Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Is there something fundamentally "wrong" with Good aligned outsiders?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This (except for the 'and then Good' part) seems to be canonically in the process of happening with Nocticula. And she's a full Demon Lord, no 'nascent' about it.

Expand on "canonically", please. I never played WotR (the AP where I've heard she is getting redeemed in), but from her entry on D20PFSRD it seems like she is simply acending to a different alignment, not necessarily "rising" to a CN (demon?) lord.

Maybe we'll need to create a new outsider race for non-good redeemed fiends. Huh.

PD


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

???

Potato disciple: I think you might have misunderstood.

DMW was saying that, canonically, she seems to be in the process of rising out of CE into CN.

That said, she was not redeemed in WotR - rather, to my recollection, JJ has suggested that it's the kind of thing an entire AP might be built around. WotR is about the World Wound.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh I see. Thankies for the clarification.
J


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My two cp: you can advance further on Team Evil. Kick lots of butt and backstab wisely, and you'll advance. Nobody on your team trusts you, but they don't trust anyone else, either. If you're a fallen celestial, you're thrown into the deep end, sink or swim. If you're a redeemed fiend, though, you begin a long and difficult process of spiritual and moral rehabilitation and growth. Evil probably has dead/imprisoned fallen celestial, while good probably has redeemed fiends that are slowly bettering themselves. Evil looks better, since it produces quick success stories at the cost of many failures, while good probably has fewer fatal failures, but also fewer noteworthy "I became a demigod in twelve short millennia" success stories.


QuidEst wrote:
My two cp: you can advance further on Team Evil. Kick lots of butt and backstab wisely, and you'll advance. Nobody on your team trusts you, but they don't trust anyone else, either. If you're a fallen celestial, you're thrown into the deep end, sink or swim. If you're a redeemed fiend, though, you begin a long and difficult process of spiritual and moral rehabilitation and growth. Evil probably has dead/imprisoned fallen celestial, while good probably has redeemed fiends that are slowly bettering themselves. Evil looks better, since it produces quick success stories at the cost of many failures, while good probably has fewer fatal failures, but also fewer noteworthy "I became a demigod in twelve short millennia" success stories.

IIRC, the easiest way to become Mythic is to spend 2 or 3 years becoming a Demon then drinking that potion that has a chance of making a demon become Mythic.

W E Ray wrote:

Yet another reason why I think it would be a spectacular idea for Paizo to do it. Create an evil mortal who becomes a Demon upon death, advances to Marilith or Balor, right on up to Nascent Demon Lord -- and then slowly 'fall' up to Neutral and then Good.

It'd make for a great story.

OTOH, it might cause a rise in PCs becoming Demons, drinking that potion that makes them Mythic, and then tweaking their nose at the Abyss.

But if it does happen it needs to be a formerly Succubus Paladin formerly serving Nocticula.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because we live in a time where more people would rather justify Evil acts and laugh at the consequences of their actions rather than work to maintain a Good and righteous path. We live in a time where it's more interesting to see something Good be corrupted, broken down and destroyed rather than see something Evil be purified and ascendant. That is something that has irked me about the Golarion deities and the planar creatures. All of the Evil entities are straight up Evil and proud of it, except maybe Nocticula but more on her later, and the Goodly entities all have a shady side to them that makes them slightly unreliable. For some of these Goodly powers, it's small aspects of their personality/nature that is shady. But, for other Goodly powers, it's more pronounced. Iomedea is so rigid and strict that she's un-relatable. Cayden Cailien promotes alcoholism. Apsu cares little for his non-dragon mortal worshippers. Erastil....cursed one of his devoted when the guy became desperate while praying for Erastil's help. When your Goodly gods aren't reliable, why bother being Good? I've ported over several Goodly gods from Forgotten Realms that were way more reliable. I even brought over Sigmar from Warhammer Fantasy. He's the LG deity that isn't as rigid as Iomedae and more relatable. He encourages the best in his followers and exhorts his followers to encourage fulfillment of potential in everyone. Goodly powers should be Good and reliable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, the easiest way I know of to become mythic is go to the mana wastes, and stick your head in a hole in the ground. After 100 days of this (or less, if you hang out in said holes) a there is statistically probable chance you will be quite mythic. Sure it may come with drawbacks, but, you know, you could also be a minor godlet. So.

That said: which potion are you talking about? I'd not hear of that one! I could be wrong that it's easier.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, let's try to remember to put spoiler tags on posts that need them.
Like with spoilers to things such as Wrath of the Righteous.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think there are actual spoilers for 'Wrath up there?

Saying what didn't canonically happen in the AP above is akin to mentioning, "Oh, by the way: you don't personally fight Lamashtu." from what I can tell. As I've never played or even looked read the AP, my information comes from posts on this site that are not spoilered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
In a lot of paizo material, like some of Heaven Unleashed articles(certain judgmental flying helmet...), some good aligned outsiders are portrayed as arrogant judgmental jerks.

One possible reason: Some players couldn't stand NPCs which are perfectly holy - meaning holier than their PCs could ever become, no matter how hard they try. It's not so much about the holiness itself, it's more about paling in comparison to others and never completely getting to 'the goal'. The same way commoners accentuate the power of the heroes, flawless creatures highlight the PCs' shortcomings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Coidzor wrote:
But if it does happen it needs to be a formerly Succubus Paladin formerly serving Nocticula.

I remember her! She even won!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:
Set wrote:
Evil's got lower standards, and it's so much harder to 'fall.'

.

Yet another reason why I think it would be a spectacular idea for Paizo to do it. Create an evil mortal who becomes a Demon upon death, advances to Marilith or Balor, right on up to Nascent Demon Lord -- and then slowly 'fall' up to Neutral and then Good.

It'd make for a great story.

Without getting too spoilery they already did, in one of their APs. You get the a Good aligned succubus and the chance to turn someone much more powerful than a Balor towards the cause of Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IIRC, the bestiary intro entry for Asuras also says that Asuras have been known to be enlightened and turn away from evil (based on the call out and also the mythology they are based on, probably at a higher rate than the other fiends). You could also argue that Ragathiel may count a bit as a redeemed figure, given his heritage.

Actually that does make me wonder what the redemption rate is for different fiends. I have to imagine it's basically zero for Qlippoth, which don't even form from souls, and not much above zero for daemons and Sakhils, which seem to be the worst of the worst. Given the mindset of Kytons I feel they could have a, relative to other fiends, higher chance, since they basically think they are "helping" people, even if their completely insane in there interpretation of their improvements being beneficial.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

So this is something I've been thinking about a lot since old Book of the Damned volumes... And its not just because there are far more fallen celestial than redeemed fiends. In a lot of paizo material, like some of Heaven Unleashed articles(certain judgmental flying helmet...), some good aligned outsiders are portrayed as arrogant judgmental jerks.

This struck to me as weird since aligned outsiders are representatives of their alignment.
...so logically Good aligned outsiders should be good and moral more than any mortal could be, but reading about Celestials, it doesn't really seem like they are any less fallible than mortals are, they can fall from grace due to arrogance, self-delusion, tragedy, cynicism just as easily and they have as much prejudice as mortals do.

I think this is largely true, but in addition to what Tacticslion mentioned, there is also a lot of issues with writers just not really knowing how to represent Good Outsiders without having them come off as highly self righteous, arrogant, unquestioningly devoted, and harsh in a way that really comes off, in my opinion as much more LN or even N than any form of Good.

The other thing I think is a major factor is that I don't think Paizo, perhaps subconsciously, wants to definitively define Good, and probably has a lot of individual authors that have very different views on what would be right.

This is also somewhat reinforced by the rules, as spells like Gate or the Planar Ally spells require a payment, (aside from game balance), seems very wrong to me. Good Outsiders shouldn't need payment (or even a favor/rewards/sacrifices) for doing their job, if a Good caster is asking for their help. Granted, I am aware that it says "However, if the task is strongly aligned with the creature's ethos, it may halve or even waive the payment.", but the only time I've seen that come up is when it's a plot device. To me, it just seems counterintuitive.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
Granted, I am aware that it says "However, if the task is strongly aligned with the creature's ethos, it may halve or even waive the payment.", but the only time I've seen that come up is when it's a plot device. To me, it just seems counterintuitive.

Then that's on those individual GMs then. If I was running and you use a Calling spell to summon a Good Outsider to help end an Evil threat it shouldn't need a payment, or it would take a payment in ways that would assist it (here's some potions if you need them) or others ("Yeah I'll do that for you, would mind donating some of your coin to those who need it if I do though?") .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, it's not like the good outsider doesn't have other responsibilities - especially if it's a powerful one.

Gating a solar amounts to grabbing a 4-Star General out of the blue and asking them (or making them, if you've got the caster level) to do something, probably actually really dangerous, right now.

If nothing else, you are compensating the called creature for severely inconveniencing it and almost certainly endangering it. The creature may well waive being compensated, but expecting it to work for free is uncool.

Edit: My group frequently pays called outsiders up front with magic items that we don't necessarily need but might be immediately useful to the outsider. (Like giving a bracers of armor drop to a called angel.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had situations where the players knew they were fighting something Evil, but not the full extent, then when they called good aligned outsiders (I don't remember which kind) they arrived with a couple allies, saying somethign akin to "Don't worry about payment, we've all been waiting for someone to call us for this. We REALLY want a piece of this guy. So, I brought a few buddies."

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think reason why good outsiders ask payments is part of the "if we did everything for mortals, mortals wouldn't have freedom as they would be essentially our pets" thing? I might be wrong about that


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beardinator wrote:
Because we live in a time where more people would rather justify Evil acts and laugh at the consequences of their actions rather than work to maintain a Good and righteous path. We live in a time where it's more interesting to see something Good be corrupted, broken down and destroyed rather than see something Evil be purified and ascendant. That is something that has irked me about the Golarion deities and the planar creatures. All of the Evil entities are straight up Evil and proud of it, except maybe Nocticula but more on her later, and the Goodly entities all have a shady side to them that makes them slightly unreliable. For some of these Goodly powers, it's small aspects of their personality/nature that is shady. But, for other Goodly powers, it's more pronounced. Iomedea is so rigid and strict that she's un-relatable. Cayden Cailien promotes alcoholism. Apsu cares little for his non-dragon mortal worshippers. Erastil....cursed one of his devoted when the guy became desperate while praying for Erastil's help. When your Goodly gods aren't reliable, why bother being Good? I've ported over several Goodly gods from Forgotten Realms that were way more reliable. I even brought over Sigmar from Warhammer Fantasy. He's the LG deity that isn't as rigid as Iomedae and more relatable. He encourages the best in his followers and exhorts his followers to encourage fulfillment of potential in everyone. Goodly powers should be Good and reliable.

I think this is more about what you consider a god to be exactly. If gods are nothing but people with immense power, then having them be perfect is not right.

But if gods were less people and more like intelligent parts of the universe, than being near perfect would make more sense.

Given how mortals become gods in Golarion, I'm perfectly fine treating them like a bunch of mortals who found immortality and great power, but still suffer all the foibles of people.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I think reason why good outsiders ask payments is part of the "if we did everything for mortals, mortals wouldn't have freedom as they would be essentially our pets" thing? I might be wrong about that

Sure, but contrast that to a powerful arch mage or a mouth piece of a deity in the world is calling on incredibly powerful power just to ask for your aid, and that just doesn't hold up very well.

These are not simple summoning spells, but rather prayers only used when stuff has really, really gone sideways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I think reason why good outsiders ask payments is part of the "if we did everything for mortals, mortals wouldn't have freedom as they would be essentially our pets" thing? I might be wrong about that

Sure, but contrast that to a powerful arch mage or a mouth piece of a deity in the world is calling on incredibly powerful power just to ask for your aid, and that just doesn't hold up very well.

These are not simple summoning spells, but rather prayers only used when stuff has really, really gone sideways.

I'd consider it a case of evil only caring about themselves, so naturally they ask what they are going to get out of the deal, while good guys are wanting to make sure they are called on only in great need and only by those with honest intentions, in which asking for them to make a sacrifice of some sort makes sense, because decent people will make that sacrifice for something important enough, but if it was handed out for free, then just anybody might call on them anytime they feel like it, which is not a proper use of such power. The payment for good guys is not about paying for services rendered, it is about gatekeeping the callers to those who really need the help for something they are willing to really sacrifice for.

Otherwise, it just turns into a situation like filibustering. Used to be that filibustering was difficult, it required you to stand on the podium and not stop talking, but now that the only requirement is to just state that you are filibustering, it gets used all the time because it costs nothing to do.

Good guys of great power would seriously dislike being called on for every little thing, regardless of what for, so asking for payment of some (preferably something money can not buy) keeps such requests not only reasonable but also makes those requests about the serious issues, simultaneously cutting the number of calls while also focusing their efforts where they are most needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Actually, the easiest way I know of to become mythic is go to the mana wastes, and stick your head in a hole in the ground. After 100 days of this (or less, if you hang out in said holes) a there is statistically probable chance you will be quite mythic. Sure it may come with drawbacks, but, you know, you could also be a minor godlet. So.

That said: which potion are you talking about? I'd not hear of that one! I could be wrong that it's easier.

Nahyndrian Elixir from Pathfinder #76: The Midnight Isles.

I was misremembering, actually, all being a demon does it make it so that you don't need to succeed on a DC 25 Fortitude Save. The actual requirement is to just be a Chaotic Evil creature.

Well, that and get the stuff itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
So this is something I've been thinking about a lot since old Book of the Damned volumes... And its not just because there are far more fallen celestial than redeemed fiends. In a lot of paizo material, like some of Heaven Unleashed articles(certain judgmental flying helmet...), some good aligned outsiders are portrayed as arrogant judgmental jerks.

Well, that's less being not Good and more just not being polite about it. I don't think altruism and selflessness necessarily come with social skills attached, even innate flawless altruism and selflessness. I read Heaven Unleashed a few times over, and particularly paid attention to personalities of described celestials (my Wrath of the Righteous PC has an archon familiar and cohort, so it was useful research), and... yeah, from the sound of it, that cassisian is still completely Good aligned, just not the most persuasive and personable about it.

Also, are there really that many more fallen celestials? I'd be interested to see a tally of known fallen/risen/whatever-you-call-lawvschaos-shifts outsiders. Although I would say some imbalance might be simply perspective of emphasis; evil outsiders of any sort are generally detailed more, given the increased likelihood of PCs running afoul of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:


Also, are there really that many more fallen celestials? I'd be interested to see a tally of known fallen/risen/whatever-you-call-lawvschaos-shifts outsiders. Although I would say some imbalance might be simply perspective of emphasis; evil outsiders of any sort are generally detailed more, given the increased likelihood of PCs running afoul of them.

There's a lot more fallen stuff in general in PF probably due to the nature of evil things being more likely things for your players to punch in the face.

Asmodeus is a fallen celestial along with a good chunk of his archdevils and they originally led a large amount of other celestials to Hell back in the day where they'd become devils eventually. Sahkils and one of the Whore Queens were originally fallen Psychopomps. Oni can come from fallen Kami. There's probably a few breeds of devils that are explicitly made from fallen celestials too but the basic gist of it is that there's entire breeds of fallen outsiders out there while risen evil outsiders are mostly corner cases that come up when the GM/Paizo wants a Good succubus for someone to date.


Only in that there's something fundamentally wrong with alignment.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking over this thread again, another point occurs to me. Methodology.

There's much less risk to trying to corrupt a celestial; just sticking an angel in a cage and torturing it until it's a shadow of its former self can't really go wrong, at worst some fiend is going to spend a bit of its immortal time, probably having a great deal of fun. If the angel ever gets let out, maybe it'll kill that fiend, maybe it'll kill some others in the vicinity, probably its combined motivation and willingness to do so won't have substantially increased at least, and that's the worst case scenario. Or that fiend can be much more willing to lie about whatever it thinks would get under said angel's skin. Or torture a hostage instead. Or use really high-power mind-warping magic. Or whatever. Really, hard to go wrong with much of any of those options.

But from a Good-aligned perspective, trying to redeem a fiend is a lot more limited. Sure, you could keep it in a relatively comfortable cell in Heaven or wherever for however long, but there eventually arises the question of "are we sure this guy's still evil enough that it's fair to keep him locked up?" How they're treated in the meantime is still a concern. Honesty is still a concern; none of that ability to misrepresent cosmic history to suit your own propaganda. Potential harm to innocents if they escape, or if they turn out to not be so redeemed after all when the question of releasing them comes up, is a concern. And so on.

So yeah, another thing is that Evil has an edge on recruitment, just because they don't have to care so much. Not a fault of Good outsiders, just an area in which playing fair doesn't work so well.


Evil also always has the strategic advantage in any contest. Good only wins with numbers or individuals that are overwhelmingly powerful compared to the evil guys (despite how the stories go). This is because for every option a good guy has to use against the bad guys, the bad guys have several more options. Good needs teamwork and numbers to win. Anything less just isn't enough.

Interestingly, looking at the purpose of various morality from an objective evolutionary standpoint (ignoring divine intervention possibility), a system of morals is what allows a group to work together effectively. Without morality, there is no trust and therefore no teamwork, resulting in everyone working alone and for only themselves.

More trusting individuals act as the glue, holding a group together as untrusting individuals are more likely to work together with a trusting person, yet the untrusting people are more likely to spot hidden dangers and betrayers.

In fact, it seems to me that morality is an individual's answer to how to balance the needs/desires of the individual vs the needs/desires of the group.

In psychology they ask questions like this (with no satisfactory answers yet, just various theories), and my personal take on it, is that people have several conflicting drives, and as we grow we find resolution to these conflicting drives, the end result is the core of our personalty and our actual "alignment" (I say actual, cause some people believe in one thing but don't act on those beliefs. I.E. they believe hypocrisy is bad, but yet are hypocrites anyway.).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Coidzor wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Actually, the easiest way I know of to become mythic is go to the mana wastes, and stick your head in a hole in the ground. After 100 days of this (or less, if you hang out in said holes) a there is statistically probable chance you will be quite mythic. Sure it may come with drawbacks, but, you know, you could also be a minor godlet. So.

That said: which potion are you talking about? I'd not hear of that one! I could be wrong that it's easier.

Nahyndrian Elixir from Pathfinder #76: The Midnight Isles.

I was misremembering, actually, all being a demon does it make it so that you don't need to succeed on a DC 25 Fortitude Save. The actual requirement is to just be a Chaotic Evil creature.

Well, that and get the stuff itself.

Though not very expensive to craft (wow, 8k? Huh), it's very likely to kill you, and seems implied to be difficult to make.

But, yeah.

That said, I still think the mana waste is "easier" because it has no requirements - while the potion requires a specific alignment, and possibly a specific feat, the mana wastes just require you go there and bask.

Though Razzie's the wrong alignment, so that might be a hard sell ("lines even I won't cross" kind of thing).

EDIT2: Forgot which thread I was in. >.<

EDIT: and by the way - thanks! As I might be playing that AP, I've never looked into anything from it. XD

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Evil also always has the strategic advantage in any contest. Good only wins with numbers or individuals that are overwhelmingly powerful compared to the evil guys (despite how the stories go). This is because for every option a good guy has to use against the bad guys, the bad guys have several more options. Good needs teamwork and numbers to win. Anything less just isn't enough.

Interestingly, looking at the purpose of various morality from an objective evolutionary standpoint (ignoring divine intervention possibility), a system of morals is what allows a group to work together effectively. Without morality, there is no trust and therefore no teamwork, resulting in everyone working alone and for only themselves.

More trusting individuals act as the glue, holding a group together as untrusting individuals are more likely to work together with a trusting person, yet the untrusting people are more likely to spot hidden dangers and betrayers.

In fact, it seems to me that morality is an individual's answer to how to balance the needs/desires of the individual vs the needs/desires of the group.

In psychology they ask questions like this (with no satisfactory answers yet, just various theories), and my personal take on it, is that people have several conflicting drives, and as we grow we find resolution to these conflicting drives, the end result is the core of our personalty and our actual "alignment" (I say actual, cause some people believe in one thing but don't act on those beliefs. I.E. they believe hypocrisy is bad, but yet are hypocrites anyway.).

I'm not sure that's true. One of the divine philosophies I really loved about the Dragonlance setting was the concept that "Evil turns upon itself, Good redeems its own". Evil has many superficial advantages, but ultimately they are fighting against everyone.

Evil works together, too, but it's always a secondary effect to a greater purpose, allowing someone stronger to do the work for you or weaken themselves enough so you can take over. Or they are only loyal until you run out of money, others have a better offer, or whatever the real goal is, is reached or failed.

Good is generally the opposite, willing to help defend others, go into hell or the abyss itself to rescue each other, and even if they don't agree on some things, willing to fight together and help each other out anyway, just because it's the right thing to do.

Evil believes that there can be only one, and sees it as strength to feed off of those that don't make the cut, while Good cares just as much about the strongest one as they do the weakest one. Good is also much, much, much more willing to risk self sacrifice for a better overall outcome than Evil (or Neutral).

I would argue that while it may seem that Evil has most of the advantages, it's generally the exact opposite, although, because of plot/story fiat, and the way the game system works, this is something that doesn't really come up too often.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From a Game Theory "guru",

Evil is better Tactically, Good is better Strategically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Evil also always has the strategic advantage in any contest. Good only wins with numbers or individuals that are overwhelmingly powerful compared to the evil guys (despite how the stories go). This is because for every option a good guy has to use against the bad guys, the bad guys have several more options. Good needs teamwork and numbers to win. Anything less just isn't enough.

Interestingly, looking at the purpose of various morality from an objective evolutionary standpoint (ignoring divine intervention possibility), a system of morals is what allows a group to work together effectively. Without morality, there is no trust and therefore no teamwork, resulting in everyone working alone and for only themselves.

More trusting individuals act as the glue, holding a group together as untrusting individuals are more likely to work together with a trusting person, yet the untrusting people are more likely to spot hidden dangers and betrayers.

In fact, it seems to me that morality is an individual's answer to how to balance the needs/desires of the individual vs the needs/desires of the group.

In psychology they ask questions like this (with no satisfactory answers yet, just various theories), and my personal take on it, is that people have several conflicting drives, and as we grow we find resolution to these conflicting drives, the end result is the core of our personalty and our actual "alignment" (I say actual, cause some people believe in one thing but don't act on those beliefs. I.E. they believe hypocrisy is bad, but yet are hypocrites anyway.).

I'm not sure that's true. One of the divine philosophies I really loved about the Dragonlance setting was the concept that "Evil turns upon itself, Good redeems its own". Evil has many superficial advantages, but ultimately they are fighting against everyone.

Exactly...even without a blood war ala DnD, there are plenty of examples in Great Beyond lore of different outsider races fighting against each other, or members of the same type of fiend warring against each other.

In contrast, the Empyreal Lords may have philosophical and alignment differences, but they act as a unified front.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is why good requires numbers. All those things you just mentioned only apply when there are plenty of good guys.

Also, while evil doesn't work well in teams, they can often be counted on to do the same thing even without communicating. It'll be clumsy, and chaotic, but it'll still be difficult for a good guy to overcome.

Take what happened to Delorean. He tried to make a good car for the customer (which is never sound business), and all the other car companies took action to stop him.

Also, one bad guy can force others to follow suit, such happened in security in Texas. Used to be that security guards could make 13-15 per hour, but when Imperial Security moved in, they undercut everyone so bad, that they had to cut pay rates just to stay in business. This meant the quality of security went down as most competant guards had to move on to keep their income, and now most security guards are folks who are too incompetant to work elsewhere, and the rest are those who are merely supplementing a more substantial income or are on disability/retirement type situations and therefore can't make too much of they'll lose benefits.

This is bad all around, the quality of security goes down, there are fewer jobs available that can keep people in the middle class, etc.

Further, neutral people will favor evil, though they won't realize it, as they are easy to manipulate. Back to the Delorean example, he was accused of murder, though he was found innocent, the verdict was not widely known, while his being accused was, and so, in the minds of most people, he was guilty. The restart company ceo still has people asking him if Dalorean is still in jail because the accusation alone was enough to make them think he was guilty. Evil has no problem using this against their opponents.

Also, evil is not nearly so prone to self destructive behaviour as you think. Evil tends to be practical. A group of evil guys can work together to get what they want, and they all have a motivation to play straight with each other, because that is less risky and is more likely to make the others "allies" that be used later. Also, if everyone they work with dies or gets cheated, they get a reputation and no o e else will work with them and that seriously inhibits their ability to achieve anything.

But most importantly are two factors, first, uneducated or poorly educated common people are unknowing tools for evil, and second, and perhaps most importantly, evil naturally creates an environment where evil behaviour is more successful.

I.E. businesses are all about maximizing profit, an evil endeavor in and of itself, but the better a bussiness gets at maximizing it's profit, the more others need to follow suit just to survive. Stick a business of someone trying to help people next to a business concerned only with profits, and the profits business wins nearly every time. The competition must minimize helping customers or they collapse. The only way for a not evil business to survive against an evil business is for the not evil one to turn the customer base against the evil one, and that will rarely succeed.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheAlicornSage wrote:
I.E. businesses are all about maximizing profit, an evil endeavor in and of itself, but the better a bussiness gets at maximizing it's profit, the more others need to follow suit just to survive. Stick a business of someone trying to help people next to a business concerned only with profits, and the profits business wins nearly every time. The competition must minimize helping customers or they collapse. The only way for a not evil business to survive against an evil business is for the not evil one to turn the customer base against the evil one, and that will rarely succeed.

I'm sorry, but this claim is nonsense. Maximizing profit is not evil. It is doing evil things in order to maximize profit that is evil. And those things would be evil even if they were not done for the sake of profit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me put it this way, there is only a set amount of resources available to a community at any one time. If you want to have more resources, there is less remaining for everyone else. If you continually partake in trades where you get more than you give, then naturally, there will be fewer and fewer resources for everyone else to share. Eventually, everyone else is struggling to get enough resources just to survive.

Additionally, there will never be a good business choice that doesn't do a selfish/evil thing.

Take mecicine for example. You could not produce a true cure and sell it cheaply enough to get the medicine to everyone who needs it, and yet recoup the costs of development.

Also, look at cars. Companies makd them to be replaced every 5 of so years, cause that makes them more money. It is also a less efficient use of those materials group-wide, as more unrecoverable resources are spent on cars being remade, and even the rdcyclable materials require time and effort and resources to recycle that could be spdnt elsewhere if cars were made to not only last longer but also be easier to maintain.

This theme carries over to every single business. Every last one.

Accumulating resources in one place denies those resources elsewhere.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By that logic, it is evil for me to drink a glass of water, so that I am not thirsty. After all, I don't know if because I drink that water, someone half the world away will be thirsty because they don't have enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the contrary, there is a difference between obtaining what you need, and obtaining as much as you can.

Using your example, it would be evil to build a massive water tank and fill with water that you have no need for, that would otherwise have been available to slake everyone's thirst.

Profits are not about need. Profits are what you have above and beyond what you require.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, profit is everything beyond what you need to pay your operating costs. For a small business, any money the owner takes home to feed his or her family is 'profit.'


Actually, since you have to be alive to do a job, money spent on survival is a major part of your operating costs.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If that is the definition you are using of operating costs, then you are using the word in a very non-standard way. By the standard definition, that is part of profits. And where will you draw the line? Is someone running a small business allowed to make enough money to but a house and a car? What about enough money to send their child to college? Are they allowed to save for retirement? What is the magic number they use to know when they have enough for retirement, and saving any more goes from prudent to evil?

Evil is not just a matter of amount or degree. Evil is not just wanting a bit more than you need. Using more than someone who is not even familiar with your life considers your share is not evil. Evil is choosing to pursue hurting others.

I think at this point this is a major derail of this thread, so I'm out.


If evil is the active pursuit of hurting others, then evil is done only by those who are sick or broken, and are of little concern compared to those that will destroy the world through negligence.


An interesting quote I found today,

Quote:
"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

Shadow Lodge

TheAlicornSage wrote:

That is why good requires numbers. All those things you just mentioned only apply when there are plenty of good guys.

Also, while evil doesn't work well in teams, they can often be counted on to do the same thing even without communicating. It'll be clumsy, and chaotic, but it'll still be difficult for a good guy to overcome.

Take what happened to Delorean. He tried to make a good car for the customer (which is never sound business), and all the other car companies took action to stop him.

Also, one bad guy can force others to follow suit, such happened in security in Texas. Used to be that security guards could make 13-15 per hour, but when Imperial Security moved in, they undercut everyone so bad, that they had to cut pay rates just to stay in business. This meant the quality of security went down as most competant guards had to move on to keep their income, and now most security guards are folks who are too incompetant to work elsewhere, and the rest are those who are merely supplementing a more substantial income or are on disability/retirement type situations and therefore can't make too much of they'll lose benefits.

This is bad all around, the quality of security goes down, there are fewer jobs available that can keep people in the middle class, etc.

Further, neutral people will favor evil, though they won't realize it, as they are easy to manipulate. Back to the Delorean example, he was accused of murder, though he was found innocent, the verdict was not widely known, while his being accused was, and so, in the minds of most people, he was guilty. The restart company ceo still has people asking him if Dalorean is still in jail because the accusation alone was enough to make them think he was guilty. Evil has no problem using this against their opponents.

Also, evil is not nearly so prone to self destructive behaviour as you think. Evil tends to be practical. A group of evil guys can work together to get what they want, and they all have a motivation to play straight with...

I think you missed the point. Good doesn't require numbers, because they keep theirs. I don't think I agree with most of what you have said, though Neutral probably does favor evil more than good, to a degree.


Evil generally keeps theirs too. The idea of evil guys eternally betraying each other at every chance is silliness. Yes, a bad guy is more likely to betray a group, but they won't do it just because they can, rather they'll do it when it is beneficial to do so in the long term, or think they can evade the consequences, not just from cops and good guys but also from other bad guys.

Bad guys know they can't do everything alone, they also know crossing other bad guys is likely to make enemies, enemies that won't be restrained by the law of moral code, which is a much worse thing to have as an enemy. They are selfish, not stupid. In fact, you generally only need to worry about the bad guys that are smart, because they have to be smart to escape the law, and that means most of the time, they are going to work together. Not as well as good guys, but well enough for each of them to walk away with a profit.

About the only evil people who freely slaughter and betray without care, are the rare individuals who are literally broken in the head, who can't help themselves, and those are even more dangerous, because they fight the world, both good and evil, and that means that in order for them to be more than a one time problem, they have to survive both the good guys and the bad guys, and that means running from forensics chasing detectives and assassins. And yes other bad guys have a vested interest in getting rid of such individuals when they cross paths.


Alicorn,
We recognize that this is important to you.
Why is it so important to you that evil must be superior to good?


DM Beckett wrote:

{. . .}

This is also somewhat reinforced by the rules, as spells like Gate or the Planar Ally spells require a payment, (aside from game balance), seems very wrong to me. Good Outsiders shouldn't need payment (or even a favor/rewards/sacrifices) for doing their job, if a Good caster is asking for their help.

Hey, Good Outsiders have to pay their rent too . . . .

and

And to answer the original question: Yes, it appears that Good does have something fundamentally wrong with it . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

{. . .}

This is also somewhat reinforced by the rules, as spells like Gate or the Planar Ally spells require a payment, (aside from game balance), seems very wrong to me. Good Outsiders shouldn't need payment (or even a favor/rewards/sacrifices) for doing their job, if a Good caster is asking for their help.

Hey, Good Outsiders have to pay their rent too . . . .

and

And to answer the original question: Yes, it appears that Good does have something fundamentally wrong with it . . . .

...Not putting self destruct buttons in places where any munchkin can bump into it?


It isn't that evil must be superior to good, it is that I don't assume that either must be superior. I look at the world as objectively as I can and look as deeply as I can.

The war between the group and the individual is really what are discussing. "Evil" people are those who act for their own benefit without regard for the consequences of others. Meanwhile, "good" people are those who follow some set of rules taught to them as the "right" way to behave, and very few of those people even bother to question whether the way they've been taught is actually a good way or not, and even fewer develop a deeper understanding of the way they have been taught and it's consequences beyond the superficial appearances. They act that way because it is what they were taught to do, and they believe it is best because they were told it was, rather than trying to discern the truth for themselves.

Many social structures are almost designed (the same way ant hills are "designed" from 3 tiny rules) to maintain the status quo, and "good" people tend to ignore anything outside their immediate sphere of influence like family or friends. "Evil" people are not so concerned with others and thus tend to be constantly looking outward, thus "evil" people tend to be the ones who see how to manipulate things to better suit themselves. They aren't concerned about the feelings of others or the group as a whole, so instead of considering how words will make someone feel (with the aim of avoiding negative feelings), they instead consider how their words might cause others to react, thus while "good" people will speak with thought to follow moral guidelines towards promoting happiness, no matter how poorly designed the guidelines, "evil" will speak with thought only to how the listener will respond and how to get a response that will benefit them.

The same applies to any type of action or activity.

Thus, evil naturally follows a course leading to greater power and influence, while good naturally follows a course of strengthening social ties. Evil, is thus always acting towards self-benefit on a large scale (a number is a number whether it represents the guy next door that has been an acquaintance for 20 years, or a total stranger), while good is focused on the small scale (feeling a greater focus on the people they know than strangers).

Good people may regularly work to benefit others, but they only act to directly thwart the natural consequences of evil when they A) realize they need to take action, which is often too late, and B) feel that they are in a position to actually make a difference, and sometimes C) they feel that the cost is worth it.

Of course, as good people tend to be less pragmatic, thinking more broadly (how does this affect the couple dozen people I care about vs evil's how does this affect me) but less deeply (thinking of a couple dozen things for a couple dozen people vs a couple dozen things for one person), good tends to not realize the full consequences of evil people's actions until too late.

Good people also tend to ignore things beyond their group, I.E. the old saying "Seek no trouble and no trouble will come to you" is just plain wrong but is very much a good person's mindset, while an evil person is most assuredly constantly thinking of things beyond their group.

Evil naturally wins until too many good people are hurt by it and causes those good guys to finally band together to stop it. World war 2 is a fine example. The "good" guys dithered and waited, not wanting to get into another war, being overly concerned with avoiding atrocities and the hurt to be caused, while evil was not, thus evil grew until the good guys finally couldn't stand aside anymore.

------
For some context watch these three videos,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-vQ0L77LY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu5QZmPG8zk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X2es__Wtuk

Now consider what kinds of incentive systems are in place in life in general and not just government. If you look at the world as a big system, or even just society, then examine that system for incentives, what incentives are there for selfish people to limit themselves, and what incentives are there for good people to sacrifice of themselves for who? What incentives are there for good guys to step up and be socially responsible for the world around them? What positions would good and evil people need to further their own goals? What incentives are there to either take those positions or avoid them? I.E. "politician" is nearly synonymous with "corrupt" in the minds of most. Even desiring to do good, would they take up the mantle of politician to do it?

How many good guys could sacrifice everything they desire in life for the greater good? How could they subject their family to being hounded by press day and night, to having their names dragged through the mud in political warfare every day? How many good guys could go through with it?

Bad guys don't care, so naturally they have no problem with it.

------
Another example.

I have a generator that can safely produce electricity for decades, and is scale-able to fit in the palm of one's hand, and is completely safe with no toxic, chemical, nor radioactive. It is as safe any electronic device could be.

It is also cheap, relatively speaking. With $381 billion dollars made in the energy industry last year, I could outfit 100 million homes with a generator the size of a water heater to provide all the electricity they could need for the next century.

How do you think the energy industry will respond? Are you thinking they will jump on it as the next greatest thing? If so, you'd be wrong. It would make a fraction of the revenues currently generated, less than 1% of the current profits even.

Could any self respecting businessperson consider that a good business decision? No they could not.

Not a single business would accept the new generator. None of them.

In fact, every single one, without even communicating among themselves would take immediate action to stop such a generator from existing. They would spend millions if required to prevent it, to stop me. From their point of view, this generator would not be a great step for humanity, relieving the energy problems of the world overnight, instead the energy industry would see this generator as a metaphorical weapon of mass destruction in the world of business and the destruction of their life's work, their legacy, and the empire they plan on passing down to their kids someday.

Just look at the history of solar panels. The only that saved them was the space program.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
About the only evil people who freely slaughter and betray without care, are the rare individuals who are literally broken in the head, who can't help themselves, and those are even more dangerous, because they fight the world, both good and evil, and that means that in order for them to be more than a one time problem, they have to survive both the good guys and the bad guys, and that means running from forensics chasing detectives and assassins. And yes other bad guys have a vested interest in getting rid of such individuals when they cross paths.

Let's be real, irrational, unhinged CE types aren't all that rare in the context of fantasy table top RPGs, especially not when it comes to Pathfinder or Golarion, and they're certainly far more prevalent than you're claiming here.


TLDR: you get what you focus on. Good is focused on the people in their lives and evil is focused on gaining wealth and power, thus good has lots of friends while evil has wealth and power.


Coidzor wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
About the only evil people who freely slaughter and betray without care, are the rare individuals who are literally broken in the head, who can't help themselves, and those are even more dangerous, because they fight the world, both good and evil, and that means that in order for them to be more than a one time problem, they have to survive both the good guys and the bad guys, and that means running from forensics chasing detectives and assassins. And yes other bad guys have a vested interest in getting rid of such individuals when they cross paths.
Let's be real, irrational, unhinged CE types aren't all that rare in the context of fantasy table top RPGs, especially not when it comes to Pathfinder or Golarion, and they're certainly far more prevalent than you're claiming here.

Our definition of good and evil is based on reality though, and thus my original comments still stand. Fiction is just a fun house mirror effect on reality, good requires numbers to win.

Fiction simply focuses on the exceptions and outliers, not the general cases. Does this too much sometimes, particularly in rpgs where players tend to lose touch with the game's baseline ideas of "normal" people, leading to all kinds of weirdness.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Is there something fundamentally "wrong" with Good aligned outsiders? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.