| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great point thou Tacticslion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder Core Rulebook:
While they constantly bicker and battle among
themselves, the bone sages as a whole present a powerful
unified front to the rest of the Pact Worlds, one that, contrary
to popular rumor, is not so much evil as coldly amoral and
utilitarian.
Undead != evil anymore.
Doesn't mean they're not monstrous of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the problem as I see it: Eox and it's inhabitants are undead, undead are typically but not always evil, the Bone Sages and Necrovites have clearly been designated evil...by the stats but not the fluff. That's a contridiction and an interesting philosophical conundrum: Can you have moral relativism in a universe where good and evil are a known and measurable fact that can be outlined on a chart? Are there good Eoxians who just want to unlive and let unlive? Is it truly genocide if an actual deity reaches out from the after life and says "See that planet over there? It's got people on it, go kill them, it's cool, you get a pass." Like that's not a human being saying that, it's an ACTUAL GOD WHO IS REAL WITHOUT ANY UNCERTAINTY! Is that still good or evil?
Obviously none of these questions will be solved until we get some sort of splat book titled "Starfinder Campaign Setting: Eox, Planet of the Damned" or something like that....
...
...holy crap! I want that splat book James!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I'm pretty sure ordering a genocidal war against an entire planet is just the sort of thing the don't meddle in mortal affairs thingy we all signed back in the day is supposed to prevent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder Core Rulebook:
While they constantly bicker and battle among
themselves, the bone sages as a whole present a powerful
unified front to the rest of the Pact Worlds, one that, contrary
to popular rumor, is not so much evil as coldly amoral and
utilitarian.Undead != evil anymore.
Doesn't mean they're not monstrous of course.
That can be read as "the unified front they present to the rest of the Pact Worlds is not so much evil as coldly amoral and utilitarian." They themselves could still be evil behind the scenes, but they try to put on a good face in public.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, there is an undead representative of Eox on Absalom Station, and no you are not allowed to kill them no matter how divine your motivation may be.
Do a god's faithful care more about their patron's directives or mortal laws? If I was a devout Pharasmin, I'd be quite willing to suffer whatever mortal consequences there might be for breaking Absalom's laws, knowing that when fate took me, my eternal reward was waiting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That can be read as "the unified front they present to the rest of the Pact Worlds is not so much evil as coldly amoral and utilitarian." They themselves could still be evil behind the scenes, but they try to put on a good face in public.
Only if you butcher the sentence to remove the context which makes which meaning of the word "front" is being used extremely obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps to you it's extremely obvious. It looks like it can be read more than one way to me. [shrug]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interperating the front as being them making a false representation of themselves doesn't make sense considering its talking about them being a unified group despite the in fighting, and even if you chop off the first part of the sentence it says their reputation is that people think they're evil, not that they think their nice because of it all bring a front.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, there is an undead representative of Eox on Absalom Station, and no you are not allowed to kill them no matter how divine your motivation may be.Do a god's faithful care more about their patron's directives or mortal laws? If I was a devout Pharasmin, I'd be quite willing to suffer whatever mortal consequences there might be for breaking Absalom's laws, knowing that when fate took me, my eternal reward was waiting.
The Evil ones for sure. They might end up somewhere they didn't expect, though.
Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.
Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
As for the Ghoul example it would depend on whose getting eaten. Clearing a battlefield to prevent more Undead from rising? Okay. Breaking into a mausoleum to eat dearly departed granny? Your ass is grass.
Actually, they aren't: most fiends are a combination of a mortal soul and pure evil. Some are other extra-planar beings that have been corrupted by pure evil (Divs, fallen angels, et cetera). Only the Qlippoths appear to be pure evil.Dood, we're talking about Fiends, not even Undead. They are literally made of pure Evil.Not really. Just existing isn't a crime.you missed the "pure evil" part.Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Pure Evil quintessence, and a pure Evil mortal soul (which is also quintessence). So pure Evil.
Only if you butcher the sentence to remove the context which makes which meaning of the word "front" is being used extremely obvious.
That can be read as "the unified front they present to the rest of the Pact Worlds is not so much evil as coldly amoral and utilitarian." They themselves could still be evil behind the scenes, but they try to put on a good face in public.
Well the placement of the "one that" reads to me like it's talking about the front, rather than the Bone Sages themselves.
And doesn't Amoral mean Evil anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Evil ones for sure. They might end up somewhere they didn't expect, though.In the end, there is an undead representative of Eox on Absalom Station, and no you are not allowed to kill them no matter how divine your motivation may be.Do a god's faithful care more about their patron's directives or mortal laws? If I was a devout Pharasmin, I'd be quite willing to suffer whatever mortal consequences there might be for breaking Absalom's laws, knowing that when fate took me, my eternal reward was waiting.
Don't forget Milanites and Iomedaens and Sareanites and Shelynites and Desnans operating out of Cheliax and Nidal. Trying to put mortal laws above Divine laws in regards to religious characters is never a good situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
Not according to the Absalom Pact. The Undead citizens of Eox are totally people, and Pharasmins who indiscriminately attack Eoxian citizens because they happen to be undead could be described as terrorists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And doesn't Amoral mean Evil anyway?
Amoral = Not Good. Not Good != Evil.
Not according to the Absalom Pact. The Undead citizens of Eox are totally people, and Pharasmins who indiscriminately attack Eoxian citizens because they happen to be undead could be described as terrorists.Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
No, they're citizens. Just like they were citizens in Geb, Irrisen, and Nidal. Just like Fiends are citizens in the Infernal and Abyssal cities in the Lower Planes. That doesn't make them people.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
If someone can talk to you, explain their behavior by their own logic, and (in settings that have proof of such things) has a soul, they're a person.
That's pretty much the only way you can define 'person' that doesn't remove all real meaning from the world. And both intelligent undead and evil outsiders meet all the qualifications.
Are most undead and the vast majority of demons and devils worthy of death? Probably, yeah. But they are people who are worthy of death. Evil people? Absolutely. People who have done monstrous and unforgivable things? Many of them.
But they're still people.
Dehumanizing someone because they're from a group mostly composed of horrible people, or even because of crimes they themselves have committed, is something I'm pretty deeply morally opposed to in real life, and I see no reason to change that stance regarding fictional beings who can think and choose their own actions.
As for the Ghoul example it would depend on whose getting eaten. Clearing a battlefield to prevent more Undead from rising? Okay. Breaking into a mausoleum to eat dearly departed granny? Your ass is grass.
Grave robbing such as you specify is immoral. It is wrong. But I strongly disagree that it's a crime worthy of a death sentence. Our current legal system strongly agrees with me on this one, too.
Well the placement of the "one that" reads to me like it's talking about the front, rather than the Bone Sages themselves.
Indeed. The Bone Sages are likely an Evil organization.
And doesn't Amoral mean Evil anyway?
No. Many depictions of Neutral Alignments fit very solidly into 'amoral' as a descriptor.
And doesn't Amoral mean Evil anyway?Amoral = Not Good. Not Good != Evil.
Ehh, I dunno. I mean obviously it does mean not Good as well. I don't think I've ever heard amoral used to describe someone who is Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, they're citizens. Just like they were citizens in Geb, Irrisen, and Nidal. Just like Fiends are citizens in the Infernal and Abyssal cities in the Lower Planes. That doesn't make them people.Not according to the Absalom Pact. The Undead citizens of Eox are totally people, and Pharasmins who indiscriminately attack Eoxian citizens because they happen to be undead could be described as terrorists.Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
How are you defining "people?" Because, at least to me, being a person is a requirement to be a citizen.
Well, that's interesting. I was thinking there were actual undead Pharasmins worshiping The Lady of Graves, because they view the undeath they no longer remember choosing as a sort of original sin they're trying to redeem themselves from.
I was kind of hoping that it would turn out that, thousands of years after the time of PF/Golarion, Pharasma would have become a bit more enlightened in her thinking and decided that those souls did not immediately migrate to the River of Souls after death were still a part of the process of life/death/rebirth and come to embrace them as well. At the very least, she'd be able to expand her own body of worship by doing so, and considering that undeath does not necessarily equate to evil (increasingly in SF, it would seem), an expanded view of the process would serve her well.
"If someone can talk to you, explain their behavior by their own logic, and (in settings that have proof of such things) has a soul, they're a person."
... that describes everything with a +3 intelligence.
"Dehumanizing someone because they're from a group mostly composed of horrible people, or even because of crimes they themselves have committed, is something I'm pretty deeply morally opposed to in real life, and I see no reason to change that stance regarding fictional beings who can think and choose their own actions."
I'm not talking about humnas, I'm not talking about ethnicities and nationalities. I'm talking about Undead and Fiends. Those aren't people. You can't dehumanize actual monsters. You can't demonize a demon. They're a demon.
"Grave robbing such as you specify is immoral. It is wrong. But I strongly disagree that it's a crime worthy of a death sentence. Our current legal system strongly agrees with me on this one, too."
Grave Robbing and Cannibalism. Not just stealing the corpse but the desecration of it. I wouldn't bring RL legal systems into this, cause that doesn't always work out right (and brings real world politics in which is a no-no).
"Indeed. The Bone Sages are likely an Evil organization."
*nods*
"No. Many depictions of Neutral Alignments fit very solidly into 'amoral' as a descriptor."
Do you have any examples? Genuinely curious now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's interesting. I was thinking there were actual undead Pharasmins worshiping The Lady of Graves, because they view the undeath they no longer remember choosing as a sort of original sin they're trying to redeem themselves from.I was kind of hoping that it would turn out that, thousands of years after the time of PF/Golarion, Pharasma would have become a bit more enlightened in her thinking and decided that those souls did not immediately migrate to the River of Souls after death were still a part of the process of life/death/rebirth and come to embrace them as well. At the very least, she'd be able to expand her own body of worship by doing so, and considering that undeath does not necessarily equate to evil (increasingly in SF, it would seem), an expanded view of the process would serve her well.
To Pharasma, who has existed before the universe it is hinted at, it's not the extending life/unlife that she cares about, it's that Undeath actually damages the process the universe works on.
How are you defining "people?" Because, at least to me, being a person is a requirement to be a citizen.No, they're citizens. Just like they were citizens in Geb, Irrisen, and Nidal. Just like Fiends are citizens in the Infernal and Abyssal cities in the Lower Planes. That doesn't make them people.Not according to the Absalom Pact. The Undead citizens of Eox are totally people, and Pharasmins who indiscriminately attack Eoxian citizens because they happen to be undead could be described as terrorists.Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
Those who are completely free to choose their own actions. So Goblins, Drow, Gnolls, and Dhampirs I consider people, despite 3 of those usually being depicted as having Evil cultures.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... that describes everything with a +3 intelligence.
And? Everything that falls within the human Int range (or above) and has Wis and Chr scores is a person. Not necessarily a good one, or a smart one, or any other virtue you care to name, but a person nonetheless.
I'm not talking about humnas, I'm not talking about ethnicities and nationalities. I'm talking about Undead and Fiends. Those aren't people. You can't dehumanize actual monsters. You can't demonize a demon. They're a demon.
Why does species matter? Most undead and fiends started out as people. Maybe bad people, but people. Changing creature type doesn't change that.
Heck, let's look at The Nightripper (a nascent demon lord). He was a serial killer in life, a human one, and when he died he immediately became a nascent demon lord with his full memories and personality intact. His needs and desires remained more or less exactly the same when he made the transition, as did his morality (or lack thereof).
How does a sudden power up and creature type change make someone whose personality hasn't changed at all 'not a person'?
It doesn't. The Nightripper is a person. He's an awful person who should be destroyed for the the good of everyone else everywhere, but he's still a person.
Grave Robbing and Cannibalism. Not just stealing the corpse but the desecration of it. I wouldn't bring RL legal systems into this, cause that doesn't always work out right (and brings real world politics in which is a no-no).
Yeah...still not a crime I'd remotely consider worthy of a death sentence.
*nods*
Indeed.
Do you have any examples? Genuinely curious now.
Sure. Someone who is 'amoral' is unconcerned with morality. Most highly pragmatic characters who clearly only care about specific people fall into the Neutral band of amorality.
Captain Jack Sparrow leaps to mind as a CN example, at least early on. Raoul Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas also leaps to mind, while I'm thinking of characters played by Johnny Depp. Snake Plissken also leaps to mind. As do most versions of Mad Max after the original movie. Or Han Solo before he's converted to the cause.
I'm sure I can think of some more given time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who are completely free to choose their own actions. So Goblins, Drow, Gnolls, and Dhampirs I consider people, despite 3 of those usually being depicted as having Evil cultures.
Demons are completely free to choose their own actions. As are undead, really. Both have unpleasant impulses, but so do I. I'm still a person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who are completely free to choose their own actions. So Goblins, Drow, Gnolls, and Dhampirs I consider people, despite 3 of those usually being depicted as having Evil cultures.Demons are completely free to choose their own actions. As are undead, really. Both have unpleasant impulses, but so do I. I'm still a person.
No they're not. Demons mindsets are set up a certain way. So are most if not all full on Outsiders. If they were free to choose their own actions they would be all over the alignment spectrum.
Undead have "unpleasant impulses" that completely overwrite who they used to be, not the occasional bad thought.
"And? Everything that falls within the human Int range (or above) and has Wis and Chr scores is a person. Not necessarily a good one, or a smart one, or any other virtue you care to name, but a person nonetheless."
We're just going to flat out disagree on that.
"Why does species matter? Most undead and fiends started out as people. Maybe bad people, but people. Changing creature type doesn't change that."
Uh, yes it does.
"It doesn't. The Nightripper is a person. He's an awful person who should be destroyed for the the good of everyone else everywhere, but he's still a person."
I don't consider serial killers and rapists people but that's just me. As for Nightripper the nascent demon lord, no, he is very much not a person.
"Yeah...still not a crime I'd remotely consider worthy of a death sentence."
We're gonna disagree on that.
"Captain Jack Sparrow leaps to mind as a CN example, at least early on. Raoul Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas also leaps to mind, while I'm thinking of characters played by Johnny Depp. Snake Plissken also leaps to mind. As do most versions of Mad Max after the original movie. Or Han Solo before he's converted to the cause."
Hmm, Okies (though I'm pretty sure Snake is Evil).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No they're not. Demons mindsets are set up a certain way. So are most if not all full on Outsiders. If they were free to choose their own actions they would be all over the alignment spectrum.
Demons used to be CE humans (or other things with souls). Then they had all their memories erased and lived/were raised entirely with other CE people who had every reason to make them CE too.
It doesn't require anything beyond that to explain why CE is near universal among them, leaving aside supernatural influences.
And even then, they're capable of being redeemed.
Undead have "unpleasant impulses" that completely overwrite who they used to be, not the occasional bad thought.
Sure, but that's a difference of degree not of kind. And you'd need a difference of kind to make them even remotely justified as 'not a person'.
A 'different person', sure. But 'not a person at all'? No.
We're just going to flat out disagree on that.
What are your criteria, then? What does someone need to have before they're a person?
Uh, yes it does.
Why? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm actually quite serious about hearing a coherent logical rationale behind creature type mattering in regards to whether a thinking being with a soul is a person.
I don't consider serial killers and rapists people but that's just me. As for Nightripper the nascent demon lord, no, he is very much not a person.
How are rapists and serial killers not people? They think, feel, and make decisions just like the rest of us. They're bad, evil, people, but they still remain people. Denying their basic personhood is both counter to all the facts and sets a dangerous precedent in denying personhood to anyone.
Indeed, this very attitude is exactly what I'm morally opposed to in real life.
We're gonna disagree on that.
You'd seriously advocate the death penalty for desecrating a corpse? That's way harsher than I'm comfortable with.
Hmm, Okies (though I'm pretty sure Snake is Evil).
I'd argue him at the shady end of CN (at least until the very end), but that's pretty off topic so I won't do it here.
"Demons used to be CE humans (or other things with souls). Then they had all their memories erased and lived/were raised entirely with other CE people who had every reason to make them CE too."
That not how Outsiders work, their Alignment isn't due to Culture or Nurture, they also aren't "raised", most are fully formed when they switch from soul to Outsider.
"Sure, but that's a difference of degree not of kind. And you'd need a difference of kind to make them even remotely justified as 'not a person'.
A 'different person', sure. But 'not a person at all'? No."
The fact that they're Undead? There type is Undead. The fact that they don't have their souls (do they not have their souls in Starfinder? Pretty sure they don't).
"What are your criteria, then? What does someone need to have before they're a person?"
A soul and completely free will that is also not innately any alignment. There's the Drakiana and a bunch of Aberrations that, despite having Human or even above Human intelligence I would not consider people. There's a bunch of monsters whose whole thing is "KILL everything!".
"Why? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm actually quite serious about hearing a coherent logical rationale behind creature type mattering in regards to whether a thinking being with a soul is a person."
Fiends don't have souls, they're made of the stuff of souls, and Undead don't them to my knowledge. You can resurrect someone who is currently an Undead without destroying the Undead form can you not? So then you'd have the living and the Undead at the same time.
"How are rapists and serial killers not people? They think, feel, and make decisions just like the rest of us. They're bad, evil, people, but they still remain people. Denying their basic personhood is both counter to all the facts and sets a dangerous precedent in denying personhood to anyone.
Indeed, this very attitude is exactly what I'm morally opposed to in real life."
I don't consider people who willing throw away their humanity people, and that's not a slippery slope (which is a fallacy anyway). And this is again veering into RL politics and the like so that's all I'm going to say about that.
"You'd seriously advocate the death penalty for desecrating a corpse? That's way harsher than I'm comfortable with."
Emotion plays a large part into it. Desecrating the corpse of someone you don't know versus desecrating the corpse of a dearly departed loved one?
"I'd argue him at the shady end of CN"
He's the "I'm CN cause my GM won't let me play Evil" type of character XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they're Undead? There type is Undead.
"How are they not people?"
"Because they're undead?""But what quality of being undead?"
"The undeadness".
...
The fact that they don't have their souls (do they not have their souls in Starfinder? Pretty sure they don't).
Well intelligent undead had souls in Pathfinder.
A soul and completely free will that is also not innately any alignment.
So... sentient undead in Starfinder?
I don't consider people who willing throw away their humanity people
"Our entire population is going to die if we don't do something."
"Lets make it so they don't die from the planet being uninhabitable in a way which has no harm to the individuals."... and your view is that the civilians threw away their humanity?
"Well intelligent undead had souls in Pathfinder."
Did they? Or was it just a fragment?
"So... sentient undead in Starfinder?"
That remains to be seen.
""Our entire population is going to die if we don't do something."
"Lets make it so they don't die from the planet being uninhabitable in a way which has no harm to the individuals."
... and your view is that the civilians threw away their humanity?"
Um, yes, if you are willing turning yourself into an Undead you are literally throwing away your humanity.
And there was great harm, they all died. You kinda have to do that to become Undead.
And they didn't have to do any of that, they could have left. They had the capability to do so. This was an act of Pride, not desperation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That not how Outsiders work, their Alignment isn't due to Culture or Nurture, they also aren't "raised", most are fully formed when they switch from soul to Outsider.
Sure. But most start out at the bottom of the demonic hierarchy and have to fight or scheme their way to any higher rank.
And their Alignment absolutely is originally from nurture, since they were once a human being or other soul-bearing creature and none of those are born evil. And they had to be CE to wind up in the Abyss in the first place.
The fact that they're Undead? There type is Undead. The fact that they don't have their souls (do they not have their souls in Starfinder? Pretty sure they don't).
Uh...undead have always had souls in Golarion's universe. Indeed that is explicitly Pharasma's whole reason for hating them, since those souls are outside her control as long as they remain part of an undead creature.
This is really, really explicit in her deity entry and in several other places. It is canon.
A soul and completely free will that is also not innately any alignment. There's the Drakiana and a bunch of Aberrations that, despite having Human or even above Human intelligence I would not consider people. There's a bunch of monsters whose whole thing is "KILL everything!".
And yet, with the exception of Alignment Subtype Outsiders, none, not even undead have a single restriction on what Alignment they can be. All alignments are merely the most common alignment in that species, not a requirement.
All are indisputably possessed of free will.
Fiends don't have souls, they're made of the stuff of souls, and Undead don't them to my knowledge. You can resurrect someone who is currently an Undead without destroying the Undead form can you not? So then you'd have the living and the Undead at the same time.
You cannot do that, actually. The soul is trapped in the undead creature.
As for Outsiders, I don't think being made of a soul and having a soul are morally distinct. Metaphysically? Yes. Morally? No.
I don't consider people who willing throw away their humanity people, and that's not a slippery slope (which is a fallacy anyway). And this is again veering into RL politics and the like so that's all I'm going to say about that.
There's a difference between the slippery slope fallacy and "allowing this sets a dangerous precedent". They can be mistaken for each other, but they are not the same thing.
And I'll just say that I deeply and profoundly disagree with you. Removing personhood from someone because you think them horrific is not only, in my opinion, morally wrong, it is fairly objectively factually incorrect. No meaningful definition of personhood can include 'morally upstanding' or phrases like 'he's a bad person' or 'she's an evil person' become nonsensical.
It just doesn't actually make a lot of sense and renders making a distinction between whether a being is a person or not useless and irrelevant. It makes the term meaningless.
Emotion plays a large part into it. Desecrating the corpse of someone you don't know versus desecrating the corpse of a dearly departed loved one?
Emotion doesn't determine whether something is morally right, or how wrong and deserving of punishment it is. Nor should it.
He's the "I'm CN cause my GM won't let me play Evil" type of character XD
Fair enough. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they? Or was it just a fragment?
CRB said that sentient undead have (or are in the case of incorporeal undead) souls. This is the reason why you cannot use magic jar on zombies.
That remains to be seen.
No, they fill all of those things. They have souls, they have free-will (they had that back in PF), and Devs have said they're no longer auto-evil because that's not the stories they want to do tell (and even back in PF they could change their alignment as easily as an Orc).
Um, yes, if you are willing turning yourself into an Undead you are literally throwing away your humanity.
Being undead is throwing away your humanity, because being undead is throwing away your humanity? So much circular logic.
And there was great harm, they all died. You kinda have to do that to become Undead.
The civilians died, then the survivors became Bone Sages and then the Bone Sages undead'd the civilians. They were already dead, so no harm.
And they didn't have to do any of that, they could have left. They had the capability to do so.
As far as I can tell, corpses can't move without negative energy or shoving an elemental in them so I'm not sure how the already dead civilians would be able to leave.
This was an act of Pride, not desperation.
It was an act of Pride. But of the Bone Sages, not the civilians.
"Sure. But most start out at the bottom of the demonic hierarchy and have to fight or scheme their way to any higher rank."
That doesn't shape or change their personality or alignment though.
"And their Alignment absolutely is originally from nurture, since they were once a human being or other soul-bearing creature and none of those are born evil. And they had to be CE to wind up in the Abyss in the first place."
No, the human or humans' souls that went into making them was most likely due to nurture, they however are not.
"Uh...undead have always had souls in Golarion's universe. Indeed that is explicitly Pharasma's whole reason for hating them, since those souls are outside her control as long as they remain part of an undead creature.
This is really, really explicit in her deity entry and in several other places. It is canon."
They trap and otherwise damage souls, but they do not have souls is my understanding, I may be misremerbing so I'll look through Inner Sea Gods when I get the chance.
"And yet, with the exception of Alignment Subtype Outsiders, none, not even undead have a single restriction on what Alignment they can be. All alignments are merely the most common alignment in that species, not a requirement.
All are indisputably possessed of free will."
Uh, Undead templates all say "any Evil", and theydon't really have that free of a will if most if not all have overriding Evil urge that displaces that free will.
"You cannot do that, actually. The soul is trapped in the undead creature."
Yep, I misremembered how True Resurrection work. Buuuuuuut you can bring someone back to life with it and then their old corpse can be used to make an intelligent Undead... what then?
"As for Outsiders, I don't think being made of a soul and having a soul are morally distinct. Metaphysically? Yes. Morally? No."
It's not having a soul and having their mindset predetermined for them. They have choices in exactly how they go about doing things, but what they do is already preprogrammed.
"More stuff veering into RL politics"
I stand by what I said. If you would like me to respond more to that or anything of that nature feel free to PM me. Not trying to brush you off, I just don't want this thread getting locked.
"Fair enough. :)"
:3
"CRB said that sentient undead have (or are in the case of incorporeal undead) souls. This is the reason why you cannot use magic jar on zombies."
*reads Magic Jar*
Gotcha.
"No, they fill all of those things. They have souls, they have free-will (they had that back in PF), and Devs have said they're no longer auto-evil because that's not the stories they want to do tell (and even back in PF they could change their alignment as easily as an Orc)."
When I said remains to be seen I was referring to the fact that all the Undead in Dead Suns were Evil. The Devs have claimed that but they haven't stated it in the books yet or why that change occurred in-universe. And while they could change their alignment it certainly wasn't as easy as a Humanoid like an Orc doing so.
"Being undead is throwing away your humanity, because being undead is throwing away your humanity? So much circular logic."
You're willingly turning yourself into a monster.
"The civilians died, then the survivors became Bone Sages and then the Bone Sages undead'd the civilians. They were already dead, so no harm."
>_>
"As far as I can tell, corpses can't move without negative energy or shoving an elemental in them so I'm not sure how the already dead civilians would be able to leave."
Once, long ago, Eox was a lush world with a dominant species, called elebrians, who were very similar to humans. These original inhabitants proved gifted in both the magical and technological arts and became so hubristic in their power that they sought to destroy neighboring planets that refused to acknowledge their supremacy. According to popular legend, their first attempt—an attack on the worlds called the Twins— succeeded, shattering them into what is now known as the Diaspora. Yet the backlash from the weapon they fired blew a hole in Eox’s crust and set the entire atmosphere aflame, destroying the planet’s ecosystem and ravaging its cities in a fiery massacre. Only a few thousand individuals survived in magical bunkers and sealed environments deep below ground. With a tiny population of survivors and widespread infertility due to the intense radiation, rebuilding their society through ordinary means seemed impossible. Thus, Eox’s most powerful spellcasters turned to necromancy, seeing in undeath a chance to continue their dominion over a world inimical to ordinary life. These were the first bone sages, and some of them continue to rule to this day.
Again, this was an act of Pride, not one of desperation or to save anyone.
"It was an act of Pride. But of the Bone Sages, not the civilians."
And I wonder how many of them were okay with being brought into unlife as monsters. Have to wait for Dead Suns 3 for the moment.
Tangent but I found this in the Eox Section:
Eox was one of the first planets to support the creation of the Pact.
So they kinda were the ones that suggested it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.Killing people, yes. But Undead and Fiends are not people. They're monsters. They may be legal citizens but they're still monsters. Moreso than any other creature type.
As for the Ghoul example it would depend on whose getting eaten. Clearing a battlefield to prevent more Undead from rising? Okay. Breaking into a mausoleum to eat dearly departed granny? Your ass is grass.
According to pact world laws they are people.
You're starting to sound racist against undead, and I'm pretty certain that's not what you're going for.
*pinches nose*
They are actual, full on monsters, just because they have laws doesn't change that.
Everyone here is equating them with actual people and
That's it, I'm done.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your definition of "people" seems to be something along the lines of, "intelligent beings that I find relatable", allowing you to exclude (for example) human serial killers.
Everyone else is defining "people" as "intelligent beings".
I don't think you're going to convince anyone to adopt your definition.
Your definition of "people" seems to be something along the lines of, "intelligent beings that I find relatable", allowing you to exclude (for example) human serial killers.
Everyone else is defining "people" as "intelligent beings".
I don't think you're going to convince anyone to adopt your definition.
I know I'm an outlier in not considering serial killers people, and wasn't trying to convince anyone otherwise.
Why are Undead and Fiends people instead of monster now? Is an angel diving into Hell to kill Devils Evil now?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to side with Rysky or zombie-lich-ghoul-skeletons, I'm with Rysky!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*pinches nose*
They are actual, full on monsters, just because they have laws doesn't change that.
Everyone here is equating them with actual people and
That's it, I'm done.
Yes, it does. Minority groups everywhere disagree with you.
Yes, it does. Minority groups everywhere disagree with you.*pinches nose*
They are actual, full on monsters, just because they have laws doesn't change that.
Everyone here is equating them with actual people and
That's it, I'm done.
Please do not co opt real world minorities and their struggles to bolster your argument when we're talking about fictional monsters such the Undead and Fiends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be intolerant against fictional minority groups or "monsters" as you referred to them and I won't have to, but I feel like it's an apt analogy.
I haven't been talking about fictional minorities, I've been talking about Undead and Fiends.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not according to the pact worlds. :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, people are recognising the damage Pharasma and her clergy of extremists pose to the greater good and the survival of the Pact Worlds.
That is what you breathers are concerned about, correct? Surviving? Living? I mean, the undead will continue. It is what they do best. But the concern is more for all of you. You and your delicious souls and bounty of flesh and bone....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are Undead and Fiends people instead of monster now?
They can be two things. 'Monsters' and 'people' are not mutually exclusive.