, 9 clerics, and 9 druids to perform it and coincidentally the secret cabal with knowledge of how to save the universe were composed entirely (as in no lower rank members) of the necessary 27 members, and when the cabal attempted to obtain a willing participant from whatever townships were within their range of their movement (teleport tends to increase this range dramatically so either this world is really low magic or this cabal is really low level) all of their attempts to do so were in vain (failed) (perhaps the sacrifice had to be someone of some kind of special quality, as in a newborn baby, and I could definitely see why someone would be unwilling to reliquinsh their newborn for sacrifice). At which point the cabal sure of its knowledge that the universe would end if they did not get a sacrifice and since the ritual had to be performed (at some arbitrary time that day) the cabal proceeded to kidnap someone from a nearby area and sacrifice that person. Now the above act might not be good, but it also probably isn't evil either... MTF
FreeTheSlaves 03-07-06, 04:50 AM	The only time a sacrifice could be considered good would be when the sacrificial one is willing, has great need, & has exhausted all other methods. e.g. I'm thinking the voluntary rear guard whom selflessly provides an opportunity for enough time so all their companions can retreat to safety.
Lina_Inverse 03-07-06, 05:48 AM	It is evil to harm another for your benefit. Sacraficeing someone else to garner divine favor is a no no. It is good to harm yourself to benefit another. Sacraficeing yourself on an altar to garner divine favor for your people is a yes yes. So if the sacrafice is willing, and it benefits another. Its a good act.
Vaelan 03-07-06, 05:51 AM	Well since the after life is not in doubt... This is a common belief that I believe is fallacious. There are exactly two ways to know about the afterlife in D&D: Plane Shift and death. Unless a person has experienced one of these two things personally, they have nothing to go on but faith, just as we do. We know about the afterlife because we've read the rulebooks. Your common peasant hasn't. As for the original question, so long as the sacrifice, by which I mean the person, is willing and is treated respectfully, the sacrifice, by which I mean the act, would not be Evil.
Millennium 03-07-06, 07:06 AM	Certainly you could say that sacrifices are Evil if the person being sacrificed isn't willing. If the is willing, then the situation becomes thornier. In D&D, it gets thornier still when you consider compulsion magic and the active pantheons of most campaign settings. In the case of the Aztecs, they don't seem to have drawn the willing/unwilling distinction very often. Although willing sacrifices were certainly honored, they would also sacrifice unwilling victims if they saw a need to do so. Also, there's another question: would a truly Good deity require human sacrifices of its people?
Neverwrong 03-07-06, 07:07 AM	Kill the sacrifcer. Do a Commune spell. Ask where his soul went. But really, It's more a neutral thing. Killing is bad, but killing so the sun will come up is good. And it's cultural. Neutral. Anything worth doing is worth dying for.
bal3000 03-07-06, 07:16 AM	My 2 cents with regard to the Topic and DnD alignment is this. If you're LG then you'd be willing to sacrifice yourself, as in climb up onto Hextors alter, in order to save others. NG would be willing to do a last stand that guaranteed death but allowed you to go down fighting. CG would be willing to fight a desperate rearguard were there was a slim cahnce of actually not dying. CN and NE have little or no problems throwing others onto a pyre in order to get some results from the Divine powers that be, anything that didn't infringe on their lives. CE would gladly sacrifice others for fun. LE would sacrifice others as a ritualised event and maybe themselves if the outcome rewarded them afterwards thru some divine favour or resurrection. but in general ( rpg or real life ) I find that anything that's considered good/nessesery etc but that you're not willing to do yourself probably isn't either...
strumbleduck 03-07-06, 07:21 AM	A human sacrifice is evil in its purest form. Aztecs who willingly sacrificed themselves to their gods were religious fanatics -- similar in worldview to today's suicide bombers. The fact that this act was held in high esteem by the rest of the community does not make it any less evil. The fact that it was part of their culture doesn't make it right. According to Wikipedia: For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 84,400 prisoners over the course of four days. This would mean almost 15 per minute for 24 hours a day. If true, this was an act more vile than any tribe of orcs or goblins has ever committed in any D&D game. Here's more Wikipedia: A flower war (or more correctly, flowery war) from the Nahuatl xochiyaoyotl; was, among the Aztec, a planned war in which the objective was not to kill enemies or conquer territory, but rather to capture as many prisoners as possible, who would then be sacrificed in religious ceremonies and maybe eaten. In D&D terms, the Aztec were a Lawful Evil society (heavy on the evil) run by mad clerics serving a dark god. They made constant war upon their neighbors for the sole purpose of maintaing the supply of sacrificial victims. At times, the supply of fresh prisoners would dwindle, and they would use their own sons and daughters to augment the bloody string of corpses demanded by their hideous, insane religion. In a D&D game, the act described above at the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan would leave a lasting evil (as per the BoVD), probably in the form of a "great and powerful malevolence". The pyramid would forever radiate a moderate evil aura, and the area around would forever be cursed with one or more of the following effects: Evil weather develops in the area around the pyramid. Natural healing is forever impossible in the area around the pyramid. Good-aligned spells are forever impossible to cast in the area around the pyramid. In the real world, however, it is possible to forget this kind of evil. It is important to be reminded.
Vaelan 03-07-06, 08:26 AM	A human sacrifice is evil in its purest form. Evil is a lack of respect for the dignity of sentient beings. This is the very basis of Evil, as per the PHB. As such, an Evil act is one in which the dignity all sentient beings should be treated with is violated. One can perform a human sacrifice without violating the dignity of a sentient being, and thus one can perform a human sacrifice that is not an Evil act. The Aztecs and any other example you wish to bring into this is absolutely irrelevant, Strumbleduck.
Neverwrong 03-07-06, 08:55 AM	A human sacrifice is evil in its purest form. Aztecs who willingly sacrificed themselves to their gods were religious fanatics -- similar in worldview to today's suicide bombers. The fact that this act was held in high esteem by the rest of the community does not make it any less evil. The fact that it was part of their culture doesn't make it right. According to Wikipedia: If true, this was an act more vile than any tribe of orcs or goblins has ever committed in any D&D game. Here's more Wikipedia: In D&D terms, the Aztec were a Lawful Evil society (heavy on the evil) run by mad clerics serving a dark god. They made constant war upon their neighbors for the sole purpose of maintaing the supply of sacrificial victims. At times, the supply of fresh prisoners would dwindle, and they would use their own sons and daughters to augment the bloody string of corpses demanded by their hideous, insane religion. In a D&D game, the act described above at the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan would leave a lasting evil (as per the BoVD), probably in the form of a "great and powerful malevolence". The pyramid would forever radiate a moderate evil aura, and the area around would forever be cursed with one or more of the following effects: Evil weather develops in the area around the pyramid. Natural healing is forever impossible in the area around the pyramid. Good-aligned spells are forever impossible to cast in the area around the pyramid. In the real world, however, it is possible to forget this kind of evil. It is important to be reminded. No opinion is unbiased, but that one should get a medal. Right. Do you know much about the aztecs? No? Then why the flaming fig are you posting about them? They were, if memory serves, attempting to avert the apocalypse. Or Help the sun rise up. Something like that. The reason people were sacrifced is because people are important. If you wanted results, you had to sacrifice something WORTH SOMETHING. Are you christian? If you are, your views are, understandable, if deplorable. Jesus sacrificed himself, for "Our sins". Does that make the people who venerate his sacrifice hideously evil and insane? Well?
Morka 03-07-06, 09:45 AM	No opinion is unbiased, but that one should get a medal. Right. Do you know much about the aztecs? No? Then why the flaming fig are you posting about them? They were, if memory serves, attempting to avert the apocalypse. Or Help the sun rise up. Something like that. Then :clap: for them to attempt to save the world from the apocalypse. And :looloo: for them to believe the mad priests who told them they had to do that in order to save the world from the apocalypse. A willing sacrifice could be good; but if the preacher lie to the people and convince them they have to sacrifice themselves, the people is willing but the preacher is still evil. In the Forgotten Realms litterature, there is an example of a sacrifice made by a Good god. In the Time of Troubles, the god were forced to live amongst the people as avatars, until two artifacts were found. One artifact was hidden in the temple of Torm, a Lawful Good god. Bane, a Lawful Evil god, wanted it. He was needing power to do so. So he asked his buddy Myrkul, Neutral Evil god of deads and necromancy, to help him. With a dark ritual, Myrkul instantly killed all the assassins and merged their souls with Bane, who became a giant. That sacrifice was evil, firstly because no one was willing to be sacrificed, secondly because it was done in a selfish goal, and thirdly Bane would probably be able to find another way to get the artefact. In order to defend its temple, Torm asked its follower to merge their souls with him. Everyone accepted, because it was an honor for them. So Torm also became a giant of great power, and fought Bane. I'll not spoil the end of the battle though! :cool: That sacrifice was good, because Torm was honest with his followers, there was a true threat to thwart, there was no other way to thwart it, and everyone was willing.
Darkuwa 03-07-06, 12:43 PM	The Christians and Jews used to sacrificed goats and sheep, and while my opinion is different most people here people those religions to be "Good". Is sacrifice evil? Not on its own. Acts are not evil, the will behind them is. Even the most heinous action is not evil if done for some greater good. Now don't bring the Paladin into this, a Paladin should be willing to give up his powers if it means saving the world. If you're sacrificing to gain stature with your god or for personal gain, then its evil. If you're sacrificing to protect you village, the world, to get the sun to keep coming up, then its good.
MindLich 03-07-06, 01:25 PM	It is evil to harm another for your benefit. Sacraficeing someone else to garner divine favor is a no no. It is good to harm yourself to benefit another. Sacraficeing yourself on an altar to garner divine favor for your people is a yes yes. So if the sacrafice is willing, and it benefits another. Its a good act. Wooohooo, Ditto.
Another Gnome 03-07-06, 02:06 PM	If you're sacrificing to protect you village, the world, to get the sun to keep coming up, then its good. If it's a guy jumping into active volcano of his own free will, sure, that's no different from any paladin dying to protect the innocent. If it's the local high priest pushing the eldest virgin daughter of the local king against her will in the same volcano, it's evil, period. Consequently, should said virgin daughter escape such fate, she would still have a perfectly clean conscience even if the entire world around her ended as a result. Not that she'd survive anyway, but it'd still not be her fault that she took everything else with her.
ahiman 03-07-06, 02:06 PM	Vaelan I think that your argument that a peasant knowing where people go when they die is not a true one (though it is valid). What I would say in counter of it is that the PCs are not the only high level humanoids in existence, there are others who could prove the after life and also even if there are not now there almost certainly where at some point and they almost certainly did see the after life and come back and tell others at some point. The common peasant never has seen the after life and will only go there once, but they take the word of people who can bend and break the world around them and have seen it. Millennium, I never said that a good deity would "require" a sacrifice, but that people who worship one might want to do it. Either as a sign of love and devotion or just to get more attention for asking something really big. Neverwrong I have one thing to say to you, "And they shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate."
Darkuwa 03-07-06, 02:16 PM	Neverwrong I have one thing to say to you, "And they shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate." They have a ton of sacrifices that arent nesacarily willing. Ten thoughsand a day just to keep all the roads between all the worlds running.
Tzor 03-07-06, 02:37 PM	So I was in my world pre-history class today and they where talking about the Aztecs and how they would sacrifice people and if you where selected as a sacrifice it was an honor if you weren't a slave. Mezoamerican culture has a lot of interesing traditions with regards to human sacrifice. From the flowery war to the ball game. It makes an interesting subject. (But why are the Aztecs "pre-history?" :confused: They post date the Mayans. Now Toltecs I can see, but not Aztecs!) The question "is X evil" cannot be answered at all without context. Evil is defined as the notion of placing the self above everything else. Good places the needs of others above the needs of the self. Let us then consider the notion that the blood of the living is required to keep the sun rising every day in the East. (This was the basic Aztec belief.) Is it evil for a priest to sacrifice another? WELL HE'S NOT SACRIFICING HIMSELF IS HE? Perhaps he doesn't because he knows that only those who have proved themselves in the flowery war can keep the sun going. Then it's not a completely self centered motivation. Perhaps he goes out of his way to make the victim's time as a hero as enjoyable as possible? There are a whole lot of mitigating factors here. This sounds complex, and it is because I'm invoking a rarely used feature of morality known as "invincible ignorance." If the person knows that the sacrifice does not keep the sun up in the sky, and that the sacrifice does not help everyone on the world live day in and day out then the action has no real purpose at all, and killing people for no real purpose is evil. But if it is truely believed to be in the cause of good, and not for a selfish act, then the act is not evil, although it doesn't per se make it good. (Good would be the sacrifice if possible.)
Rocketboy13 03-07-06, 02:43 PM	The Aztec's intentions in sacrifice were to prevent destruction that would be rained upon them by their hostile deities. Since we all know that sacrificing people does not prevent destruction, and is a bizzare and arcane practice that benifits nothing, we must find their intentions (to prevent destruction) moot, and irrelevent. :pbbbtt: The Aztec's further violated the personal liberty of those unwilling sacrifices they forced on those nations that surrunded them, a Lawful Evil practice. :fight!: The Aztecs did something evil for what they thought was the greater good (preventing destrution), since that greater good they were working for could not be accomplished through such means, but the actions they used were evil. :gah: Evil methods-1 Greater good-0 And don't try to say I am some Christian pundent :tantrum: because I am not. The Aztecs were an Evil society. :devil:
ahiman 03-07-06, 04:57 PM	Rocketboy13 the fact that the sun would come up regardless of their sacrifices is irrelevant because every one in their culture believed it. I mean we disinfect stuff in our houses even though we are coved in bacteria. Its something we think is good but changes nothing. The fact that belief is there is its own justification is a way. "Zeal is its own excuse." Tzor I have no idea why it’s in pre history. The class is bad and I am glad it will end soon. But it does have some good things to it.
Kresalak 03-07-06, 05:09 PM	Applying D&D "morality" (if you can call it that) to real world things just doesn't work. In the real world, there really is no absolute good and evil. The Aztec society probably considered the sacrafices good, and therefor, by their standards, it was good. Our society sees it as evil, so to us, it is evil. Don't apply D&D good and evil to anything outside of D&D. It just. Doesn't. Work. I'd suggest not even applying it inside D&D, but that's a whole 'nother thing.
OctoberRaven 03-07-06, 05:36 PM	Here's what's flawed with human sacrifice, or almost any other act, always being evil or good. A Paladin is sent to a city, where a devil is demaning a sacrifice to protect the city from his wrath for all time. The Paladin knows he cannot fight the Devil and win, so is left with two choices. Fight anyway, or let himself be sacrificed. In one reality, the Paladin fights the Devil and dies, causing the Devil to destroy the city for their insolence. In an alternate reality, the same Paladin offers himself as the sacrifice. The Devil accepts and allows the city to live in peace. So, if human sacrifice = evil, then the Paladin would never consider doing it, and thus battles on, costing a few hundred lives. Whereas if the Paladin weren't bound to his code, he could have offered himself as a sacrifice to save the city. "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"
Vaelan 03-07-06, 06:22 PM	Vaelan I think that your argument that a peasant knowing where people go when they die is not a true one (though it is valid). What I would say in counter of it is that the PCs are not the only high level humanoids in existence, there are others who could prove the after life and also even if there are not now there almost certainly where at some point and they almost certainly did see the after life and come back and tell others at some point. I did not say that the PCs were the only high-level humanoids in existence. However, they are sufficiently rare to make the prospect of a well-documented summary of the Outer Planes ludicrous in your average world. As for whether or not high-level NPCs would tell the masses, that is debatable. Not only are you assuming the means with which to inform the masses, which were summarily unavailable in the assumed time period, but you are also assuming the desire to tell others. There are a great number of reasons why the common person might continue to be ignorant of the truth of the afterlife that you're ignoring, the least of which is the effort it would take to enlighten the entire population of the world. The common peasant never has seen the after life and will only go there once, but they take the word of people who can bend and break the world around them and have seen it. Not only is this assuming that anyone would tell them, but it is also assuming that they'd believe it. When a member of a church tells you about the afterlife, they have an ulterior motive. This alone will give rise to distrust within some people. Further, there have always been people who refuse to believe something unless they experience it personally. You're over-generalizing. Our society sees it as evil, so to us, it is evil. I certainly hope you aren't completely disregarding individual thought here. I also hope that you're aware of the flaws in your moral standard that make it unsuitable as an actual moral code.
Another Gnome 03-07-06, 06:36 PM	A Paladin is sent to a city, where a devil is demaning a sacrifice to protect the city from his wrath for all time. The Paladin knows he cannot fight the Devil and win, so is left with two choices. Fight anyway, or let himself be sacrificed. In one reality, the Paladin fights the Devil and dies, causing the Devil to destroy the city for their insolence. In an alternate reality, the same Paladin offers himself as the sacrifice. The Devil accepts and allows the city to live in peace. So, if human sacrifice = evil, then the Paladin would never consider doing it, and thus battles on, costing a few hundred lives. Whereas if the Paladin weren't bound to his code, he could have offered himself as a sacrifice to save the city. A paladin always has the third choice of walking away and fight another day, preferrably with some allies and a few more levels. Unless the paladin here actually created the situation demanding a sacrifice, he would in no way be responsible for any potential outcome should he choose not to intervene at all.
Shotgun_badger 03-07-06, 06:45 PM	The sticky situation comes when we think that the old cultures thought without the sacrifices the sun would not rise and the world would end. This wasn't a "God give us power" thing it was a "God, please don't let us die tommorow" thing. Nearly all faiths had some sort of sacrifice as their mythos, that was how the ancient world worked. Our world's axis was slicked with blood to make it keep turning. That being said, I would not call the Aztecs evil on that, they were just ignorant on the science behind how the world really kept turning, so they slapped a "God needs virgins" sticker on it. The sacrifice wanted the "honor" of making the sun rise, but what about the captured foes they used? This clouds the issue too much to be a sound argument topic. If they only used one form, then it would be easier to make a call.
OctoberRaven 03-07-06, 07:29 PM	A paladin always has the third choice of walking away and fight another day, preferrably with some allies and a few more levels. Does he? "And so you return to the city, and find it in ruins. The smell of death lingers on your nostrils as you pass the rotting corpses. One of the small children slain seem to look up to you, as if asking, 'why did you abandon us?' <Paladin's name>, you feel a deep sorrow in your heart, as if you could have prevented all of this. You begin to feel the grace of the Gods slip away..."
Shotgun_badger 03-07-06, 07:34 PM	Does he? "And so you return to the city, and find it in ruins. The smell of death lingers on your nostrils as you pass the rotting corpses. One of the small children slain seem to look up to you, as if asking, 'why did you abandon us?' <Paladin's name>, you feel a deep sorrow in your heart, as if you could have prevented all of this. You begin to feel the grace of the Gods slip away..." While a good DM wouldn't railroad a Paladin into this position, it does happen sometimes. This is a good illustration of a time when you can't just walk away. Part of the reason I love my DM is that he makes us make tough calls in the oh-so-rare "grey" area in WotC's rules. If you can just walk away from all the hard stuff, there is no challenge and thus, no real game.
Kresalak 03-07-06, 07:42 PM	I certainly hope you aren't completely disregarding individual thought here. I also hope that you're aware of the flaws in your moral standard that make it unsuitable as an actual moral code. I was never saying that my standard was anything to follow. I was, however, saying that in the real world, morality is subjective and cannot be held to an absolute standard originating in a game.
OctoberRaven 03-07-06, 07:53 PM	While a good DM wouldn't railroad a Paladin into this position, it does happen sometimes. This is a good illustration of a time when you can't just walk away. Part of the reason I love my DM is that he makes us make tough calls in the oh-so-rare "grey" area in WotC's rules. If you can just walk away from all the hard stuff, there is no challenge and thus, no real game. Truth. Although to be fair, I was using the 'DM mode' to describe what could happen to our theorectical paladin should he call for backup...who I might add, was never said to be a player character in the first place. Back on topic before I make more heads explode from logic overload, the fact of the matter is that there is a situation that can make nearly anything good, or anything evil. Example: according to D&D rules, killing an evil outsider is always a good act. But what if this was a Balor in the middle of a city who was trying to escape to a gate to his home plane (the gate being a few miles out of town), and your character knows what the Death Throes ability does? You're risking the lives of women and children to defeat this creature when you can avoid it, which is considered an evil act. It SHOULD be down to intention is what I'm saying.
JulesCARV 03-07-06, 08:16 PM	I would interpret the question ahiman was asking was, "is human sacrifice an evil practice?" not, "is everyone involved, victim and perpetrator, with a human sacrifice, always evil?" or, "are there things which might be even more evil than human sacrifice which might be averted by human sacrifice?" To that, I would answer "yes, it's evil." I think that the Mexica empire was an evil, theocratic, warmongering empire, run by arrogant, rich men who cared nothing for those they thought inferior to themselves. The Cult of Huitzilopochtli was not based on voluntary human sacrifice. The people sacrificed were foreigners, captured in "Flower Wars" often waged explicitly for the purpose of capturing people to sacrifice.
Meldar 03-07-06, 08:25 PM	Human sacrifices yes, inanimate object sacrifices no
Shotgun_badger 03-07-06, 08:26 PM	I would interpret the question ahiman was asking was, "is human sacrifice an evil practice?" not, "is everyone involved, victim and perpetrator, with a human sacrifice, always evil?" or, "are there things which might be even more evil than human sacrifice which might be averted by human sacrifice?" To that, I would answer "yes, it's evil." I think that the Mexica empire was an evil, theocratic, warmongering empire, run by arrogant, rich men who cared nothing for those they thought inferior to themselves. The Cult of Huitzilopochtli was not based on voluntary human sacrifice. The people sacrificed were foreigners, captured in "Flower Wars" often waged explicitly for the purpose of capturing people to sacrifice. That is only a half-truth. The Cult was a force that taught that only captured foes were right to kill, as pure Aztecs were all children of the gods, but they were a force that the Europeans blew out of scale. They were a southern based cult that only held power there, think of them as a Mexican Voodoo if you will. Flower Wars happened in the rare case no willing sacrifices were deemed worthy, or not enough for future sacrifices were available. The Aztecs were "decent savages" they only took prisoners of sacrifice when needed, the rest were just prisoners of war and treated as such (exicuted, tortured for info, the standard for the times). A Flower War was a rare (and unpleasent) time, as it ment that no Aztecs were prepaired to do their holy duty. Yes the noble class didn't care about the normal class, but I dare anyone to name a ruling class in that time who did. This was a time when nobles were: A) God's voice on earth B) Just "better then you" or C) Both A and B
Dench 03-07-06, 08:33 PM	The only good sacrifice is when a person sacrifices himself for his ideals and of course, willing to die for them. BUT, the Book of Vile Darkness says that sacrifices to Evil Gods and killing unwilling people just to "ease their gods anger" is totally vile, it stinks of evil. No good deity claims innocent blood in sacrifice in D&D. remember that the concepts of Good and Evil are not mere philosophical beliefs, but energies that bind the very cosmos. There is no such thing as "I'm doing evil, but for me it is a good thing and therefore I'm not doing any evil at all" WRONG. Whatever the objections may be, an evil act is an evil act. And sacrifices to gods is an evil act. Maybe the God it's masquerading himself as a good deity, giving rewards to villagers (good crops, weather) and in exchange, people has to give him one boy or girl every week, if they don't the deity causes torments to people, plagues them. That reeks with evil because he is forcing people to do his bidding. Townsfolk are not the guilty ones here, but the cleric or whatever source attracted this situation to town is evil. Yeah, a Paladin may sacrifice for his ideals of virtue, but he may never put in risk the life of people, he will do anything in his power to avoid this situation.
Raven Dark 03-07-06, 08:41 PM	That depends on the form the sacrifice takes: - Sacrificing a sentient creature to a diety reeks of evil. - A paladin sacrificing his life (such as saving his friends from an onrushing dragon) reeks of good. - The sacrifice of nonliving objects such as diamonds or food, is inherently neutral (since most people do this to appease their god(s) or get some other advantage from it).
OctoberRaven 03-07-06, 09:07 PM	I would interpret the question ahiman was asking was, "is human sacrifice an evil practice?" not, "is everyone involved, victim and perpetrator, with a human sacrifice, always evil?" or, "are there things which might be even more evil than human sacrifice which might be averted by human sacrifice?" To that, I would answer "yes, it's evil." And at the same time your answer blankets the question so that any sacrifice, no matter what the consequences, is evil, go directly to the Abyss, do not pass Greyhawk, do not collect 20 platinum. My answer is that it can be evil, but it can also be good. Necromancy can be used to save a child from a burning building. Healing spells can mend a Balor's wounds so he gains an edge over the Cleric of Pelor who just happens to be fresh out of spells. Prayer and fasting can gain Hextor's favor. A willing human sacrifice can gain Heironous' favor. Is an everyday, mundane weapon good or evil? No. Can it be used for good? Yes, and it certainly can be used for evil as well. As can almost anything, magic included. Everything is neutral, it's our application that makes it good or evil. Which, again, is why an objective alignment system simply does not work. Let's examine Seppuku. A ritual suicide, almost always by willing participants, to repent for their sins and cleanse their ancestors of shame. A sacrifice of yourself for the good of your family name and personal honor. Is that evil? I'd be inclined to say no. Not good either, but certainly not evil. But...if we lived in a civilization where human sacrifice was the norm...how many of us would still believe human sacrifice was evil? If you ever read the short story The Lottery, you know what I mean.
Another Gnome 03-07-06, 11:29 PM	"And so you return to the city, and find it in ruins. The smell of death lingers on your nostrils as you pass the rotting corpses. One of the small children slain seem to look up to you, as if asking, 'why did you abandon us?' <Paladin's name>, you feel a deep sorrow in your heart, as if you could have prevented all of this. You begin to feel the grace of the Gods slip away..." There is no good in choosing the lesser of two evils, and any paladin choosing evil just to feel better is much less deserving of the mantle than the one who does what's right even if it breaks his heart. The paladin did not kill the people, the devil did. The paladin is not responsible, the devil is. "And if you do not listen," the paladin said sternly, looking up to the sky, "Then to hell with you!"
DeadKeepWalking 03-07-06, 11:35 PM	Since people seem to not understand the Aztecs, I will add what I can. The Aztec empire suffered from GROSS OVERPOPULATION. The majority of "foreigners" that were sacrificed were actually Aztec citizens, more often than not. At the smallest level, the sacrifices were the extreme answer for population control, as the Aztec empire couldn't feed everyone. The Aztecs had three major sacrifices. 1. Sacrifice a 14 year old Aztec female virgin so the sun would rise, thus preserving life. This was the highest honor amongst Aztec society, to be sacrificed to have the sun rise again. 2. Sacrifice people so that the gods would have the power to prevent the apocolypse. 3. Sacrifice people so that the "lost brethern" would be able to return home, by giving them the spiritual strength to return. The "lost brethern" were Aztecs who the gods sent to another land during the rise of the Aztec empire. The legends that described the "lost brethern" describe Europeans of the time exactly. The legends said that the "lost brethern" would return one day, riding the beasts of the gods, horses. Remember, horses didn't exist in North America, Latin America, or South America until the Europeans arrived. The legends also said that the "lost brethern" would be clad in metal armor. Metallurgy was not discovered by any of the Native Tribes of the Americas. When the Europeans arrived with objects made of Iron, riding Horses, and matching the description of the "lost brethern," the Aztecs greeted them with open arms, and showed them everything they had done to prepare for the return of the "lost brethern." The barbaric descriptions used to refer to the Aztecs, are all based on European beliefs of the time. The Aztecs saw themselves as agents of their gods, trying to rescue their lost brothers and sisters who were taken to another land far across the ocean, as well as preventing the end of the world. That mentallity is no different than the servents of Heironious, who are out to protect and save others. It is also no different than Hextor's servents either, who are out to bring perfect law and order to the world. So, even by D&D standards, it is difficult to judge them. Where their sacrifices Evil, by European standards, which are used today in North America, Australia, and Europe definitely, yes. By Aztec standards, no. By the unbiased observer's standards, maybe. D&D alignment is based on European standards of Good and Evil, however it is up to the DM to deem what is Good and Evil.
CorpseLight 03-08-06, 01:14 AM	The Aztec empire suffered from GROSS OVERPOPULATION. The majority of "foreigners" that were sacrificed were actually Aztec citizens, more often than not. At the smallest level, the sacrifices were the extreme answer for population control, as the Aztec empire couldn't feed everyone. It should also be noted that there is evidence that because of severe over-population and scarce food supplies, they also resorted to several extreme measures such as cannabalism and eating insects and pond-scum. But I digress somewhat. I won't argue semantics or take issue on how history judges the Aztecs. I will cull some text from Core Rulebook One, however. Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively persue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. The term personal sacrifice is an important one, for ultimately when everyone refers to someone (such as the paladin) sacrificing there own life for a noble or just cause, such as to save innocents, this is what we are talking about: a personal sacrifice. In the context of D&D and the alignment paradigm, this is good. A human sacrifice denotes a very different event and context, as has been illustrated time and time again within the thread. This is about someone being sacrificed by another out of some ritual or duty, and implies the appeasement of some evil deity. Once again, using our D&D compass this is a form of oppression at its worst and by definition evil. I'll finish with one final thought, although granted it wasn't mine: ...however it is up to the DM to deem what is Good and Evil. I think that says it best.
Thurbane 03-08-06, 02:29 AM	Without reading every answer, I think it would depend heavily on whether the individual to be sacrificed was willing or unwilling...
OctoberRaven 03-08-06, 07:53 AM	There is no good in choosing the lesser of two evils, and any paladin choosing evil just to feel better is much less deserving of the mantle than the one who does what's right even if it breaks his heart. The paladin did not kill the people, the devil did. The paladin is not responsible, the devil is. He had the choice of doing the good thing, which is sacrificing himself, and he didn't take it. There is nothing evil about sacrificing your life for the good of others. All he had to do was let the Devil kill him without a fight. And sure, the devil may have done it, but the Paladin let him. Again, before this degenerates into a big argument over Paladins and how DMs abuse them, remember that this scenario is theorectical and not an actual in-game moment.
Morka 03-08-06, 09:33 AM	Human sacrifices yes, inanimate object sacrifices no As per the D&D rules, a corpse is an inanimate object... :smirk: DeadKeepWalking, thanks for the clarification. That remind me a D&D adventure I once designed. The PCs met an amnesiac ranger; from times to times, he was remembering parts of his past. That's how he suddenly remember his mission was to fight a dragon and free a virgin maiden. He leads the PCs to the dragon's lair, and they find with surprise it's a Silver dragon, who simply let them go with the virgin maiden. Strange... The maiden then explain she was chosen to perform the Ritual of Fertility. She asks the PCs to escort her to her far country to allow her to perform the Ritual. Once in the far country, she tells them she was honored to have meet them, and makes her farewells. Why? She explains that at the end of the Ritual, she is to commit suicide and give her soul to the god of fertility. In my setting, this far country was ruled by clerics of Talos, the CE god of storm and destruction, in Forgotten Realms. Once they realised this, the PCs would have to get rid of the clerics of Talos, and teach the local population they would have to pray Chauntea, the NG Goddess of agriculture. In their point of view, the local population was not doing evil by sacrificing the virgin maiden; that's why in the end, they had to teach the local population of another way to bless their farms.
Another Gnome 03-08-06, 01:18 PM	He had the choice of doing the good thing, which is sacrificing himself, and he didn't take it. There is nothing evil about sacrificing your life for the good of others. All he had to do was let the Devil kill him without a fight. If it was a good act to sacrifice to the devil, the paladin might as well have waited for someone else to do it instead. Or would all the villagers be evil for not sacrificing themselves? And sure, the devil may have done it, but the Paladin let him. It would not have been the paladin's fault had he never showed up at all, and it is not his fault if he assesses the situation impossible for him to solve and walks away from it. Would he feel guilty about it? Most likely. Would it affect his alignment or status as a paladin? Certainly not. Any paladin letting a devil play him a puppet is guilty of far worse offense than one with the courage to stand up against it, no matter the cost. That said, sometimes what's good and what's right don't go hand in hand, and a paladin of lesser standards might indeed decide it better to betray himself than let innocent people die, thus giving in to the devil's demands. It would be brave and selfless no doubt, and probably the right thing to do -- but not what a paladin stands for. Again, before this degenerates into a big argument over Paladins and how DMs abuse them, remember that this scenario is theorectical and not an actual in-game moment. Certainly, and I am only doing what I can to remind all the poor players of paladins that they have a choice even when the DM puts them in a lose-lose situation. :)
ahiman 03-08-06, 05:51 PM	So my feelings on this are now that a sacrifice has 4 qualities put into 2 categories. First is attitude: The person who is going to die can be willing or unwilling. Willing means they have been consulted and have agreed to go through with it. Unwilling means that they either have not been consulted (regardless of weather or not they want to die, even if they do it is they are considered unwilling because they where not consulted). Willing means that they where consulted and want to do this. The second category is purpose: If the sacrifice is for the common good or for any other reason. The common good being that which is good for many people or even 1 person so long as the sacrifice is willing to die for that one person (I.E. dieing to bring back a friend or loved one). Then any other reason is that does not help people (I.E. for some one to get stronger because they want to, or for no reason.) I think that covers it fairly well. Thanks all
OctoberRaven 03-08-06, 09:10 PM	If it was a good act to sacrifice to the devil, the paladin might as well have waited for someone else to do it instead. Or would all the villagers be evil for not sacrificing themselves? It's not that it's so much that it's evil to let it happen, but it would be against a Paladin's duty, which is protecting the innocent no matter what the cost. It would not have been the paladin's fault had he never showed up at all, Never said it would be. and it is not his fault if he assesses the situation impossible for him to solve and walks away from it. Would he feel guilty about it? Most likely. Would it affect his alignment or status as a paladin? Certainly not. Any paladin letting a devil play him a puppet is guilty of far worse offense than one with the courage to stand up against it, no matter the cost. See above "Paladin's Duty" statement. That said, sometimes what's good and what's right don't go hand in hand, and a paladin of lesser standards might indeed decide it better to betray himself than let innocent people die, thus giving in to the devil's demands. It would be brave and selfless no doubt, and probably the right thing to do -- but not what a paladin stands for. Once again, Paladins duty is to protect the innocent no matter what the cost, so it would be exactly what he stands for. Certainly, and I am only doing what I can to remind all the poor players of paladins that they have a choice even when the DM puts them in a lose-lose situation. :) What if they told the DM out of game that they were bored of the Paladin and wanted to try something else? This would be a great situation then, as it lets the character have a dramatic fate. Counterpoints in bold.
Rocketboy13 03-08-06, 10:44 PM	How about this. There are circumstances in which sacrifice by an individual is the lesser of two evils, or in more extrordinary circumstances a personal sacrifice can be a good and heroic act. :angel: But in general, on the whole, sacrificing others for your own gain, or sacrificing others to an intangible religious belief, is evil. :devil: Sacrifice can be a necessary evil, but it is an evil right? :thinks:
CorpseLight 03-09-06, 12:48 AM	As per the D&D rules, a corpse is an inanimate object... Not if it's undead... :devil:
Another Gnome 03-09-06, 02:40 AM	Once again, Paladins duty is to protect the innocent no matter what the cost, so it would be exactly what he stands for. "A paladin must ... help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters." Letting a devil has his way is more than enough to nullify the requirement of helping those in need (the people aren't the ones abusing the help to evil ends, but helping them would nevertheless lead to such ends). That's when it comes to the choice: be a paladin and do what is good, or be a hero (if a faulty one) and do what is right. Neither is worse than the other.
kintire 03-09-06, 05:33 AM	In the real world, there really is no absolute good and evil. Thats an opinion, and a small minority opinion at that. If you don't believe in good and evil, obviously the question will be personally meaningless. The Aztec empire suffered from GROSS OVERPOPULATION. The majority of "foreigners" that were sacrificed were actually Aztec citizens, more often than not. Hardly. The Aztecs suffered a period of overpopulation early in their careers after they had been exiled to the bunch of marshy islands that later became Tenochtitlan for asking for the daughter of a neighbouring king as a wife for their god, and then dancing in front of him wearing her flayed skin at the wedding feast. The survivors had to hide in land no one else wanted to go to, and they suffered famine at this time. By the time they had parlayed their fighting skills through mercenary service into first kingdom, then empire such problems were a thing of the past. The Aztecs may or may not have believed that the sun needed sacrifices to rise. There can be little doubt, however, that their mass sacrifices were primarily tools of terror to subdue their subjects. The "Aztec citizens" sacrificed were so only because of forcible conquest. They were psychotic, mass murdering evil thugs, and that isn't just a western opinion. The question is often asked how Cortez and a few hundred Spaniards managed to defeat the Aztecs, and this question sends the "European colonialists=always evil, Native peoples=always good" types into wild gyrations. The actual answer is quite revealing: as soon as Cortez's steel, cannon and grasp of strategy provided a credible counter to Aztec military superiorty, the Empire's subject peoples rallied to him by the tens of thousands.
Vaelan 03-09-06, 05:55 AM	The second category is purpose: If the sacrifice is for the common good or for any other reason. The common good being that which is good for many people or even 1 person so long as the sacrifice is willing to die for that one person (I.E. dieing to bring back a friend or loved one). Then any other reason is that does not help people (I.E. for some one to get stronger because they want to, or for no reason.) So you're saying that only sacrifices for the common good avoid being Evil? A sacrifice that is not made for the common good can still be perfectly respectful of the dignity that should be accorded to all sentient beings and thus not Evil.
OctoberRaven 03-09-06, 07:50 AM	"A paladin must ... help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters." Letting a devil has his way is more than enough to nullify the requirement of helping those in need (the people aren't the ones abusing the help to evil ends, but helping them would nevertheless lead to such ends). I fail to see how offering himself as a sacrifice counts as 'associating' with evil characters. If you take it THAT loosely you could also argue that a Paladin 'associates' with every evil monster he kills. "You finish off the black dragon...and now you have to atone. Have a nice day."
Another Gnome 03-09-06, 08:14 AM	Sacrificing himself to the devil would be submitting to its will; I fail to see the part where carrying out a task given by a devil first-hand is not associating with evil, regardless of the (potential) outcome.
OctoberRaven 03-09-06, 08:38 AM	Sacrificing himself to the devil would be submitting to its will; I fail to see the part where carrying out a task given by a devil first-hand is not associating with evil, regardless of the (potential) outcome. as·so·ci·ate (-ssh-t, -s-) v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates v.tr. 1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend. 2. To connect or join together; combine. 3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" John Keats. v.intr. 1. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join. 2. To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends. I fail to see the part where he IS associating with evil, as by definition agreeing to the Devil's terms without parley is not associating. Now if he invited to talk it over to the devil over a cup of tea, and they made an agreement, and occasionally visit each other every third Sunday, THEN the Paladin would be associating with evil.
Another Gnome 03-09-06, 09:02 AM	If willingly and knowingly doing the bidding of a devil is acceptable to a paladin as long as he's not on first-name basis with the fiend, then I suppose I don't have a counter-argument.
OctoberRaven 03-09-06, 09:20 AM	If willingly and knowingly doing the bidding of a devil is acceptable to a paladin as long as he's not on first-name basis with the fiend, then I suppose I don't have a counter-argument. Depending on the situation, he would. If he had no other reasonable alternative, which he doesn't in this case, then he would have no other choice. Here's a less extreme example: A Tiefling theif tries to pick the Paladin's pocket and gets caught red-handed. The Paladin begins to take her to local authorities, but the Tiefling quickly says that she has information on the location of a Luhix cartel that was backing a merchant whom was caught smuggling some of the illegal drug hidden in barrels of wine. Obvious logic dictates the cartel is more important to get rid of than a relatively harmless pickpocket, so the Paladin decides to let her off- just this once- if she leads him to the cartel. Again, letting a mugger go is hardly the same as letting yourself die at the hands of a devil, but the same principle applies: There are times when you have to play by Evil's rules for the greater good. A Paladin who accepts this fact will still be a Paladin at the end of the day.
was_fired 03-09-06, 09:37 AM	Lets remove the straw from this argument then. Lets say this paladin was born with the ability to destroy his own soul in exchange for slaying a single foe. To make this simple lets say this power cannot be reversed by any means. Now our paladin is told by a seer that a devil will be attacking a major city soon, and that should he fight it he will die. Our paladin has three choices: 1. Don't go; then he is a coward who puts his own welfare over the greater good 2. Fight the devil and die; His soul passes on, and the city is destroyed causing the death of everyone in it. 3. Destroy his own soul and the devil; The paladin sacrifices himself in the truest sense, he ceases to be and cannot experiance the afterlife. The city is saved though, and everyone living in it will be perserved. I would say the third choice is the most moral one despite involving means that D&D, and some of you normally call vile.
OctoberRaven 03-09-06, 10:07 AM	Totally agree with that there. I'm glad at least someone gets what I'm talking about.
DeadKeepWalking 03-09-06, 03:50 PM	Where does the D&D universe draw the line concerning mortal sacrifice for the greater Good? Is killing 1 mortal to protect the world Evil? How about 10? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Where is the line?
Another Gnome 03-10-06, 03:00 AM	There is no such line. Where an act falls on the alignment axis is based on itself alone, consequences are irrelevant. Arresting a man stealing bread is not an evil act, even if it resulted in his family starving to death. Letting a known murderer walk free is not an evil act, even if more murders followed as the outcome. Killing in self-defense is not an evil act, even if you used a vile spell to do it. Using a vile spell is an evil act, even if you used it for self-defense. Murdering a child is an evil act, even if it was a sacrifice necessary to save the lives of millions. Murdering a megalomaniac wizard is an evil act, even if it prevented the world from ending. Murdering an undead creature or an evil outsider is not an evil act, because it says so in the rules. Now, most adventurers do commit evil acts all the time (especially when it comes to murdering people and robbing graves), but the evil-o-meter of a random self-proclaimed hero rarely rises up to an alarming reading because of those acts. There are mitigating factors coming into play (self-defense being the most obvious), but those factors can't be based on "what if" scenarios -- in a world where anything can happen, causality doesn't exist. For that reason I will stand by what I said earlier about a paladin having a choice to do nothing when faced with an impossible choice. And by doing nothing I don't mean sitting there on his hands and watching the show, but retreating to fight the evil another day better prepared. Or, focus on evacuating townsfolk to save at least some of them. Again, nobody, not even a paladin, is responsible for the actions and choices of someone else. If he can stop evil from happening, that's all fine and dandy. If not, it's better make sure he at least doesn't become evil in the process himself. The sacrifice issue may admittably be a bit tricky, but the more commonly used hostage situation is better explaining that. If a BBEG has two hostages, and the paladin can only save one of them in time, he is not limited to just 2 options. 1) Save hostage A. 2) Save hostage B. 3) Attempt to save both. 4) Attack the BBEG. 5) Retreat to fight another day. In all cases the BBEG, not the paladin, is the one responsible for any deaths (although killing the BBEG might count as excessive use of force if the paladin himself wasn't threatened first). The important thing to note is that there's absolutely no guarantee that an attempt to save even one hostage would actually prevent the BBEG from trying to kill both hostages and the paladin in the process, and that element allows for option 5 in the first place. Alright, so now that I have paladins retreating left and right, and this thread wasn't about paladins in the first place, I'll just shut up and wait for a more appropriate debate from showing up to copy and paste this into... :)
OctoberRaven 03-10-06, 08:32 AM	Another Gnome, your interpretation of a Paladin's duty is a little...different from mine. Here's what it seems to be: DM: You hear of a Drow warband that attacks the city every two weeks. Tonight is, apparently, the night of their attack. OR: Round up a militia to fight them off. AG: It's the city's fault. Time to hit the bar. DM: You see a mugger attacking an old lady OR: Rush in and stop him. AG: Not my problem. Keep walking. A Paladin does NOT run away if innocents are in immediate danger, and even if there's no need to worry about that, then only does so when he's got a more important thing to take care of. The BBEG would kill the hostages, but the Paladin did nothing to try to avoid it, despite it being his sworn duty to defend the innocent. It's his fault for not doing his job. A modern-day analogy is if someone robs a bank and an on-duty police officer who is inside the bank decides to hang back and sip his coffee as if nothing was wrong. Also, excessive force?! The BBEG has hostages and is willing to kill them. Modern-day counter-terrorism units would shoot to kill, why should the Paladin use a sap to take out a kidnapper?
SiouLubb 03-10-06, 11:36 AM	Interesting topic. One person mentioned that Christians and Jews used to sacrifice sheep or goats. It doesn't sound like much to our ears nowadays, but remember back then that starvation was a real possibility. By killing a sheep or goat, you were giving up something that could keep you family alive. I don't really consider the killing of an innocent by an evil person, in service of dark gods, a sacrifice. Let me explain why. I've read Ayn Rand's work. One of the outstanding ideas that jumped out was her definition of a sacrifce: you give up something valuable to you in exchange for something of lesser value. (If you were giving up something of value for something of greater value, it would be a trade.) I know, I know, when you sacrifice for your God, the favour of your god is worth more than the thing sacrificed, etc. I'm going to focus on the Rand definition of sacrifice and add a kink to it that works in this context. The God's favour, in the real world, is not immediate and material. Ie, you can't touch it and cannot rely on it. It's almost like gambling. You put up your valuable money and you take your chances. When ancient tribes sacrificed a member of the tribe, they were giving up everything that person was to them. if they sacrificed a virgin female, they gave up part of their hope for the future- continuation of the tribe, and a person who had consumed the resources of the tribe for a dozen or more years while being able to give little or nothing in return. If you sacrifced a virgin female, you gave up one hell of a lot. (not to mention the famillial ties of love, etc.) The best example of what I'm taking about is the biblical story when God asks Moses to sacrifice his son to him, and Moses complied, until at the last moment God stays his hand. To give up your son- the one who would take care of you in your old age and continue your line- that's giving up everything concrete and real for the hope that your God will reward you- or, simply to prove your dedication-which let's face it, is not going to feed you in your old age or continue your line. When an evil cleric ritually murders a captured Princess, what exactly is he giving up? Nothing. He's performing an evil act- murder of an innocent- to please his God. But he's not giving up anything. If the cleric cut off his own hand, knowing that his deity would not replace it or compensate him in any way- that would be a sacrifice. I also agree with Rand's definition of Evil- that which is anti-Human life. So, I am definitely against what most call human sacrifice. It's evil.
Rocketboy13 03-10-06, 02:11 PM	The best example of what I'm taking about is the biblical story when God asks Moses to sacrifice his son to him, and Moses complied, until at the last moment God stays his hand. To give up your son- the one who would take care of you in your old age and continue your line- that's giving up everything concrete and real for the hope that your God will reward you- or, simply to prove your dedication-which let's face it, is not going to feed you in your old age or continue your line. Just for your future knowledge on the subject, Abraham was the one who was going to sacrifice his son. Moses freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, Though they might not have been called Israelites at the time, I am unsure. You have so far made the most compelling arguement and I have to say I agree with you, and I didn't want some ass hat attacking your arguement over this minor unintentional oversight of Biblical lore. ;)
Gedrin 03-10-06, 03:53 PM	It seems there are certain things for which it is not unreasonable to willingly risk and sacrifice one's life. To do so may even be noble in some cases. Of course, the willing part seems pretty important, as does the purpose. Obviously, if you have evil ends, it's wrong to kill people, even one's self, in order to get there. But, this thread is mostly concerned with the means, human sacrifice. I'll assume by "human sacrfice" we mean the death of people in order to achieve an end. First, only some ends are worth the sacrfice of the lives of people. If we assume that the lives of people have an intrinsic moral value, and I operate from that view, it is only acceptable for a person to sacrifice their life under certain circumstances. So, I would argue that any sacrifice of a person's life must be "worth it". I acknowledge that there is wide disagreement on what ends are so valuable, and while I think that it must clearly be "worth it", I'm not going to enter into a discusion of what is of sufficient value that a person's life could be sacrificed. If you do not believe that a person's life has intrinsic moral value, then there's no need to measure the value of the ends. Second, you can't be doing something wrong in the process of the death of the person. Our main concern here is that the sacrfice be of a willing sort, as the fate is CERTAIN death. We ask people,"Do you agree to die in X way to acomplish Y goal." If they say yes, then, as they have dominion over their own lives, we're pretty okay on that number...providing it's "worth it". So, from my point of view, human sacrifice, of any sort, is only non-evil when: 1. The ends are not wrong. 2. The ends are worthwhile enough that the death of people is an acceptable price. 3. The person to be sentanced to certain death agrees to the sacrifice. When we talk about more than one person doing the sacrifice, we must also realize that there can be vastly different moral qualities to their actions. Take the island of Volcania... The villagers of Volcania believe that people must be thrown into Mt. Boom, or they will all die in a rain of brimstone. They don't know why this is true, but the elders, wisest among them all, assure them that it is. One person at a time is chosen for this purpose, at intermitent intervals. The people have chosen to call this an honor and everyone is thankful that they don't die in a lava flow. It is the job of the village elders to choose who is sacrificed. Now, no one volounteers except the occasional suicidal person. After all, someone has to die, but no one who's not damaged actually wants to be chosen. Oddly, the village elders are never sacrificed. In fact, most of the people chosen are socially volitile sorts whom the elders dislike. Boxer, a free thinking villager with all sorts of new ideas about a lottery system that everyone, even elders, can participate in for the selection of sacrifices, is eventually chosen to be sacrificed. However, Boxer is a loyal sort, and he knows that he has to get tossed into Boom or everyone he loves will die. So, Boxer gets chucked into Mt. Boom. The village elders keep doing their thing, there's no firey holocaust, and everyone notes that there have been fewer arguments about things since the sacrifice. Boxer seems to be a pretty stand up guy. Willingly going to his death to fend off the death of others. The elders are, at best, a suspicious lot. Quite possibly they are a power hungry lot that use ritual murder, and the threat thereof, to insure their rule.
anton1066 03-11-06, 01:09 AM	I would say yes, it could be ok. I could see a good deity demanding a sacrifice. Imagine the world is about to be covered in darkness. The god wants to stop it, but can't. Either becuse of cosmic rules or simply as a power source a willing sacrifice is needed.