|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone brought this up elsewhere.
One of the best things about the Juju Oracle is that it makes something close to the "white necromancer" concept possible, along with good undead and all the myriad ways they can be flavored.
But then there's the question of those undead that have spawning abilities, particularly those that they don't have to put a lot of effort into to have it happen.
What results when a NG Juju Oracle's NG ghoul* pal kills a hostile humanoid? Do we wind up with an new ghoul that's as evil as the norm? Or does the different metaphysical nature of the Oracle's ghoul "infect" it with a sense of morality close to her own undead?
Does this answer change if the Oracle is not at her max HD for controlled undead and can take another under her wing? Is the Oracle and her posse better off burning the bodies of the fallen, either through sheer pragmatism or through cleansing rituals of religious importance? Or is the alignment-infection route still possible, along with all the complications, RP-fuel, and incredibly sticky ethical dilemmas it would bring to the table?
Can the possibility that Juju ghouls aren't exactly standard ghouls play into their spawning methods, if they even spawn at all?
*Which may or may not be reskinned as some other form of undead working with the same mechanics, according the the Oracle and campaign's flavor
I've always found the idea of the "white necromancer" and good undead paradoxical. Most mindless creatures are neutral but skeletons and zombies aren't because of the unnatural nature of animating bones and corpses. If you animate rocks or metal or fire, it's not considered evil or unnatural.
So if the reason necromancy and undead are evil is because you're using corpses, how could you possibly flip it, alignment-wise? I'm guessing that there is some kind of fluff that can explain around it but I prefer to leave animating constructs for the good and neutral wizards and corpses for the necromancers.
Sorry, I know I didn't really answer your question. I like the topic though. Surprised no one is commenting on this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[tangent]Looking at necromancy as its original meaning, to speak with the dead, there are plenty of ways for "white necromancy" to fit. Along with the Varisian spirit dances already in the setting, there's the genuine flipside to "black necromancy": Evil necromancers enslave the dead. Good necromancers would help and work with the dead. Restless spirits that have unfinished business or regrets could find eventual relief and release through working with such a necromancer.
That leads back to the Juju oracle, which is specifically noted as being able to create undead through a different means that doesn't make them inherently evil. AND they're using spirits that aid them willingly. It should be noted that animated objects/golems which are considered more acceptable than creating undead require the enslavement of an elemental being, which is far shadier than working with wendo spirits.
As for good undead, we've had so many examples in folklore and literature(and D&D!) I can't imagine any legitimately good reason to lock them out completely.[/tangent]
But yeah, mighty curious about the spawning bit.
Casper the Gh.... OH!, sorry... ;-P
Paizo´s (Golarion) explanation for Undead Creation(normally)=EVIL is emphatically NOT because messing around with corpses is itself evil or un-natural (that explanation wouldn´t really hold for non-corporeal undead anyways). Rather, their explanation hinges on (normal)Undead Creation involves animation with energies that are inherently EVIL, which is why unControlled Undead will typically seek to destroy any living life ´just because´. Juju Undead are presumably animated with energy that doesn´t do this, which is why it is Good, alignment-wise. ...I really have no idea what the intent is for Jujuspawn, though I don´t see why Mikaze´s idea of creating Good Jujuspawn isn´t logically consistent. I would count the new spawn towards the HD limit, and if you are over that limit, any of the Good Jujuspawn would just tend to wander off to find orphanages or whatever their Good urges prod them towards.
...That has got to be an awesome image: AH! Zombies are swarming the Orphanage!! OH, it´s oK, they just want to play hop-and-skip games....
....Hmm... If only they didn´t keep dropping bits of rotting flesh... The younger children will pick up and eat anything...
Casper the Gh.... OH!, sorry... ;-P
STOP Or the copyright ninjas will come for you!
|
|
I would count the new spawn towards the HD limit, and if you are over that limit, any of the Good Jujuspawn would just tend to wander off to find orphanages or whatever their Good urges prod them towards.
...That has got to be an awesome image: AH! Zombies are swarming the Orphanage!! OH, it´s oK, they just want to play hop-and-skip games....
....Hmm... If only they didn´t keep dropping bits of rotting flesh... The younger children will pick up and eat anything...
Oops, missed the edit, sorry.
It certainly leads to some interesting ideas, though it feels like there should still be something to curb abusing it, be it social taboos or metaphysical complications. Still, it could lead to some really neat/$#@!ed-up Franken Fran-level Blue and Orange morality debates to complicate the usual Good vs. Evil/Law vs. Chaos ones. Like say, doomed starving village having the option of being saved by good-aligned ghouldom. Which would pretty much doom them to a possible eternity of never-ending hunger...
Thinking about it some more, I can't help but think there are some undead types that just plain cannot be anything other than entirely evil, Juju methods be damned. Namely devourers, unless their Juju counterparts functioned very differently from the standard model that is. Ghouls and such are a lot easier to reflavor within the confines of their mechanics at least.
Yeah, well as per Paizo´s rationale for Evil Undead being the energy animating them is inherently evil which is why they run around hungering to do evil deeds (i.e. devour the innocent), I would say that since JuJu Undead AREN´T Evil, the nature of their animating energy isn´t evil, and thus the inherent inclinations aren´t evil. So perhaps they would have a ´hunger´ to do good, or whatnot. I agree that the different undead certainly would require differing degrees of ´re-flavoring´ to match a Good alignment. Maybe for ´uncontrolled´ Good Juju Undead, I would say that they expire from this world after finally accomplishing an impressive enough Good act, or whatever.
I don´t see much balance issues, since it´s basically just about working exactly the same as Evil Necromancy... I mean, I might agree that semi-permanent Undead mooks DO carry balance issues, given there aren´t really any trade-offs per RAW, but I don´t see any balance issue between good Juju Necromancy and conventional Evil Necromancy.
|
|
Maybe for ´uncontrolled´ Good Juju Undead, I would say that they expire from this world after finally accomplishing an impressive enough Good act, or whatever.
This right here would really be my ideal choice for flavor. That's certainly the angle I'm taking for Juju Oracle NPCs at least.
It fits nicely with the general idea behind LotR's army of the dead too. So and so years ago a rampaging horde was stopped dead in their tracks by an oracle. Said oracle charged them to guard the lands they were once set to ravage. Cut to the present, those undead guardians have fallen into a torpor. Something worse than they ever were is barrelling towards the land/town/city/kingdom. PCs have to track down and wake that undead army in order to even the odds, after which those undead can finally pass on.
I don´t see much balance issues, since it´s basically just about working exactly the same as Evil Necromancy... I mean, I might agree that semi-permanent Undead mooks DO carry balance issues, given there aren´t really any trade-offs per RAW, but I don´t see any balance issue between good Juju Necromancy and conventional Evil Necromancy.
My main concern was really players getting the idea that maybe forcing benevolent undeath upon entire populations may be a good idea.(even if it becomes a self-correcting issue since most characters going that route aren't going to stay good for long) ;) Still provides some interesting villain fuel at least.
Just keep in mind that in any place where the people is not familiar with Mwangi culture to understand the difference between Wendo-created undead and your standard zombies, you may end up with a pitchfork-wielding mob on your hand.
"But Steve the Zombie is a nice guy, I swear!"
"You'll burn for this, foul necromancer!"
Yeah, well as per Paizo´s rationale for Evil Undead being the energy animating them is inherently evil which is why they run around hungering to do evil deeds (i.e. devour the innocent), I would say that since JuJu Undead AREN´T Evil, the nature of their animating energy isn´t evil, and thus the inherent inclinations aren´t evil.
Actually, they are both animated by negative energy, though JuJu has fluff that says they have the extra Wendo spirit component which changes their alignment. Also, the "energy" source has nothing to do with the evilness of the action or the undead themselves. Positive and Negative energy are actually inherently neutral, not good or evil. The Positive energy plane can kill you just as easily as the Negative energy plane.
Unless I missed something, wasn't Spirit Vessels edited to remove the following text?
"Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment. "
Apparently the ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight; in Pathfinder all undead should be evil, except possibly ghosts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's pretty lame if you ask me.
Unless I missed something, wasn't Spirit Vessels edited to remove the following text?
"Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment. "
Apparently the ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight; in Pathfinder all undead should be evil, except possibly ghosts.
And yet they keep making that same oversight all over the place. "They are only exceptions to the rule," doesn't really do it for me anymore. They have good aligned ghosts, mummies, vampires, Wendo spirit undead, and I think I heard about a skeletal champion that did this to.
Edit:
Oh! I just remembered that they also have a CN Lich that lives in the negative energy plane, CN Bogeymen and N Crypt Things.
Who's to say that good undead can't have an agenda like evil undead? Mindless evil undead seem to be motivated by 1) their creator or 2) lacking that, a desire to either eat the living or corrupt the living. Eating seems like a pretty neutral act, and I'd say reanimating a zombie that goes on to eat people is the same as letting a wild predator loose; not really evil, but you'd feel kind of guilty. For a zombie/ghoul/whatever that goes on trying to make spawn, it's trying to reproduce to (I guess?) perpetrate more evil, like eating living things.
Can't good "corrupt" evil just the same way evil can good? A good-aligned ghoul would be taking evil creatures and, instead of letting them rot in the ground with a lifetime of misdeeds, allow them a chance at redemption by continuing to fight against evil. Right? That doesn't even have to be explicit, really. The ghoul's spawn can simply have their pre-programmed desire be "Do... gooooood.... Be... constructive.... Help otherrrrrss.... Also take time.... for self...." Good can be mercy, compassion, and redemption, but there are also strong themes of vengeance, retaliation, and purging evil. That same ghoul could have a taste for righting whatever wrongs it's been programmed to perceive based off of the magic of its creator or its creator's creator (in the case of spawn).
It's easy to see reanimating corpses as evil, and that's how Pathfinder flavors it, but when we talk about animating stone or metal or wood, isn't it the same thing? You're taking something lifeless and giving it life, or the semblance of it, and in the case of wood it can even still be living. The only difference is that a body once had agency, but lacking that it's just a pile of meat; ethically, although we as 21st-century Western (assuming) humans would see it as horrendous, it's just animal pieces that ground up we wouldn't even notice was people.
I mean, you just killed the thing. You ended its chance at future redemption, acts of kindness or decency, happiness, etc., and now you're cutting that off forever. If you reanimate it with the intention of allowing it to work on unfinished business that's basically what Sarenrae is doing, yeah? Redeeming the fallen? Allowing something a chance to try again and make a positive difference in the world instead of leaving it as a failure. That's neutral good son! You could even flavor it in such a way that part of the reanimation ritual is speaking with the corpse's spirit, briefly outlining what's expected and whether they're willing. DM's discretion that creature can choose not to accept the reanimation (otherwise you're enslaving it).
I think necromancy is usually labeled evil is because most necromancers are digging around in graveyards, taking corpses of predominantly neutral villagers, and then sending them off to kill predominantly neutral villagers in the hopes of making more undead predominantly neutral villagers. The slavery aspect is a big part of the evil, but also the intention of the creator/the inherent drive of the energy reanimating the creatures, if you want to give energy an agenda.
Someone disagreeing with the mandate of Paizo and subverting their "monsters are always evil" trope?
HERESY! YOU MUST BE PURGED OF THESE DEVIANT THOUGHTS BEFORE THEY SPREAD FURTHER!!
|
Totally random note, but there are several canonical non-Evil undead (other than Ghosts) in Golarion (a LN vampire and a mummy of similar alignment leap immediately to mind). All are intelligent and choose to not be Evil.
The point Paizo seems to be making with the distinction is that willingly becoming undead or creating undead is pretty much always Evil, and that undead are Evil by nature.
But intelligent beings can override their nature...so that's a very real possibility.
guys, lets look at this rationally: if its based on an african religion, it HAS to be evil.
if it's based on christian ideals of a butcherer of unbelievers, then it must always be lawful good.
that aside, juju can be good or bad depending on your actions. a good-aligned juju oracle could be resurrecting dead to help them get done of unfinished business.
for example:
1. juju oracle is surrounded by goblins. he resurrects a fallen warrior who had been slain by monsters in those grounds for him to take revenge.
2. juju oracle must fight a powerful warlord. he resurrects a ghoul of a woman who broke her oath to her lord, and will be able to rest in peace if she has another chance to be loyal to a master.
you could even have the juju oracle recite the stories of those he raises every time.
if your ghoul suddenly makes another guy a ghoul, well, that's just the nature of ghouls. it's up for the juju oracle to clean up, in the same way a good aligned dragon rider must keep her dragon fed and clean after her imflammable feces.
|
|
I think for those who want "good undead" Paizo should either cave in or provide an alternative. Create a new subtype of Undead that can be good and spells to create it. Spirits that return to protect the innocent or right wrongs aren't an uncommon fantasy trope and it could lead to some interesting new spells and bestiary entries. Characters like The Green Knight or the ghosts of A Christmas Carol could be argued to be good characters with a deathly twist.
|
|
guys, lets look at this rationally: if its based on an african religion, it HAS to be evil.
if it's based on christian ideals of a butcherer of unbelievers, then it must always be lawful good.
This is pretty deeply unfair to Paizo. Even with the nerf there's no reason a Juju Oracle can't be Good, they just need to avoid making zombies (which, in fairness, is considered a tad unsavory even among many cultures that believe in it).
yeah...the actual creation of zombies is not exactly a good act in real world believes associated with these traditions. If fact its pretty horrible
And yet there are tales of undead in some real world religions and folk tales that didn't have the living dead as a malevolent force.
|
|
And yet there are tales of undead in some real world religions and folk tales that didn't have the living dead as a malevolent force.
True. But a lot (if not most) of those are perhaps best defined as ghosts, which really are as likely to be Good as Evil. It's the corporeal undead that are almost universally Evil...and I'm not thinking of very many folktales involving friendly walking corpses, and I make something of a study of various mythologies. There are some, but they're not common in the least.
I'm still cool with Good undead, mind you, and use the un-nerfed version of the Revelation in question in my games, but it's not exactly untrue to the source material to have most undead be Evil.
Besides, that wasn't really the issue I was addressing...which was the accusation Secret Wizard made that Paizo was being either racist or culturally imperialist or something like that for making zombies Evil since they were "based on an african religion". Which is a load of crap.
a rotting corpse is only evil because it's yucky while a ghost is more aesthetically pleasing.
Get your heads out of the box
Daily reminder that casting Animate Dead on a corpse to make a magical skeleton is an affront to nature, but casting Animate Object on a corpse to make a magical skeleton is totes okay and is guaranteed to get lots of laughs from mace wielding clerics.
That depends on the ghost. The apperance of a ghost depends largely on the matter of it's passing. Or have you not seen Beetlejuice?a rotting corpse is only evil because it's yucky while a ghost is more aesthetically pleasing.
i remember miss argentina particularly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pick any sampling of our global literature, the Hebrew Testaments, the Christian Bible, the Koran, The Vedas, It's a trope that as the site says, is older than dirt. The stories of angelic beings falling to wickedness abound, such as God losing a third(!) of his angels to his Adversary. You don't see anything of the reverse.Source for that? I genuinely am intrigued where that trope came from.Can't good "corrupt" evil just the same way evil can good?No, because alignment is not a simple revolving door. It's far far easier to sink, than it is to rise, alignment wise.
You mean stories of redemption? That's a load of crap, there are plenty of those.
It is usually presented as rarer or more exceptional, I'll grant you, but it's hardly unheard of, even among demons and monsters.
Daily reminder that casting Animate Dead on a corpse to make a magical skeleton is an affront to nature, but casting Animate Object on a corpse to make a magical skeleton is totes okay and is guaranteed to get lots of laughs from mace wielding clerics.
Good point. Kinda like the Golem argument.... or the enslaving of elementals.... or summoned creatures that get nothing in return... Or unnaturally speaking with the dead, etc.
What I'm saying is is that there are a lot of spells that no one blinks an eye at or say they're evil when they are obviously doing something unnatural or evil.
For example: a goblin wants to kill you and you cast charm person on it and it fails its saving throw. It no longer wants to hurt you, considers you its friend and would do anything for you it would do for its dearest friend. You are subverting a living creature's will with a lesser version of mind control. Ah, but wasn't the goblin trying to kill you earlier, so that this spell was justified? Okay, what about using it on a LG guard who thinks you are suspicious? You could say that the spell is harmless and I wasn't doing anything anyway. I argue that you are still changing the guard's ability to make decisions in your favor and using a lesser form of control on him. Wouldn't that be considered evil? You aren't subverting someones will when you use animate dead on a body that the original occupant isn't using anyway.
Back to my original point, I believe its how you use something and not what it is that makes it evil. If was the opposite, a lot of spells would be evil that aren't. Animate dead might be unnatural and unsavory, but how can you say its evil when its used to defend yourself and your party or to carry your stuff?
And if you argue that something that is unnatural is evil then what do you define as unnatural in pathfinder? I say a tree getting up and walking around is unnatural. I say that someone changing the natural world through the power of will is unnatural. Yet a lot of treants are good and not all spellcasters are evil.
swords are unnatural
they are made with magic that's just simpler to reproduce
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't good "corrupt" evil just the same way evil can good?No, because alignment is not a simple revolving door. It's far far easier to sink, than it is to rise, alignment wise.
There is 0 evidence of this being the case anywhere but on our Prime Material Plane. And even then I'm skeptical. Especially since it seemed pretty easy to go from E to G for Saul/Paul.
I can't say actual rules wise whether a good ghoul would make new good ghouls. That said, if I were DM, I'd allow it. Although I'd allow it, that doesn't mean people aren't going to run or mob on sight about a ghoul traipsing about town.
On the subject of even having good zombies to begin with, I had a concept of one that I'd want to play (GM willing), where the PC would go around and talk to warriors, getting one-on-one, contract signed ok from said warrior to use their dead body and / or soul to continue to combat evils after they've died. This particular PC wouldn't use enchantments or shady tactics to get the ok from the warriors, finding that in horrible taste and cheating. But still, I'd expect townsfolk to freak if they saw an army of undead. Good or not.
Third Mind gets it. It's all about flavor.
TBH this thread seems to be full of nerds too scared to watch a zombie movie to learn that it's actually humans who are the monsters.
Ghouls eat and reproduce just like any other animal... they consume the living, but don't humans too?
What's worse, A) eating a cheerleader or B) systematically butchering animals, putting up a facade to hide the horrible act of slaughter and consumption of life, and sell them to kids along with toys?
So a Ghoul makes other Ghouls. Birds make other birds. Amoebae make other amoebae. That's evil somehow because they are a reanimated corpse? Is that mushroom that makes ants commit explosive spore suicide evil or just doing its thing?
I'd say undead are neutral unless they are intelligent OR actively created by an intelligent entity to perform an EVIL/GOOD task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone pointed before, there are many stories about redemption. Many of them are actually in those same texts.
And i find funny that you had to present religious, often contradictory texts as evidence that is easier to fall than to rise.
What happens when you don't get your morality from religion?
Then you sir are a heretic and must be burned!
...Okay just kidding.
If you don't get morality from religion, then all of your moral ideals come from the societal ideals around you for the most part. However, if one is independent enough, you form your moral ideals from your own observations of society itself and make decisions based on what you think is right and how you would feel if you did something.
There is actually an interesting study that says that its not your experience that defines your morality, but who you are. As in, when you are born, you instinctively cling to certain moral ideals and "learn" how to stand by them as you get older (which means in some cases you learn the wrong way of doing this...). Most children (about 90 something %) will be instinctively attracted to nice acts they observe and repelled by mean ones (the study was done with dolls, one act was "handing" the doll something and it making a glad sound and the other was hitting it and it making a short distress sound).
Okay so back on topic. If we "learn" that necromancy is evil, its usually from old, but sustained religious views and knowledge of an afterlife (basically the body still has ownership even though not in use). If its instinctive, its probably that most humans are universally repulsed and fear death (which can develop respect for it).
Though, for the most part, I think its more the memory of specific personages and respect that you still feel for them that (hypothetically) most people would say necromancy is evil because you are unnaturally animating remains that shouldn't be touched.
I still say that they aren't using the corpse, so why not? You wouldn't have said anything If I were to animate a statue, unless you guys hate magic in general. Animate dead is just a cheaper spell long term for a functioning servant, with the body probably belonging to someone who tried to kill you in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. And a body without a soul is the same thing as taking a pile of sausages and making a sausage golem out of it. That said, is making a flesh golem an evil act? I've never really thought about it, but RAW I'm not sure if that actually would be the case. If it is, and if making a flesh golem out of pieces of once-living, autonomous flesh is not evil, then what's so evil about essentially making a flesh golem out of whole cloth? There's nothing there that can drive it anymore, the soul can't or doesn't object, and you're just utilizing a corpse the same way you'd utilize a statue for animate object or twist the hell out of a cave wall for stone shape. Unless we're making it so that the soul of the deceased is miffed that its body is being resurrected without its consent to do things it wouldn't have done as a living being (which, honestly, being a meat shield and running suicide missions isn't what most living creatures would do), then it's only evil if the zombie as a tool--like an animated object--is used for evil.
We can say that good-aligned deities abhor undead for a variety of reasons which would necessarily make it evil, but then that's taking a specific in-game dogma and applying it to the system as a whole. I'd think that some deities would be down with undead, like Gorum, who aren't evil; Gorum would probably see it as the physical shell being reused like a weapon to continue to wage war. Calistria might even support undead creation if the creature in question had died in the pursuit of an ultimately failed vendetta. There are a lot of possibilities, and I think a smart player and an open DM can easily sort through these and make a really good case for "white" necromancy. Hell, if the necromancy in question reanimates corpses using positive instead of negative energy the body could feel tingly and happy the whole time and even be essentially alive, minus the agency of an inhabiting soul. I remember that was a thing in Eberron, and it worked out pretty well thematically.
I gotta say, the thought of positive energy undead never occurred to me before. I might very well use that for the next campaign I DM.
I think if the Devs gave healing and Resurrection back to Necromancy where they belong, the school as a whole would have less of a bad rep.
You shouldn't have to house rule 'white' necromancy because necromancy naturally controls both death and life.
If I recall correctly, that's how it worked in 2nd edition D&D.
I gotta say, the thought of positive energy undead never occurred to me before. I might very well use that for the next campaign I DM.
Third Mind gets it. It's all about flavor.
TBH this thread seems to be full of nerds too scared to watch a zombie movie to learn that it's actually humans who are the monsters.
Ghouls eat and reproduce just like any other animal... they consume the living, but don't humans too?
What's worse, A) eating a cheerleader or B) systematically butchering animals, putting up a facade to hide the horrible act of slaughter and consumption of life, and sell them to kids along with toys?
So a Ghoul makes other Ghouls. Birds make other birds. Amoebae make other amoebae. That's evil somehow because they are a reanimated corpse? Is that mushroom that makes ants commit explosive spore suicide evil or just doing its thing?
I'd say undead are neutral unless they are intelligent OR actively created by an intelligent entity to perform an EVIL/GOOD task.
That's going to all come down to the flavor of the setting though. In Golarion, and how I would run it, being a ghoul isn't like being a guy who has a craving for a cheeseburger. You might start off neutral, but you are going to have a deep, never satiated hunger for flesh, specifically humanoid flesh. It doesn't matter how much you down, it will be ever present.
Now, some ghouls with a strong willpower can resist this urge, but many can't. If it gets bad enough they may even turn feral.
Keep in mind too, that ghouls don't just arise from ghoul bites. They can also arise from the corpses of cannibals, who with the exception of "Donner Party" scenarios, are not going to be the greatest people anyway.
They can also arise from the corpses of cannibals, who with the exception of "Donner Party" scenarios, are not going to be the greatest people anyway.
Donner Party scenarios as... a scenario where everyone involved is white? Or do you believe that people commonly engaged in cannibalism 'cause it was fun?
Most "cannibalistic" tribes in the real world eat the flesh of deceased enemies, which, in my opinion, is not really a mark of character other than saying this guy is hella thrifty, no point in letting a good pound of flesh go to waste just because it was a "human".
That's going to all come down to the flavor of the setting though. In Golarion, and how I would run it, being a ghoul isn't like being a guy who has a craving for a cheeseburger. You might start off neutral, but you are going to have a deep, never satiated hunger for flesh, specifically humanoid flesh. It doesn't matter how much you down, it will be ever present.
So? Dude wants humanoid flesh. All life can only be sustained by more life.
I could see the point of "but this guy cannot subsist in an ecosystem because it is fully parasitary and will destroy it"... perhaps, perhaps being a parasite makes you evil internally because you can only, in the balance of things, destroy rather than create. I could buy that.