Would this be an evil act?

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

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

[Brookshw]

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

[Yahzi]

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

Exactly what I was going to say.

[Shining Wrath]

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

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



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

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

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

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

[Jeff the Green]

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

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

[ewoods]

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

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

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

[Nerd-o-rama]

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

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

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

[hemming]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeff the Green]

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

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

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

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

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

[Shining Wrath]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cakellene]

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

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

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

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

[Shining Wrath]

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

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

[rollforeigninit]

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

[Icewraith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming no rule zero interference, of course.

[ElBeardo]

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Icewraith]

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

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

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

[PaucaTerrorem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cakellene]

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

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