"Good: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Evil: 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 pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
By the definitions presented by pathfinder's descriptions, the practice of capturing and eating sentient beings is a evil ("killing without qualms if doing so is convenient") and clearly any good creature would be within the realms of their morality to correct an evil behavior happening.
If we were to visit the tribe and insist they stop, and they refuse, forcing them to stop is not evil.
Fair enough. Except for the rule that specific trumps general.. That's a general rule. My book says they are only eating human to survive. Perhaps some sort of missionary work is needed to convert them from their heathen ways…
How many bandits did you charm and murder while they thought nothing of friendship after Having their mind fiddled with. Just Because you do one questionable act doesn't sink your ship.
I would argue that in cases that we murdered people after charming them was evil, because it was often done for convenience.
I think going forward we need to act more appropriately, or switch to being evil. I had not reflected on our actions previously, and now I'm making conscious changes….thats not the case with the lizard people. They do not have qualms at all about killing people.
While logical (for food), I'm going to agree with Bobo. They are evil…their actions are most likely not going to be adjusted. Eating people was not a one time thing, it's a part of their culture/societal norm.
I think it's necessary for us to attempt an alliance first if we want to remain within the definition of being neutral.
hum·mock ˈhəmək/Submit noun a hillock, knoll, or mound. a hump or ridge in an ice field. NORTH AMERICAN a piece of forested ground rising above a marsh.
Offering the lizards a chance to stop is more than is necessary, and places us firmly in good territory, imo.
I think communicating with them is good, but I don't see a meaningful way doing battle with them would be considered evil.
I don't think it puts you in the good territory. I think eradicating them on the grounds of cultural differences is evil. To go and "kill them without qualms" if you will.
They are indigenous people. They Arnt hunting humans anymore then they are hunting deer.
It's not on the grounds of cultural differences. It's on the grounds that they kill and eat our people. They're a perpetual danger as long as they're there. I'm fine avoiding the hex for as long as possible, but part of the job of government is to protect the governed from threats to their safety.
Well, wolves are dangerous. Will you clear the forests of them as well? Or just deal with those that encroach on yer territory?
I already said I was fine avoiding the the lizardfolk hex
I think we're all in agreement then?
So to protect people from threats will you set up and enforce a "park" system To remain wild? Or perhaps use diplomacy to ensure an alternative food for the lizard people? A trade with requirements to not eat people?
If we give them food, they would then have no reason to eat people since they only do it out of nessesity
I was thinking a trade agreement if possible, specifying no humanoid consumption. If diplomacy fails, eliminate the threat.
So then we can trade for for something and then the people eating stops as a side effect
I guess I want to make it clear
Expect to pay reparations for stealing the boy while under the flag of good hearted trade.
Nope! Stole the boy under the flag of we gave them free meat. The reparation was the deer we gave them.
We never took any gems or anything. Except Harry, I guess.
We do have to remember that they did enjoy the taste of the people so we still need to make sure that the treat or trade agreement limits interactions to prevent any "unfortunate situations"
The boy had been taken before you ever showed up.
And he wasn't a part of any negotiation.
I'm going to oppose paying any reparations, but we can sort that out with the tribe if we ever go back to that he
So in the mean time story's of thriving no scales can spread.
And if that's a problem we can kill them.
We could make grigori the ambassador and then we he gets killed we have an even better reason to kill them for our town
I love it!
I'm just saying if ye want peace I'd say it'd be best to move early.
I don't much care if we have peace. I care if we give them an option for peace. If they can't deal with it cuz they got to fussy in the meantime, that's on them.
I'll change the name of the game from King maker to empire maker
Anywho… Im glad we got that sorted out here. Will save a lot of time next game.
Didn't we have a food shortage… We could kill them and feed them to our people? Turn the tables? (PS totally joking just had to say it though)
I love the idea with grigori!