| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.
Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.
Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.
Good god. I didn't have the time to read all of this till now, and had to read about 200 posts.
It's discussions like this that make me happy they removed stupid alignment tags and restrictions from 5th Edition.
My (actually evil) enchanter wizard had a werewolf friend who didn't know he was a werewolf.
He once lost control on the middle of a marketplace.
I could cast Dominate on him or allow him to start killing people while I tried to control him in less definitive ways. (And as I wasn't the Scrodinger Wizard I just had prepared what I had prepared xD)
Would you say that in that case Dominate should be evil?As Rysky says, what you do with it can be evil, but that doesn't make the spell evil by itself.
Sure, just as I could summon (or direct) my undead creations to restrain and subdue said werewolf from attacking people in a market place OR protect people from harm whilst they escape by placing the undead in the Werewolf's path. And you're correct, it's in how you use said spell that should determine alignment.
|
Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.
Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.
Yep. Because Dominate entirely relies on what you do with it. Just the same as Fireball. Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Because Dominate entirely relies on what you do with it. Just the same as Fireball. Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.
Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.
Removing someone's will and imposing your own SHOULD be evil because it's 100% wrong on pretty much every moral compass known. There's no basis FOR Undead to be inherently evil, especially when they don't have a soul "trapped" inside.
not reading 5 pages, but simple answer- this is a combat game. a large amount of game play comes from fighting things.
having something be 'automatically evil' makes combat easy. you don't have to worry about whether that skeleton that is being forced to fight because his skele-sister got kidnapped. you can instantly tell 'i got to fight that'. you can instantly tell that you have to rekill it, and you can shift from roleplaying to rollplaying.
now, admittedly, pathfinder does have some steps away from this principle grandfathered from d&d. lizardfolk are described more as a race fighting human imperialism (and dealing with the goblin like problem of 'how do you deal with a race that reproduces so quickly?'). still... it tends to be easier to run a game if you can have some enemies that you can just throw in without much thought (such as fighting naturally occurring zombies that came from soldiers killed by the main threat in the immediate area).
|
|
Sure, just as I could summon (or direct) my undead creations to restrain and subdue said werewolf from attacking people in a market place OR protect people from harm whilst they escape by placing the undead in the Werewolf's path. And you're correct, it's in how you use said spell that should determine alignment.My (actually evil) enchanter wizard had a werewolf friend who didn't know he was a werewolf.
He once lost control on the middle of a marketplace.
I could cast Dominate on him or allow him to start killing people while I tried to control him in less definitive ways. (And as I wasn't the Scrodinger Wizard I just had prepared what I had prepared xD)
Would you say that in that case Dominate should be evil?As Rysky says, what you do with it can be evil, but that doesn't make the spell evil by itself.
And using Create Undead always creates an Undead (Evil), it doesn't matter what you have the Undead do after.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good god. I didn't have the time to read all of this till now, and had to read about 200 posts.
Okay, let's see what I remember:
To the jerks acting like me not posting, or even worse, what my username is, makes me a troll, grow up.
To the people saying undead are evil because they defy fate, you couldn't be more wrong. Fate is order and order is lawful. Something that defies the lawful alignment would be chaotic. Thus something that defies fate would be chaotic, not evil.
To the people saying mindless undead are evil because they actively seek out life to destroy, they are MINDLESS! They are incapable of moral alignment. And actively seeking to destroy just for the sake of destroying would be chaotic, not evil, as you are causing chaos. So they would be chaotic, not evil.
To the people saying vampires are evil, because they have the ability to consume intelligent creatures' blood, and that it acts like a drug for them, you are also wrong. Vampires are able to feed on animals just fine and never once in their life attack a person. Saying all vampires are evil because some kill for a "drug" is like saying all real world humans are evil because some will kill just to get more drugs. See how silly that is?
Probably the best argument I've seen so far is the one about how you are creating something with a destructive force, but again, that isn't evil, as you are defying the natural order of things, and as I already pointed out, that is chaotic.
To the people saying they are evil because it gives the gm's something to use that players will universally recognize as evil, that is a meta reason. I'm asking for an in universe reason, which right now, doesn't seem to exist, as all the evidence says they should be chaotic by default, not evil.
Now I'm sorry if I didn't address your post, but seriously, almost 200 posts. I just don't have the time to reply to all of those.
... that's not how Lawful and Chaotic work.
You could use your created undead for good actions, that's right. But we are not judging what is the use you are giving them later, but the act of casting the spell itself.
A mindless undead still has a soul fragment that enters the corpse to animate it. So you are denying a soul, or at least a fragment of it, to trascend by trapping it inside an animated carcass, tearing it apart of the natural cycle, against its own will. A mindless creature is not a thing. They still have instincts (they don't have Int, but they have Wis). A swarm is mindless, an ooze is mindless,vermins are mindless. So a mindless creature can still have an alignment that comes from their basic instincts rather than from conscious decisions.
A creature whose instinct is just surviving would be neutral.
A creature whose instinct is destruction would be evil.
Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.
Are things like the Void Kineticist's "Corpse Puppet" (where you temporarily animate a corpse with negative energy) Wild Talent or the Occultists "Necromantic Servant" (which "raises" a skeleton/zombie from the ground to serve you temporarily) or "Soulbound Puppet" (where you use necromancy to animate remains in order to create a homunculus to serve you for a time) Focus Powers evil?
Nothing in the text indicates that doing this is evil. If either casts (via Kinetic invocation in one case) "animate dead" we know that's evil, because that spell has the [evil] tag, but it appears to me that "I'm going to use that corpse for an hour" probably isn't evil.
If temporary undead aren't evil and permanent ones are, what does that tell us?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want an in-universe reason, people have given you a great one (IMO).
The first undead was Urgathoa. Greedy for more life, she refused to accept judgment and escaped the Boneyard. In doing so, she brought disease into the world.
That's some pretty clear cut evil right there--greed, gluttony, and causing innocent people to suffer.
All the types of undead are reflections of that first, divine undead being, and thus bear the taint of her evil.
|
|
Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.Are things like the Void Kineticist's "Corpse Puppet" (where you temporarily animate a corpse with negative energy) Wild Talent or the Occultists "Necromantic Servant" (which "raises" a skeleton/zombie from the ground to serve you temporarily) or "Soulbound Puppet" (where you use necromancy to animate remains in order to create a homunculus to serve you for a time) Focus Powers evil?
Nothing in the text indicates that doing this is evil. If either casts (via Kinetic invocation in one case) "animate dead" we know that's evil, because that spell has the [evil] tag, but it appears to me that "I'm going to use that corpse for an hour" probably isn't evil.
If temporary undead aren't evil and permanent ones are, what does that tell us?
I would say yes those things are Evil, do any of the other Kinectist's abilities have alignment descriptors?
If you want an in-universe reason, people have given you a great one (IMO).
The first undead was Urgathoa. Greedy for more life, she refused to accept judgment and escaped the Boneyard. In doing so, she brought disease into the world.
That's some pretty clear cut evil right there--greed, gluttony, and causing innocent people to suffer.
All the types of undead are reflections of that first, divine undead being, and thus bear the taint of her evil.
Another in-world reason is because Pharasma. Pharasma is the goddess who decides morality for Golarion, as she judges your alignment and sends you to heaven/hell/limbo/axiom/whatever. She dislikes undead because they defy her power to judge a soul. Therefore she declares all who deal with undead evil and all undead evil. Doesn't matter if the undead do good, their creation is declared evil.
If you, like me, don't like it that way, don't run it that way. Don't play in Paizo's Golarion, play in your revision of golarion or play in your own personal setting where its different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, no.You can say that all you want. Unless you give some logic, it won't change the facts. Like how that is how lawful and chaotic work.
Fate and "fighting fight" don't have alignments.
It doesn't matter if something is mindless, if it actively seeks out things to kill just for the purpose of killing them it's Evil.
Destruction isn't aligned either, there's different kinds. Entropy is Chaotic, murder is evil, destroying Evil is Good.
|
|
If you want an in-universe reason, people have given you a great one (IMO).
The first undead was Urgathoa. Greedy for more life, she refused to accept judgment and escaped the Boneyard. In doing so, she brought disease into the world.
That's some pretty clear cut evil right there--greed, gluttony, and causing innocent people to suffer.
All the types of undead are reflections of that first, divine undead being, and thus bear the taint of her evil.
Another in-world reason is because Pharasma. Pharasma is the goddess who decides morality for Golarion, as she judges your alignment and sends you to heaven/hell/limbo/axiom/whatever. She dislikes undead because they defy her power to judge a soul. Therefore she declares all who deal with undead evil and all undead evil. Doesn't matter if the undead do good, their creation is declared evil.
If you, like me, don't like it that way, don't run it that way. Don't play in Paizo's Golarion, play in your revision of golarion or play in your own personal setting where its different.
Uh, Pharasma doesn't decide morality on Golarion or anywhere else.
I would say yes those things are Evil, do any of the other Kinectist's abilities have alignment descriptors?
Nothing the Kineticist can do has an alignment tag, with the exception of "Animate Dead" cast via Kinetic Invocation (which works as the spell).
It's long been my understanding though that the Occultist's Necromantic Servant was largely considered to be non-evil, as you're "raising" an undead creature not creating one.
|
|
I would say yes those things are Evil, do any of the other Kinectist's abilities have alignment descriptors?Nothing the Kineticist can do has an alignment tag, with the exception of "Animate Dead" cast via Kinetic Invocation (which works as the spell).
It's long been my understanding though that the Occultist's Necromantic Servant was largely considered to be non-evil, as you're "raising" an undead creature not creating one.
*reads those abilites*
I'd say Necromantic Servant is Evil, though you do raise a good point, did the writer misuse a word or do you have to target an Undead with it instead of a normal corpse?
Soulbound Servant you're basically making a golem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.
Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.
If it's immoral to save someone's life with Infernal Healing, then it's also immoral to save someone's life by taking away their free will.
Casting any Dominate spell should always be an evil action. No exceptions.
Uh, Pharasma doesn't decide morality on Golarion or anywhere else.If you want an in-universe reason, people have given you a great one (IMO).
The first undead was Urgathoa. Greedy for more life, she refused to accept judgment and escaped the Boneyard. In doing so, she brought disease into the world.
That's some pretty clear cut evil right there--greed, gluttony, and causing innocent people to suffer.
All the types of undead are reflections of that first, divine undead being, and thus bear the taint of her evil.
Another in-world reason is because Pharasma. Pharasma is the goddess who decides morality for Golarion, as she judges your alignment and sends you to heaven/hell/limbo/axiom/whatever. She dislikes undead because they defy her power to judge a soul. Therefore she declares all who deal with undead evil and all undead evil. Doesn't matter if the undead do good, their creation is declared evil.
If you, like me, don't like it that way, don't run it that way. Don't play in Paizo's Golarion, play in your revision of golarion or play in your own personal setting where its different.
Huh, I was under the impression she was the one who judged the souls in the boneyard and sent them elsewhere. So while she might not entirely determine morality, does anything stop her from imposing a bias against undead? Like, if a vampire used the redemption rules from champions of purity and became LG does anything actually exist to prevent her from sending the being to the lower planes? (genuine question, not rhetorical
. I'm not the most familiar with lore of golarion|
|
Removing someone's will and imposing your own SHOULD be evil because it's 100% wrong on pretty much every moral compass known. There's no basis FOR Undead to be inherently evil, especially when they don't have a soul "trapped" inside.Yep. Because Dominate entirely relies on what you do with it. Just the same as Fireball. Creating Undead... always creates an Undead, which is evil.Wait, you're saying mind control is perfectly OK? Taking away someone's will is fine so long as it's for benign purposes BUT using the skeletons of Orcs that just tried to kill you to plow the land you live on and doing other mundane tasks is inherently bad? Hahah....ok.What's completely mind-boggling to me is that animated a soul-less husk, akin to a puppet, is considered [Evil] but completely Dominating a person's thoughts to do whatever you damn well wish isn't. Forcing someone's will to do you bidding should always be irrevocably [Evil].Theres nothing inherently evil with the dominate/charm magic, it's what you do with them that can be evil.
Screwing with undeath and souls is inherently Evil.
The first is extremely debatable, and the second is just incorrect. Even if they'd mindles you're still warping Negative Energy in order to power something that will seek out things to kill for the sole purpose of killing.
I think Corpse Puppet is the interesting one. If a telekineticist uses "Aether Puppet" to move a corpse around via strings of aether, that's almost certainly not evil. Corpse Puppet is modeled after that ability except it only works on bodies and the Chaokineticist using it simply uses negative energy rather than aether to move it around, I don't know if that should be evil since "negative energy" is not inherently evil.
Both normally require a move action to move the thing around, and Corpse Puppet specifies that if you spend burn to make the thing self-sufficient you're imbuing the corpse a portion of your own sentience. My mental image of this is more "Weekend at Bernie's 2" and less "Jason and the Argonauts."
|
If it's immoral to save someone's life with Infernal Healing, then it's also immoral to save someone's life by taking away their free will.
Saving a life isn't evil, casting an evil spell is evil. Saving someone's life by casting dominate person on them is not evil. It is a 1. good act, that 2. doesn't bring evil into the world.
|
|
Uh, Pharasma doesn't decide morality on Golarion or anywhere else.If you want an in-universe reason, people have given you a great one (IMO).
The first undead was Urgathoa. Greedy for more life, she refused to accept judgment and escaped the Boneyard. In doing so, she brought disease into the world.
That's some pretty clear cut evil right there--greed, gluttony, and causing innocent people to suffer.
All the types of undead are reflections of that first, divine undead being, and thus bear the taint of her evil.
Another in-world reason is because Pharasma. Pharasma is the goddess who decides morality for Golarion, as she judges your alignment and sends you to heaven/hell/limbo/axiom/whatever. She dislikes undead because they defy her power to judge a soul. Therefore she declares all who deal with undead evil and all undead evil. Doesn't matter if the undead do good, their creation is declared evil.
If you, like me, don't like it that way, don't run it that way. Don't play in Paizo's Golarion, play in your revision of golarion or play in your own personal setting where its different.
Huh, I was under the impression she was the one who judged the souls in the boneyard and sent them elsewhere. So while she might not entirely determine morality, does anything stop her from imposing a bias against undead? Like, if a vampire used the redemption rules from champions of purity and became LG does anything actually exist to prevent her from sending the being to the lower planes? (genuine question, not rhetorical
. I'm not the most familiar with lore of golarion
Yep. In your example she would not auto-send the Vampire to the lower plane just because they were a vampire, all their actions over their life and unlife would be taken into account.
The reasons she dislikes Undead is because they disrupt the process, but that's about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, no.You can say that all you want. Unless you give some logic, it won't change the facts. Like how that is how lawful and chaotic work.Fate and "fighting fight" don't have alignments.
It doesn't matter if something is mindless, if it actively seeks out things to kill just for the purpose of killing them it's Evil.
Destruction isn't aligned either, there's different kinds. Entropy is Chaotic, murder is evil, destroying Evil is Good.
Fate does have an alignment. It's lawful. I already proved that. Don't know what you mean by "fighting fight".
Actually it does matter if something is mindless, as the mindless are INCAPABLE of moral alignment. And killing for the sake of killing is not evil. Doing it "just because" is chaotic in nature. So it is chaotic.
Destroying things for the sake of destroying is chaotic. So destruction in this instance does have an alignment. But other than that, I never said destruction had an alignment. I said "creating something from a destructive force is defying the natural order, which is chaotic".
You haven't proved anything, at all. Just because you state Fate is lawful doesn't make it so.
Uh no, you are flat out 100% wrong, killing for the sake of killing is very much Evil.
Defying the natural order isn't Chaotic.
You keep claiming that Law is this and Chaos is that, but it's not, and you have done absolutely nothing to prove it or provide any evidence to support your claims. You wanting something to be so, does not make it so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could use your created undead for good actions, that's right. But we are not judging what is the use you are giving them later, but the act of casting the spell itself...
Yea this is kind of where I've landed on this question, even though I'm not really that much of a fan of Alignment descriptor thing...
Using Animate Dead or any other spell with an Alignment descriptor kind of just moves the action/thing that's being done more in that overall direction from the start.
GM: "So you wanna use animate dead to create a bunch of skeletons, to hold down the innocent villiges, so that your barbarian friend can impale then on pikes?"
Cleric Player: "And ring the village with the impaled corpses, to send a message to the rest of the countryside, not to mess with us, yes."
GM: "That's Evil, Super Evil in fact" *Wacks player over the head with rolled up newspaper*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GM: "So you wanna use animate dead on your fellow fallen crusaders to create a bunch of skeletons, to help you hold the demons at bay, so that the few living crusaders left gets a chance to escape back to Mendev, to warn them of the impending invasion? And you are willing to damn your own soul for this?"
Cleric Player: "Yes, Ill stay among the skeletons, holding the demons at bay, so that my comrades can escape and hopefully prepare Mendev for the incoming storm."
"As for my soul, I hope that my Goddess/God can forgive me for my transgressions, and intercede on my behalf when Pharasma is presented with my soul."
GM: "So do I, but taken as a whole it would seem that your actions are more virtuous then vile, so I don't think you'll have to worry about your souls destination, should you survive the demon onslaught".
*Gives player a small gold star on his sheet*
|
|
Saving a life isn't evil, casting an evil spell is evil. Saving someone's life by casting dominate person on them is not evil. It is a 1. good act, that 2. doesn't bring evil into the world.If it's immoral to save someone's life with Infernal Healing, then it's also immoral to save someone's life by taking away their free will.
Also, Infernal Healing is literally powered by pure liquid Evil, or caffeine free pure liquid Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Infernal Healing is literally powered by pure liquid Evil, or caffeine free pure liquid Evil.Saving a life isn't evil, casting an evil spell is evil. Saving someone's life by casting dominate person on them is not evil. It is a 1. good act, that 2. doesn't bring evil into the world.If it's immoral to save someone's life with Infernal Healing, then it's also immoral to save someone's life by taking away their free will.
I can't think of any situation in which forcing mind-altering drugs on someone else isn't evil. That's essentially what Dominate spells do.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if all existence is fated to get consumed by the maelstrom and return to a state of primal chaos?
In that case, trying to be lawful would be fighting fate, and thus chaotic. Being chaotic would be accepting fate, and thus be lawful.
|
|
I can't think of any situation in which forcing mind-altering drugs on someone else isn't evil. That's essentially what Dominate spells do.Also, Infernal Healing is literally powered by pure liquid Evil, or caffeine free pure liquid Evil.Saving a life isn't evil, casting an evil spell is evil. Saving someone's life by casting dominate person on them is not evil. It is a 1. good act, that 2. doesn't bring evil into the world.If it's immoral to save someone's life with Infernal Healing, then it's also immoral to save someone's life by taking away their free will.
1) that is not what they do.
2) mind altering substances are not evil in and of themself.
3) how is that worse than forcing a Fireball on someone, or a sword?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) that is not what they do.
True, what they do is worse than mind-altering drugs because at least then the effect is chemical and imprecise.
2) mind altering substances are not evil in and of themself.
No, but it is inethical to use them on other people without their consent.
3) how is that worse than forcing a Fireball on someone, or a sword?
Because it violates a sapient individuals agency to a horrific degree, which is considered to be inethical in nearly all ethical models.
|
|
1) that is not what they do.True, what they do is worse than mind-altering drugs because at least then the effect is chemical and imprecise.
2) mind altering substances are not evil in and of themself.No, but it is inethical to use them on other people without their consent.
3) how is that worse than forcing a Fireball on someone, or a sword?Because it violates a sapient individuals agency to a horrific degree, which is considered to be inethical in nearly all ethical models.
Would you consider someone being court ordered to take neuroleptics to be inethical if they are a danger to themselves or others?
Would you consider someone being court ordered to take neuroleptics to be inethical if they are a danger to themselves or others?
Yes in a large number of ethical models that would be inethical to a certain degree, how much agency their mental illness deprives them of and how much agency such chemicals would deprive them of can theoretically change it to ethical in certain circumstances (or just informed consent would make it ethical). It would likely be considered ethical in a "purely" consequential model though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the parts of this thread where we ridiculed Pharasma and spoke positively of the undead. We should keep doing that. The Pallid Princess would be delighted! As might Mahathallah. And Zyphus.
Pharasma certainly has many enemies.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fate does have an alignment. It's lawful. I already proved that.
I haven't seen any such proof. You said that 'fate is order and order is lawful'. That's not proof, that's an assertion. You would need to back up that assertion with evidence to prove it.
You clearly don't understand law or chaos, so this is pointless, as I have Asperger's Syndrome and don't know how to properly correct somebody who doesn't understand basic concepts like order and chaos, so I'm going to stop arguing with you and save myself a headache.
You could start with your definition of order and chaos, as it appears that you and Rysky have different understandings of the terms.
Here is a good starting point.
Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back. … There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Pharasma doesn't decide morality on Golarion or anywhere else.
She shouldn't, particularly since she isn't morally good or evil, at all, but she does. Defy her non-lawful laws and you are evil.
'Cause, reasons.
Also, walking away from her 'laws' can cause disease to become a thing, and Urgathoa is a human god, relatively young by godly standards, which means that there are pre-human races out there (like aboleth and serpentfolk) that remember *a time when disease didn't exist.*
Golarion is weird.
|
|
Uh, Pharasma doesn't decide morality on Golarion or anywhere else.She shouldn't, particularly since she isn't morally good or evil, at all, but she does. Defy her non-lawful laws and you are evil.
'Cause, reasons.
Also, walking away from her 'laws' can cause disease to become a thing, and Urgathoa is a human god, relatively young by godly standards, which means that there are pre-human races out there (like aboleth and serpentfolk) that remember *a time when disease didn't exist.*
Golarion is weird.
From Urgathoa's writeup it reads more like she was leaning towards Evil before being able to tear herself away from Pharasma's judgment in order to become Golarion's first Undead. And the disease thing is myth enhancement ("some say..."), though who knows.
So no, Pharasma doesn't decide morality or the laws of natural order, she just enforces the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legacy of the game.
Sure there have been examples of not evil undead in literature but those defy the norm. Because of the overwhelming number of evil examples they make great foils for heroes.
Now you seem to want an ethical argument as to why it ought to be considered evil. I don't think there is a clear answer any more. Now that there are witches and other types of casters that are granted powers in direct ways by various forces it implies that they are different than plain old wizards. Because how necromancy works is never addressed in general it is just generally described as evil.