Anyways. Personal settings aside, where one has created their own cosmology and such, Undead are evil. You may not agree or like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
I don't like that DC Comics, for example, has gotten rid of their 60+ year in universe history but that doesn't change the fact that the New 52 exists.
Finally, as I said earlier, Pathfinder rules were created before the setting of Golarion. So I'm not sure about that quote from James, but it sounds like he might be mistaken.
Here is the James Jacobs comment to which I was referring.
His comment seems to me to indicate that the reason undead (and the creation thereof) are 'evil' is indeed setting specific to Golarion.
While searching through this stuff, I came across a very interesting link discussing the various problems which arise from taking wholly one side or the other. Here.
This link suggests that a lot of the disagreement regarding undead stems from the fact that, essentially, there are two ways to think of Undead, which are represented here by Ace and Icehawk's respective positions. These two positions seem untenable with one another, yet both sets tend to be included in rules texts because of the nature of the development process (developers themselves cannot agree).
The link provided is very nice reading for me, discussing undead from the position of moral agency (is: how can a mindless creature be considered Evil if negative energy is itself simply a Neutral force of the universe).
Another interesting thing I discovered during my digging: a Paladin's Smite Evil ability will always work on an Undead creature, regardless of alignment. Similarly, it always works on Outsider with the Evil subtype, even if the creature in question is not evil. I found this interesting and at least partially relevant.
... snip! ... Another interesting thing I discovered during my digging: a Paladin's Smite Evil ability will always work on an Undead creature, regardless of alignment. Similarly, it always works on Outsider with the Evil subtype, even if the creature in question is not evil. I found this interesting and at least partially relevant.
Well, this certainly adds some credit to the 'they are innately 'evil'' argument, per definition of their subtype and that Smite. I presume then the reverse, Smite Good, would apply.
What's the opposite if any, of Undead? Or is this just ignored due to the sheer overwhelming totality of 'good' beings in the usual setting? Hehehe.. Smite !Undead means Life!? zomg!?
Remember--
Subtype != Alignment
The real question here isn't about the personality and alignment of Edward "Sparkles" Vegan vampire, but rather, their innate 'being'. Which could easily be solved if subtype is referenced.
Devil? Outsider, Evil subtype, right?
Demon? Outsider, Evil subtype, right?
Undead? Undead subtype, right?
I love these game systems sometimes. :)
Phaezeriel might wanna avoid Paladins if this is a rule in our game. ;) One accidental wrong mishap while some Paladin is fighting, and BOOM! Heads might roll.
note: Edited MANY times.
If they're good, there also velnurable to smite good, like evil outsiders.
MG, I urge you to abandon preconceived notions, especially since most of them are the result of specific gameplay settings - which may be popular, but should have no bearing on the discussion of a completely independent setting.
Personally, I am of the opinion that removing the onus of responsibility from a sentient undead dillutes the meaning of true Evil. To me, real, true evil is making the choice to commit evil acts, willfully and without the undead "nature" or "compulsion" (however you wish to label it) you've described. It doesn't feel like real evil to me. It feels like storytime evil.
Man, Jacob's response to the Undead thing really ...doesn't clarify, too much. It explains why the lack of love, but... so monkey wrench on the order of existence is evil?
Something tells me the universe is very Lawful, and breaking the order of stuff is frowned upon.
Tsk tsk, you chaotic folk! Step in line, or get Smited!
Good lord, fresh new Red Vines are evil and tasty... so very, very tasty.
I hope I don't die of some sugar related illness in life later-- but if I do, it was worth it, EVERY time.
Just like espresso is worth it, every single time.
MG, I urge you to abandon preconceived notions, especially since most of them are the result of specific gameplay settings - which may be popular, but should have no bearing on the discussion of a completely independent setting.
Personally, I am of the opinion that removing the onus of responsibility from a sentient undead dillutes the meaning of true Evil. To me, real, true evil is making the choice to commit evil acts, willfully and without the undead "nature" or "compulsion" (however you wish to label it) you've described. It doesn't feel like real evil to me.
You know what?
I can't completely agree with you. In these game settings-- there *is* pure evil vileness, out there, usually in another dimension, seeking to corrupt and spread it's filth, into the wholesome goodness (or neutral) that is everything else.
That's the nature of these worlds and universes.
Now, to agree with you as well, Yes. Free Will, actively choosing to commit to 'evil acts', knowingly and intently, or without giving a damn (i.e. remorse), is an evil act. Repeatedly doing such, does make one evil.
But, even those Freely Chosen Acts, are nothing compared to the pure evil of creation born entities and agents of such, i.e. a God of Evil, or Devils/Demons.
So, I'm gonna just throw that out for you to mull over. :) In game settings, /not real life/, there is pure, unadulterated evil, which is as pure as it comes.
EDIT: To Further Rant ...
(blame the red vines, so nummy... wooo!)
If we do accept that there are 'pure good' or 'pure evil' beings, and worse yet, they are devoid of choice, i.e. this Free Will you speak of, that allows for SO MUCH RICHER the potential for storytelling and actual "I broke my being and went the path of Good/Light!" such as Phae has done, or some other slathering demon who gains humanity story line.
Consider too, the potential angst an agent of 'good' might have, standing before some puny mortal human realizing that it, is free, while the agent of 'good' is not, and can do very little about that-- in terms of Free Will (doing good, versus doing bad).
Or worse yet, you'd throw away the potential for an agent of good DOING evil acts, but not being evil, because it simply cannot EVER be evil. That's good story potential there too-- in the eyes of the known universe, it can do no wrong. :) All the actions it attempts, results in no change of it's state of being. How's that for potentially scary stuff to resolve for whoever cares?
Fun stuff.
Yet, there is no pure evil in pathfinder.
And that's a good thing. I wouldn't play a system where there was.
Yet, there is no pure evil in pathfinder.
And that's a good thing. I wouldn't play a system where there was.
First, elaborate please for my benefit:
a) "no pure evil in pathfinder" -- do you mean the rules, or the setting?
b) Why not?
To correct my statement, no "pure evil" beings. In the rules, or the setting- all things either have a choice or aren't sentient.
Because i can't stand the concept. Trying to say that someone/thing is evil and can never do good means that he has no will in the first place, and is nothin more then a force, and therefore unaligned.
They still have a choice. They just choose to kill everything.
If they don't, then I'm going to do my best to pretend they don't exist.
To restate what Icehawk has expressed in different terms (hopefully this is not too abstract, we certainly have diverged from the original topic):
Good and Evil are properties of actions. An evil being is one who chooses knowingly to perform evil actions over good or neutral actions consistently.
Which, in turn, means that to be an evil being must be a choice, willfully made.
I find this position enticing because I cannot truly conceive of a 'thing' named Evil. Evil is not something which exists on it's own - it is a property applied to actions and people.
Perhaps that's where we disagree - a core conception of what evil actually is.
I admit I can conceive of of a being of 'utter evil' as you described Damiani, but... Such beings feel... I dunno, childish and fairy-taleish to me. That's my personal opinion though, and should not reflect on others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaugh! This has just continued to steamroll into quite possibly most frustrating convo ever because every time I turn around there is yet another layer that has to be addressed/argued to death/nailed down and I really wasn't trying to write a whole freaking campaign setting book. :(
Re: Good/Evil
I don't go for absolutes. I don't really care for the alignment system in the first place. I've run afoul of it due to misunderstandings in the past and I find that it can act as a veritable straightjacket when it comes to character growth. As far as Outsiders with evil or good subtypes go, I consider them to have free will, but the deck is stacked one way or the other. Angels can make a choice that causes them to fall, but it would be very difficult for them to fight their nature in order to make that choice. Ditto but reversed for demons/devils. And somewhere around the time I made Hope a Big Bad y'all should have figured out that I like to play around with good and evil so that it's not all clear-cut and simple. That's just no fun. Not following normal expectations...that's way more fun.
Sorry Lyn. I didn't mean to upset you.
I gotta go read the kidlet a bedtime story. Try not to start any more philosophical debates relating to the game setting before I get back and can answer the undead question.
... Try not to start any more philosophical debates relating to the game setting before I get back ...
The sky is blue....
Asmodeus is a being of Pure Evil...
But, even if you wanna argue that, the Overlord of Hell definitely is.
Dragon on a Pedastal, and the rest of that series. Undead are not evil. What about Underworld? I dont remember which setting (i think elder scrolls) but in one setting, dark elves find making their ancestors remains animated, or part of the wall surrounding their estate as an honor and not wrong or evil.
Also, I always understood that mindless undead were animated by the negative energy, not a soul.
Besides, evil is a moral stance. Mindless creatures are not capable of morality, therfore how can they possibly be evil?
And saying that feeding to survive is evil, is the same as calling all creatures evil. Even herbivores eating living things.
Self survival is never evil, even when you lack the preffered method of survival.
The goody two shoes idea of never harm, may be good (depending on culture) but that doesnt mean anything else is inherently evil.
Okay, let me just say, that I have spent this week, which was supposed to be time that I was going to spend catching up on household chores and studying for exams...maybe even beginning to catch up on two months of missed television programs, instead I have spent this week looking after a cranky, sick, clingy child. And my frustration levels are really, really high. Which means that my temper is running a bit short. And I do not appreciate that all of this has completely taken everyone's attention away from actually playing the game. And as I have already stated, I do not particularly enjoy debate. It might best be described as a trigger. So please understand exactly where the following is coming from.
All that said, MG, I already made my ruling on good/evil in this setting. Let it go. NOW. Not after just one more post. I don't care if it makes sense to you. I don't care if you like it. Just don't say another word about it.
Dami, I do not want to see another rules or setting debate started before we get to change of day FOR ANY REASON. It doesn't matter how innocently things started, they have now escalated to the point where it needs to stop for an appreciable amount of time.
Aaand I think that my food tonight might have had cross-contamination issues. I itch all over and my face is especially red and blotchy. :(
Stupid wheat allergy. :(
Alright. Undead.
Well, it depends on the type really. A mindless undead is just powered by negative energy and it's not really inherently anything. Creating these is not inherently universally evil, but since they're usually used for evil purposes it's an understandable misconception. Since most good clerics/paladins/etc. use positive energy, they're ability to smite undead makes total sense. It's not about good or evil. Just a popular misconception.
Intelligent undead are a whole different kettle of fish. They are created by imprisoning a soul, and whether it's an evil act to create one depends entirely on the purpose of making them and the willingness of the soul in question. They are not inherently evil, but they often commit evil acts because they can't control their urges well after the change, so the majority end up as evil as a result of their actions.
Using Keaton as an example, after he was turned into a vampire he did horrible things. He was just a kid and didn't have great impulse control to begin with. After they were able to capture him and give him blood substitute and serum to drink that curbed his vampire appetites and suppressed the instincts, he was able to go back to being himself personality wise and hasn't committed evil acts since. Of course now he's back to being mortal, but the point still stands.
Another example would be a lich. They make themselves undead so the subject is willing. Thus, not inherently evil. But if the wizard transforming himself is evil and selfish and does harm to others, then he'll become an evil lich because he was evil to begin with as a result of his choices.
And now I'm going to go get some sleep. Hopefully tomorrow can get back to actually playing the game and wrapping up the rest of this day that never ends. :/
I'm back.
...
Lots of long posts...
...
Sorry if I did anything to spur this, Lyn. It wasn't my intention if I did. :/
I just got back from a Here Come the Mummies concert if that means anything to anyone. Couple new song ideas and a new T-shirt.
Dave/Tybs/Dom/Possibly Janie band needs a saxophone player. I might have Tybs learn it with some extra ranks I have lying around. I can't decide if I want him to play trombone, sax, or trumpet, though.
Something to learn in character. :)
Sorry for the excessive crankiness last night. I had jut reached the end of my tether and wasn't particularly happy to have the thing I'd been using as an escape to help manage the crazy amount of stress this week has been suddenly turn into another source of stress. In general this is not a good format for debate for the heck of it. There are other threads or that. Here I don't have a choice but to jump in at the earliest opportunity even when I know that I either need a cooling off period first or to not jump in at all. The times when I tried to wait until I was calmer have ended with me spending a weekend sorting out interpesonal messes after things devolved to namecalling. Because somebody always takes it too seriously. Unfortunately this time that was me So, once again, sorry guys.
If anybody has been waiting to get on board this project, it is absolutely worth it now.
All three books are hardcover, there will be Mythic Psionics, Herolab support for everything, and so much more.
Please, if you guys can, help support this!!
Sorry, don't really like mythic that much.
I'll have you know I was an adult!
I'll have you know I was an adult!
Uh, unless you're retconning you were younger than Ryo. Older teen at best. :P
We're also ignoring the young rules.
We mostly use pathfinder for the spells, class and combat system. Everything else is us. :P
The room. Or the library. Or the workshop. One of those.
The library. Getting things to take to the workshop to read while he makes things to take to the room.
I only said he followed you out. Didn't say where he went after. :P
He's getting started on Carl's mistake and Arthur's surprise. :P
|
Oh, quick update before stuff irl gets me.
Last night, as I was getting a ride home from DM'ing Rise of the Runelords, one of my players starts to make some fears/worries known.
This leads to her husband, a far more experienced player/DM eventually saying I, the guy who never ran anything but one shot games I was making up as I went along, was among his top five favorite DMs.
I was a little surprised. :)
DB3 if i game with a half dozen different DM's, I am positive you would definitely be among the top 5 or 6
Nice. :)
I wish I was in one of your games. :P
Also, hope your friend's problems/fears were resolved. ^_^
Ryo was mid twenties, Lyn.
Foul, it's 18(or the equivalent) in this setting. Lyn said so around the beginning of this game, I think.
?
I remember him being younger than Aananda, and she was 26 when that game started. I thought Keaton was like 17 or 18 at most when he was turned.
Edit: yep, I was right about Ryo. First game post described him as in his early twenties.
Also, DB3, that's awesome. Always good when the effort put into GMing pays off and the players really like it. :)
|
|
As a note Lyn, I've had 14 GMs over the years, 6 of whom were in person, you are definitly top 3 :D not sure where in the top three thoug, the oter two in the top three are my first ever DM and one I played with this semester
(Ice, you'd be in the #4 slot, and that guy who's house we went to neer our school would be tied for 5)
You guys went to a game without me? 8(
You guys would definately enjoy my games (RL games that is. I usually run fun games, my problem is reliable players.