|
We got a god who leads by example to alcoholism, which is insanely destructive on the body.
Plus, Urgathoa is a goddess, who happens to also be undead, so, the state of undead literally *cannot* be a defilement or sacreligious, since it's possible to both be a god, the holiest and most sacred of things, and also undead.
Without a matter / anti-matter explosion. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, hey, mentioning Western views of left-over body parts (especially bones). I mean, there's also the whole Saints' relics thing, but you know, I'm just talkin' 'bout average Joes here.
RE positive/negative energy being good and evil: negative energy is basically as Set calls it out now - an alternate (to all appearances "superior", if "grim") energy source to use however you want, though it happens to often (but inconsistently) have the [evil] tag added for no apparent reason.
Undeath itself really seems to have no noticeable "downsides" aside from "you look ugly and for an unknown reason have an [evil] alignment by default".
Part of the problem - in both cases - is that there appears to be no reason for the [evil]. "It's just evil." is the way things look, and that's not really any sort of good justification.
Hey, Kevin, could you tell me the arguments against using your own clones? 'Cause I gotta be honest: I'm not coming up with many, and the few I do come up with are really weak.
Oh hey, and I may (once again) be back. Here's hoping!
+1 to this. Every argument made for [Evil] spells is quickly crushed.
A1) Negative energy is evil and stuff.
R) Except is shown to be neutral.A2) Defiling the body is obviously evil.
R) Explanation of cultural and practical proves to this being untrue.A3) Channeling negative energy is evil.
R) Demonstrably false, as virtually 100% of the necromancy school uses negative energy, but only animate dead, desecrate, create undead, and create greater undead.A4) Animating undead trap souls and such.
R) Demonstrably false, as we have D&D lore that shows what happens to souls, and there is no evidence to back this up, other than being unable to use the now undead body for resurrecting. Meanwhile, wizards trap and enslave a living soul as a fuel source every time they use Craft Construct to make a golem; and yet not even that is [Evil].A4a) I'll cite the undead type which says undead creatures...
With the defilement of the body and whether it's evil, let's say we've god four cultures. The first thinks that the bodies of the dead should be interred in the ground. The second thinks corpses should be eaten by the living so their souls can be reborn as members of the tribe and it is the gravest insult to say "No one would eat you!" and putting someone in the ground as worm food means they will be reborn as a worm. The third culture believes that the soul inheres in the body so bodies should be mummified with pull-string "Speak with Dead" voice boxes attached so the living can hear endearments and wisdom from their ancestors. The fourth thinks that corpses are simply empty husks but ones that can be turned into skeletons and zombies to serve the community. All four cultures think the other three are mad and evil.
Now comes the question of whether they are. All four cultures think they're being good and reverential by their own culture's beliefs and standards but they can't all simultaneously be right. It's the GM's place to figure out who's correct, who's delusional, and moreover whether committing an evil act through ignorance or delusion weighs on the soul or not.
For Golarion, the ultimate arbiter of what is evil is Pharasma. It is she who decides whether something is a sin or not and whether sins are forgivable as well. And it's up to the GM to decide how to play her. A GM could play her as extremely hard-nosed on the whole undead thing where she decides that anyone who creates undead for any reason is unforgivably evil and will be sent to the lower planes automatically because what part of "Creating Undead is Evil" did you not understand?
This means that Urgathoa's throne room will be crowded with not only the usual wicked necromancers and dark priests but also the rogue who used Activate Blindly and pulled a skeleton off a Robe of Bones, the wizard who experimented with dark magic once and regretted it ever after, and the nice old necromancer who was always kind to everyone and never hurt a single thing in his life but worked a factory shift animating the bloodless corpses left behind by the vampire overlords of Geb. Plus everyone from the tribe who thought that necromancy wasn't a sin and died as part of a social compact where there corpses would become more mindless undead.
Or, alternately, the GM and Pharasma might have a more nuanced view of evil, and for that matter good, and what constitutes "paladin-pure good" and contrawise what makes for "unforgivable evil."
Searching the published game books for examples will yield a lot of examples, but no consistent ones because rulings change based on different writers and different approaches.
Personally I play Pharasma as very tired, harried, and nuanced who would explain to souls that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are further nuanced because even the gods of those concepts can't really agree on what they are. Ergo, she simply does her best to put souls with similar souls. Those who are really into undeath? Well, Pharasma doesn't like them personally, but she finds nothing objectionable to sending them to Urgathoa's court in the lower planes so long as they don't try to escape back into the material plane as undead. Which they do, of course, but that's another issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: space to put everything in a neat line go!
.
.
In PF, at least, there is a clear existence of some Moral Authority (and Ethical too!) or another that even the gods bow to.
Examples:
* Achaekek was clearly NE once, but now he's LE
* Paladins cannot be anything other than LG
* It really appears that Erastil has become more Lawful over time.
................(this may be debatable)................
* Asmodeus may (or may not) have once been good, but is now evil.
................(not the most solid of examples)................
Further, in PF, the gods have distinct non-infinite limits.
Example:
* Abadar's binding contract with Zon-Kuthon (and Pharasma not doing anything about it).
* Urgathoa's ability to defy Pharasma, escape the boneyard, and get away with it, while ascending to divinity at the same time.
* Related: Tar-Baphon's opposition to Arazni
* Super-Related: Geb and his dealings with Arazni
* Vaguely Related: Savith and Ydersius
* Rovagug v. the almost every god in existence and still nearly winning.
If gods were the final arbiter of such things, in PF, than none of the above cases would make sense. THAT SAID: the gods are supposed to be the final arbiter of such things as far as mortals are concerned, which indicates the presence of a Higher Power in play that makes the omniverse work according to certain "rules": one of which is alignment.
HOWEVER: there is no overgod ala Ao in PF/Golarion, as James has said so explicitly. THAT means we're left to "guess".
My guess is that the Old Ones (or whatever) probably did it. Everything. On accident. By burping. That madness somehow formed a mostly-coherent world, the super-large "shadow" of which (but again finite) is the Outer Planes, and gods, and stuff like that. Which is why some things don't make any sense. Moral authority is what happens when the madness, chaos, and meaninglessness of infinity just kind of gives rise to it (in Golarion's case).
WHICH LITERALLY MEANS: it's "evil", just because it's evil. No other reason than that. So it's a bit arbitrary and madness-inducing 'cause... well it's a bit arbitrary and madness inducing.
At least in Golarion as printed.
So: in Golarion as not printed, I'mma interested in those non-evil undead.
EDIT: so very ninja'd. Gonna read and talk more in a bit.
EDIT 2: so the being ninja'd doesn't matter and this is even more relevant at the end of the stuff that was posted.
Part the First: they are clearly neither living nor undead. Says so right in the first paragraph.
Part the Second: they are from a third-party publisher (as opposed to being Paizo, who, it must be noted, more or less follows James' lead on such things reference Golarion). This can be mitigated somewhat by accepting third-party material (I certainly do, and this started with the inclusion of the white necromancer from KQ), but it's an important part of the always-aligned discussion.
Conclusion: it's irrelevant, but basically these guys don't count as they're not undead. If we're talking about going beyond the basic core Paizo products, the discussion already includes non-evil undead. Those guys are just different altogether (and, despite the claim of the written fluff, I'd say they're living, considering they have a physical brain, bleed, have a constitution score, and can die - I'd call them aberrations and call it day - similar to these guys, really; but that's just me and not the way they're published).
Personally, my take is that Pharasma would not be much of a goddess of prophecy if she didn't know about Urgathoa defying her and thereby creating disease and undeath.
I also follow the interpretation that Urgathoa was not so much powerful and willful as she was the lucky 10,000th shopper at the check-out line who won the prophesied prize of becoming the goddess of disease and undeath, and Pharasma counts herself lucky that the brass ring was grabbed by someone who's just an amoral hedonist and utterly incompetent in the grand scheme of things.
I mean just imagine what would happen if the Whispering Tyrant had become the god of disease and undeath instead?
I've also let my players hear rumors and dark prophecies that the Whispering Tyrant is plotting to overthrow Urgathoa and take her godhood for himself, and this is one of those unthinkable things that the church of Pharasma would do everything in their power to stop. I mean, Urgathoa's bad but she's incompetent party girl bad. Imagine what the Whispering Tyrant would do in her place?
With the defilement of the body and whether it's evil, let's say we've god four cultures. The first thinks that the bodies of the dead should be interred in the ground. The second thinks corpses should be eaten by the living so their souls can be reborn as members of the tribe and it is the gravest insult to say "No one would eat you!" and putting someone in the ground as worm food means they will be reborn as a worm. The third culture believes that the soul inheres in the body so bodies should be mummified with pull-string "Speak with Dead" voice boxes attached so the living can hear endearments and wisdom from their ancestors. The fourth thinks that corpses are simply empty husks but ones that can be turned into skeletons and zombies to serve the community. All four cultures think the other three are mad and evil.
Now comes the question of whether they are. All four cultures think they're being good and reverential by their own culture's beliefs and standards but they can't all simultaneously be right. It's the GM's place to figure out who's correct, who's delusional, and moreover whether committing an evil act through ignorance or delusion weighs on the soul or not.
The simplest answer is generally the correct one. They are all wrong. At the same time, they are right in that they are all Good. The fact they are tried to do good, by respecting their fallen loved ones in the best ways they know how is a good act. The effort is a good act. Even the necromancers who believe - perhaps through scientific study - that the corpse is just a corpse, believe the best way to honor their dead is to make sure the bodies of those dead are put to good use (either as undead servitors, or maybe even planting them in fields to grow crops for the living).
There are a few absolutes that we can see in the game. Sentient creatures have souls (even outsiders, though their souls and bodies are one). Those souls leave the body (again excusing outsiders because their souls are their bodies, barring native subtype) and go to the afterlife. The afterlife they go to is based on their respective god and/or alignment (most settings place you in the afterlife of your deity or the nearest ethically aligned deity upon your death).
Thus, it is irrelevant as to which method is the correct one. There is no correct one. There are merely different methods. It's like trying to define which fashion or culture is the correct one. Are kimonos the correct clothing, or are trousers? Maybe kilts are the correct garment for covering the legs, or maybe skinny jeans, or frilly dresses. Or maybe they're just all clothing and serve the same purpose.
Let's look at each of your hypothetical societies again.
1) Honors their dead by eating them.
2) Honors their dead by burying them.
3) Honors their dead by entombing them.
4) Honors their dead by not wasting them.
They're all honoring their dead based on what they believe. Each sees the rest as horribly disrespecting the dead or making a mockery of them. "You would rather they be eaten by vermin!?" - "You would freeze them in time to never rejoin the earth!?" - "You would dishonor their memory by covering them up!?" - "You would rather play dress up that let their remains aid their kin!?"
All are wrong. All are righteous.
For Golarion, the ultimate arbiter of what is evil is Pharasma. It is she who decides whether something is a sin or not and whether sins are forgivable as well. And it's up to the GM to decide how to play her. A GM could play her as extremely hard-nosed on the whole undead thing where she decides that anyone who creates undead for any reason is unforgivably evil and will be sent to the lower planes automatically because what part of "Creating Undead is Evil" did you not understand?
This means that Urgathoa's throne room will be crowded with not only the usual wicked necromancers and dark priests but also the rogue who used Activate Blindly and pulled a skeleton off a Robe of Bones, the wizard who experimented with dark magic once and regretted it ever after, and the nice old necromancer who was always kind to everyone and never hurt a single thing in his life but worked a factory shift animating the bloodless corpses left behind by the vampire overlords of Geb. Plus everyone from the tribe who thought that necromancy wasn't a sin and died as part of a social compact where there corpses would become more mindless undead.
Or, alternately, the GM and Pharasma might have a more nuanced view of evil, and for that matter good, and what constitutes "paladin-pure good" and contrawise what makes for "unforgivable evil."
Searching the published game books for examples will yield a lot of examples, but no consistent ones because rulings change based on different writers and different approaches.
Personally I play Pharasma as very tired, harried, and nuanced who would explain to souls that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are further nuanced because even the gods of those concepts can't really agree on what they are. Ergo, she simply does her best to put souls with similar souls. Those who are really into undeath? Well, Pharasma doesn't like them personally, but she finds nothing objectionable to sending them to Urgathoa's court in the lower planes so long as they don't try to escape back into the material plane as undead. Which they do, of course, but that's another issue.
Entirely fine, but completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about. Pathfinder is supposed to be a continuation of 3.5. Unless Paizo was lying to us with their campaign slogan. Not everyone plays Golarion, just like not everyone played Eberron, Grayhawk, Faerun, Darksun, or Mystara. Most of us would prefer a setting-neutral rule set based on logic and reason, and then allow campaign settings to adjust it from that Neutral position as desired; as is normally the case.
Golarion, to my knowledge, does not support clerics of ideals or concepts; but the core rules do because it's setting Neutral. Why should this be any different?
Golarion, to my knowledge, does not support clerics of ideals or concepts; but the core rules do because it's setting Neutral. Why should this be any different?
Well, in the case of Juju oracles, they're created as a part of Golarion, and their Spirit Vessels power is errataed as part of Golarion. If you want to use them outside of Golarion, you're free to do so, but that's adapting something from a non-neutral setting to a neutral setting.
With the Core Rules, and all the other setting neutral books, those are designed to be meshed with 3.5, and 3.5 follows the premise that all undead are evil, even zombies and skeletons.
If you're changing the gears of your 3.5 books to make the skeletons and zombies neutral like they were in 3.0, there should be no trouble changing the gears with all the Pathfinder books.
It's a fairly simple change to make. You simply declare some particular spell or creature to not be evil and then add in that all the flavor text about how evil that spell or creature is is just the ranting of prejudiced lunatics.
Similarly, you can make something evil that isn't in the Core Rules. For example, you could say that all arcane magic is evil, and there are no white necromancers because there are no white wizards period. They are all evil and wicked without exception, starting out as gray at best but swiftly sliding into vile amoral blackness. Wizards are depraved creatures and sorcerers are the worst for they were bone evil with evil arcane magic coursing through their blood.
The simplest answer is generally the correct one. They are all wrong. At the same time, they are right in that they are all Good. The fact they are tried to do good, by respecting their fallen loved ones in the best ways they know how is a good act.With the defilement of the body and whether it's evil, let's say we've god four cultures. The first thinks that the bodies of the dead should be interred in the ground. The second thinks corpses should be eaten by the living so their souls can be reborn as members of the tribe and it is the gravest insult to say "No one would eat you!" and putting someone in the ground as worm food means they will be reborn as a worm. The third culture believes that the soul inheres in the body so bodies should be mummified with pull-string "Speak with Dead" voice boxes attached so the living can hear endearments and wisdom from their ancestors. The fourth thinks that corpses are simply empty husks but ones that can be turned into skeletons and zombies to serve the community. All four cultures think the other three are mad and evil.
Now comes the question of whether they are. All four cultures think they're being good and reverential by their own culture's beliefs and standards but they can't all simultaneously be right. It's the GM's place to figure out who's correct, who's delusional, and moreover whether committing an evil act through ignorance or delusion weighs on the soul or not.
I should point out that this is a value judgement. If any act done with good intentions is a good act, then all that matters is the intentions, not the act itself. And following that logic, no spell should have the Evil descriptor or for that matter any alignment description--they are all neutral tools simply awaiting use.
While this is a valid line of theology, it is not the only one. Other interpretations can be that a deed is good if it accomplishes a beneficial end, regardless of the intentions of the one doing it.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest answer is generally the correct one. They are all wrong. At the same time, they are right in that they are all Good. The fact they are tried to do good, by respecting their fallen loved ones in the best ways they know how is a good act.With the defilement of the body and whether it's evil, let's say we've god four cultures. The first thinks that the bodies of the dead should be interred in the ground. The second thinks corpses should be eaten by the living so their souls can be reborn as members of the tribe and it is the gravest insult to say "No one would eat you!" and putting someone in the ground as worm food means they will be reborn as a worm. The third culture believes that the soul inheres in the body so bodies should be mummified with pull-string "Speak with Dead" voice boxes attached so the living can hear endearments and wisdom from their ancestors. The fourth thinks that corpses are simply empty husks but ones that can be turned into skeletons and zombies to serve the community. All four cultures think the other three are mad and evil.
Now comes the question of whether they are. All four cultures think they're being good and reverential by their own culture's beliefs and standards but they can't all simultaneously be right. It's the GM's place to figure out who's correct, who's delusional, and moreover whether committing an evil act through ignorance or delusion weighs on the soul or not.
I should point out that this is a value judgement. If any act done with good intentions is a good act, then all that matters is the intentions, not the act itself. And following that logic, no spell should have the Evil descriptor or for that matter any alignment description--they are all neutral tools simply awaiting use.
While this is a valid line of theology, it is not the only one. Other interpretations can be that a deed is good if it accomplishes a beneficial end, regardless of the intentions of the one doing it.
Certainly that's one way to deal with the Judas issue.
The grossly oversymplified Hindu (and Tantric Buddhist) argument is that becoming undead is a part of one's dharma, and consorting with undead is only acceptable if one is providing the undead creature a means to moksha or at least a better rebirth (thus providing them with a good task or opportunity to do good is very righteous, since karma accrues regardless of intention). But notably, undeath is an incarnation - it's not an interruption of the natural cycle, but part of the expiation or punishment that the being endures for their previous actions. And if one accidentally condemns a relative to undeath because you neglect the puja due to ancestors, this is your own fault (and may lead to the same fate for you). Because so much of what can befall one in dharma is not really "fair" it's appropriate to attempt to post-facto redeem undead. Of course, generally, the being then goes onto a better life, so keeping the undead around afterwards instead of letting them be returned to bones and rot is pretty selfish.
Golarion, to my knowledge, does not support clerics of ideals or concepts; but the core rules do because it's setting Neutral. Why should this be any different?Well, in the case of Juju oracles, they're created as a part of Golarion, and their Spirit Vessels power is errataed as part of Golarion. If you want to use them outside of Golarion, you're free to do so, but that's adapting something from a non-neutral setting to a neutral setting.
Juju Oracle is nothing more than cleric remix to begin with, and the "spirit vessels" are noting more than fluff that tries to justify mechanics that rail against the setting's limitations.
There is nothing you can do with a Juju Oracle concerning the undead, in theme, that you couldn't do with a regular cleric in an otherwise neutral-ruleset.
With the Core Rules, and all the other setting neutral books, those are designed to be meshed with 3.5, and 3.5 follows the premise that all undead are evil, even zombies and skeletons.
If you're changing the gears of your 3.5 books to make the skeletons and zombies neutral like they were in 3.0, there should be no trouble changing the gears with all the Pathfinder books.
What are you talking about? How does the mistakes of 3.5 justify the mistakes of Pathfinder, exactly? One of the problems with 3.5 as a RPG system and not a campaign was that it did stuff like this, which pushed it further and further away from setting neutral.
It's a fairly simple change to make. You simply declare some particular spell or creature to not be evil and then add in that all the flavor text about how evil that spell or creature is is just the ranting of prejudiced lunatics.
And it's fairly simple to simply make it setting neutral. Then there is no requirement to change it from the neutral position. It cuts down on the amount of house rules you have to have. It cuts down on the internal inconsistency as well.
As it is right now, we have to involve ourselves in this problem just to gain some sort of internal consistency. For there to be any sort of internal consistency, we have to house rule something. Either we have to re-write negative energy, re-write spells, re-write creature types, re-write the planar rules, re-write alignment, or re-write a combination thereof. That sucks for a system that is supposed to be setting neutral. When 3.0 was better at maintaining consistency and setting neutrality, that means the game has devolved in comparison to its predecessors.
Similarly, you can make something evil that isn't in the Core Rules. For example, you could say that all arcane magic is evil, and there are no white necromancers because there are no white wizards period. They are all evil and wicked without exception, starting out as gray at best but swiftly sliding into vile amoral blackness. Wizards are depraved creatures and sorcerers are the worst for they were bone evil with evil arcane magic coursing through their blood.
And you must obviously see the problem with the notion that in a setting neutral system all wizards are evil, or all the fluff being centered around wizards being evil, and so forth. Cross this with tons of logical inconsistencies that show arcane magic as being an entirely neutral force, and having literally no justification for it being evil, beyond Judeo-Christian themes of magic being icky; because that's basically what is occurring here.
EDIT: Now the Paizo staff has already said we're free to turn Golarion's entire world on its head when we're at home. Many of us probably do. This thread is a good example of people working within that paradigm. However, I'm mostly discussing the problem that while it's entirely fine for undead to make peoples' heads randomly explode in Golarion if that's how it works in Golarion, that it should have diddly squat to do with the core rules.
The simplest answer is generally the correct one. They are all wrong. At the same time, they are right in that they are all Good. The fact they are tried to do good, by respecting their fallen loved ones in the best ways they know how is a good act.With the defilement of the body and whether it's evil, let's say we've god four cultures. The first thinks that the bodies of the dead should be interred in the ground. The second thinks corpses should be eaten by the living so their souls can be reborn as members of the tribe and it is the gravest insult to say "No one would eat you!" and putting someone in the ground as worm food means they will be reborn as a worm. The third culture believes that the soul inheres in the body so bodies should be mummified with pull-string "Speak with Dead" voice boxes attached so the living can hear endearments and wisdom from their ancestors. The fourth thinks that corpses are simply empty husks but ones that can be turned into skeletons and zombies to serve the community. All four cultures think the other three are mad and evil.
Now comes the question of whether they are. All four cultures think they're being good and reverential by their own culture's beliefs and standards but they can't all simultaneously be right. It's the GM's place to figure out who's correct, who's delusional, and moreover whether committing an evil act through ignorance or delusion weighs on the soul or not.
I should point out that this is a value judgement. If any act done with good intentions is a good act, then all that matters is the intentions, not the act itself. And following that logic, no spell should have the Evil descriptor or for that matter any alignment description--they are all neutral tools simply awaiting use.
While this is a valid line of theology, it is not the only one. Other interpretations can be that a deed is good if it accomplishes a beneficial end, regardless of the intentions of the one doing it.
Well if you want to try to sidestep the point with an alignment-dummy we can slim down the argument to: The simplest answer is generally the correct one. They are all wrong. They are in fact all wrong. There is literally nothing involving their individual funeral rites and/or traditions that is correct. So we'll not even give them points for trying. They're all wrong.
All four religious examples are demonstrably wrong. That is the simplest and obvious answer. Funny how religion works that way. I, as a Christian, cannot prove to you beyond anecdotal evidence that my religion is somehow more correct than your own. I cannot demonstrate that X religious funeral produces the best afterlife result, for example. So while some might burn their bodies and scatter ashes to ashes and dust to dust, others might empty the brain and organs and turn them into tomb-jerky.
Now you might create a campaign where one of them are right, and the others are unwittingly doing some great evil. I'm not buying that in a world with multiple gods, multiple heavens, multiple hells, and so forth. There's a different afterlife for every day of the week in most D&D settings. Heck, in many cases people who share the exact same alignment may end up in a different version of "heaven" based on culture, religious belief, or even race of all things. Elf deities, hooo! It's also not something to be pushing in a system that is setting neutral; which is what Paizo seems to be doing.
And that bothers some of us who want to spend our hard earned $$$ on worthwhile roleplaying sources that we don't have to homebrew ourselves, is that we need Juju Oracles to be something of a patchfix for the inconsistent core rules to let us play the characters desired; but that we apparently shouldn't have even been given the Juju Oracle because it wouldn't have saw publication if they noticed it. What sort of crap is that? Deliver us a broken core-system, try to create religious/cultural based excuses for why the core-system is inconsistent and doesn't work (which can be proved wrong by the system itself), and instead of patching or fixing, errata-ing, or otherwise offering we folks who buy products something to work with, we're told they made it like this so they can break their own rules later?
Bleh...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every edition going back to 1st has had some troubles and inconsistencies and things that required house ruling, particularly with undead. For example, in the 1st edition Monster Manual, the ghost was listed as being irredeemably evil. Then in one of the published adventures, there's the ghost of this pharaoh who's not really evil at all. Contradiction? Yes. Easily solved? Yes, that too. You just decide that most ghosts are evil, but some aren't at the GM's whim.
With Pathfinder, I do a few simple houserules to get the sort of world I want to run as a GM. They are as follows:
1. All healing spells are no longer Conjuration (Healing) but instead Necromancy like they were in 1st edition. (My assumption was it was changed in 2nd edition to please the Moral Majority {which was neither} but it was just bad metaphysics and should have been changed back for 3rd, and Pathfinder couldn't change it back because 1st ed is not part of the SRD plus backward compatibility concerns).
2. Animate Dead loses the Evil descriptor and skeletons and zombies are neutral.
3. Sentient undead can be of any alignment because like lycanthropy, undeath is a curse. The evil ones may think they're cursed with awesome, but the neutral and good ones are a lot more upset about it and may actively be trying to break the curse.
4. Create Undead, which keeps the Evil descriptor, does not automatically work. Unwilling subjects get a saving throw. If the spell fails, the spell cannot be retried for another week, same as Speak with Dead.
5. Raise Dead does not automatically fail if the soul is unwilling to return or simply trapped. There are plenty of souls who would like to come back to life even if the body they come back in isn't their own.
6. True Resurrection isn't prevented just because there's a skeleton or zombie somewhere made out of a soul's former body. When cast, the skeleton or zombie crumbles to dust as the new body is reformed wherever the caster is.
7. Liches may be of any alignment, but are generally wizards because defying the gods and the natural order is part of the job description.
There. Fairly simple fixes.
Every edition going back to 1st has had some troubles and inconsistencies and things that required house ruling, particularly with undead. For example, in the 1st edition Monster Manual, the ghost was listed as being irredeemably evil. Then in one of the published adventures, there's the ghost of this pharaoh who's not really evil at all. Contradiction? Yes. Easily solved? Yes, that too. You just decide that most ghosts are evil, but some aren't at the GM's whim.
Yeah, that's called evolution of gaming. Continuously improve something and iron out logical problems. For example, there was essentially no working skill system in 1E/2E, so in 3E you get a game very similar to 1E/2E + Skill System.
In 1E you got always evil ghosts. In 2E and 3E, you don't. They looked at it, said "Hm, you know, this doesn't make any sense, let's adjust it to be more consistent and less arbitrary" and then they did. That is an improvement to the game. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the opposite ("Lets make this less consistent and more arbitrary") is reduction in quality of the game.
With Pathfinder, I do a few simple houserules to get the sort of world I want to run as a GM. They are as follows:
1. All healing spells are no longer Conjuration (Healing) but instead Necromancy like they were in 1st edition. (My assumption was it was changed in 2nd edition to please the Moral Majority {which was neither} but it was just bad metaphysics and should have been changed back for 3rd, and Pathfinder couldn't change it back because 1st ed is not part of the SRD plus backward compatibility concerns).
I'm pretty sure it was Necromancy for both in 2E too. At least, I know healing spells are Necromancy in stuff like Baldur's Gate I & II. However, there is nothing to stop them from adjusting the spells as they desired with Pathfinder. Wizards made all the materials needed OGL. There is nothing that can be done if you decide that you want to publish an OGL version of D&D where Magic Missile is a Transmutation spell, or Cure Light Wounds necromancy.
2. Animate Dead loses the Evil descriptor and skeletons and zombies are neutral.
3. Sentient undead can be of any alignment because like lycanthropy, undeath is a curse. The evil ones may think they're cursed with awesome, but the neutral and good ones are a lot more upset about it and may actively be trying to break the curse.
Sounds cool. On a side note, lycanthropy is kind of hard to swing as a curse when talking about natural lycanthropy. Natural lycanthropes actually have nothing to complain about. :P
4. Create Undead, which keeps the Evil descriptor, does not automatically work. Unwilling subjects get a saving throw. If the spell fails, the spell cannot be retried for another week, same as Speak with Dead.
5. Raise Dead does not automatically fail if the soul is unwilling to return or simply trapped. There are plenty of souls who would like to come back to life even if the body they come back in isn't their own.
6. True Resurrection isn't prevented just because there's a skeleton or zombie somewhere made out of a soul's former body. When cast, the skeleton or zombie crumbles to dust as the new body is reformed wherever the caster is.
7. Liches may be of any alignment, but are generally wizards because defying the gods and the natural order is part of the job description.
There. Fairly simple fixes.
I see instances of mechanics that need to be re-written that aren't so similar. The raise dead mechanic in particular, because if you don't get the soul you're asking for, then there needs to be mechanics that deal with that other than "becomes a random NPC" or similar. Especially if it's just a soul that wants to come back, as in that case raise dead is more likely to result in reviving some really evil coming back, since it seems likely you'd prefer to get out of hell than to get out of heaven, right? :P
But on the topic of raising spells and such, see my next post. ^-^
In my own campaign, I avoid using zombies that aren't "brain-eating" zombies (usually Apocalypse zombies), because I like for most of the undead to feed on the living somehow. (When all your controlled zombies are apocalypse zombies, it's very bad to exceed your HD of controlled undead.) Exceptions to human-feeding include ghosts and some other ghost-like entities, and skeletons, including skeletal champions.*If* negative energy is not just 'black-colored positive energy' and instead represents a void of energy, an absence of energy, then it would be logical for all undead to need some sort of power source other than negative energy. Even positive-energy-empowered peeps gotta eat, after all, and negative energy, if envisioned as an absence of energy, would be even 'hungrier.'
Making all undead require constant feeding (whether on flesh, like ghouls, blood, like vampires, or stolen life-energy, like most incorporeal undead) to maintain their existence, due to the limitations of negative energy, would go a long way towards at least remotely justifying an 'undead are evil' trope, since, as the rules currently stand, only *positive energy* creatures have to run around eating other living creatures to survive, which is arse-backwards.
Liches and mummies get around their requirements through sustaining themselves with great quantities of arcane or divine magic, stored within the permanant magic items they use as phylacteries or canopic jars or whatever. Skeletons and zombies are similarly 'charged' with arcane or divine power from their creators, and, when that begins to falter, run around killing stuff (or hang around in unhallowed or desecrated areas, which have a 'charge' of negative energy already), trying to maintain the charge that keeps them running (whether or not this works, or is a desperation move that does nothing to stave off their inevitable decay, is up to the GM, and might vary situationally, if the GM wishes).
It's very much non-canonical, since, in the...
I've kind of wandered off from this conversation, but I did want to make a distinction within what I said, given this reply. I want to make it clear that I don't require undead feeding, but that they have a craving to feed. So those infectious brain-eating zombies? They're perfectly fine guarding a wizard's tower forever, but if they do get a chance to defend it, they'll be going for the brains. They're still completely loyal to their creator or whoever has command of them, and won't disobey them even to feed, but if they're released from control then they become wandering brain-eating zombies (that spread zombie plague). As someone replied, that does make them more like ghouls, but I like that. They're still not the same as ghouls though, because ghouls have an INT score and have a paralytic touch, while the zombies are mindless.
As for negative energy being a perpetual fuel source, I don't know how to deal with that, but I usually chalk it up to being "magic." Explaining it isn't necessary for my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject or raising skeletons & zombies, reincarnation, resurrection and true resurrection aren't prevented by a corpse being turned into a skeleton to zombie. Raise dead is because it requires the original body to be effective, whereas the former only need a piece of the body (a lock of hair, fingernail, etc) or no body to work.
Now I know you're probably like "WTF!?" but bare with me here while I explain.
Now the problem I see is people look at the undead creature type and the raising spells; particularly these portions:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be returned to life by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated. The spell can bring back a creature that has died of old age.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be resurrected.
We can obviously see that spells like raise dead cannot raise people without bodies, and cannot raise people turned into undead. But the thing is, people are more than their bodies. In D&D and Pathfinder, a body is only a vessel for the creature itself, which possesses a soul. The exception being most outsiders, some undead, and constructs, which either do not have souls or their bodies are their souls.
Now some undead have souls. Liches have souls which are stored in their phylacteries. Same with vampires, who possess the soul they had in life. They are still the original creature, but in a new form. There's nothing that reincarnate or even resurrection spells can do to or for them. By destroying their body, you could resurrect them as normal, creating a new living body as appropriate. That's because undead cannot be raised or resurrected. Destroying them would release their soul, and then resurrection or true resurrection can return them to life again; turning them into the creatures they were before becoming undead.
Animate dead does not turn the creature you are resurrecting into an undead creature. It creates a skeleton or zombie from a corpse. The corpse is not required to have ever been alive even. The spell produces a mindless negative-energy powered automaton, which appears to lack a soul of any sort. Certainly, it is not the same creature that it was created from. Having a soul is irrelevant to the creation of a skeleton or zombie; as like others have pointed out, you can use any corpse.
Likewise, you can produce a skeleton or zombie out of a body whose soul has already been restored to another living shell. For example, if you used resurrection or reincarnate to call a recently diseased individual back, you may have used a lock of their hair. However, you could then use animate dead on their original body which may still be intact, resulting in a situation where a living person may see an undead version of their original body. Imagine dying, then someone takes some of your hair, and then re-creates you, but across from you in the lab, you have a zombie version of yourself mopping the floor. Freaky, right?
So if said zombie has your soul, how are you here right now? That's because he doesn't. He, or "it" actually, is an undead creature that was created from a corpse. Your previously owned corpse. It has no mind or soul of its own. It cannot be raised because it's an undead creature and such spells have no effect on it. If destroyed, you could raise the creature that once used the body with a resurrection or similar spell; but since resurrection and true-resurrection require a soul, which a skeleton or zombie doesn't have if that soul has already been raised into a new body.
This is information we can clearly determine by looking at the system itself. We can see the dual nature, we can examine cause and effect, we can see that you need a soul for effects based on raise dead (including the resurrection line), we can see and examine what cases are possible and what aren't, and so forth. This is what I meant before about scientific examination.
We can obviously see that spells like raise dead cannot raise people without bodies, and cannot raise people turned into undead. But the thing is, people are more than their bodies. In D&D and Pathfinder, a body is only a vessel for the creature itself, which possesses a soul. The exception being most outsiders, some undead, and constructs, which either do not have souls or their bodies are their souls.
Now some undead have souls. Liches have souls which are stored in their phylacteries. Same with vampires, who possess the soul they had in life. They are still the original creature, but in a new form. There's nothing that reincarnate or even resurrection spells can do to or for them. By destroying their body, you could resurrect them as normal, creating a new living body as appropriate. That's because undead cannot be raised or resurrected. Destroying them would release their soul, and then resurrection or true resurrection can return them to life again; turning them into the creatures they were before becoming undead.
Animate dead does not turn the creature you are resurrecting into an undead creature. It creates a skeleton or zombie from a corpse. The corpse is not required to have ever been alive even. The spell produces a mindless negative-energy powered automaton, which appears to lack a soul of any sort. Certainly, it is not the same creature that it was created from. Having a soul is irrelevant to the creation of a skeleton or zombie; as like others have pointed out, you can use any corpse.
Likewise, you can produce a skeleton or zombie out of a body whose soul has already been restored to another living shell. For example, if you used resurrection or reincarnate to call a recently diseased individual back, you may have used a lock of their hair. However, you could then use animate dead on their original body which may still be intact, resulting in a situation where a living person may see an undead version of their original body. Imagine dying, then someone takes some of your hair, and then re-creates you, but across from you in the lab, you have a zombie version of yourself mopping the floor. Freaky, right?
So if said zombie has your soul, how are you here right now? That's because he doesn't. He, or "it" actually, is an undead creature that was created from a corpse. Your previously owned corpse. It has no mind or soul of its own. It cannot be raised because it's an undead creature and such spells have no effect on it. If destroyed, you could raise the creature that once used the body with a resurrection or similar spell; but since resurrection and true-resurrection require a soul, which a skeleton or zombie doesn't have if that soul has already been raised into a new body.
This is information we can clearly determine by looking at the system itself. We can see the dual nature, we can examine cause and effect, we can see that you need a soul for effects based on raise dead (including the resurrection line), we can see and examine what cases are possible and what aren't, and so forth. This is what I meant before about scientific examination.
This isn't scientific examination so much as rules interpretation.
The nature of the soul in D&D has been up to interpretation for a long while. For example, in 1st edition, the Clone spell, rather than just create a passive lump of flesh that awaited a soul to be put into it, instead created a perfect copy down to the thoughts and memories which was pretty much indistinguishable except for its desire to kill the original to get the soul. Meanwhile the Donjon card from the Deck of Many Things trapped the soul but not the body or mind, leaving the person functioning but a soulless automaton.
These were patched in the current edition, making Clone corpses comatose shells and the Donjon simply function as Imprisonment or actual imprisonment by a powerful being, but the underlying philosophy still remains.
Look at the Simulacrum spell. So a wizard makes a copy of someone. The wizard commands the copy, "Tell no one of this conversation, that you are my creature, or anything else related. In fact, once you leave my presence, I command you to forget about it utterly so no one may read it from your illusory 'mind.' I command you to go about your life as you would have until you see me again and I command you otherwise."
So the simulacrum goes off and goes about its 'life.' It thinks it's alive, and in fact the wizard who made it died the next week so he won't be back to give it a command ever. Now the questions: Does it age? Will it grow older and eventually "die" of natural causes? Can it fall in love and sire children? If another wizard comes by with a Magic Jar or Trap the Soul, can its soul be trapped in a magic gem via either spell? Does it have a soul to be trapped? If it somehow finds out that it's not real--someone uses a True Seeing to reveal that it's just a deluded animated snowman with a lump of flesh for a heart and illusions and ruby dust for a skin--can it become a 'real boy' if it gets hold of something like a Wish?
The rules don't say the answers to any of these questions though they are reasonable questions. Every GM will have to come up with their own answers because the game is still, even after multiple editions, a 'some assembly required' game.
|
I haven't managed to pick up a copy of that issue of KQ yet, Marc, but thanks a lot of contributing something that adds to the game and makes a somewhat neglected subset of the magic rules a bit more usable for non-evil PCs!
My pleasure! That fact that so many people seem to like the class (I've talked to a *lot* of people who are now playing a white necromancer character in their long-term campaigns) warms my heart ... or whatever organ is beating in my chest!
Hopefully you get to check the issue out soon, Set - I'd love to hear your thoughts on the class!
Sorry ... back to your already scheduled, esoteric discussion on morality, alignment of undead and the nature of the soul in D&D / Pathfinder :)
Entirely fine, but completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about. Pathfinder is supposed to be a continuation of 3.5. Unless Paizo was lying to us with their campaign slogan. Not everyone plays Golarion, just like not everyone played Eberron, Grayhawk, Faerun, Darksun, or Mystara. Most of us would prefer a setting-neutral rule set based on logic and reason, and then allow campaign settings to adjust it from that Neutral position as desired; as is normally the case.Not even 3.5 was setting neutral as it's defaults reflected those of Greyhawk. Paizo never promised a "setting neutral" presentation, the Pathfinder RPG while not welded to Golarion, takes it's queues as to the defaults in many aspects. This is intentional as Paizo sees it's core product as the Golarion + Pathfinder composite package. You won't see much that they won't consider using in Golarion although there are such things such as spellslingers, which have been established as not existing in that campaign world.
3E was, in the sense that it didn't try to force-feed fluff much. You got a list of Grayhawk deities, and some fluff about the core races. That's pretty much where the setting bit fell off though. Using the 3 Core Rulebooks, Manual of the Planes, and maybe Deities and Demigods, you could pretty much create and run any setting without having to change a whole lot. It definitely was smarter than 3.5 with less inconsistencies.
It at least handled things like morality and abstract thoughts such as planar intricacies down a lot better. In fact, if you want to see a major failing in setting neutrality and system consistency, I point you to the countless undead threads discussing exactly what being undead has to do with alignment. I never saw these threads back in 3.0 days; of course we also had stuff like "mindless = neutral", good, evil, and neutral undead, and mindless devils who were incapable of making decisions but were literally raw blobs of evil-stuff (lemure devils, who were Neutrally aligned but possessed the Baatezu, Law, and Evil subtypes).
This isn't scientific examination so much as rules interpretation.
Is it? Seems like a logic pattern to me. See what clicks, what doesn't, determine why it doesn't, compare to other cases, look for similarities and differences, put it in a box and shake it a bit, and note the results.
For example, literally nothing I wrote contradicts a single rule in the entire system. In fact, it is taking the rules as they are written, and how they apply to each other across multiple facets of the game. I looked at the creature types, the spells, the glossary that notes the soul leaves the body upon death, and the interactions all within. There are no inconsistencies that I've been able to find within the previous post. If there are, feel free to point them out. We can ascertain greater information as a result.
The nature of the soul in D&D has been up to interpretation for a long while. For example, in 1st edition, the Clone spell, rather than just create a passive lump of flesh that awaited a soul to be put into it, instead created a perfect copy down to the thoughts and memories which was pretty much indistinguishable except for its desire to kill the original to get the soul. Meanwhile the Donjon card from the Deck of Many Things trapped the soul but not the body or mind, leaving the person functioning but a soulless automaton.
These were patched in the current edition, making Clone corpses comatose shells and the Donjon simply function as Imprisonment or actual imprisonment by a powerful being, but the underlying philosophy still remains.
It is the nature of revisions and patches to a product or media to reduce inconsistencies, and fix mistakes.
Look at the Simulacrum spell. So a wizard makes a copy of someone. The wizard commands the copy, "Tell no one of this conversation, that you are my creature, or anything else related. In fact, once you leave my presence, I command you to forget about it utterly so no one may read it from your illusory 'mind.' I command you to go about your life as you would have until you see me again and I command you otherwise."
So the simulacrum goes off and goes about its 'life.' It thinks it's alive, and in fact the wizard who made it died the next week so he won't be back to give it a command ever. Now the questions: Does it age? Will it grow older and eventually "die" of natural causes? Can it fall in love and sire children? If another wizard comes by with a Magic Jar or Trap the Soul, can its soul be trapped in a magic gem via either spell? Does it have a soul to be trapped? If it somehow finds out that it's not real--someone uses a True Seeing to reveal that it's just a deluded animated snowman with a lump of flesh for a heart and illusions and ruby dust for a skin--can it become a 'real boy' if it gets hold of something like a Wish?
Simulacrums are quasi-real copies of a creature. Most creatures include a soul, and since it doesn't call out any differences, the simulacrum possesses all the standard traits of its original. Humans have souls. Thus to be a human simulacrum it must too have a soul. Same with outsiders, as they literally are a soul. The simulacrum possesses the same type characteristics as the original creature. Make a simulacrum of a human, you end up with a Humanoid (human). Sufficiently high level magic such as this seems to be capable of producing sentient creatures and souls (you can turn a rock into a fully-functioning human with PAO, for example).
Simulacrum says nothing about being a construct, or having especially long lifespans or anything of the sort. There is no reason to assume that a simulacrum cannot do everything that a normal version of that creature can do. Thus, yes, a simulacrum could father or carry a child, grow old, die of disease, die of poison. If you prick it, it shall bleed. If the creature it replicates must eat, breathe, and sleep, then it too must eat, breath, and sleep. What happens when it's destroyed? Well it, the whole thing, reverts back to snow. Seems to include duplicate quasi-real soul as well, since that is part of the creature itself.
If a GM wanted to have a way to keep a simulacrum's soul from melting away, or wanted to make an option for making it into a real creature, or re-incarnating it, then wish and miracle should be sufficiently powerful spells; and true resurrection is already strong enough to reform a soul that has been slain (since it can raise outsiders). This much isn't in the rules, however, but we can examine the rules and see that it wouldn't conflict with overall consistency to use this route in a possible plot-line during our games.
That's a fine interpretation and a perfectly workable way to run simulacrums, except that it contradicts one of the 3.5 adventure--I think from Frostburn--where there's an illusionist who makes a simulacrum of herself which then makes more simulacrums and so on, continually adding to an ice mountain covered with illusions to look like a garden. And I believe that adventure says something about the simulacrums not aging.
Should that one line or one adventure in an optional book contradict a reasonable interpretation, especially one that you want to run with?
Then you get situations like what we're talking with undead. Some adventures go from the premise that undead, even mindless ones, are all evil. Others go from the premise that it's more nuanced than that and the mindless ones are neutral. And this doesn't even get into the question of how an intelligence 0 brain-eating zombie is evil but an intelligence 1 rabid riding dog is still neutral. They pretty much act the same.
At some point you're going to have to look at the story you want to tell and figure out which of the rules need to be adjusted to do that. Even the most "setting neutral" rulebook is still going to go with some basic assumptions, some of which may be wrong for any given story.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a fine interpretation and a perfectly workable way to run simulacrums, except that it contradicts one of the 3.5 adventure--I think from Frostburn--where there's an illusionist who makes a simulacrum of herself which then makes more simulacrums and so on, continually adding to an ice mountain covered with illusions to look like a garden. And I believe that adventure says something about the simulacrums not aging.
Should that one line or one adventure in an optional book contradict a reasonable interpretation, especially one that you want to run with?
Adventures do contradict the rules but they are not rules. They are known for breaking the rules actually (something that bugs me) with the excuse of telling a story. Heck, we had a Dev in here basically say that instead of give us good rules for telling stories we want, we get messed up rules so they can break them for story purposes later (though this was of course worded differently, though with the same result). We have Paizo sanctioned and printed adventure paths that have benevolent undead (in Golarion no less!) so their giving us inconsistent rules doesn't even mean much as far as Golarion is concerned; because if they want to, they will just overrule the core rules and do what they want. They have said and done this before. We've seen that Paizo won't even follow their own rules with their own adventures; as is evident by the monk's unarmed flurry uproar. It is not uncommon for adventures to take liberties that are not supported by the rules.
So yeah, anything in an adventure that directly contradicts the core? Yeah, I'm going to take as a literary liberty and nothing more.
Then you get situations like what we're talking with undead. Some adventures go from the premise that undead, even mindless ones, are all evil. Others go from the premise that it's more nuanced than that and the mindless ones are neutral. And this doesn't even get into the question of how an intelligence 0 brain-eating zombie is evil but an intelligence 1 rabid riding dog is still neutral. They pretty much act the same.
Just 'cause I'm anal about specifics and nitpicky (please forgive me) an Int 0 zombie wouldn't be eating any brains even if they had to eat because they would be comatose. An "Int -" zombie however would be perfectly fine; but I still don't see them as eating any brains since they don't eat, sleep, or breath. Sorry for being nitpicky.
At some point you're going to have to look at the story you want to tell and figure out which of the rules need to be adjusted to do that. Even the most "setting neutral" rulebook is still going to go with some basic assumptions, some of which may be wrong for any given story.
My problem can be summed up like this: Paizo already ignores both their own rules and their own attempts at establishing standards the moment it suits them. Since they are already going to take liberties with their stories, NPCs, and even combat mechanics; why can't they give us the Pathfinder core rules without inconsistencies that are supposedly excused by their desire to flavor their RPG-setting a specific way; especially when Pathfinder is sold as an RPG system for playing fantasy RPGs of all kinds. It's not "The Golarion Roleplaying Game". Why sell us intentionally inconsistent rules that force us to house rule and modify stuff and hand out additional notes of changes to the core rules just so we can eliminate some of the logical problems, if they are just going to ignore what they want in their adventures anyway, and then tell us they don't care how people run Golarion at home?
Entirely fine, but completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about. Pathfinder is supposed to be a continuation of 3.5. Unless Paizo was lying to us with their campaign slogan. Not everyone plays Golarion, just like not everyone played Eberron, Grayhawk, Faerun, Darksun, or Mystara. Most of us would prefer a setting-neutral rule set based on logic and reason, and then allow campaign settings to adjust it from that Neutral position as desired; as is normally the case.Not even 3.5 was setting neutral as it's defaults reflected those of Greyhawk. Paizo never promised a "setting neutral" presentation, the Pathfinder RPG while not welded to Golarion, takes it's queues as to the defaults in many aspects. This is intentional as Paizo sees it's core product as the Golarion + Pathfinder composite package. You won't see much that they won't consider using in Golarion although there are such things such as spellslingers, which have been established as not existing in that campaign world.
This is clearly not entirely true, as the CORE provides several rules that are strictly non-canon in Golarion (most notably clerics).
That said: Ash, you're being too nitpicky. Love you, bro, but I see no problem whatsoever with an adventure going: "Here's the rules. Let's briefly set them aside, and do this with interpretations of the rules for the sake of a nifty story." (so long as they're clear that it's permissible for GMs to do the same).
My problem can be summed up like this: Paizo already ignores both their own rules and their own attempts at establishing standards the moment it suits them. Since they are already going to take liberties with their stories, NPCs, and even combat mechanics; why can't they give us the Pathfinder core rules without inconsistencies that are supposedly excused by their desire to flavor their RPG-setting a specific way; especially when Pathfinder is sold as an RPG system for playing fantasy RPGs of all kinds. It's not "The Golarion Roleplaying Game". Why sell us intentionally inconsistent rules that force us to house rule and modify stuff and hand out additional notes of changes to the core rules just so we can eliminate some of the logical problems, if they are just going to ignore what they want in their adventures anyway, and then tell us they don't care how people run Golarion at home?
First, I'm going to focus on your last sentence: Dude, it' the best thing that they tell us they don't care how people run Golarion at home. They set up the rules for themselves because it sets a standard; something that can be pointed at that allows people to have common ground from which to start. They then allow us the freedom to sidestep those issues for ourselves. That's the perfect way to set up any RPG.
THAT SAID: I do believe that they're putting the cart before the horse, in terms of how they printed their Core, especially revolving around the creation of undead. There are many spells that need this, but spells with an alignment descriptor (such as the detect spells and create undead) need a sidebar specifically calling them out. My strong suggestion is that Paizo drop a few sidebars or create a few minor entries before the spell chapter that lists several spells that have alignment descriptors and explain "your mileage may vary". For example, I see nothing wrong with casting a "detect good" - in fact, it makes sense that a good person would want to see good hearts. BUT. There are good story reasons why they'd only detect evil. Which is the short version of why the detect good has an [evil] descriptor attached.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, we're getting pretty far off-topic now. 'Cause I'm pretty sure Mikaze originally wanted, you know, flavor for non-evil undead in Golarion (regardless of canon).
My problem can be summed up like this: Paizo already ignores both their own rules and their own attempts at establishing standards the moment it suits them. Since they are already going to take liberties with their stories, NPCs, and even combat mechanics; why can't they give us the Pathfinder core rules without inconsistencies that are supposedly excused by their desire to flavor their RPG-setting a specific way; especially when Pathfinder is sold as an RPG system for playing fantasy RPGs of all kinds. It's not "The Golarion Roleplaying Game". Why sell us intentionally inconsistent rules that force us to house rule and modify stuff and hand out additional notes of changes to the core rules just so we can eliminate some of the logical problems, if they are just going to ignore what they want in their adventures anyway, and then tell us they don't care how people run Golarion at home?
I don't see the rules as "intentionally inconsistent." Sometimes inconsistencies happen for purposes of backwards compatibility, or because some particular storyline would be cool, or simply because someone made a mistake. It's easy enough to errata a mistake, but if there's something that's cool or backwards compatible, the most you can do is redline some section for purposes of canon for a particular world.
From what I can see, most players--myself included--don't want to see a massive revision of the Core Rules at this date. The shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was seen as a cash grab, and putting out Core Rules 2.0 too soon would be much the same.
The best solution--apart from taking people's copies and using a highlighter on Rule 0--for those who want white necromancers, juju oracles, and non-evil undead, is to do exactly that. You don't even have to write any of your own rules. Tell your players "We're using the Juju Oracle from City of Seven Spears, the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19, and the 'Playing with Fire' option from the Tome of Necromancy" for this game.
Apart from those options not being allowed in PFS, I don't see any problems, and since PFS is simply a home game writ large, I don't see a terrible problem with those options not being available there.
Kevin, I disagree. I will defend Paizo in making Golarion have all-evil X/Y/Z any day of the week, but it's quite a bit different with Core. That's why I think it's important for either side-boxes near a relevant spell, or "honorable mentions" type of thing before the spell-list with debated rules.
What I've seen on the boards is a general tendency to say "X rule doesn't work for me, how do I deal with it?" and those "X rules" be moderately consistent with a sizable sub-section of players. While I'm not advocating a blatant altering of all the rules, I, at least, think that most 3.0 -> 3.5 changes were for the better. I was glad that the system went through a major overhaul to incorporate feedback from the player base.
What I'd advocate is for Paizo to keep tabs on all this stuff, and take notes. Lots of notes. When it does come time to rewrite things (whenever that is), they do so based off the feedback they get. For that purpose, our discussion here makes perfect sense. It's kind of getting off-topic, but it makes perfect sense. That's another reason I like that James is so active on the boards. It means he gets to see the feedback and talk about it.
In the meanwhile, we have house rules. Which is nice. And the fact that Paizo encourages that is also nice. It's a very refreshing change, compared to the oft-hard-lining "RAW-only" D&D tendency (although WotC was pretty okay about that, often many specific employees and fans weren't).
Kevin, I disagree. I will defend Paizo in making Golarion have all-evil X/Y/Z any day of the week, but it's quite a bit different with Core. That's why I think it's important for either side-boxes near a relevant spell, or "honorable mentions" type of thing before the spell-list with debated rules.
What I've seen on the boards is a general tendency to say "X rule doesn't work for me, how do I deal with it?" and those "X rules" be moderately consistent with a sizable sub-section of players. While I'm not advocating a blatant altering of all the rules, I, at least, think that most 3.0 -> 3.5 changes were for the better. I was glad that the system went through a major overhaul to incorporate feedback from the player base.
What I'd advocate is for Paizo to keep tabs on all this stuff, and take notes. Lots of notes. When it does come time to rewrite things (whenever that is), they do so based off the feedback they get. For that purpose, our discussion here makes perfect sense. It's kind of getting off-topic, but it makes perfect sense. That's another reason I like that James is so active on the boards. It means he gets to see the feedback and talk about it.
In the meanwhile, we have house rules. Which is nice. And the fact that Paizo encourages that is also nice. It's a very refreshing change, compared to the oft-hard-lining "RAW-only" D&D tendency (although WotC was pretty okay about that, often many specific employees and fans weren't).
The trouble is, the Core Rules have already been printed. There was limited space when they were printing them to put in sidebars with flavor text/rules saying "In Setting Y, X spell is Evil, but in Setting Z, X spell is Neutral." Ergo, the choice was between having skeletons and zombies be evil and annoy the white necromancy fans or having skeletons and zombies be neutral and annoying the paladin fans who don't like having a large class of low-level mooks taken off their smite menu. And while I'm a fan of white necromancy myself, I don't think it's an unreasonable judgement call to say that there are more "black and white morality" paladin fans than there are "shades of gray" white necromancy fans.
Plus, let's be frank: The biggest abusers of neutral skeletons and zombies were screamingly evil necromancers and dark priests (and a few twinkish ones who claimed to be CN for tax purposes) who liked sending swaths of unsmiteable neutral beings out to cause misery and mayhem. A simpler patch might have been giving mindless neutral undead critters the same alignment as their controller for as long as they were controlled, but even that, at this point, is a house rule.
But even that starts to diverge from the question of what exactly are you using the Core Rules with? If you're not using them with Golarion, you're using them with another world, and that other world is either one of several published settings--Midgard, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Scarred Lands, Ptolus, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc.--or else it's your home game world. If it's your home game world, you can tell your players how magic works in it and any significant divergences from the Core Rules. If it's some pre-packaged game world? There's usually some sidebar in the introduction that explains what spells are different or changed. For example, Ravenloft has this sidebar explaining that not only are all of the usual suspect spells now "evil" but so are many ordinary staples such as "charm person" and "find familiar."
Admittedly, not every setting does that, going with certain assumptions, but if you've got a 3.5 setting, odds are it assumes evil skeletons and zombies, and if you have a 3.0 setting, odds are it assume neutral skeletons and zombies. If you only have space for one when crafting the Core Rules, it makes more sense to have the Core Rules mesh more seamless with 3.5 settings than it does to have the Core Rules made to mesh better with 3.0 settings.
Not that the paladin is likely using smite on the skeletons even if they're evil, since smiting a faceless mook is basically a waste of resources.
Not that the paladin is likely using smite on the skeletons even if they're evil, since smiting a faceless mook is basically a waste of resources.
That's what I said too. :P
Paladins have tons of anti-undead stuff that is completely irrelevant to alignment. For example, Paladins have a special protection from spell that functions against undead. Imagine protection from evil but instead of Evil it's the undead type. That's an actual Paizo spell, last I checked. Veil of positive energy it was.
Then there's Lay on Hands, Channel Energy (they can pickup Turn Undead as well), and they get spells like ghostbane dirge and the mass version. Paladins are also immune to fear, disease, and get restoration powers as well. They even gain immunity to compulsions and such later on. In essence, a Paladin is the absolute best anti-undead character next to a dedicated Necromancer than any other character in the game, not-including smite-evil which is already useful against the (metagamingly speaking) largest subgroup of enemies in the Bestiary (any enemy that is "Evil").
But yeah, I can't remember the last time any of my players wasted a smite-evil on a skeleton or zombie; even when they were customized wit the [Evil] subtype as a result of some non-core resources the BBEG was using to infuse his undead minions with evil so they could easily bypass the DR of his enemies (paladins and good outsiders and such). Even the biggest mindless undead aren't a worry since a wand of command undead removes them as an obstacle with no save.
|
|
The best solution--apart from taking people's copies and using a highlighter on Rule 0--for those who want white necromancers, juju oracles, and non-evil undead, is to do exactly that. You don't even have to write any of your own rules. Tell your players "We're using the Juju Oracle from City of Seven Spears, the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19 and the 'Playing with Fire' option from the Tome of Necromancy" for this game.Apart from those options not being allowed in PFS, I don't see any problems, and since PFS is simply a home game writ large, I don't see a terrible problem with those options not being available there.
I think this really is the best answer. With all due respect (and I mean that very sincerely) this thread has gotten a bit ... long, rambling and dense (although still certainly interesting!) but it also has gone pretty far off what the original poster wanted.
As Kevin says, other than in the case of PFS, none of this is really that big of an issue. If you prefer undead to be potentially any alignment in your games, so be it. If you want to follow Paizo's lead and keep them all evil or whatever, that works too.
If you want to use the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19 (and I highly recommend that you do! :) in your game, just do it!
The trouble is, the Core Rules have already been printed. There was limited space when they were printing them to put in sidebars with flavor text/rules saying "In Setting Y, X spell is Evil, but in Setting Z, X spell is Neutral." Ergo, the choice was between having skeletons and zombies be evil and annoy the white necromancy fans or having skeletons and zombies be neutral and annoying the paladin fans who don't like having a large class of low-level mooks taken off their smite menu. And while I'm a fan of white necromancy myself, I don't think it's an unreasonable judgement call to say that there are more "black and white morality" paladin fans than there are "shades of gray" white necromancy fans.
way too many words!:Kevin, I disagree. I will defend Paizo in making Golarion have all-evil X/Y/Z any day of the week, but it's quite a bit different with Core. That's why I think it's important for either side-boxes near a relevant spell, or "honorable mentions" type of thing before the spell-list with debated rules.What I've seen on the boards is a general tendency to say "X rule doesn't work for me, how do I deal with it?" and those "X rules" be moderately consistent with a sizable sub-section of players. While I'm not advocating a blatant altering of all the rules, I, at least, think that most 3.0 -> 3.5 changes were for the better. I was glad that the system went through a major overhaul to incorporate feedback from the player base.
What I'd advocate is for Paizo to keep tabs on all this stuff, and take notes. Lots of notes. When it does come time to rewrite things (whenever that is), they do so based off the feedback they get. For that purpose, our discussion here makes perfect sense. It's kind of getting off-topic, but it makes perfect sense. That's another reason I like that James is so active on the boards. It means he gets to see the feedback and talk about it.
In the meanwhile, we have house rules. Which is nice. And the fact that Paizo encourages that is also nice. It's a very refreshing change, compared to the oft-hard-lining "RAW-only" D&D tendency (although WotC was pretty okay about that, often many specific employees and fans weren't).
Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about the stuff as it's currently printed. Point in fact, looking at my posts, it's pretty clear that I'm talking about the next time they print, not what they've already done. Because there will always need to be a "next time" they print. It's an inevitability. Because of that, I'm advocating what I am. I mean...
What I'd advocate is for Paizo to keep tabs on all this stuff, and take notes. Lots of notes. When it does come time to rewrite things (whenever that is), they do so based off the feedback they get. For that purpose, our discussion here makes perfect sense. It's kind of getting off-topic, but it makes perfect sense. That's another reason I like that James is so active on the boards. It means he gets to see the feedback and talk about it.
... seems pretty clear that I don't want them to go back in time and retcon punch their stuff, but I do want them to keep track of what people are saying and make notes for the future.
Plus, let's be frank: The biggest abusers of neutral skeletons and zombies were screamingly evil necromancers and dark priests (and a few twinkish ones who claimed to be CN for tax purposes) who liked sending swaths of unsmiteable neutral beings out to cause misery and mayhem. A simpler patch might have been giving mindless neutral undead critters the same alignment as their controller for as long as they were controlled, but even that, at this point, is a house rule.
And I advocate for house rules!
But even that starts to diverge from the question of what exactly are you using the Core Rules with? If you're not using them with Golarion, you're using them with another world, and that other world is either one of several published settings--Midgard, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Scarred Lands, Ptolus, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc.--or else it's your home game world. If it's your home game world, you can tell your players how magic works in it and any significant divergences from the Core Rules. If it's some pre-packaged game world? There's usually some sidebar in the introduction that explains what spells are different or changed. For example, Ravenloft has this sidebar explaining that not only are all of the usual suspect spells now "evil" but so are many ordinary staples such as "charm person" and "find familiar."
Which is kind of my point. The very fact that the rules are so arbitrary and disagree with themselves in Core is what bothers me, and what bothers many people. Using a simple introduction to clarify the differences of magic is a huge part of making a campaign setting unique. And, streamlining things the way I've suggested above resolves problems with, say, Tsukio having a domain that has a spell with the [evil] descriptor that summons evil undead. Or things like Pharasma' death domain. Suddenly, they're not inherently evil. Problem solved.
Admittedly, not every setting does that, going with certain assumptions, but if you've got a 3.5 setting, odds are it assumes evil skeletons and zombies, and if you have a 3.0 setting, odds are it assume neutral skeletons and zombies. If you only have space for one when crafting the Core Rules, it makes more sense to have the Core Rules mesh more seamless with 3.5 settings than it does to have the Core Rules made to mesh better with 3.0 settings.
Again, I can't agree. I am not saying that Paizo did a poor job (quite the opposite: I think they did a fantastic job, else I wouldn't be so strong in my passion towards them), but I am pointing out a mistake. An easy mistake, and a sensible one to make, but a mistake nonetheless. And in order to help, I'm making a suggestion for future products.
(And, for the record, I don't really think WotC made 3.5 as a "moneygrab" - or if they did, it wasn't a very big one, considering that it was, at the time, backward compatible with the stuff already printed. There wasn't really a need to re-purchase books. I'm rather consistently surprised by this argument, but perhaps people know more than I.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason people consider 3.5 a money grab was how it sort of sprang up suddenly, changed a number of things, and while some were needed others were just bizarre; soothed everyone by telling them it was just a slight fix and not to be alarmed because it was still fully backwards compatible; only it wasn't; and then they went into a frantic release of splatbooks for 3.5; often recycling existing 3.0 material and presenting it as something new.
For anyone who had been playing 3E from its launch to 3.5, there is a definite appearance of decline in the efforts of WotC. While their splatbooks in 3.0 were generally black and white, soft cover, and so forth; it also seemed like there was more effort put into them. I own nearly every complete book because I got 'em for around wholesale on a sweet deal; but having gone through them all, you could have fit stuff that was actually an improvement to the game in a single book; IMHO.
Then there was the fact WotC basically threw it all at us in really short order, and then dropped it like a hot potato after lying to its customers about not releasing another edition for years to come (next month, BAM, 4E is announced). Made it look even more like a money grab. Get it out, get it sold, move on. :P
I never felt that same "rush" people mention in going from 3E to 3.5E to 4E (though I did feel the Complete series and Book of Nine Swords seemed to come out awfully fast, over-all, and I'll grant you the problems with some - but not all - of the Complete series).
I've also seen the old stuff that was reprinted from the 3E. And here's the thing. As I had less money available during the 3E era, and more during the 3.5 era, I gained more of the latter books, and was glad that they were a) reprinted, b) made nicer, and c) looked better. BUT! This is so off topic that it probably needs it's own thread.
So to get us back OT:
How 'bout them non-evil undead, eh?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite examples of good undead that i am planning on using a variant of later on in my own game is that of the ghost paladins from order of the stick. every paladin who has died in this countries defense joins the founder of their order as a ghost with all of the paladin levels they retained in life including the ability to smite evil. Indeed i could even see some good dragons purposefully becoming a lich (or the paizo equivalent of) to guard a artifact or possibly even another evil dragon lich/ variant who was sealed away from the world.
I think that this would be an awesome story of how the two dragons fought each other in life and when the evil dragon became a lich the good dragon rather than task its descendants to fight the evil lich, under went its own process to become an undead and now stands in eternal vigil in one of the vaults of orv ensuring that its nemisis can never again see the light of day.
The White Necromancer is not generally an issue. Because it's not the character type who is going to be raising hordes of undead "just because". In fact, they're not likely to be rasing undead at all save for exceptional circumstances, and allowing them back to rest when the need has passed.
Putting back to rest? Given that most necromancers aren't very skilled at ripping souls out of the outer planes, and instead tend to make use of animate dead which just uses a lifeless soulless corpse; one might wonder what there is to put to rest.
Mayhaps warriors using bone-spears must have them properly buried, prayers recited, and a new bone spear crafted every time you want to go hunting. It's the same thing.
That all depends on the setting and the particular rules used. However in most cultures even if the undead are souless automatons, it's considered disrespectful to the dead to violate the rest of their remains. In other settings animating the dead only works if the dead are fresh as it requires shackling the soul to it. In Arcanis, being raised as Undead is enough to both bar your soul from the afterlife and prevent ressurrection, even if the undead body is destroyed.
Yeah, and none of that is inherent to D&D. We can factually see that animate dead doesn't trap your soul in the dead body. So I couldn't care less what what X hypothetical campaign house rules 5th level clerics into trapping souls; that's not how it normally works.
No matter how you slice it, in most normal societies, people are going to be disquieted by animating the dead, no matter what ends are intended. Undeath should never be treated so blase that it loses it's essential horror aspects.
And no matter how you slice it, social expectations mean diddly. Hell, virtually every practice we have today concerning the treatment of the dead is or would be socially reprehensible somewhere.
Incidentally, undeath by itself does not possess horror aspect. Sorry, but they have skeletons and such dancing about in movies like Spy Kids, and the talking skull in The Last Unicorn wasn't exactly fright inducing. Zombies exist as the thing everyone wants to see so they can indulge their own morbid fantasies of guiltlessly blowing the heads off legions of undead people with their various firearms; shattering them with their aluminum bats; decapitating them with their collective daisho which they sharpened to a razor's edge like the fanboys they be; and run them over with cars.
Vampires? Pfft; they haven't been horror since...well, when was the last time vampires were horror? I guess the whole "these kill and eat you" thing; but honestly most people I know are more creeped out by spiders than vampires.
Ghouls? Well I find evil ghouls fairly creepy, mainly because they probably begin eating you while you're still alive, while looking into your eyes with a big toothy grin, so as to see the look on your face as they tear off the last remnants of your ankle and gulp it down; since of course they're starting with your feet and working the way up. Then again, I find tigers pretty damn scary because they start eating you while you're alive (or so I've heard).
There is nothing inherently scary about the undead. Only how you present them. It's the situation. Zombies aren't scary. It's the feeling of being all alone, surrounded by danger. That's the scary part. I find most incorporeal undead playing cat and mouse games to be the scariest in terms of PC tension; but that's because of the steady rise and fall of tension. I find horror is best found when the PCs are so nervous that they expect something to jump out behind every corner.
Literally none of that has to do with undead at all. "These baby eating zombies have souls trapped in them" is about as scary as "zombie pinata". Whack it and see what soul pops out! Yeah!
Sorry, that's a straw man argument. Dead baby jokes? Middle school black humor. Actual dead babies? Horrific tragedy.
Same thing with tigers. We can read Calvin & Hobbes, watch Tigger bounce around with Pooh and company, thrill to the villainy of Sher Khan, and finish off with a bowl of Frosted Flakes with Tony on the box while we read the now politically incorrect tale of "Little Black Sambo" wherein four talking tigers are bribed with fashion apparel and then run until they turn into butter. And we are not terrified one bit.
If we were to run into an actual tiger? We'd be in fear for our lives. Reasonably too.
I've not run into a tiger, not living where they live, but I do live in mountain lion country. When I was out hiking and I found the leg of a deer but not the rest of the deer? I walked faster. Then I came upon a rattlesnake. I froze.
And yet I was not scared at all by watching Indiana Jones deal with a snake pit with far more poisonous serpents. Ka the talking python from the Jungle Book who sounds just like Winnie the Pooh? Not scary either. But a real rattlesnake coiled up and rattling a yard from your feet? Scary. Three baby rattlesnakes coming out of a hole in the ground near where you've parked your car? Also scary, though not as scary since they weren't looking at me and I saw them much sooner than the big one.
A skeleton? Not scary if you have the right context. I've sat writing with a real one dangling next to me in my sister's office. She's a doctor and it was a medical skeleton. But if it were to start talking or dancing around? I'd be even more freaked out than with the rattlesnake.
If we're going to posit a world with talking skulls and dancing skeletons, we're going to have to posit how dangerous these things are. If skeletons just acted as necromancers' servants, polishing their boots and carrying their bags, they'd be slightly creepy but no more so than butlers or bellhops. If, however, we lived in a world where uncontrolled skeletons and zombies ran around slaughtering people, they'd be treated like rattlesnakes and rabid dogs.
What's the worst a talking skull can do? If all it can do is tell jokes and maybe drink wine, it's not scary at all. If, however, it can fly through the air, shoot death rays out of its eye sockets, and devour your soul, then it's a lot scarier.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I encountered - at night - while hiking near the lodge at Big Sur with my ex - a mountain lion. Heard her (warning growl) more than saw her, but we retreated backwards as we could (I believe the term is expeditious retreat) while shouting. There are mountain lions up here in the woods as well, where I live, but I've only seen a dead one, by the side of the road, since then.
Anyway,
Friendly, talky or non-hungry undead = Terry Pratchett.
Vicious, murderous, sneaky undead = Pathfinder.
Sorry, that's a straw man argument. Dead baby jokes? Middle school black humor. Actual dead babies? Horrific tragedy.
Exactly.
Same thing with tigers. We can read Calvin & Hobbes, watch Tigger bounce around with Pooh and company, thrill to the villainy of Sher Khan, and finish off with a bowl of Frosted Flakes with Tony on the box while we read the now politically incorrect tale of "Little Black Sambo" wherein four talking tigers are bribed with fashion apparel and then run until they turn into butter. And we are not terrified one bit.
Exactly.
If we were to run into an actual tiger? We'd be in fear for our lives. Reasonably too.
Exactly.
I've not run into a tiger, not living where they live, but I do live in mountain lion country. When I was out hiking and I found the leg of a deer but not the rest of the deer? I walked faster. Then I came upon a rattlesnake. I froze.
Exactly, especially.
And yet I was not scared at all by watching Indiana Jones deal with a snake pit with far more poisonous serpents. Ka the talking python from the Jungle Book who sounds just like Winnie the Pooh? Not scary either. But a real rattlesnake coiled up and rattling a yard from your feet? Scary. Three baby rattlesnakes coming out of a hole in the ground near where you've parked your car? Also scary, though not as scary since they weren't looking at me and I saw them much sooner than the big one.
Mmmhmm.
A skeleton? Not scary if you have the right context. I've sat writing with a real one dangling next to me in my sister's office. She's a doctor and it was a medical skeleton. But if it were to start talking or dancing around? I'd be even more freaked out than with the rattlesnake.
So far, so good.
If we're going to posit a world with talking skulls and dancing skeletons, we're going to have to posit how dangerous these things are. If skeletons just acted as necromancers' servants, polishing their boots and carrying their bags, they'd be slightly creepy but no more so than butlers or bellhops. If, however, we lived in a world where uncontrolled skeletons and zombies ran around slaughtering people, they'd be treated like rattlesnakes and rabid dogs.
Exactly, good, good.
What's the worst a talking skull can do? If all it can do is tell jokes and maybe drink wine, it's not scary at all. If, however, it can fly through the air, shoot death rays out of its eye sockets, and devour your soul, then it's a lot scarier.
Sadly, this is where it falls apart. :(
Every example you mentioned clearly demonstrates what I was discussing in my last post. It has little to do with the creature, but the fear of the situation. The scariest thing is your own fear. Seeing a tiger in the zoo isn't very scary. Seeing one outside of the cage is scarier. Why? Because you're afraid that the tiger may hurt you.
You saw a deer leg, and you sped up. Was it the mountain lion that scared you? NO. It was the fear of the unknown. The fear that there might be a predator lurking about to get you too. D&D has mountain lions that curl up with druids when they're napping, and answer to names like "Mr. Scruffles".
Is a ghoul scary because it's a ghoul? Or is a ghoul scary because of the kind of threat that it poses to you? It's the setting. We have dogs at my house. All of them are very nice. Some of them are a bit stupid. Some a bit smart. Most quite a bit large. No fear with them. I could see a dog half its size out somewhere that was no longer "safe" to me, and that dog would unsettle me. What if it attacks (fear of injury)? What if it's rabid (fear of disease)? What if it part of a pack of wild dogs (increasing sense of dread based on possibilities rather than hard evidence). That dog is now scary. I learned to force myself to not fear dogs. I had a huge dog nearby our house leap over a 5 ft. fence to confront me walking along the road. My brother was obviously shaken, but I just looked at the dog and kept walking. Why? Because I needed to protect my brother. If I had been alone, I probably would have cowered.
It is the context of something that generates fear. There is nothing innately more frightening about a skeleton or zombie than there is a yard dog. It's the fear of the unknown that makes our blood curdle. Does the undead have to trap souls? No. Does it have to go berserk when uncontrolled? No. All it has to do is be a threat, and have that threat placed in the correct context. You're absolutely right that a necromancer who has his own personal "Bonehilda" maid (like the skeleton in the closet maid from The Sims Makin' Magic) who just cleans your house and polishes your shoes isn't particularly frightening. The horde of ivory soldiers who pass through a village slaughtering the inhabitants at the whim of their master? Terrifying. Why?
Because they cannot be bought, reasoned with, intimidated, and have no mercy. These things mean nothing to them. They will kill you because they were told to kill you. They will keep coming until they kill you. They know not the fear that you do, and that is terrifying.
Likewise, a vampire isn't scary because it's a vampire. A vampire is scary because it's higher on the food chain than you are. In a D&D game, is the countess who makes your party feel welcome despite being a vampire creepy because she's a vampire, or because your party secretly worries that they may become a meal in the middle of the night as her thirst reaches a peak. Perhaps the vampire is amused by the fear she knows she incites in people, and toys with them. Maybe she likes to play with their emotions, and only strike when they actually do feel safe with her; because she thinks it's funnier that way; or because she has some sick trust or love issues. Maybe she just wants you to like her, and then when you do, then she feeds on you. Madness of a sort. Madness is unknown. Unreasoning. Terrifying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[tangent]Growing up on a farm, the idea that animals are not for touching never occured to me. I've wrestled with a jaguar and a tiger, and been bitten by a black panther and a lion, and been leapt-upon-with-intent-to-maim by a mountain lion (I entered the wrong enclosure. The house-raised de-clawed mountain lion was in one cage. The 'possibly rabid mountain lion just brought in' was in the other. Oops.). I've held poisonous snakes, handled poisonous scorpions and petted a shark (that was scary!). I draw the line at bears. I can't tell what they are thinking, and they scare me.[/tangent]
The notion that meat or bone, to someone who has butchered his fair share of animals, is sacred, seems to be a terrible cheapening of the word 'sacred.' I don't go to a funeral to pay my respects to the flesh and blood body that failed my friend or family member. I go to pay my respects to the spirit of the person, which is gone.
My own body is going to be chopped up for whatever organs or tissue are usable for those who are still alive, and the remainder will get cooked to fine ash in an oven.
I try to treat my body with a level of respect now, while I'm still alive, 'cause I'm in no hurry to find out who'se right about the afterlife, but after it fails me and I'm dead? Screw it. Turn the meat into dogfood and the bones into decorative windchimes for all I care. :)
[tangent]Growing up on a farm, the idea that animals are not for touching never occured to me. I've wrestled with a jaguar and a tiger, and been bitten by a black panther and a lion, and been leapt-upon-with-intent-to-maim by a mountain lion (I entered the wrong enclosure. The house-raised de-clawed mountain lion was in one cage. The 'possibly rabid mountain lion just brought in' was in the other. Oops.). I've held poisonous snakes, handled poisonous scorpions and petted a shark (that was scary!). I draw the line at bears. I can't tell what they are thinking, and they scare me.[/tangent]
The notion that meat or bone, to someone who has butchered his fair share of animals, is sacred, seems to be a terrible cheapening of the word 'sacred.' I don't go to a funeral to pay my respects to the flesh and blood body that failed my friend or family member. I go to pay my respects to the spirit of the person, which is gone.
My own body is going to be chopped up for whatever organs or tissue are usable for those who are still alive, and the remainder will get cooked to fine ash in an oven.
I try to treat my body with a level of respect now, while I'm still alive, 'cause I'm in no hurry to find out who'se right about the afterlife, but after it fails me and I'm dead? Screw it. Turn the meat into dogfood and the bones into decorative windchimes for all I care. :)
I love you in a totally platonic sort of way. :3
My point with the talking skull was in knowing, depending the world, what one was capable of. While the unknown and the fear of the unknown are frightening, the other fear, which you touched on, is the fear of power and the danger it represents to your personal safety.
If all the skull can do is talk, then the only danger it presents is as a gossip, a whisperer of secrets, and a teller of lies--all dangerous in their own way, but not an immediate mortal threat. If, however, any given chatty skull is potentially a demilich, able to swallow your soul and burp, then there's a fear reaction. And it's not fear of the unknown either. It's like coming on a snake suddenly and freezing until you assess the threat. The fear is that it's a poisonous snake. Until you identify a snake, it's reasonable to treat it as poisonous until you know it to be otherwise.
The remorseless implacable unreasoning skeleton army sent to slaughter the village? It's terrifying, yes, but so is the fire when I pour lamp oil on the necromancer's house, light a match, and bar the doors. You can't bribe flames, you can't reason with smoke, you can't threaten a blocked door. The necromancer isn't fearing the unknown so much as he fears the known, the simple fact that fire will burn until it consumes all its fuel, and the necromancer counts as fuel.
The vampire countess? She's on fire's menu too, and no matter how evil or crazy she is, she's not going to survive long in her unlife if she forgets that desperate people do desperate things. A 0-level scullery maid convinced the mistress will eat her tomorrow may decide to set fire to her mansion tonight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vampire countess? She's on fire's menu too, and no matter how evil or crazy she is, she's not going to survive long in her unlife if she forgets that desperate people do desperate things. A 0-level scullery maid convinced the mistress will eat her tomorrow may decide to set fire to her mansion tonight.
I'd think it would be most practical to set fire to the mansion at dawn, when it is most difficult for the vampire to flee the premises. It won't do any good if the vampire is in the stone dungeon below the house in her coffin, but if she's one of those silly vampires that thinks keeping her coffin in the wood-panel bedroom upstairs is a good idea then fire at dawn should do the trick.
Of course that last situation might arise from forgetting that desperate people do desperate things. If she were more aware of that, she'd have a more secure resting place.
My point with the talking skull was in knowing, depending the world, what one was capable of. While the unknown and the fear of the unknown are frightening, the other fear, which you touched on, is the fear of power and the danger it represents to your personal safety.
If all the skull can do is talk, then the only danger it presents is as a gossip, a whisperer of secrets, and a teller of lies--all dangerous in their own way, but not an immediate mortal threat. If, however, any given chatty skull is potentially a demilich, able to swallow your soul and burp, then there's a fear reaction. And it's not fear of the unknown either. It's like coming on a snake suddenly and freezing until you assess the threat. The fear is that it's a poisonous snake. Until you identify a snake, it's reasonable to treat it as poisonous until you know it to be otherwise.
The remorseless implacable unreasoning skeleton army sent to slaughter the village? It's terrifying, yes, but so is the fire when I pour lamp oil on the necromancer's house, light a match, and bar the doors. You can't bribe flames, you can't reason with smoke, you can't threaten a blocked door. The necromancer isn't fearing the unknown so much as he fears the known, the simple fact that fire will burn until it consumes all its fuel, and the necromancer counts as fuel.
The vampire countess? She's on fire's menu too, and no matter how evil or crazy she is, she's not going to survive long in her unlife if she forgets that desperate people do desperate things. A 0-level scullery maid convinced the mistress will eat her tomorrow may decide to set fire to her mansion tonight.
EXACTLY! You get it! Undead are not innately scarier or more evil than FIRE! It's all in how it is used. You might use fire to cook your food, or to light your streets, making those things less scary (no raw food to infect you, no dark streets to unsettle you), or it might be one of the most terrifying things (arsonist sets your house on fire and you fear for your life and the life of your family).
I think we finally understand each other. :)
EDIT: Probably why plenty of people are afraid of spellcasters and such in lots of stories. Magic can be really awesome. Or it could melt your face. It's the threat of the unknown (magic) and what it could be used for.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NG-Variant - Thornskals
Born out of outrage against the intentional defilement of beauty and creation, thornskals are the embodiments of the gentle goddess Shelyn's wrath at its harshest. They are most often formed from the souls of artists who met tragic ends, be it at the hands of jealous rivals, oppressive governments, or destructive nihilists. These rare souls are given temporary leave by their goddess when the call to right the wrongs done to them and their art is spoken by those who perform the purer necromantic arts.
Thornskals are skeletal beings with wild and vibrant thorny green vines growing within their ribcages and skulls, all trailing outward along their limbs. These vines sprout roses of all colors, save for in the eyes of their chosen targets, for whom they only appear black and blood red. With some rare thornskals, these roses sometimes produce pheromones that calm emotions or impair motor control. These effects are most often used to deter attacks from innocents rather than to aid in subduing their prey.
Thornskals typically attack with the vines growing within themselves, lashing out as they extend from their limbs and raking their targets with their thorns. These vines are also often used to entangle and subdue enemies.
It is worth noting that even as avatars of Shelyn's wrath, thornskals do not typically kill their targets. Instead they grant their victims a harsh form of mercy, letting them keep their lives if not their forms. Those reduced below zero hit points by the lashings of a thornskal slowly transform into small flowering plants, commonly rosebushes or another species appropriate to the environment. If a transformed victim cannot survive in the location it fell, the thornskal takes it someplace where they can. These victims are left ot live the rest of their lives incapable of harming others or defiling beauty, while providing the world that which they had so callously taken away.
Thornskals also mostly prioritize protection of life and art over avenging that which has been lost. If given the choice of saving a piece of art from flame or punishing the one who purposefully sparked the blaze, thornskals will largely choose the former even if it means their own destruction.
When a thornskal passes back into the afterlife peacefully, a contained burst of positive energy from their destined plane courses through their forms. Their bones fall or crumble to dust depending on their age and the vines take root, quickly growing and weaving into patterns reflective of the thornskal's previous mortal life. Some say that, much like their victims, thornskal souls sometimes remain in these resulting plants to live out the rest of a lifetime formerly denied to them; a lifetime of rest and contemplation as their wounded souls are mended while they themselves nourish the land where they've taken root.
Rumors persist that the first thornskal was in fact the first Shelynite sacrificed by Kuthonites...