I'm really, really confused by the Lady of Graves. If a priest of Pharasma chooses the Death Domain, they gain undead creating powers, and yet the goddess is apparently very anti-undead.
I asked about this on the chatroom. I think the answer was that it was wished that there was a Undead domain separate from the Death domain. Cleric's of Pharasma aren't really approved to use the undead creation spells. However, that there also might be some fridge cultists who create undead (often for a relatively short period).
I plan to allow them to create undead. The goddess has given the permission to do so by giving them the power.
The undead the clerics create are from souls that volunteer to return and those that are being punished by Pharasma. However once the need for them is over they are to be returned to her.
|
I'm really, really confused by the Lady of Graves. If a priest of Pharasma chooses the Death Domain, they gain undead creating powers, and yet the goddess is apparently very anti-undead.
I would definitely swap it out with the Repose domain in my own campaigns.
I agree, the idea of Pharasma's clerics raising the dead doesn't seem to fit.
I'm really, really confused by the Lady of Graves. If a priest of Pharasma chooses the Death Domain, they gain undead creating powers, and yet the goddess is apparently very anti-undead.I would definitely swap it out with the Repose domain in my own campaigns.
I agree, the idea of Pharasma's clerics raising the dead doesn't seem to fit.
It should be noted that Pharasma does also have the Repose domain.
*
Edit: My idea for a "solution" would be to add a few non-evil spirit-like undead (with a more limited duration on this world) that worshipers of Pharasma can use create undead to create. I like the idea of these spirits using abilities to guide and aid their "creator" and allies rather than taking direct attacks
|
|
It should be noted that Pharasma does also have the Repose domain.I'm really, really confused by the Lady of Graves. If a priest of Pharasma chooses the Death Domain, they gain undead creating powers, and yet the goddess is apparently very anti-undead.I would definitely swap it out with the Repose domain in my own campaigns.
I agree, the idea of Pharasma's clerics raising the dead doesn't seem to fit.
Don't mind me, I am a big dunce. I was answering without the gazetteer in front of me and my brain had obviously ceased working.
I feel pretty silly now.
Don't mind me, I am a big dunce. I was answering without the book in front of me and my brain had obviously ceased working.
Feel pretty silly now.
It's no problem, it is pretty easy to miss stuff like that.
At least for me. :)
|
|
Edit: My idea for a "solution" would be to add a few non-evil spirit-like undead (with a more limited duration on this world) that worshipers of Pharasma can use create undead to create. I like the idea of these spirits using abilities to guide and aid their "creator" and allies rather than taking direct attacks
That would be a pretty good solution.
I wonder if another solution might lie in the "deathless" creature type. Once again, I don't have the appropriate book (Book of Exalted Deeds) in front of me so I am uncertain how the template works exactly. But I think it could serve as inspiration at the very least.
Edit: My idea for a "solution" would be to add a few non-evil spirit-like undead (with a more limited duration on this world) that worshipers of Pharasma can use create undead to create. I like the idea of these spirits using abilities to guide and aid their "creator" and allies rather than taking direct attacksThat would be a pretty good solution.
I wonder if another solution might lie in the "deathless" creature type. Once again, I don't have the appropriate book (Book of Exalted Deeds) in front of me so I am uncertain how the template works exactly. But I think it could serve as inspiration at the very least.
I think that turns them into nega-verse undead ( hurt by negative energy, healed by positive energy, good rather than evil, have trimmed beards, etc. ) which might be a little excessive for Pharasma specific undead. I'll check it out though to see if I missed anything.
Edit: Yeah, pretty much just undead that react well to positive energy like the animated Statue of Liberty. Also: the section on how deathless react to spells is way too long for me.
I would imagine the form this would take would be that for the most part the undead created would just be incorporable shells that certain souls can control from the Boneyard, somewhat similar to the way astral projection works (to protect the souls the many dangers they would otherwise face). They would be allowed this as a step in becoming able to join with the Boneyard, being reincarnated, or something else. They wouldn't use corpses to form the shell, largely due to preparing the body for burial is more important.
Mechanically, I would say that they are not evil nor do they detect as evil. As well, to avoid them taking any permanent residence on the material plane they would begin to deteriorate rapidly when they are no controlled by a worshiper of Pharasma.
Again, I would say their primary purpose would not be to fight battles on behalf of their summoners, but instead aid and guide them.
What about the idea of mindless undead not actually holding souls, thus not causing any kind of issue in the spiritual cylce of death/birth?
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I like the idea of punishing souls or returning volunteers. It will help me later when my cleric of Pharasma raises a dead companion.
And I know that skeletons and zombies are mindless, but I have always thought of them as still 'trapped' in there. Not in control, just confused and tortured. That way no one can say rasing zombies for labor isn't an evil act.
But even that woldn't be 'evil' if you had an ethos of punishing murderers with undeath. "Carry my companions body back to Absalom, where he will be granted life and you will endure as a temple servant until his natural span of sixty years."
I wonder if another solution might lie in the "deathless" creature type. Once again, I don't have the appropriate book (Book of Exalted Deeds) in front of me so I am uncertain how the template works exactly. But I think it could serve as inspiration at the very least.
Oh God, please no. I have an immediate, visceral reaction to those things on a conceptual level. Just use non-evil undead and don't feel bad about calling them undead. Deathless seemed like a cheap creation in the BoED to justify having undead-like things that were super Good while allowing them to portray all undead as evil icky monsters.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
here, here. same thing with good poisons and good diseases.
While on a certain level, I can see the divine affliction as a way the powers of good might get someone's attention, I don't think a good disease that only afects evil targets is good flavor or mechanics.
Nor is pacifism.
Creative Director
|
I really don't like the concept of deathless, and something like that is unlikely to pop up in Golarion.
As for non-evil diseases and poisons? That's silly too. Disease and poison are no more evil than fireballs or swords. If D&D REALLY thought that poison was evil, things like couatls and guardian nagas wouldn't have poison, and things like spiders and scorpions would be evil.
I really don't like the concept of deathless, and something like that is unlikely to pop up in Golarion.
As for non-evil diseases and poisons? That's silly too. Disease and poison are no more evil than fireballs or swords. If D&D REALLY thought that poison was evil, things like couatls and guardian nagas wouldn't have poison, and things like spiders and scorpions would be evil.
Gooood... the mind control lasers are still working. Paizo doing exactly as I had in mind. Gooooood...
|
Deathless is one of many things that I really don't like about BoVD/BoED. Monte might be a great designer and all-round cool person, but the Vile Darkness books was IMHO the low point in his resume.
After living in the shadow of 80's anti-RPG witch hunt, WotC decided to make a book about Bad Things... Where we learn that... undead is evil...poison is evil...drugs are evil...Nick Logue is evil...hurting others is evil...torture is evil, icky, yuck and oh so horrible that we need a book with Vow of Povetry ASAP to counter all that black nasty stuff !
*SIGH*
what about...
- Torturing a deranged Ogre to learn where did his clan carry off prisoners to ?
- Poisoning an evil queen that genocides her subjects by thousands ?
- Joining ranks of a devil cabal, climbing up their hierarchy only to backstab them at the most opportune moment, revealing yourself to be an agent of authorities ?
- becoming a Lich in order to use the power for good and benevolence ?
I dig the way Pathfinder features "non-evil" undead (Myriana...Silas...Iesha) so far. Keep up to good work guys, I'm waiting for a Chatoic Good Dracolich here :)
|
|
Deathless is one of many things that I really don't like about BoVD/BoED. Monte might be a great designer and all-round cool person, but the Vile Darkness books was IMHO the low point in his resume.
After living in the shadow of 80's anti-RPG witch hunt, WotC decided to make a book about Bad Things... Where we learn that... undead is evil...poison is evil...drugs are evil...Nick Logue is evil...hurting others is evil...torture is evil, icky, yuck and oh so horrible that we need a book with Vow of Povetry ASAP to counter all that black nasty stuff !
*SIGH*
what about...
- Torturing a deranged Ogre to learn where did his clan carry off prisoners to ?
- Poisoning an evil queen that genocides her subjects by thousands ?
- Joining ranks of a devil cabal, climbing up their hierarchy only to backstab them at the most opportune moment, revealing yourself to be an agent of authorities ?
- becoming a Lich in order to use the power for good and benevolence ?I dig the way Pathfinder features "non-evil" undead (Myriana...Silas...Iesha) so far. Keep up to good work guys, I'm waiting for a Chatoic Good Dracolich here :)
Nope, torture is still evil. There's a reason they call things like that "necessary evils", a phrase I'm sure Asmodeus had a hand in drafting.
Assassination? Depends on motive and victim. I don't see why the method makes a difference there.
Depends what you have to do to join/climb the ranks of the cabal, but if human sacrifice is anywhere on the list and they wouldn't be a great devil cabal otherwise, then, yup, evil.
Depends what the requirements are for lichdom.
Asmodeus invented the phrase "for the greater good" and still loves to hear it used because he knows that soul is on its way to him. The road to Hell is paved with what, after all?
The Evil two are very Lawful activities, but they're still evil.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This topic came up in a Play-by-Post campaign I'm running. My take:
In my understanding of the alignment rules on Golarion, it all hinges on the gods.
If the gods didn't exist, there might well not be alignments, at least in a way that affected magic systems.
Undead might not have been evil --certainly, mindless undead wouldn't be evil-- except that Urgathoa, a manifestly evil goddess, has declared herself the Pallid Princess, and commands undead as part of her portfolio. Zombies are evil because she is evil and they are hers. There aren't any "good undead" because Urgathoa forbids it.
Paladins are the agents of choice for Iomedae, Erastil, and those other deities who decide they want to employ strict paragons of virtue in their war for the morals of the world. There aren't any "non-LG paladins" because Iomedae refuses to allow such a thing.
If a chaotic good deity had taken poisons as part of his portfolio, poisoning would be a good thing.
So, what does a paladin do, when she comes across a community of gnolls going about farming or trading?
It depends. Typically, gnolls worship Lamashtu, and this includes desecrating their children to the Mother of Monsters at their weaning. And this dedication has real ramifications. It is a slow-acting moral poison. A gnoll who's been given to Lamashtu grows up seeing the world differently than one who's still entirely free-willed. His will bends to hers, his actions serve her goals. He is, in all ways, a monster.
So, the short answer is, some people are dedicated to Dark Powers. These people are evil, in a way that real-life folks on Earth aren't, and they're fair game for a paladin to pursue, to stand against, and to kill. Some races consist almost entirely of individuals who are so dedicated.
I've never seen a paladin decide to "redeem" a fallen race, but it would be a terrific campaign arc.
BTW, what Deities "own" Poison, then? Is *all* Poison use Evil? What about hunting with poison arrows/darts? Just using a quick-acting poison doesn't seem particularly Evil.
You're absolutely right. Poisoning someone to bring a quick end to a long bout of suffering doesn't seem like a bad thing. And poisoning, left to its own merits, wouldn't be.
Poison is part of Norgorber's fields of interest. As one of the Ascended, Norgorber is a relatively recent god, and his moral influence over his "portfolio" is less entrenched than other gods'. But it's growing.
Before Norgorber, poison use was neutral. Nowadays, it belongs to him in his guise as "Blackfingers", and every act of poisoning someone, even out of mercy, has become a small homage to him, and has thus become evil.
If you're not a cleric or paladin, this probably doesn't make much impact. All the gods are contesting with one another for power. Every time you look at a sunrise, your act strengthens Sarenrae. Every time you hurt yourself, your actions do homage to Zon-kuthon, regardless of your deliberate intentions.
Does that make sense?
Does that make sense?
That's a spectacularly good explanation, though it doesn't answer how the Gods got their alignments.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That's a very doop question, Ross. Obviously, Golarion deities can have alignments, and, as with Zon-Kuthon, can change alignments. But to answer questions like how and why that ahppens, we need to first get a handle on some fundamental metaphysical and ethical questions like:
- What are the gods?
- What does it mean for a god to change?
- What are the alignments, absent any gods?
A canonical example: in Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series, the alignments are the "team colors" of the gods and demons struggling over the destiny of reality. Moorcock's gods don't have alignments: alignments have gods.
Some of the Golarion pantheon seems like that: Asmodeus seems to be the walking embodiment of Law and Evil. But what does it mean that Zon-Kuthon is also a LE god? Does it mean that those two beings agree on everything? (Obvious answer: no; I don't think we could even say they're "on the same team".)
Really, I don't think we have the kind of information to answer your question.
I've thought about this a little, and here's my halfhearted answer:
Alignments are a universal concept. A God having an alignment means the same thing as a mortal having an alignment. It helps describe their goals, their methods, and their thought processes.
However, because Gods are such powerful beings, forces that would otherwise be neutral are tainted by their association with particular gods. Norgorber is evil because he is evil. Poison use is evil because it is associated with Norgorber.
Crummy dsl connection ate a massive post on my part...
But, like Orwell's take on freedom, are all gods divine, with some more divine than the others? Is there some difference on a metaphysical level between the oldest gods like Asmodeus and Pharasma, versus newer gods, versus ascended mortals like Nethys, or those mortals who ascended via the Starstone, versus gods from "outside" for lack of a better term, like Rovagug? Good question.
Don't assume my preference on the topic is necessarily in line with a classical Planescape take on it all. But I think it's an interesting subject to speculate upon (the gods, not my flavor preferences). :)
What about using the "Blessed Children" from Malhavoc?
They are the opposite of Undead, souls not yet born into this world and their stats are in Ptolus.
I actually see the Deathless concept as one of the few unreservedly good ideas coming out of VD/ED. Subsequent uses of it weren't all that good (I'm looking at you, Keith Baker).
Look at it this way: if a ghost or spirit is sent to Earth from the afterlife by a good deity as a messenger or protector, it should not be Undead in the conventional sense. This bothered me as far back as the early Dragonlance games, with guardian spirits working for the Good gods that were pretty much treated as undead.
The concept exists in myth -- saints, benevolent ghosts, and so forth -- and so has, theoretically, a place in D&D. Spirits of the dead who are benificent. The original Deathless writeup was a great way to describe this.
Then Baker messed it up with a civilization ruled by mortally-created deathless lich-things. I'm sorry, no. They're not simply the opposite of undead, even if that's what their stats are; they serve a different purpose entirely, and their creation should not be in mortal hands.
Why not just make the Good returned spirits Outsiders, though?
That's also a good option. Doesn't make deathless any less good, though, it's just a different approach.
|
Look at it this way: if a ghost or spirit is sent to Earth from the afterlife by a good deity as a messenger or protector, it should not be Undead in the conventional sense. This bothered me as far back as the early Dragonlance games, with guardian spirits working for the Good gods that were pretty much treated as undead.
The problem isn't with the existence of the 'Deathless' type, it's with the notion that anything that isn't corporeally alive is automatically evil and nasty. Ghosts can come back with good agendas (Stop the evil guys I failed to stop! Save my family! Get the relic to the king, which I failed to do!), and they're no less 'undead' for their lack of evil-ness.
Undead are undead. Good, bad or ugly. Sent back by the gods of good to mentor or advise the faithful priest in his moment of doubt or pulled up from the grave to torment the living, they're all undead.
Before 3.5 came up with the contradictory notion that anything not alive was automatically evil (even if it was *mindless* and animated by *neutral energy* from a *neutral plane* full of *neutral natives*), every other edition of the game had no need for 'deathless' types, as there were already neutral and good undead (the forgotten realms even had entire subtype of 'Archlich' or Baelnorns, good-aligned liches, years before Richard Baker introduced the same sort of concept in Eberron, but was forced by 3.5 retconning of 'negative energy = evil' to create a new type that was nothing more than 'non-evil undead').
Why not just make the Good returned spirits Outsiders, though?
That would be my preference. If a soul has already migrated to its proper afterlife (be it on the outer planes or otherwise), it's no longer conceptually the same thing as a traditional D&D ghost or other spirit with a genesis very much on the material plane. It would be some manner of glorified petitioner or lesser outsider, of whatever alignment its patron or native plane happened to be.
I'd go the outsider route, rather than appearing to be a backdoor attempt to vilify undead, which the deathless always came off to me as being. And I say this as someone who has used non-evil undead in Golarion (though I don't know if any of them will survive the editing process and make it into print).
Ghosts can come back with good agendas (Stop the evil guys I failed to stop! Save my family! Get the relic to the king, which I failed to do!), and they're no less 'undead' for their lack of evil-ness.
The difference between Ghosts and other undead is that a Ghost's mission in its unlife is to be able to simply die.
However, that there also might be some fridge cultists who create undead (often for a relatively short period).
Do you mean fringe cultists or are you alluding to the fact that they keep corpses cold to preserve them for their experiments with undeath? ;-P
So was there ever an official answer to the OP's original question/point?
This wasn't really addressed when the core rules came out.
Keith Baker.Richard Baker
Richard Baker, Keith Baker, Baker Sam, the Pie-Pan Man, whatever...
:)
pie, yum
I wonder how often a discussion about a death goddess eventually turns to a comment on the deliciousness that is pie?
I plan to allow them to create undead. The goddess has given the permission to do so by giving them the power.
The undead the clerics create are from souls that volunteer to return and those that are being punished by Pharasma. However once the need for them is over they are to be returned to her.
I missed this on my initial read through. Neat idea. If there's no official word, I'll probably steal it.
The same holds for me when it comes to coverting a fresh body to a ghoul, vampire, wraith, etc. Unless specific measures are taken in their creation I dont see that as actually being the soul that once resided there.
Errrr... what? That makes no sense, even given the default metaphysics. It especially makes no sense with Golarion metaphysics, which are pretty explicit in how souls travel and how making undead interacts with that.
I'm sorry, in my shock I didn't explain myself well. I probably shouldn't even have mentioned metaphysics at all, because that's all kind of beside the point; your statements don't seem to be internally consistent to me unless you've made other spell changes not mentioned.
For one, animate dead is only 1-2 levels lower than raise dead. It makes perfect sense that it only imperfectly returns the soul to the body, creating the mindless undead. Remember, it can only create skeletons or zombies.
As for the intelligent undead thing, create undead is actually a higher level spell than raise dead (and note, it cannot create vampires). Why does it make sense that raise dead can restore the soul to the body, but create undead cannot? Raise dead is the weaker spell. Surely raise dead snatches the soul from its deity just as create undead does.
From that, raise dead is conjuration(healing), while animate dead is necromancy. Two entirely different schools of magic.
Don't even get me started on Conjuration (healing). It's a bogus subschool. Healing spells, including the resurrection spells, were always Necromancy until 3rd edition, and make far more sense there than Conjuration. If raise dead were a true Conjuration spell, it'd be Conjuration (calling), because it's calling an outsider (released soul) to the material plane.
There is nothing in the spell description of animate dead (or for that matter create undead)that mentions anything about a soul being recalled to that body.
Irrelevant. The creature descriptions in the Bestiary (which are entirely setting-neutral) describe them as having souls and being fragments of their former selves. This is most obvious with spectres, which create greater undead can make:
A spectre looks much as it did in life and can be easily recognized by those who knew the individual or have seen the individual’s face in paintings or drawings. Spectres retain a strong sense of identity, and even ancient, insane spectres generally remain coherent. Evil historians and necromancers often try to ally with spectres for the knowledge they held in life and retain in undeath.
Basically, it is utterly impossible to have a Spectre that does not have a strong link to its previous life. It is similarly difficult for most of the other intelligent undead (barring Shadows and Wraiths), although the connection isn't as strong.
It still remains that any metaphysics such as the soul being damaged if the body (which in the case of a skeleton) may have been dead for months is something i have an issue with myself.
That's fine, but I still believe such a view isn't internally consistent.
|
|
Since we are discussing the setting metaphysics of the what the spells do, not purely the system mechanics behind them. It still remains that any metaphysics such as the soul being damaged if the body (which in the case of a skeleton) may have been dead for months is something i have an issue with myself.
That's never really existed in any version of the game, so I'm not terribly worried about it. A person can't be ressurected to his body if it's being used at the moment as a zombie, but his spirit can still party on in Valhalla or wherever, completely ignorant of what's going on in the world he left behind. (Indeed, Planescape had Petitioners flatly stated to have forgotten their mortals lives, and the Speak With Dead spell has always had a caveat that it doesn't contact the actual souls of the departed, only communicates with some shadowy echo imprint thingie left behind in the bones.)
Necromancy, undeath and negative energy, barring very specific spells such as Trap the Soul and Magic Jar, have zip to do with the soul.
Robbing the gods (demons, devils, etc.) of their lunch-money takes big, big mojo. Animate Dead is not big enough for that job.