| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
let me put it this. Take a vial of 100 % pure water (Call it good.) and add a drop of black ink(call ot evil). That black ink mixes with the pure water. It is no longer pure. It is still mostly good, but it is still tarnished b6 the black ink. Now their is a process that can remove that ink from the pure water, but in doing so you also lose a bit of that pure water in the process. The water can never go back to exactly what it once was. Sure you can add additional pure water to it, but in the end your left with something slightly different. Now if you want to make the water impure, all you have to do is more ink. Very easy to do. It wont be long till you see just the ink.
You can start with a vial of black ink. Then add a drop of pure water. Unlike what the drop ink did to the vial of pure water, you will not see a difference in the ink. You will have to saturate the ink with an enormous amount of pure water before you can hide the black ink within. Still even if you super saturate the the mix with pure water thend result will never be pure water. The only way to remove all the ink is through a very difficult process.
This analogy is flawed, as one of the two substances already includes the other as it's base. Ink is made from water, so of course it's not greatly affected by a little more.
Try blue pigment and red pigment. If you put blue into the red, it's almost impossible to get out. On the other hand, if you put red into blue it is also nearly impossible to remove. Oh shoot, since one isn't already made from the other (much like good isn't made of evil or vice versa) it doesn't agree with your point at all.
Well, there is the thing with being unable to revive people with even True Resurrection if they've been turned undead. Something is happening when the 9th level spell that is limited mostly by creature type and dying of old age can't bring you back without first having destroyed an undead made out of you.
Negative. You cannot resurrect the undead creature, no. However there are plenty of methods for obtaining an undead creature made from the corpse of a STILL LIVING PERSON.
For example, you can use a lock of hair to cast reincarnate to create a new body with the aforementioned soul. The original corpse can still be animated with animate dead (which might be surreal or creepy to the original owner of the body).
A clone spell shoves your soul into a new body. Your previously slain body again can be animated. No problems.
Meanwhile there's nothing that says that you cannot resurrect someone who has been turned into the undead. That's not what either the undead type or the resurrection spells say. It does say that you can resurrect somebody that has been turned into the undead and destroyed, and that the spell cannot be cast on undead.
For example, to cast resurrection on a vampire (a creature who has been turned into an undead creature) would require you to slay that person as a vampire and then rez them. However, you do not turn a creature into a mindless undead such as a skeleton or zombie, you turn their corpse into such a thing, which is why you can totally have both a character that is alive while their previous corpse is animated.
There is no soul trapping. Animate dead says nothing about soul trapping. There is nothing in animate dead that says, implies, or otherwise allows it to bind souls to their bodies. It's not even supported by the rules which explicitly allow both the living creature to exist with a new body AND their previous body to exist as a mindless undead (but if you can turn a creature into an undead creature, such as a vampire, while also having the same creature existing as a living counterpart at the same time, I'd like to know how).
|
to cast resurrection on a vampire (a creature who has been turned into an undead creature) would require you to slay that person as a vampire and then rez them.
It could be interpreted that by casting resurrection or true resurrection on an undead creature, that it would restore them back to life, as the RAW is a little vague...
Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
I personally would rule that the undead creature is slain by either spell, but I can see someone making the opposite interpretation.
to cast resurrection on a vampire (a creature who has been turned into an undead creature) would require you to slay that person as a vampire and then rez them.It could be interpreted that by casting resurrection or true resurrection on an undead creature, that it would restore them back to life, as the RAW is a little vague...
Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.I personally would rule that the undead creature is slain by either spell, but I can see someone making the opposite interpretation.
Actually it has seemed since 3.0 that the undead type notation may very well stem from the fact that many tried to auto-kill things like liches in older editions by casting raising spells on them (which basically made them chumps, or caused them to die of old age, etc).
I'm not sure how it would slay them when it specifically notes that it turns them back into the LIVING creatures they were before becoming undead. That said, the spells themselves specifically say they do not function on undead ("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").
In any case, my point was that it's actually possible to prove that animate dead doesn't do anything to your soul as it's entirely possible for you to be alive, with soul, and bumping elbows with your reanimated corpse. Less so to be a creature that has been turned into the undead (rather than having your object-corpse animated) such as vampire or ghost, but both of those are sentient undead versions of yourself anyway (IE - are your soul). :|
This analogy is flawed, as one of the two substances already includes the other as it's base. Ink is made from water, so of course it's not greatly affected by a little more.
Try blue pigment and red pigment. If you put blue into the red, it's almost impossible to get out. On the other hand, if you put red into blue it is also nearly impossible to remove. Oh shoot, since one isn't already made from the other (much like good isn't made of evil or vice versa) it doesn't agree with your point at all.
OK i will say that a vial of red pigment mixing with a blue pigment are equally difficult to remove one from the other. You and I both know that if you mix nazis and the holy inquisition your just going to get a mixture of evil.
I will use part of your analogy and part of mine. Take a vial of water add in a bit of blue pigment. You no longer have untainted water. The blue pigment mixes in with the water making the removal possible but a somewhat difficult process. Now take your blue pigment and add just a bit of water. Only a little of the pigment is affected because the pigment resists the pure water and with hardly any effort you can remove the offending bit of water and pigment mix. Now with enough water added you can eventually make it difficult to see the pigment but at that point your using gallons and still its not pure.
Thank you Scythia for helping make a better argument
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course if you mix Nazis and the Holy Inquisition you get evil. Evil * Evil = Evil. It's not like negative numbers.
You're bad at analogies.
Of course if you mix Nazis and the Holy Inquisition you get evil. Evil * Evil = Evil. It's not like negative numbers.
You're bad at analogies.
It was Scythias analogy, i just changed her words a bit.
I also see you didn't fault my true analogy which we both know was my point.
I'm not sure what the point of the analogy even is, so I can't comment on it.
Of course if you mix Nazis and the Holy Inquisition you get evil. Evil * Evil = Evil. It's not like negative numbers.
You're bad at analogies.
It was Scythias analogy, i just changed her words a bit.
I also see you didn't fault my true analogy which we both know was my point.
Let me make it easy for you.
I originally used pure water(good) and black ink.(evil) she pointed out that ink is made out of water and pigment. Since from the original statement we know that water is good, then pigment in the ink is evil. She then stated that pigment + pigment was a good analogy. so I pointed out evil + evil = evil.
Rynjin you were able to get my point without realizing it. Meaning my analogy worked.
I'm not sure what the point of the analogy even is, so I can't comment on it.
Its a lot more difficult to make something pure than impure.
Its easier to remove the good from evil than it is to remove the evil from good.
Yes, I go that.
But how is that relevant?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This analogy is flawed, as one of the two substances already includes the other as it's base. Ink is made from water, so of course it's not greatly affected by a little more.
Try blue pigment and red pigment. If you put blue into the red, it's almost impossible to get out. On the other hand, if you put red into blue it is also nearly impossible to remove. Oh shoot, since one isn't already made from the other (much like good isn't made of evil or vice versa) it doesn't agree with your point at all.
OK i will say that a vial of red pigment mixing with a blue pigment are equally difficult to remove one from the other. You and I both know that if you mix nazis and the holy inquisition your just going to get a mixture of evil.
I will use part of your analogy and part of mine. Take a vial of water add in a bit of blue pigment. You no longer have untainted water. The blue pigment mixes in with the water making the removal possible but a somewhat difficult process. Now take your blue pigment and add just a bit of water. Only a little of the pigment is affected because the pigment resists the pure water and with hardly any effort you can remove the offending bit of water and pigment mix. Now with enough water added you can eventually make it difficult to see the pigment but at that point your using gallons and still its not pure.
Thank you Scythia for helping make a better argument
.... Your new pigment analogy is exactly the same as your ink analogy and fails for exactly the same reason.
.... Your new pigment analogy is exactly the same as your ink analogy and fails for exactly the same reason.This analogy is flawed, as one of the two substances already includes the other as it's base. Ink is made from water, so of course it's not greatly affected by a little more.
Try blue pigment and red pigment. If you put blue into the red, it's almost impossible to get out. On the other hand, if you put red into blue it is also nearly impossible to remove. Oh shoot, since one isn't already made from the other (much like good isn't made of evil or vice versa) it doesn't agree with your point at all.
OK i will say that a vial of red pigment mixing with a blue pigment are equally difficult to remove one from the other. You and I both know that if you mix nazis and the holy inquisition your just going to get a mixture of evil.
I will use part of your analogy and part of mine. Take a vial of water add in a bit of blue pigment. You no longer have untainted water. The blue pigment mixes in with the water making the removal possible but a somewhat difficult process. Now take your blue pigment and add just a bit of water. Only a little of the pigment is affected because the pigment resists the pure water and with hardly any effort you can remove the offending bit of water and pigment mix. Now with enough water added you can eventually make it difficult to see the pigment but at that point your using gallons and still its not pure.
Thank you Scythia for helping make a better argument
Um yes it is. Mostly. She didnt like it because the ink was a combination of water and pigment. I was using two similar things. So I fixed her complaint because it was a valid one.
However, you are wrong because I fixed what she said was wrong with. Now if you have a valid argument, please state it.
.... Your new pigment analogy is exactly the same as your ink analogy and fails for exactly the same reason.
OK i will say that a vial of red pigment mixing with a blue pigment are equally difficult to remove one from the other. You and I both know that if you mix nazis and the holy inquisition your just going to get a mixture of evil.
I will use part of your analogy and part of mine. Take a vial of water add in a bit of blue pigment. You no longer have untainted water. The blue pigment mixes in with the water making the removal possible but a somewhat difficult process. Now take your blue pigment and add just a bit of water. Only a little of the pigment is affected because the pigment resists the pure water and with hardly any effort you can remove the offending bit of water and pigment mix. Now with enough water added you can eventually make it difficult to see the pigment but at that point your using gallons and still its not pure.
Thank you Scythia for helping make a better argument
Um yes it is. Mostly. She didnt like it because the ink was a combination of water and pigment. I was using two similar things. So I fixed her complaint because it was a valid one.
However, you are wrong because I fixed what she said was wrong with. Now if you have a valid argument, please state it.
You do realise pigments are made from water... It's the exact same problem she mentioned earlier. You just replaced the word ink for pigment...
|
|
Pathfinder, like the material it was drawn from... ...Discussions like this, by necessity, have to be argued outside the ruleset in the sense of defining home campaigns, not laying down Law By RAW.
If anything, Pathfinder has done its best to pull away from the material it was drawn from (concerning alignment, morality, and ethics anyway), as 2nd edition AD&D did a fine job of clearly defining alignment, morality, and ethics by laying down the law by RAW...
Pathfinder, like the material it was drawn from... ...Discussions like this, by necessity, have to be argued outside the ruleset in the sense of defining home campaigns, not laying down Law By RAW.If anything, Pathfinder has done its best to pull away from the material it was drawn from (concerning alignment, morality, and ethics anyway), as 2nd edition AD&D did a fine job of clearly defining alignment, morality, and ethics by laying down the law by RAW...
Oh, I wouldn't say that. The very nature of alignment is contradictory within the 2e PHB; there are spells like detect evil which demand objective definitions of Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos are defined as objective states...yet Good and Evil are explicitly defined and called out as subjective viewpoints.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About Rogar Stonebow's water and ink analogy. It's similar to "When the paper's crumpled up, it cant be perfect again" ~Linkin Park. The reason his analogy fail's has nothing to do with which substances used, and I personally think it did a reasonable job of demonstrating incorrectable flaws. I don't think anyone had any actual trouble understanding his point. In fact, I think people have been unfairly nitpicking his analogy rather than tackling the actual flaw in it.
The real reason his analogy fails is because it turns morality into something simplistic and objective, which it is most certainly not. Actions are not color coded for our convenience and no one is entirely good or entirely evil and the context and intent of our actions matter. However, calling him out for ink containing water is disingenuous in my opinion as it hand waves the point he was trying to make entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Milo v3 wrote
You do realize pigments are made from water... It's the exact same problem she mentioned earlier. You just replaced the word ink for pigment...
Actually go to a hobby store and ask for some pigment. You will find that you will get a powdery substance.
About Rogar Stonebow's water and ink analogy. It's similar to "When the paper's crumpled up, it cant be perfect again" ~Linkin Park. The reason his analogy fail's has nothing to do with which substances used, and I personally think it did a reasonable job of demonstrating incorrectable flaws. I don't think anyone had any actual trouble understanding his point. In fact, I think people have been unfairly nitpicking his analogy rather than tackling the actual flaw in it.
The real reason his analogy fails is because it turns morality into something simplistic and objective, which it is most certainly not. Actions are not color coded for our convenience and no one is entirely good or entirely evil and the context and intent of our actions matter. However, calling him out for ink containing water is disingenuous in my opinion as it hand waves the point he was trying to make entirely.
Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.
I disagree with this profoundly. Someone can work to redeem someone else, just as someone can work to corrupt them, but people can also choose to redeem themselves and become Good every bit as much as they can choose to become Evil. We're the ones who choose who we are, and we can change ourselves simply by choosing to do so and working at it. It won't always succeed going it alone...but it won't always succeed with help either.
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.I disagree with this profoundly. Someone can work to redeem someone, just as someone can work to corrupt them, but people can also choose to redeem themselves and become Good every bit as much as they can choose to become Evil. We're the ones who choose who we are, and we can change ourselves simply by choosing to do so and working at it. It won't always succeed going it alone...but it won't always succeed with help either.
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
I agree with you. The work of others can push another one way or the other. It is possible that someone will be self motivated to start being good. I just believe its less likely than someone who will be self motivated to be evil.
Its that difficulty of selflessness and altruism that is the foundation of my belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.I disagree with this profoundly. Someone can work to redeem someone, just as someone can work to corrupt them, but people can also choose to redeem themselves and become Good every bit as much as they can choose to become Evil. We're the ones who choose who we are, and we can change ourselves simply by choosing to do so and working at it. It won't always succeed going it alone...but it won't always succeed with help either.
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
I agree with you. The work of others can push another one way or the other. It is possible that someone will be self motivated to start being good. I just believe its less likely than someone who will be self motivated to be evil.
Its that difficulty of selflessness and altruism that is the foundation of my belief.
The analogy is bad because it confounds pure and good. The real spectrum has "pure" on both sides. You have pure evil and pure good. Cyclohexane and toluene would be better. Both are liquids at room temperature. You have pure toluene and add at bit of cyclohexane and you will have a tainted sample that can be readily measure by refractive index, and the same applies in reverse. They can be separated but it is equally difficult no matter which taints the other. That is the true analogy by pathfinder rules.
The analogy is bad because it confounds pure and good. The real spectrum has "pure" on both sides. You have pure evil and pure good. Cyclohexane and toluene would be better. Both are liquids at room temperature. You have pure toluene and add at bit of cyclohexane and you will have a tainted sample that can be readily measure by refractive index, and the same applies in reverse. They can be separated but it is equally difficult no matter which taints the other. That is the true analogy by pathfinder rules.Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.I disagree with this profoundly. Someone can work to redeem someone, just as someone can work to corrupt them, but people can also choose to redeem themselves and become Good every bit as much as they can choose to become Evil. We're the ones who choose who we are, and we can change ourselves simply by choosing to do so and working at it. It won't always succeed going it alone...but it won't always succeed with help either.
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
I agree with you. The work of others can push another one way or the other. It is possible that someone will be self motivated to start being good. I just believe its less likely than someone who will be self motivated to be evil.
Its that difficulty of selflessness and altruism that is the foundation of my belief.
It is generally accepted that when one speaks of a persons character and calls them pure or pure of heart, it is about the goodness of that person, not the horribleness. It is for this reason why my analogy works. However, i'm not saying mine is the way of pathfinders rules. But I would say its a truer representation of the appreciating or depreciating of ones character, and what is most likely to happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About Rogar Stonebow's water and ink analogy. It's similar to "When the paper's crumpled up, it cant be perfect again" ~Linkin Park. The reason his analogy fail's has nothing to do with which substances used, and I personally think it did a reasonable job of demonstrating incorrectable flaws. I don't think anyone had any actual trouble understanding his point. In fact, I think people have been unfairly nitpicking his analogy rather than tackling the actual flaw in it.
The real reason his analogy fails is because it turns morality into something simplistic and objective, which it is most certainly not. Actions are not color coded for our convenience and no one is entirely good or entirely evil and the context and intent of our actions matter. However, calling him out for ink containing water is disingenuous in my opinion as it hand waves the point he was trying to make entirely.
Irons are a thing. You can press crumpled paper flat again.
Pointing out that the analogy was flawed was an indirect way of pointing out that the concept was flawed. If a flawed analogy is best for demonstrating a point, the point itself might be questionable. As this one is. A single "drop" of evil in a good person doesn't taint them irrevocably any more than a single "drop" of goodness in an evil person purifies them. As you point out, everyone is a mix of the two already. Having the capacity for both is what separates humans from outsiders, who have to struggle against their very nature to act contrary.
In other words, Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces, not a tilted slope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
Selflessness and altruism are hard coded in actual real world human genetics. They're traits of a social species, and the reason that groups of people who band into clans, villages, cities, and nations survived. The guilt people feel when they refuse to help someone in need shows us that altruism is a natural impulse.
How many people do you think would ignore a child about to fall from a ledge?
|
|
In other words, Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces, not a tilted slope.
While I cannot speak for Rogar Stonebow, I think the point that YOU are missing, is that he FEELS that good and evil do not have to be equally balanced, despite what the RAW say or do not say... Speaking for myself, I do not think that good and evil should be equally balanced; I don't care what the RAW say.
Great thing about RPGs... Everyone is free to use the rules they like and toss those that they don't!
How many people do you think would ignore a child about to fall from a ledge?
^Depends upon where you are, but potentially quite a lot. Videos have been published of somebody suffering a bad accident (I think including actually being hit by a car) and then no one helping for a long time. Doesn't even have to be direct malice or indifference -- dangerous areas are conducive to this.
How many people do you think would ignore a child about to fall from a ledge?^Depends upon where you are, but potentially quite a lot. Videos have been published of somebody suffering a bad accident (I think including actually being hit by a car) and then no one helping for a long time. Doesn't even have to be direct malice or indifference -- dangerous areas are conducive to this.
Those cases are often occurring in busy areas where people simply don't notice. Beyond that there's the sociological phenomenon often called the bystander effect, where additional witnesses reduce the chance any one of them will help (as each assumes one of the others will help). While in practice the bystander effect seems to suggest people lack altruism, it could as easily suggest they assume altruism in others.
I was in a car accident earlier this month, on a busy road. A person I did not know, and who not only didn't know me but was also new to the area, stopped and helped me get out of my overturned vehicle. Other strangers stopped to help, or slowed down to ask if everything was alright. One passerby called an EMS service while I was calling police. It would have been easy for all of them to keep driving and decide it wasn't their problem, but they stopped to help. The capacity for empathy and concern are very important parts of what it means to be human.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces, not a tilted slope.While I cannot speak for Rogar Stonebow, I think the point that YOU are missing, is that he FEELS that good and evil do not have to be equally balanced, despite what the RAW say or do not say... Speaking for myself, I do not think that good and evil should be equally balanced; I don't care what the RAW say.
Great thing about RPGs... Everyone is free to use the rules they like and toss those that they don't!
Thank you for your honesty.
That's very true, you can change nearly anything when you run a game, and the person who is running can shape their opinion into the rules. The trouble arises when people try to apply those opinions to everyone's rules. In a game, many people like rules which are logical, or at least internally consistent. That's where the problem lies. Saying that [-X] spells will lower your X, but [+X] spells don't raise your X is an inconsistent position. Rather than allow that this inconsistency is motivated by their opinion, people imply it's inspired by an obvious truth. So long as people can admit it's a matter of their opinion, rather than a matter of rules, I can agree with them. If that's how you feel, and your players are okay with it, have fun.
It is generally accepted that when one speaks of a persons character and calls them pure or pure of heart, it is about the goodness of that person, not the horribleness. It is for this reason why my analogy works. However,...The analogy is bad because it confounds pure and good. The real spectrum has "pure" on both sides. You have pure evil and pure good. Cyclohexane and toluene would be better. Both are liquids at room temperature. You have pure toluene and add at bit of cyclohexane and you will have a tainted sample that can be readily measure by refractive index, and the same applies in reverse. They can be separated but it is equally difficult no matter which taints the other. That is the true analogy by pathfinder rules.Although I simplified it a bit. I beleve it is accurate and for someone to go from evil to good requires an outside force of some kind to lift that person from their evil. Where a person who is good only needs to just continue and make evil choices.I disagree with this profoundly. Someone can work to redeem someone, just as someone can work to corrupt them, but people can also choose to redeem themselves and become Good every bit as much as they can choose to become Evil. We're the ones who choose who we are, and we can change ourselves simply by choosing to do so and working at it. It won't always succeed going it alone...but it won't always succeed with help either.
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.
I agree with you. The work of others can push another one way or the other. It is possible that someone will be self motivated to start being good. I just believe its less likely than someone who will be self motivated to be evil.
Its that difficulty of selflessness and altruism that is the foundation of my belief.
IF you openly state that your comment has no relation to alignment in pathfinder then I don't have any objection to it. But you shouldn't use a notion that by your own admission is unrelated to pathfinder to make decisions about how things work in pathfinder.
|
|
Saying that [-X] spells will lower your X, but [+X] spells don't raise your X is an inconsistent position.
It is not inconsistent if you accept that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot wrap their mind around those to premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that [-X] spells will lower your X, but [+X] spells don't raise your X is an inconsistent position.It is not inconsistent if you accept that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot wrap their mind around those to premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
I think you mean "the ends do not justify the means".
If you cannot do an evil thing to serve the greater good, does it not also follow that you cannot do a good thing to serve evil?
I understand how people could believe that the field is tilted, I just don't accept it. Especially from a game rules standpoint, I can see no reason for such an imbalance. Your characters are heroes for helping people, not for resisting a powerful and seductive immorality that's overwhelmingly easy to give into. If evil was the default position, the easy choice, then all npc and random peasants would surely be a debauched mass. I doubt this is the case in anyone's game, so again, inconsistency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that [-X] spells will lower your X, but [+X] spells don't raise your X is an inconsistent position.It is not inconsistent if you accept that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot wrap their mind around those to premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
It isn't a matter of being able to wrap a mind around the concept, but entirely that the game doesn't describe it in that fashion. If you want to play that way then you are open to do so, but it isn't the default assumption and should be disclosed to players upfront.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is generally accepted that when one speaks of a persons character and calls them pure or pure of heart, it is about the goodness of that person, not the horribleness. It is for this reason why my analogy works. However, i'm not saying mine is the way of pathfinders rules. But I would say its a truer representation of the appreciating or depreciating of ones character, and what is most likely to happen.
You should read more or watch more TV, friend. This is a very common "twist" on that saying, with the pure evil villain being able to access the hidey hole of the McGuffin just as good as the pure good hero can.
Saying that [-X] spells will lower your X, but [+X] spells don't raise your X is an inconsistent position.It is not inconsistent if you accept that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot wrap their mind around those to premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
You're misconstruing people not agreeing, for people not understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Human default is self-preservation. This can be expressed in many ways, Financially, physically, and temporally. It is this reason why so many people drive by an accident while only a few people stop. Its why people close their shades while a woman gets raped in the streets. It is why a beggar gets passed by numerous times before someone gives them anything. It is easier to not be good because it costs less.
So as a Paladin, one who exemplifies good in all things. Must change their defaults to selflessness. They can't ignore those in need. A Paladin isn't one who can do good to offset his evil. It should require an atonement because they are held to higher standards.
If a pc wants to change their alignment to good, casting protection from evil shouldn't make it so simple. A quest should be in order or something of a grand scale. Or the pc in question should start playing their character as if they were good and eventually, their alignment will change.
If a pc wants to be evil they can just murder someone and there you go.
However
If you think that saving one persons life can change someone to good. More power to you.
|
|
You're misconstruing people not agreeing, for people not understanding.
Okay...
It is not inconsistent if you agree that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot agree with those two premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
My point remains unchanged...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't.
Essentially what you're saying now is "You don't agree with me, unless you agree with me" (since you were saying people who understood it would agree with you earlier).
What I and others are saying is that it's inconsistent. You insist that it IS consistent...but only if we accept two premises that we don't agree with that make it consistent.
I don't accept your premises.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't accept your premises.
That's awesome! You don't have to...
I was only trying to give an explanation as to why people like myself and Rogar Stonebow (to name but one) do not see any inconsistencies with the thought that good and evil are not equally balanced (and everything that goes with that thought).
So, you are free to disagree, but you are only disagreeing with an opinion, because, while I can only speak for myself, I have never said that how I view good and evil is RAW, in fact, I have said earlier in this very thread, that I do not care what the RAW is concerning good and evil; in my games, good and evil are not equally balanced, and I see NOTHING inconsistent with that (and I have said why that is)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're misconstruing people not agreeing, for people not understanding.Okay...
It is not inconsistent if you agree that 1). Good and evil are not equal, which means that it is more difficult to maintain good than it is to maintain evil and 2). The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
If someone cannot agree with those two premises (and I can fully understand why someone couldn't), then to that person it would seem inconsistent.
My point remains unchanged...
Walking on a line is always more difficult if you are heading east. If you accept the premise that east is always up hill with the sun in your eyes.
I don't accept your premises.That's awesome! You don't have to...
I was only trying to give an explanation as to why people like myself and Rogar Stonebow (to name but one) do not see any inconsistencies with the thought that good and evil are not equally balanced (and everything that goes with that thought).
So, you are free to disagree, but you are only disagreeing with an opinion, because, while I can only speak for myself, I have never said that how I view good and evil is RAW, in fact, I have said earlier in this very thread, that I do not care what the RAW is concerning good and evil; in my games, good and evil are not equally balanced, and I see NOTHING inconsistent with that (and I have said why that is)...
So the question then becomes, do you punish players with alignment shift for using infernal healing? It's just a throw away action, and they didn't 'mean' it.
Walking on a line is always more difficult if you are heading east. If you accept the premise that east is always up hill with the sun in your eyes.Yeah... Refer my post directly above yours.
No, yeah. I'm not talking about RAW either, I'm just saying that I feel like waking east is really hard compared to walking west. I never said that was the way pathfinder worked, although I found this thread apropos to disclose that I feel this way.
|
|
So the question then becomes, do you punish players with alignment shift for using infernal healing? It's just a throw away action, and they didn't 'mean' it.
First off, I play 2nd edition AD&D, where changing alignment means you gain no XP until you either accept the new alignment, or switch back to your original alignment (which is not as easy as performing a single action)...
But to answer your question, I do not view doing something evil to achieve something good to be a good action. However, I do not think that a single evil action is cause for an immediate change of alignment; but it will move you closer (just how close depends on the severity of the action).
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.Selflessness and altruism are hard coded in actual real world human genetics. They're traits of a social species, and the reason that groups of people who band into clans, villages, cities, and nations survived. The guilt people feel when they refuse to help someone in need shows us that altruism is a natural impulse.
How many people do you think would ignore a child about to fall from a ledge?
There's a famous example about an assaulted woman in the late 60's or early 70's who spent two hours bleeding to death because an entire apartment building full of people ignored her cries because they didn't want to get involved , even to the point of calling the police.
People are a complex mix of things, not a simple stew.
Kitty Genovese, March 13 1964. Urban Legend.
So the question then becomes, do you punish players with alignment shift for using infernal healing? It's just a throw away action, and they didn't 'mean' it.First off, I play 2nd edition AD&D, where changing alignment means you gain no XP until you either accept the new alignment, or switch back to your original alignment (which is not as easy as performing a single action)...
But to answer your question, I do not view doing something evil to achieve something good to be a good action. However, I do not think that a single evil action is cause for an immediate change of alignment; but it will move you closer (just how close depends on the severity of the action).
Not evil to cause good. Just casting a spell to get healed. Does it shift your alignment?
|
|
Not evil to cause good. Just casting a spell to get healed. Does it shift your alignment?
It's not the fact that you are healing someone, it is HOW you are healing them... So yes, I would rule that your alignment shifts slightly in the direction of evil, but not an actual change of alignment (you need to remain consistent in your evil actions for that to actually happen).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not evil to cause good. Just casting a spell to get healed. Does it shift your alignment?It's not the fact that you are healing someone, it is HOW you are healing them... So yes, I would rule that your alignment shifts slightly in the direction of evil, but not an actual change of alignment (you need to remain consistent in your evil actions for that to actually happen).
So if a True Neutral character healed after every battle using Infernal Healing, would you shift him to Evil? If yes, how many IH's does it take? If no, why not?