Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6160505" data-attributes="member: 6681948"> So that moves the Paladin to “well, if we’re losing, just surrender – he won’t kill us or let anyone else kill us”.  The same should apply to any Good character.  Why don’t those Good characters strike with the flat of their blade, at least in some strikes (especially when the battle is pretty much won anyway), take feats that allow non-lethal instead of lethal damage, etc. to minimize loss of life?  What do L1 Good characters do with those three Orcs that failed their Sleep save?  They’re helpless now.  Where does the line get drawn?  As you note, all characters can perform evil acts (presumably for good reasons if they are good). That’s where the line starts getting grey.  A forced sacrifice to achieve your own ends above his sounds pretty evil, no matter who the sacrifice or what the goals.  If there is great need to restore that great hero, would a truly Good character sacrifice someone else, or offer his own life?  Why not sacrifice a cow or a horse?  A black bear has 3 HD just like a heavy horse.  I was avoiding animals on the assumption the sacrifice must be sentient.  Why not use a Giant Insect spell to create a sacrifice from household vermin?  How many cows, pigs, fish and chickens has the PC already “sacrificed” to maintain his own life?  We were going to kill it for steaks anyway – if we can Raise a dead family member, or other member of the community. at the same time, why not?I assume I can’t use Undead or Outsiders, so a straight Summoning is out, although Summon Nature’s Ally gets some pretty tough animals.  As noted above, I don’t think being willing to kill an evil being, an enemy soldier (to raise “one of our boys” that he killed), much less an animal, to raise a person from the dead is going to be that big a moral dilemma for many people.  Deciding that a human prisoner (a criminal, as your Noble was described) is a preferable sacrifice to a beast of burden seems much more a moral issue (well, horses are more useful than this guy is). You initially mentioned making return from the dead much more a momentous occasion, not a commonplace spell PC’s can access.  Willing sacrifices would do that.  Unwilling sacrifices let anyone with wealth pull it off, especially once we allow animals to be used.Leaving animals out, what's "willing"?  Does it count if he's charmed?  If he's blackmailed (you agree, or I kill your family) or coerced (a life of luxury for 20 years in exchange for use as a Raise Sacrifice after; I'll pay enough that your family will want for nothing when you are gone)?  Does it fail if the sacrifice has any doubts or regrets?  I think there's lots to explore under either approach.  However, given D&D is largely focused on using violence to solve your problems, I question how taking a life to return a fallen person is more evil than taking a life to prevent him falling in the first place.  I can't imagine how our own society would have evolved if that were possible. If any sacrifice would work, would it become common for an elder relative, who has limited time remaining and is confident of his place in the afterlife, being willing to sacrifice a few remaining months or years for a grandchild taken too soon?  How frequently would a parent lay down their life for a child?  Now we’re even into the realm of willing sacrifice.  And “greater love has no one than this:  to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” – your place in the afterlife is clearly secure. If we allow animals, maybe not so much.  Although the wealthy noble willing to sacrifice a subject rather than a horse, because the latter is more valuable than the former, certainly strikes at the heart of moral issues.   The ability to use non-sentient sacrifices changes the playing field a lot.  How many L1 characters can be raised as we prepare for the Thanksgiving Day Feast?  It seems we’re back to “finding a sufficiently skilled Cleric” being the tough part.</blockquote>

Verification