|
I see... may i ask are you a material naturalist.
Nope. I'm a pagan and a hard polytheist, and believe in many Gods...none of which are anything close to omnipotent.
Actually, the definition of omnipotence by noted theologists includes limitations on what can be done as some things are intrinsically impossible. A deity able to do anything that is possible (not saying that it would actually do this thing) is considered omnipotent, even though it cannot do what is impossible.
Then the God the believe in isn't really omnipotent. Potent, yes, but not omnipotent since there are limits to its power.
I have no problem with believing in such a deity (see above), or believing them to be benevolent, but claiming them as omnipotent is basically b%*%%!!+. It smacks of goal post moving:
"Our deity is benevolent and omnipotent!"
"Uh...that doesn't make sense, the world is sometimes terrible, how could a being that can do anything allow that?"
"Well, he can't do the impossible things."
"So you just redefined omnipotence to be limited?"
"Yes!"
"..."
You don't just get to redefine words like that and then continue to use them.
.
.
.
As for the debate about free will: I actually buy the free will argument advanced to explain human Evil. If moral choice is to have any meaning then we have to be able to harm each other. Now, some people having more of an inherent propensity for such acts (and some people certainly do) is harder to justify, but possibly doable.
Where the 'omnipotent + benevolent' concept falls apart for me completely is the kid with horribly painful cancer Paladin of Baha-who? mentions above. Cancer's existence isn't a result of human Evil, and could be removed from the world without infringing on free will in the least. Ditto other diseases. Or birth defects. Or natural disasters. I can casually imagine a world with free will where none of those things exist, and any omnipotent deity should be casually able to make such a world. The fact that the world doesn't work that way, well, it doesn't say anything good about any omnipotent being there may be.
EDIT: Argh, missed the Mod message. This is potentially relevant to why I feel Golarion deities can absolutely be benevolent due to a lack of omnipotence, but this'll still be my last post on this particular sub-topic.
To make it more Golarionly -
Asmodeus, god of tyranny, utterly resents free will. Hell exists to punish all mortals for the crime of even having free will.
Asmodeus wants to rule over a universe of sock puppets.
A god that would restrict free will - that would limit the ability of mortals to make decisions, even in the name of "preventing evil" - is inherently malevolent. That is a god that seeks a kingdom of slaves.
A benevolent deity, such as Sarenrae, would rather have a universe where mortals can choose to be dicks to each other than a universe where they are all forced to behave through coercion - and the denial of the ability to be dicks towards each other would be coercion.
Sarenrae wants followers who willingly choose her, not slaves who had no choice.
The difference there is that Asmodeus lacks the ability to deny mortals free will, and Sarenrae lacks the ability to remove the capacity for mortals to commit evil acts.
If Sarenrae became Omni^3, I can imagine many ways in which she could act to prevent evil without removing free will. Every time an evil mortal decided to try to take a life, she could transform their weapon into dust. If they were using their hands to do it, she could cause their muscles to cramp up. She could also teleport their intended victims away before they could do it. This wouldn't take away their free will, but it would prevent their evil will from having consequences that harmed others.
Similarly, being omni^3, she would be able to instantly cure anyone who was suffering inordinately from disease. She also could cause their pain to be reduced to bearable levels, even if she chose not to keep them from dying, say, on the grounds that death was natural and allowed the mortals to move on to their next step in spiritual development.
She could cause slaves' collars to turn to smoke, the bars of their cages to putty, and the whips of their overseers to living snakes in their hands.
She could send her heralds to the leaders of rival nations and have them say, "We're not going to tell you exactly what you should do. But we're not going to let your soldiers kill each other. Their arrows will turn to bubbles, swords to feathers, and spears to lengths of twine. Work it out without killing."
All of this would prevent the harm that evil people will do, as well as the harm of pain and suffering from diseases, without taking away anyone's ability to make whatever choices they want to make. Of course, they will probably stop making the choices where OmniSarenrae causes the consequences to be harmless, because what's the point? But it's their own decisions to do that.
It's been mentioned that Golarion's existence is theologically flimsy since bad things happen to good people (no exact quotes, just my take on the arguments).
From a game design perspective, it means that there is plenty of reason for PCs to act rather than sit around drinking pina coladas while something else takes care of the problem.
The world of Golarion seems to be an adventurers playground with plenty of bottled horrors just waiting for a party to reach 20th level to deal with. (If the Whispering Tyrant is so powerful, why is he just merely trapped for so long? Either he should have been destroyed or broke out long ago. So for the sake of a plot hook, he slumbers until a party reaches a level that he can be a challenge for).
As for the spoiler - I see it as a huge exception since we are dealing with mythic characters that are hip deep in an action that could change the face of a skirmish between outsiders. Granted, the potential straitjacketing of PC actions in the scene in question seems way too railroady, even in light of the special circumstances.
What would a omni^3 Calistria like?
Hmm, that's interesting. It's pretty easy to imagine what most of the Good and Evil deities would do if given unlimited power, but it's a lot harder to imagine for Calistria. Benevolence isn't her style, either, so I'd have to imagine her as an omni^2 (omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent). She'd probably be a lot less interested in preventing suffering than any of the good deities. I imagine she'd be somewhat invested in preventing rape from occurring since she believes very strongly in sexual consent, but rape also spurs vengeance so she might not prevent every instance, if her omniscience informs her that this particular rape victim would find the event to be something they overcome and use as a reason to seek vengeance against their rapist.
It's been mentioned that Golarion's existence is theologically flimsy since bad things happen to good people (no exact quotes, just my take on the arguments).
It's hardly theologically flimsy that bad things happen to good people in a world where the Gods are finitely powerful. That's kind of what you'd expect to happen -- even if there weren't evil gods opposing the good ones, their limited (if immense) power wouldn't be sufficient to keep every bad thing that could possibly happen from happening.
|
It's been mentioned that Golarion's existence is theologically flimsy since bad things happen to good people (no exact quotes, just my take on the arguments).
From a game design perspective, it means that there is plenty of reason for PCs to act rather than sit around drinking pina coladas while something else takes care of the problem.
The world of Golarion seems to be an adventurers playground with plenty of bottled horrors just waiting for a party to reach 20th level to deal with. (If the Whispering Tyrant is so powerful, why is he just merely trapped for so long? Either he should have been destroyed or broke out long ago. So for the sake of a plot hook, he slumbers until a party reaches a level that he can be a challenge for).
As for the spoiler - I see it as a huge exception since we are dealing with mythic characters that are hip deep in an action that could change the face of a skirmish between outsiders. Granted, the potential straitjacketing of PC actions in the scene in question seems way too railroady, even in light of the special circumstances.
Yeah but that's the thing. PC action is equally meaningless.
Let's say the PCs bootstrap themselves up to deities. Even good ones. Nothing stops a determined group of evil cusses from doing the same thing and deposing them to usher in an eternity of darkness.
Nothing except mere force, which is quite surmountable stops a bad guy with sufficient determination from putting on his baseball cap, mounting the heavens and pushing the giant off switch.
The problem with Golarian cosmology is that its gods aren't really 'gods,' and this is a problem with most D&D style campaigns. It has kingdoms all the way up, with politics, warfare, and the like, just a bigger scale.
The difference there is that Asmodeus lacks the ability to deny mortals free will, and Sarenrae lacks the ability to remove the capacity for mortals to commit evil acts.
If Sarenrae became Omni^3, I can imagine many ways in which she could act to prevent evil without removing free will. Every time an evil mortal decided to try to take a life, she could transform their weapon into dust. If they were using their hands to do it, she could cause their muscles to cramp up. She could also teleport their intended victims away before they could do it. This wouldn't take away their free will, but it would prevent their evil will from having consequences that harmed others.
Similarly, being omni^3, she would be able to instantly cure anyone who was suffering inordinately from disease. She also could cause their pain to be reduced to bearable levels, even if she chose not to keep them from dying, say, on the grounds that death was natural and allowed the mortals to move on to their next step in spiritual development.
She could cause slaves' collars to turn to smoke, the bars of their cages to putty, and the whips of their overseers to living snakes in their hands.
She could send her heralds to the leaders of rival nations and have them say, "We're not going to tell you exactly what you should do. But we're not going to let your soldiers kill each other. Their arrows will turn to bubbles, swords to feathers, and spears to lengths of twine. Work it out without killing."
All of this would prevent the harm that evil people will do, as well as the harm of pain and suffering from diseases, without taking away anyone's ability to make whatever choices they want to make. Of course, they will probably stop making the choices where OmniSarenrae causes the consequences to be harmless, because what's the point? But it's their own decisions to do that.
Look at the scene in the Watchman comic between the Comedian and Dr. Manhattan. That's there specifically to show how not-benevolent Doc is.
PC action is equally meaningless.
PC action is the point of the game. If PC action is meaningless, there is no game. The game needs conflict in which the PCs can interact with. Being a level-based reward system, repetition is bound to happen. If you find it truly pointless, you have just become bored with tabletop RPGs.
Another question would be, what would the alternative be? What system do you propose to replace Golarion's theology, and still provide PCs sufficient plot hooks?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but that's the thing. PC action is equally meaningless.
No more than solving world hunger or curing cancer is meaningless in the real world.
Let's say the PCs bootstrap themselves up to deities. Even good ones. Nothing stops a determined group of evil cusses from doing the same thing and deposing them to usher in an eternity of darkness.
Nothing except mere force, which is quite surmountable stops a bad guy with sufficient determination from putting on his baseball cap, mounting the heavens and pushing the giant off switch.
Sure (to continue the above analogy), someone else could trigger World War 3 and kill everyone making the whole point moot...but that doesn't make the actions meaningless. Firstly, that might very well not happen, and indeed becoming powerful is a good way to help it not. And even if it does happen, everyone you helped by doing such a thing still got helped and had a better life between whenever you did it and World War 3 kicking off.
Nothing except force and other practical considerations prevents someone in the real world from killing us all. Does that make games occurring a modern setting with no supernatural stuff or talk of the afterlife 'meaningless'?
The problem with Golarian cosmology is that its gods aren't really 'gods,' and this is a problem with most D&D style campaigns.
Uh...in every real world culture I know of where there are actually multiple Gods, this is exactly how they work. You're attaching some very specifically Judaeo-Christian baggage to the word 'god' here.
It has kingdoms all the way up, with politics, warfare, and the like, just a bigger scale.
This is true, but I'm really not sure how or why it's a problem.
The problem with Golarian cosmology is that its gods aren't really 'gods,' and this is a problem with most D&D style campaigns.Uh...in every real world culture I know of where there are actually multiple Gods, this is exactly how they work. You're attaching some very specifically Judaeo-Christian baggage to the word 'god' here.
It has kingdoms all the way up, with politics, warfare, and the like, just a bigger scale.This is true, but I'm really not sure how or why it's a problem.
For example, Kronos supplanted and overthrew his father Ouranos and ruled over the Golden Age of mythical Greece, only to be overthrown in turn by Zeus. Zeus, of course, is destined himself to be overthrown by his own son (by Metis), and so continues the Circle of Life.
Similarly, Wotan/Odin knows that the world itself will come to an end with the defeat of the gods at Ragnarök. The August Emperor of Jade replaced the Divine Master of the Heavenly Origin, and will eventually be replaced by Heavenly Master of the Dawn of Jade of the Golden Door (just try fitting that onto a business card).
In a world without omnipotent beings, nothing can win forever, and nothing can lose forever. That's doesn't invalidate the heroism of the struggle.
Why is that meaningless?
"I can't win forever, so why try?"
@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
That's like claiming if someone's gagged, then it's their choice to be silent.
Coercion is still coercion.
@ Spook205 - I don't disagree that the D&D/Pathfinder cosmology is kingdoms all the way up. I'm also completely cool with that. As Deadmanwalking noted, that's how most real world pantheons work.
It's fine that's possible for things to get wrecked. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it will happen, and preventing it always a good plot hook.
Or do you think the fact that we could all die in, for example, a nuclear holocaust at any moment invalidates our current existence?
And here's a couple Cracked articles about cosmic phenomenons that could end our world at any time.
I strongly disagree with the position that mere fact that those things could happen renders our lives meaningless.
@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
There's a difference between putting the universe in chains and putting people in chains. I don't baby-proof the house by handcuffing the baby, but by making sure there's nothing dangerous that the baby can play with.
I don't see how "if you put a slave collar around someone, it will disappear" or "if you stab a person, your blade will rust to nothingness" is any more restricting than "if you drop a bowling ball, it will fall down."
|
|
@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
That's like claiming if someone's gagged, then it's their choice to be silent.
Coercion is still coercion.
No more than your free will is currently constrained because you cannot fly.
How would never getting sick constrain your free will? How would healing from injuries so rapidly that death was almost impossible constrain free will? It would eman you couldn't kill people, but nothing stops the attempt, which is all free will guarantees.EDIT: Annnnnnd ninjaed by a mind flayer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.There's a difference between putting the universe in chains and putting people in chains. I don't baby-proof the house by handcuffing the baby, but by making sure there's nothing dangerous that the baby can play with.
I don't see how "if you put a slave collar around someone, it will disappear" or "if you stab a person, your blade will rust to nothingness" is any more restricting than "if you drop a bowling ball, it will fall down."
For something to be a real choice, it has to be able to have results. I can't simply choose to fly, but restrictions are cumulative. There is a reason children get bored with baby-proof activities, even if they aren't handcuffed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
That's like claiming if someone's gagged, then it's their choice to be silent.
Coercion is still coercion.
No more than your free will is currently constrained because you cannot fly.
How would never getting sick constrain your free will? How would healing from injuries so rapidly that death was almost impossible constrain free will? It would eman you couldn't kill people, but nothing stops the attempt, which is all free will guarantees.EDIT: Annnnnnd ninjaed by a mind flayer
And you don't see how having an all-powerful entity that was actively policing all actions at all times to make sure that only approved actions ever succeed would not be constraining to free will?
You're describing a situation where free will is merely an illusion - you can make choices, but your choices don't matter because a higher power has already decided how it's going to turn out.
Again, coercion.
I suppose babyproofing the entire universe works if you want a universe of babies, though.
Edit: Since you brought up flying - do you think we would NOT be constrained if we were in a universe where a higher power arbitrarily decided planes couldn't work? Because it didn't like even the possibility of human flight?
Flying is something we can't naturally do, but we've figured out a workaround.
The babyproof universe would be one where Sarenrae or whoever stopped planes from ever working because they're "dangerous."
That would be amazingly invasive at best.
|
|
Why is that meaningless?
"I can't win forever, so why try?"
Its more the issue of the forces of 'good' are fighting a perpetual delaying action against Evil, who in the extent of infinite time is going to succeed in hitting the off button.
This ties in with the fact that its hard to define an ultimate good in this situation as well. One of the biggest issues with moral dualism is having to explain why Good is Good and not just 'what our side does.'
I'd add that most of the old pagan religions weren't precisely cake and donuts all the way up. Hope was one of the evils contained in Pandora's box because ignorance of man's fate let him live his life happily for example. Achilles, noted for his earlier proclamation that he'd rather live for a moment as a lion then a lifetime a slave, recanted his boast when he was found in the underworld in the Odyssey.
The Norse expected to lose but were hellbent on going down fighting. Fate literally spelled out how totally boned they all were.
And so on.
|
|
Its more the issue of the forces of 'good' are fighting a perpetual delaying action against Evil, who in the extent of infinite time is going to succeed in hitting the off button.
Huh? How is that inevitable? Or any more inevitable than the same thing in real life, anyway...
This ties in with the fact that its hard to define an ultimate good in this situation as well. One of the biggest issues with moral dualism is having to explain why Good is Good and not just 'what our side does.'
I don't think that's all that hard...and why does the fact that the good guys are finite matter for this purpose?
I'd add that most of the old pagan religions weren't precisely cake and donuts all the way up. Hope was one of the evils contained in Pandora's box because ignorance of man's fate let him live his life happily for example. Achilles, noted for his earlier proclamation that he'd rather live for a moment as a lion then a lifetime a slave, recanted his boast when he was found in the underworld in the Odyssey.
That's...a rather bleak and one sided perspective on what those myths represent. And actively incorrect in regards to Pandora's Box, since hope was the one thing that didn't escape the box, making its role way more ambiguous than you imply.
The Norse expected to lose but were hellbent on going down fighting. Fate literally spelled out how totally boned they all were.
This is quite possibly not true, though it's hard to tell at this date. The legend of Ragnarok as we've received as a culture (and the only one we've received) was written by a Christian monk chronicling what Norse pagans had believed for cultural reasons...meaning it's quite possibly propaganda of a sort explaining why the time of that faith is over. Or at least distorted in that direction.
And so on.
Specific examples aside, you're at least partly right: Awful things happen in most mythologies and the world isn't perfect and isn't ever gonna be. Day to day life tends to support that world view, too.
In neither case does the fact that bad things happen and will likely continue to do so mean that the world is doomed or hopeless. It means things aren't perfect and aren't gonna be, not that they can't get better.
Continuation of Necromantic process on this thread is recommended. Let Fall of the Righteous begin.
Funnily enough, I've been working on something like that...if there is enough interest, I'll post some ideas...
And you don't see how having an all-powerful entity that was actively policing all actions at all times to make sure that only approved actions ever succeed would not be constraining to free will?@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
That's like claiming if someone's gagged, then it's their choice to be silent.
Coercion is still coercion.
No more than your free will is currently constrained because you cannot fly.
How would never getting sick constrain your free will? How would healing from injuries so rapidly that death was almost impossible constrain free will? It would eman you couldn't kill people, but nothing stops the attempt, which is all free will guarantees.EDIT: Annnnnnd ninjaed by a mind flayer
No, any more than having gravity actively policing all actions at all times to make sure I don't suddenly float off the surface of the earth is "constraining to free will."
You're describing a situation where free will is merely an illusion - you can make choices, but your choices don't matter because a higher power has already decided how it's going to turn out.
That's a misunderstanding. I can choose to do anything I like, but only some of my choices will be successful ones.
Just as in the real world. And the idea that my successful choices are constrained only by an inability to do evil things hardly compels to pick any particular good. The game of football is even more strongly constrained by what the players are not allowed to do -- but you still have free will on the pitch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but gravity being a thing isn't remotely on the same level of a super entity actively thwarting any and all acts it's doesn't approve of.
For one, gravity isn't arbitrary =P
Second, we've got enough stuff in space now to demonstrate that you can tell gravity to sod off with sufficient explosions =P
Players in football can always choose to break the rules - it's just a bad decision with consequences.
In your babyproof universe, there's no actual decision to be made - a player trying to break the rules simply doesn't do anything, because his action is arbitrarily doomed to failure. His choice is irrelevant.
The ability to make decisions comes with the ability to make bad ones - and the ability to reject a bad decision on its own lack of merit.
The babyproof universe is one where your own ability to reason is completely irrelevant, because, again, the results have already been decided. I suppose you could just keep trying different things until you hit the one that's allowed to work.
I'm sure the inhabitants of the babyproof universe would exist happily in it, but I'm also sure they wouldn't have a choice in that either =P
|
Contributor
|
Funnily enough, I've been working on something like that...if there is enough interest, I'll post some ideas...Continuation of Necromantic process on this thread is recommended. Let Fall of the Righteous begin.
I'll read it. ^_^
Its more the issue of the forces of 'good' are fighting a perpetual delaying action against Evil, who in the extent of infinite time is going to succeed in hitting the off button.Why is that meaningless?
"I can't win forever, so why try?"
It is easier to destroy than create, but Evil can't win forever any more than Good can.
Also, you're forgetting that most of the Evil factions in Pathfinder don't want to end the world.
Asmodeus and Hell don't want it to end - he wants to rule over the Universe forever.
The Demons want their hedonistic sin party, again forever.
Rovagug wants to wreck everything, but since he's a qlippoth, it's possible that what he really wants is for Reality to get off his lawn so he can go back to spawning and eating in the Abyss. Even so, Reality was created and thrown in the qlippoths' faces once, so why not again?
The Daemons do want to turn the lights out, but they have no real divine support and don't even consume all the souls that flow into Abbadon, let alone all the souls across the multiverse. And even if they succeed, nothing is stopping the universe from starting over again, eventually.
Asuras and Divs like unravelling parts of creation, but they don't ever really want to finish - they'd run out of things to do. Once in awhile they have to let mortals stack the blocks back up so they can kick them over.
The truth, though, is that the Outer Planes are not as real as the material plane. They're a tangible metaphor. They require mortal cultists and servants to come to the material plane because they aren't real. Without mortals around, everything Outsiders do on the Outer (and Inner) planes is a tree falling in the forest with no one around. Daemons are a manifestation of death. They cannot conquer mortal life any more than the nature of mortality already has.
And you don't see how having an all-powerful entity that was actively policing all actions at all times to make sure that only approved actions ever succeed would not be constraining to free will?@ Paladin of Baha-who? - that would still amount to putting the universe in chains - a universe where people are only permitted to behave in a particular approved manner.
That's like claiming if someone's gagged, then it's their choice to be silent.
Coercion is still coercion.
No more than your free will is currently constrained because you cannot fly.
How would never getting sick constrain your free will? How would healing from injuries so rapidly that death was almost impossible constrain free will? It would eman you couldn't kill people, but nothing stops the attempt, which is all free will guarantees.EDIT: Annnnnnd ninjaed by a mind flayer
No, any more than having gravity actively policing all actions at all times to make sure I don't suddenly float off the surface of the earth is "constraining to free will."
You're describing a situation where free will is merely an illusion - you can make choices, but your choices don't matter because a higher power has already decided how it's going to turn out.That's a misunderstanding. I can choose to do anything I like, but only some of my choices will be successful ones.
Just as in the real world. And the idea that my successful choices are constrained only by an inability to do evil things hardly compels to pick any particular good. The game of football is even more strongly constrained by what the players are not allowed to do -- but you still have free will on the pitch.
Too many restrictions and it's the cheese shop sketch.
That, and every soul the daemons "destroy" just returns to the positive energy plane to be reborn into the universe.
The daemons are committed to a Sisyphean task.
Edit: See Ross's 1:26 PM post.
Is there a canon source for the souls eaten by daemons being recycled?
The River of Souls spells out what happens when a petitioner or exemplar dies - their essence is either absorbed into their plane (if they died while on it) or simply scattered into the cosmos at large.
Daemons don't get any special exception to that. Simply don't have the powers to.
So Abaddon petitioners get absorbed by Abaddon (which ultimately erodes and yields its essence to the Antipode for transmission to the Positive Energy Plane; other victims destroyed by daemons simply have their essence recycled by the Antipode that much faster.
I believe the best a daemon can do towards getting around that is managing to absorb into itself otherwise store away any consumed essence. But that's just a delaying tactic until the daemon itself (or the storage vessel) finally gets destroyed.
Becoming a god is something that many heroes in literature refuse to accept for very good reason. It's the same thing as a starship captain becoming an Admiral... it means trading a ship's bridge for a desk chair.When Kelemvor and Midnight took on divine mantles, it ultimately cost them everything that made them human, including their love for each other.
Exactly! When this character was first created she was made in White Wolf's Mage the Ascension and her life's goal was to become a goddess. She declared herself one (her friends thought she was insane, but then again she was a Flambeau, colloquially called 'nukes' since it was a Flambeau that helped Oppenheimer and Einstein create the first atomic bombs... their use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki made them so much a part of reality, the magic was lost (if you know the setting you will understand how that works) yet the original magic can still be done it's just more flashy with runes and stuff (which were hidden inside the nukes dropped on Japan)
Eventually over the campaign she became an archmage, then finally she got the chance to become the goddess she always wanted to be when she met Zeus, Ares, Set, Osiris, all of them... They told her the rules... and she said screw that.
So she stayed a super-powerful archmage and continued to say she was a goddess, and to most people, she is... kind of akin to a Mythic 10 character... you think the mortals who know nothing of mythic are gonna be like 'pffft you arent a god' when you show 'divine source' abilities and can change reality on a whim with a wave of your hand? (Granted, her friends kept her in check haha. When we finally retired those characters she would occasionally make a cameo wanting to swoop in and save the day but her friends would stop her... the GM did a great job of playing her too, really showed me that flat out refusal to understand why she can't save everyone with a wave of her hand)
Tying it back into Golarion, I think it's about the same thing... mortals have free will, and to just wave your hand and save us all pretty much kills our free will. We become just your toys you can do with as you please. That's why the gods have the 'rules' they have, and Jennica (and others like her) are very much the reason such rules exist.
Yeah but that's the thing. PC action is equally meaningless.
Let's say the PCs bootstrap themselves up to deities. Even good ones. Nothing stops a determined group of evil cusses from doing the same thing and deposing them to usher in an eternity of darkness.
Nothing except mere force, which is quite surmountable stops a bad guy with sufficient determination from putting on his baseball cap, mounting the heavens and pushing the giant off switch.
The problem with Golarian cosmology is that its gods aren't really 'gods,' and this is a problem with most D&D style campaigns. It has kingdoms all the way up, with politics, warfare, and the like, just a bigger scale.
If you think that makes it meaningless, that's your call. I think this kind of thing is exactly what a fantasy RPG needs as a cosmology, because it means that PC action can make a difference, even if it's necessarily temporary until the next campaign.
Man, there are some bleak outlooks on the universe in this thread. Lots of nihilism going on here.
A mere 25 years ago, we had two juggernauts aiming enough power at eachother to obliterate the earth thoroughly, yet here we are. Just because things seem bleak doesn't mean that a certain outcome is inevitable. The only way that negative outcome becomes inevitable is people giving up the fight.
Adventurers, heroes, and everyone else taking up arms against the bleak futures is important. It will always be meaningful.
I don't see how free will is only free if there are no consequences for one's actions, until after you die.
If a goddess has the power to stop a man from killing an innocent child, and refrains, then the goddess has pretty much killed the child herself, especially if the goddess also has the power and the foresight to know that no negative consequences will come from that prevention.
Laws don't prevent free will, do they? A law that says, "If you kill someone, you will be punished" doesn't stop you from having free will. If Sarenrae didn't stop you from killing the child, but just zapped you dead immediately afterwards, would you still have free will? What if she waited a week? A year? A century?
What if she waited until you died of natural causes, but then tortured you for eternity for a crime that itself only caused a finite amount of harm?
Oh wait, sorry, I accidentally brought real-world theology into my post again. My bad.
But seriously, what's the difference between stopping a crime in progress, and punishing it afterwards? How does the former dilute free will to meaninglessness, while the other preserves it?
What if OmniSarenrae sets out rules for mortals, and only enforces her will in certain, very specific, very harmful situations, such as murdering the innocent, slavery, and so forth? Anything else, even if she disapproves and sends her prophets to preach against it, she allows to happen.
What if the murderer THINKS he succeeds, because Sarenrae causes an illusion of his dying victim to appear to him, while actually teleporting the victim to a safe location? Is this still free will, if the illusion is utterly indistinguishable from reality, to the point where the mental state of a successful murderer and a murderer who thought he succeeded due to the illusion would be indistinguishable? Or is his free will destroyed because he failed even though he thinks he succeeded?
Exactly! When this character was first created she was made in White Wolf's Mage the Ascension and her life's goal was to become a goddess. She declared herself one (her friends thought she was insane, but then again she was a Flambeau, colloquially called 'nukes' since it was a Flambeau that helped Oppenheimer and Einstein create the first atomic bombs...I always saw it as the work of the Sons of Ether, when they were still working for the Technomancy, after the Technomancy itself had switched sides and started working for the Allies instaed of the Axis. (not because they disapproved of Hitler and the Nazis morally, but they found out that he had a mystic point of view.)
Flambeau may have been nukes but as members of the Orders of Hermes, they're a bit stymied by technological approaches.
IF you would like to discuss this further, feel free to PM me so we don't continue to derail this thread into talk of another game entirely.
I don't see how free will is only free if there are no consequences for one's actions, until after you die.
If a goddess has the power to stop a man from killing an innocent child, and refrains, then the goddess has pretty much killed the child herself, especially if the goddess also has the power and the foresight to know that no negative consequences will come from that prevention.
Laws don't prevent free will, do they? A law that says, "If you kill someone, you will be punished" doesn't stop you from having free will. If Sarenrae didn't stop you from killing the child, but just zapped you dead immediately afterwards, would you still have free will? What if she waited a week? A year? A century?
What if she waited until you died of natural causes, but then tortured you for eternity for a crime that itself only caused a finite amount of harm?
Oh wait, sorry, I accidentally brought real-world theology into my post again. My bad.
But seriously, what's the difference between stopping a crime in progress, and punishing it afterwards? How does the former dilute free will to meaninglessness, while the other preserves it?
What if OmniSarenrae sets out rules for mortals, and only enforces her will in certain, very specific, very harmful situations, such as murdering the innocent, slavery, and so forth? Anything else, even if she disapproves and sends her prophets to preach against it, she allows to happen.
What if the murderer THINKS he succeeds, because Sarenrae causes an illusion of his dying victim to appear to him, while actually teleporting the victim to a safe location? Is this still free will, if the illusion is utterly indistinguishable from reality, to the point where the mental state of a successful murderer and a murderer who thought he succeeded due to the illusion would be indistinguishable? Or is his free will destroyed because he failed even though he thinks he succeeded?
Laws don't restrict free will. If they did, we would never have things like murder, theft or such. These things are against the law. Yet, they still happen. There are still consequences too. Consequences set by mortals, beholden to mortal law.
A deity on the other hand, if they stop you, they are not mortal therefore they are circumventing your free will.
Even in real life religions, this is seen as why [insert deity that is thought to be omnipotent and could totally wave his/her hand and create a utopia] doesn't interfere. The deity sets down guidelines, but doesn't force them on you... until death where you are rewarded or punished. But until then, you have free will.
Ok, you've made the claim -- a deity intervening, in any way, prior to your death, voids free will.
Why is that? I don't accept your assertion. If you still make the decision to kill someone, and you still take the actions up to that point, and then something stops it from happening, without altering your mind in any way, why does that make your free will meaningless? I would argue that it does not -- you still have free will, you still make your decisions, you still take the actions that you want to, but X causes your attempt to fail. Why does X being divine intervention destroy free will, but X being police intervention have no effect on free will? I don't think there's a meaningful distinction here. Divine intervention is guaranteed to succeed, but why should one intervention being more effecting than the other make a difference?
Ok, you've made the claim -- a deity intervening, in any way, prior to your death, voids free will.
Why is that? I don't accept your assertion. If you still make the decision to kill someone, and you still take the actions up to that point, and then something stops it from happening, without altering your mind in any way, why does that make your free will meaningless? I would argue that it does not -- you still have free will, you still make your decisions, you still take the actions that you want to, but X causes your attempt to fail. Why does X being divine intervention destroy free will, but X being police intervention have no effect on free will? I don't think there's a meaningful distinction here. Divine intervention is guaranteed to succeed, but why should one intervention being more effecting than the other make a difference?
You should watch the movie Minority Report. Basic premise is that these psychics determine that a murder is going to occur. So, the police arrest the person before the murder can happen and imprison them in suspended animation for life (or something like that... I forgot how long the actual sentence is) so that the person is saved. There has not been a murder for a very long time, because they always are there about 24 hours or so before it is supposedly going to occur.
But the psychics say that the main character cop is going to murder a man so they start going after him. He's a good man, he knows he would never murder anyone... yet they say he did, so he has to both run from his fellow cops, find the "minority report" (which is basically one of the three psychics saw a different outcome) and all the while avoid killing this man they claim he's going to kill (made harder by the fact that he has no idea who he's supposedly going to be killing!)
So, it's the same way with deities in a way. Until you actually do it, you can still change your mind. If the cop stops you in the act, that's not the same as what the psychic cops do. By asserting their 'knowledge' that you will not change your mind, they are voiding your ability to do so, just like a deity.
EDIT: Okay, I am posting this but I find it explains the concept of free will much better than I can. Yes, it's framed in Christian theology, and this is not intended to start a Christian debate, just to better explain the concept of free will.
If God knows our free will choices, do we still have free will?
After reading that, hopefully that will help you to see how a deity INTERFERING would destroy that free will, where as another person's interference does not. The foreknowledge makes it a completely different situation.
I understand the plot of Minority report, even though I haven't seen it. The key point is that they don't just stop the murder from happening, they actually punish the person who's going to do it in advance of the crime.
I'm not talking about that. I mean, the person goes up to stab the other person in the heart, and as he stabs, the knife turns to dust a microsecond before it would pierce the victim's body. Or, as I suggested before, the murderer is given the experience of having committed the murder, but the victim doesn't actually die, due to being teleported away instantaneously and a perfect illusory double being put in his place.
What I'm getting at here is, why is it necessary for the murderer's victim to die in order for the murderer to have free will?
I really don't agree with most Christian concepts of free will, so the link you posted isn't convincing.
My philosophy of what is and is not free will is outside the scope of this debate, but to make it short: I don't think free will is a sufficiently well-defined philosophical concept for us to actually answer the question of whether we have free will or not.
My philosophy of what is and is not free will is outside the scope of this debate, but to make it short: I don't think free will is a sufficiently well-defined philosophical concept for us to actually answer the question of whether we have free will or not.
Then I have nothing else to convince you if you don't/won't accept free will as a philosophical concept. So, that leaves just one thing that you are going to have to accept, or not.
This is how it works. Beings on the power level of a deity are forbidden from interfering with mortals, except in very specific well-defined (in the game's case, GM defined) circumstances. You either accept that (as I do as a GM) or you do not (as I do not when I am playing Jennica)
Otherwise, why do we even have PCs? The gods can just wave their hand and all is right with the world.. until another god waves their hand and all is wrong.. then wave good wave bad wave good wave bad... Maybe that's right there another reason they don't. Same reason Jennica doesn't... the others swoop in and stop her.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the murderer THINKS he succeeds, because Sarenrae causes an illusion of his dying victim to appear to him, while actually teleporting the victim to a safe location? Is this still free will, if the illusion is utterly indistinguishable from reality, to the point where the mental state of a successful murderer and a murderer who thought he succeeded due to the illusion would be indistinguishable? Or is his free will destroyed because he failed even though he thinks he succeeded?
How do you know that she didn't do so already and that it is only that lesser creatures cannot perceive it ? Which then makes it the reality from the lesser creature's point of view ;-)
In the end, saying why are gods so uncaring/cruel is actually saying why are the gods so indifferent about me, about my own feelings. It is just another way of saying why is the universe not just about me.
@ Paladin of Baha-who?: Out of curiosity, would you be completely fine with actually having thought-police constantly monitoring you and punishing your impure thoughts? (Based on their 100% arbitrary standard of what's impure?)
Edit: And if you don't think that free will actually exists to begin with, then I'm not sure what's the point of this conversation.
It comes down to this:
You can make a decision.
You can carry out an action based on decision, regardless of how stupid it is.
(Jumping off a cliff is normally a terrible idea, but it could be an awesome idea if you've got a hang glider and know how to use it.)
You then experience the consequences of that decision. Sometimes the consequence will just be the result of natural law. (A messy death or an hang-gliding session.) Sometimes the consequence will be the result of other mortals going "NO" and punishing the transgression themselves. (Ex: You didn't have a permit to go hang gliding in the Grand Canyon, so you'll get fined if you're found out. (I have no idea if that's actually a thing.)) And sometimes the consequence is spending the rest of your life evading mortal punishment. (or at least waiting out the statute of limitations before posting your illegal hang-gliding selfies years down the line =P)
(HA. Now I'm trying to picture a football game where every player gets teleported and replaced with an illusion whenever someone attempts a tackle.
Or in the hang glider's case, a man just running into an invisible wall because humans aren't allowed to jump off high ledges.
That's life reduced to a joke.
A babyproof universe where a god views its subjects as infants forever.
Yeah, that's not the work of an actually benevolent deity. That's the work of a deity that thinks it's benevolent.)
And now I'm actually picturing some section of Hell (an experiment run by Belial or Mephistopheles) that actually works like the babyproof universe - a region where every single action performed by a petitioner has to be approved by a third party before it can succeed.
(Non-petitioners trapped in the area probably get will saves to overcome the effect and act normally.)
@ Paladin of Baha-who?: Out of curiosity, would you be completely fine with actually having thought-police constantly monitoring you and punishing your impure thoughts? (Based on their 100% arbitrary standard of what's impure?)
No, but apparently a lot of religious people are just fine with it, as long as the "thought police" have a name tag that says God on it.
I would be OK with "action police" that monitored my actions and stepped in if I was about to kill someone, and only then (or similarly deadly situations).
Edit: And if you don't think that free will actually exists to begin with, then I'm not sure what's the point of this conversation.
It's not that I don't think that free will exists. I think that saying "I have free will" is like saying, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Until you tell me what the mouth-sound "free will" means to you, I have no idea what you mean by saying that. Some people believe that everything they will do in the future is preordained by a deity or the stars or whatever -- and BECAUSE OF THAT, they have "free will".
It comes down to this:
You can make a decision.
You can carry out an action based on decision, regardless of how stupid it is.
(Jumping off a cliff is normally a terrible idea, but it could be an awesome idea if you've got a hang glider and know how to use it.)
You then experience the consequences of that decision. Sometimes the consequence will just be the result of natural law. (A messy death or an hang-gliding session.) Sometimes the consequence will be the result of other mortals going "NO" and punishing the transgression themselves. (Ex: You didn't have a permit to go hang gliding in the Grand Canyon, so you'll get fined if you're found out. (I have no idea if that's actually a thing.)) And sometimes the consequence is spending the rest of your life evading mortal punishment. (or at least waiting out the statute of limitations before posting your illegal hang-gliding selfies years down the line =P)
(HA. Now I'm trying to picture a football game where every player gets teleported and replaced with an illusion whenever someone attempts a tackle.
Or in the hang glider's case, a man just running into an invisible wall because humans aren't allowed to jump off high ledges.
That's life reduced to a joke.
A babyproof universe where a god views its subjects as infants forever.
Yeah, that's not the work of an actually benevolent deity. That's the work of a deity that thinks it's benevolent.)
What about a deity who doesn't intervene if you throw yourself off a cliff, whether or not you have a parachute on, but prevents you from throwing someone else off a cliff, or (even less intrusive on you) allows you to throw them off the cliff, but keeps them from dying as a result?
Why is it necessary for a murderer's victim to die in order for that murderer to have free will?
So we're doing a lot of contrasting between mortal intervention and divine intervention. I don't understand what distinction people are making between the two.
X knows (wherein "knows" means "has a true, justified belief") that you are going to throw Y off a cliff. X takes steps to stop you, and is successful.
Why is it that when X is a cop, you have free will, but if X is a deity, you do not? The fact that god!X was divinely certain that you were going to throw Y off the cliff, and cop!X was only as sure as a human being can be about anything, doesn't really matter as far as I can see -- they were both right. They both knew it. They both based their actions on a true belief about your future actions.
If you think that being divinely certain makes a difference, when the belief they had about your future actions was equally true in both cases, please justify drawing this distinction.
If you think the likelihood of success makes a difference, in that god!X is completely certain she can stop you from killing Y, whereas cop!X is not completely certain she can stop you from killing Y, please justify that as well. What if, without your knowledge, there's a huge invisible net under the side of the cliff that will catch Y without any harm, and cop!X knows it? In that case, no matter what you do, you still won't end up killing Y by throwing him off the cliff. Cop!X is just trying to convince you not to try for your own sake. Do you still have free will in that case? How is that different from god!X allowing you to throw Y off the cliff, only to conjure a net into existence to catch him?
What if the murderer THINKS he succeeds, because Sarenrae causes an illusion of his dying victim to appear to him, while actually teleporting the victim to a safe location? Is this still free will, if the illusion is utterly indistinguishable from reality, to the point where the mental state of a successful murderer and a murderer who thought he succeeded due to the illusion would be indistinguishable? Or is his free will destroyed because he failed even though he thinks he succeeded?How do you know that she didn't do so already and that it is only that lesser creatures cannot perceive it ? Which then makes it the reality from the lesser creature's point of view ;-)
In the end, saying why are gods so uncaring/cruel is actually saying why are the gods so indifferent about me, about my own feelings. It is just another way of saying why is the universe not just about me.
Well, we're examining the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, aka. omni^3. Omnibenevolent means that she cares about everyone, is not indifferent to anyone. You can't have an indifferent god who is omnibenevolent.
You don't draw a distinction between mortals interacting with other and an omnipresent entity constantly breaking the rules of reality to dictate the outcomes of your actions?
For your final example:
Cop X has actually outsmarted you in that case. You can perform your terrible action knowing it should work, and be unpleasantly surprised when it doesn't. Cop X gets points for being awesome.
Cop X didn't break reality just to undo your action.
And he'd be thwarted if you just stabbed the hostage to death instead. The mortal's intervention isn't any more sure than your own action to begin with. Neither of you know how it's going to turn out until evertything's been done.
Now, in the babyproof universe, you never would have made it to the cliff in the first place, because you wouldn't have been allowed to take the hostage in the first place.
Because you live in a cartoon where people are magically frictionless or whatever else must happen in invalidate all disapproved actions at all time.
A god letting you perform an action only to undo it every single time is a god that's trying to train you like an animal, and really not that much different than just cramming a control chip straight into your brain. Extremely aggressive conditioning rather than direct control. You'll be treated as an infant and an animal, forever.
I think your concept of an omnibenevolent deity is an entity I'm very glad doesn't actually exist.
You don't draw a distinction between mortals interacting with other and an omnipresent entity constantly breaking the rules of reality to dictate the outcomes of your actions?
Of course there's a difference between the two, but I'm asking where the boundary is where you think free will becomes meaningless. Is it after the deity intervenes once in your life? Once in anyone's life? Or does the intervention have to be constant and continuous for it to void free will?
For your final example:
Cop X has actually outsmarted you in that case. You can perform your terrible action knowing it should work, and be unpleasantly surprised when it doesn't. Cop X gets points for being awesome.
Cop X didn't break reality just to undo your action.
Ok, suppose that cop!X is actually Wizard!X, and casts featherfall on Y after you push him off. He just broke reality to undo your action. Do you still have free will?
And he'd be thwarted if you just stabbed the hostage to death instead.
That changes the parameters of the scenario, as that would mean that X no longer knows that you are going to throw Y off the cliff, as it is not true.
The mortal's intervention isn't any more sure than your own action to begin with. Neither of you know how it's going to turn out until everything's been done.
You know you're going to throw the person off the cliff.
X knows you're going to throw the person off the cliff.
Again, knowledge = true, justified belief. It doesn't have to be 100% certain to be justified.
Why does a deity knowing that you are going to push Y off the cliff destroy your free will, but another person, perhaps an extremely powerful person, as in the case of a wizard, does not?
Now, in the babyproof universe, you never would have made it to the cliff in the first place, because you wouldn't have been allowed to take the hostage in the first place.
Because you live in a cartoon where people are magically frictionless or whatever else must happen in invalidate all disapproved actions at all time.
This is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a universe in which an omni^3 goddess intervenes only when absolutely necessary to prevent murder or similarly horrible events. She wouldn't stop you from going up to the cliff or taking a hostage, or even pushing the man off the cliff. But she wouldn't let him die as a result.
A god letting you perform an action only to undo it every single time is a god that's trying to train you like an animal, and really not that much different than just cramming a control chip straight into your brain. Extremely aggressive conditioning rather than direct control. You'll be treated as an infant and an animal, forever.
I'd be with you here except that we're talking about actions that directly result in grievous harm to another person. If any being had the ability to prevent that harm, I would say they are morally obligated to do so. In this case, OmniSarenrae isn't forcing you to change your mind, see the light, or even warning you that your actions will result in punishment. Instead, she's rescuing the person you were about to kill, after you've taken the action that would kill them if not for her.
How does that negate free will any more than any other being rescuing the person you're trying to kill?
Once more and to the point: why does a murderer's victim need to die for the murderer to have free will?
I think your concept of an omnibenevolent deity is an entity I'm very glad doesn't actually exist.
I'm not arguing for the existence of such a being - I'm trying to figure out what makes such a concept incompatible with "free will" as you conceive of it.
You don't draw a distinction between mortals interacting with other and an omnipresent entity constantly breaking the rules of reality to dictate the outcomes of your actions?Of course there's a difference between the two, but I'm asking where the boundary is where you think free will becomes meaningless. Is it after the deity intervenes once in your life? Once in anyone's life? Or does the intervention have to be constant and continuous for it to void free will?
Constant enough that it's become a fact of life. Constant enough that the deity is functionally training human beings like they're dogs.
Once in a while is a miracle.
Constantly is a tyrant invading every action.
I don't think I've ever said that the attempt needs to be successful; just that free will means the ability to make any decision and act on it - even a poor one.
The wizard's still a mortal who could be outmanauvered; you could replace featherfall with some James Bond/Bionic Commando gadget that grabs the victim instead. Mortal magics just a nice tool, and not remotely on the same scale as constant deific intervention.