No no. Simply cutting someone down or shooting arrows at someone isn't the same. What you've done was gratuitous and unneeded. You need to reevaluate what you find evil man.
I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
It's a lot faster and kinder than being burned to death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I take with your example is that its NOT just killing is killing/death is death. There is a difference between a paladin striking down his foe and the Blackguard dropping them, then stabilizing, then suffocating them while they're unconscious. Causing gratuitous suffering and fear IS evil.
The issue I take with your example is that its NOT just killing is killing/death is death. There is a difference between a paladin striking down his foe and the Blackguard dropping them, then stabilizing, then suffocating them while they're unconscious. Causing gratuitous suffering and fear IS evil.
How is it causing gratuitous suffering?
Ripping someone's heart out is near-instant death, as opposed to, say, dousing them with acid or burning them (you ever burned your finger on a stove or something? Multiply that by about a thousand, tell me it's not "causing suffering").
And fear? Yes, they'll be afraid. BECAUSE THEY'RE DYING. I'd be wetting myself in fear too.
And gee, I guess every character that utilizes Cause Fear or Intimidate is evil too, because they're causing fear as well.
Where does it end?
|
No no. Simply cutting someone down or shooting arrows at someone isn't the same. What you've done was gratuitous and unneeded. You need to reevaluate what you find evil man.I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
It's a lot faster and kinder than being burned to death.
Yeah, but you don't show someone's still beating heart to them out of kindness. You do it to inflict additional fear and suffering than what is strictly necessary. Most likely because you like the expression on their face. Definitely an evil act.
I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Do you know who said, "Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun"?
Richard Ramirez. Real world serial killer and avowed satanist.
You know who else tried to denigrate arguments by pointing out that bad people said similar things?
Hitler!
I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Do you know who said, "Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun"?
Richard Ramirez. Real world serial killer and avowed satanist.
Cool, I guess? But the context isn't even close to being the same, so mind explaining the relevance?
Context is incredibly close. You say the method of killing doesn't matter when it comes to killing. I'm sure it didn't matter to the serial killer either.
Pot calling kettle black doesn't mean pot is wrong.You know who else tried to denigrate arguments by pointing out that bad people said similar things?
Hitler!
Doesn't make it right either, since my kettle is stainless steel.
Context is incredibly close.
The context of the quote is "Killing people is the same no matter the circumstance".
Context of the discussion is "Why does it matter how you kill someone in combat if they just end up dead anyway?"
Both are just you derailing the derail by picking on an example I pulled as to what you can do and it not be evil in-game.
Killing someone in combat is not evil in this game, no matter how you do it. Unless you're a vampire/Dhampir and do it by biting someone, of course.
Consistency! Logic! Moral condemnation from people I don't really know!
You say the method of killing doesn't matter when it comes to killing. I'm sure it didn't matter to the serial killer either.
Method is very important to a serial killer in many cases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, I guess? But the context isn't even close to being the same, so mind explaining the relevance?I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.
Do you know who said, "Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun"?
Richard Ramirez. Real world serial killer and avowed satanist.
My apologies. It was a cheap shot. I removed my offending post.
Eh. I wouldn't mind if you did I guess, if my intent was to be "Hey bro, I killed you, look. Tremble in fear before my might".
It was initially just an example. I have a (yeah, Evil, but it doesn't really matter) Monk who takes advantage of Snake Style's piercing attacks to rip people's hearts out (or at least just punch a hole in their chest where it used to be) on the last blow sometimes, so it was the first "Ooh, that's gotta hurt" image that popped in my head.
You could do the same with a Greatsword wielder who decapitates people or chops them in half on the last hit, and have it not be evil.
"Always evil actions" rub me the wrong way though.
|
|
However, more to the point, killing is not killing.
Motivation, circumstances, and how it is performed make a large difference.
Let's take an example. Let's say a robber breaks into a home and slits the owner's throat while he is sleeping. This seems like murder and pretty evil to me. However, in another scenario, lets say the home owner wakes up in time and shoots the robber instead in self defense.
Saying killing is killing makes these two scenarios moral equivalents. Is this what you are trying to defend?
Edit to add: Yes, dead is dead, from a physical perspective, but the moral case (good vs evil) is a completely different situation.
Let's take an example. Let's say a robber breaks into a home and slits the owner's throat while he is sleeping. This seems like murder and pretty evil to me. However, in another scenario, lets say the home owner wakes up in time and shoots the robber instead in self defense.
Saying killing is killing makes these two scenarios moral equivalents. Is this what you are trying to defend?
No, because these examples are not in any way in the same context as what we were talking about. That is murder vs self-defense.
A better example (and one that is pretty much exactly what we were talking about):
You're a soldier in a war, clashing with another soldier. You need to kill him to complete your mission, whatever that may be.
Does it really matter if you shoot him, stab him, kill him with a grenade, bash his skull in with the butt of your gun, etc.?
He's dead any way you slice it.
The "moral equivalence" here is that no matter what you do, it is a justified killing.
|
|
You're a soldier in a war, clashing with another soldier. You need to kill him to complete your mission, whatever that may be.
Does it really matter if you shoot him, stab him, kill him with a grenade, bash his skull in with the butt of your gun, etc.?
He's dead any way you slice it.
The "moral equivalence" here is that no matter what you do, it is a justified killing.
Absolutely it makes a difference. There are degrees of unnecessary sadism and barbarism you can inflict on your opponent. It is one thing to go for a clean kill. It is entirely another to kill him slow, to make him suffer, or otherwise humiliate him prior to his death.
One of the things ive noticed is the attempt to justify the use of evil things for good purposes. In alot of cases this involves alot of arguimg that things the game labels as evil are not.
Part of the problem is the game doesnt actually define how evil an [evil] spell is.
We know murder is evil we know torture is evil and that theft could be evil but is probly selfish neutral. But the game doesnt tell us where animate dead should be on this list.
As far as the pf rules are concerned creating undead is evil. How evil is left up to the dm. Though personally id rank it pretty vile.
In regards to the templates if it says any evil its any evil not someties good. Ive always favoured the buffy model where mother of 4 is turned into a vampire and wakes up a monster. The core rules seem to support this.
However,setting specific can change things. For example in golrion being a werewolf doesnt make you inherently evil. Failing to resist werewolf induced urges and reveling in things is what makes you evil. This deviates from the core assumption in the beastiary.
Anyhow, hopefully i did not ramble too much.
I think I can shed some light on this by directing our attention to the Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide (which should be extremely relevant considering this discussion is all about a character who is going to be played in the Wrath of the Righteous AP).
Section, Redemption (Relapse): "Each minor evil act a creature performs (casting spells with the evil descriptor, praying to an evil god, mind controlling good creatures to commit evil acts, and so on) counts against whatever penances the character has already performed, effectively cancelling one out. Any major evil act (knowingly slaying an innocent creature, spreading disease among a community, inflicting pain on an innocent subject, or animating the dead) undoes all good work done for the current stage"
According to Paizo, and applicable at least to the campaign this discussion is about, the casting of [Evil] spells is an evil act that tarnishes the soul, but isn't too terrible in and of itself. The animation of the undead is an Evil act that is equivalent or comparable to either murder or torture in terms of how much it damns you. It makes mention of inflicting pain, murder, etc. as being evil acts - so we can safely extrapolate that sadistically butchering your enemies is also an evil act.
Absolutely it makes a difference. There are degrees of unnecessary sadism and barbarism you can inflict on your opponent. It is one thing to go for a clean kill. It is entirely another to kill him slow, to make him suffer, or otherwise humiliate him prior to his death.You're a soldier in a war, clashing with another soldier. You need to kill him to complete your mission, whatever that may be.
Does it really matter if you shoot him, stab him, kill him with a grenade, bash his skull in with the butt of your gun, etc.?
He's dead any way you slice it.
The "moral equivalence" here is that no matter what you do, it is a justified killing.
Please, explain, which of those examples is unnecessarily sadistic or barbaric?
I'm not saying you torture them to death, but you are still killing them, using the means at your disposal.
Perhaps it makes me "evil" but in a fight for my life I'm not going to be too concerned with what my opponent feels before I kill them. They're not going to be able to complain about it for long, in any case.
And again, in that case, is using Fireball an evil act? Acid Flasks? BONESHATTER (which does NOT have the [Evil] descriptor, by the way)?
They are all very painful ways to die.
If you don't understand the difference between killing someone in a battle with a single clean hit, as opposed to pouring honey all over someone and staking them out next to an anthill, then you're probably a sociopath, or at least from a culture that has such incredibly different norms than I guess most posters on this forum to have, that it's not going to be productive trying to establish common ground for discussion.
Nobody's said that. This is argumentum ad absurdum at best.
Yes, there is a moral difference between torture and killing someone in combat. Of course, how you kill someone IN COMBAT (also note, tying someone up implies you've already defeated, therefore their death by ants is not an in-combat kill).
As far as boneshatter or fireball or whatever go, again - yes those can be used to cause suffering &c &c, but again, by Pathfinder rules, those spells are not *inherently* evil.
And neither is killing someone with a weapon, in any manner you please. That was my point.
|
|
I'm not saying you torture them to death, but you are still killing them, using the means at your disposal.
I'll take this as a concession that killing is not killing, and that how you kill makes a difference.
Please, explain, which of those examples is unnecessarily sadistic or barbaric?
The heart ripping out one where you show it to him while it is still beating. And around and around we go. I think I'm done posting here for the time being.
"But in Pathfinder, it's not so much a question of *if* animating dead is evil or not, or whether it *should* be considered evil or not. Animating dead things has the evil descriptor and *is* an evil act by Pathfinder rules. It's not a question of whether or not you agree with the rule, that's just the way it is in the Pathfinder world."
Unless I change it, of course, which is what sparked the discussion (should the GM change it/allow it).
Regarding a good necromancer and evil spells...
Why are spells evil?
Death knell: It is a spell specifically designed to kill helpless creatures. This really should be self evident.
Infernal Healing: It heals people! Yes, but what is it's source?
Say you are a christian with a dying sister. You have prayed to God, but to no avail. Then, poof! Satan shows up. He says he will give you the power to heal your sister, no strings attached. As a matter of fact you can go on to heal other people too, if you want, but you don't have to. Your option. So would taking Satan's help to heal your sister be an evil act? Yes! He is the source of all evil. It doesn't matter that this would be a good act, it is still an evil source that you are using.
Summon Monster [evil]: Summoning a demon via Summon Monster to preform good deeds is still an evil act. Again, it comes down to it's source.
Create Undead: Here you are using an evil source to create evil creatures that desire to do evil things. Sure you can stop them with your control and force them to do good things, but there is no way this is a good thing to do.
Slay Living: Why isn't this an evil spell? Because it is no different than a sword thrust. If you target a helpless person with it, then that would be an evil act. Innocent target? Evil. Target an evil Anti-paladin that's about to kill an innocent? Good act. Why is this confusing?
So to bring this around to the original question. If they want to play a "white" necromancer in a party with a paladin, fine. But they are really going to have to avoid the [evil] descriptor spells.
|
|
He can feel perfectly free to ignore such a stupid rule as "Always evil because reasons regardless of use" actions.
An evil act being evil is a "stupid" rule...
You are animating a dead body. In most settings, that is an inherently evil act.
If you decide that isn't the case in your setting, YOU are the exception.
So calling it "stupid" is like saying people who drink water are "Stupid" because you only drink Mountain Dew.
Regarding a good necromancer and evil spells...
Why are spells evil?
Death knell: It is a spell specifically designed to kill helpless creatures. This really should be self evident.
Coup de graces are evil. Good to know.
Infernal Healing: It heals people! Yes, but what is it's source?
Devil's blood. I suppose forcibly removing angel's blood to heal people was too much of a good act.
Say you are a christian with a dying sister. You have prayed to God, but to no avail. Then, poof! Satan shows up. He says he will give you the power to heal your sister, no strings attached. As a matter of fact you can go on to heal other people too, if you want, but you don't have to. Your option. So would taking Satan's help to heal your sister be an evil act? Yes! He is the source of all evil. It doesn't matter that this would be a good act, it is still an evil source that you are using.
...No strings attached.
I.E. there is no payment (nobody else gets hurt when you do it, you're not forced to commit some heinous act to power it, etc.), and it's evil?
I don't buy that. Ignoring the fact that evil is HIGHLY unlikely to do something for nothing...actually let's not ignore that fact. That's pretty important.
Summon Monster [evil]: Summoning a demon via Summon Monster to preform good deeds is still an evil act. Again, it comes down to it's source.
And by that logic summoning an angel to be your sex slave for life is a good act.
Are you beginning to see why this is stupid yet?
Create Undead: Here you are using an evil source to create evil creatures that desire to do evil things. Sure you can stop them with your control and force them to do good things, but there is no way this is a good thing to do.
Riiight.
Slay Living: Why isn't this an evil spell? Because it is no different than a sword thrust.
Neither is Death Knell.
If you target a helpless person with it, then that would be an evil act.
No, it wouldn't be. The evil overlord of all creation is lying at your feet, helpless.
You let him live, rather than killing him.
YOU ARE EVIL. That is possibly the most evilly evil act you could ever possibly evil to the evilest.
But at least you saved your conscience from having to save the world...?
Target an evil Anti-paladin that's about to kill an innocent?
Really by your own logic it should be an Evil act. He hasn't committed a crime YET, you know. You should let him kill the innocent first just to make sure.
Why is this confusing?
Because not everybody shares the same simplistic black and white moral view you do.
An evil act being evil is a "stupid" rule...
Things being labeled inherently evil regardless of the purpose they are used for is stupid.
At best, it adds nothing to the game.
I personally think it detracts from it.
At worst, it is the developers of the game foisting their own moral outlook on others with little to no rhyme or reason to it.
|
|
You find no rhyme or reason in saying that animating the dead is evil?
Again, if you want to have your game in a morality free setting, you are more than welcome. Just as you can drink mountain dew over water.
But saying people are "stupid" for liking settings to have a moral foundation...which is what you are doing...
Yeah...no. But then again, since raising corpses is kosher, maybe calling people "stupid" is fine too...
@Rynjin
The game has this simplistic black and white (and order and entrory) morality, with very rare and very little room in between them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Pathfinder universe good, evil, law and chaos are not arbitrary ineffable concepts that are open to moral debate. They are real definable forces and BEINGS who interact with the physical world in exactly the same way that gravity or magic interact with the physical world.
Pathfinder is not a morally relative universe. If you are playing Pathfinder in a morally relative way, you are not playing Pathfinder as written, you are house ruling the roles of good, evil, law and chaos.
In the Pathfinder universe good, evil, law and chaos are not arbitrary ineffable concepts that are open to moral debate. They are real definable forces and BEINGS who interact with the physical world in exactly the same way that gravity or magic interact with the physical world.
Pathfinder is not a morally relative universe. If you are playing Pathfinder in a morally relative way, you are not playing Pathfinder as written, you are house ruling the roles of good, evil, law and chaos.
Yep. It's kind of difficult to get around Alignments being a Cosmic Force rather than a subjective opinion when you've got an Interplanar Robotman who will teleport to your home town to punch you in the throat for lying to your insurance company about how many miles you put on your Heavy Wagon last year.
You find no rhyme or reason in saying that animating the dead is evil?
No. No I don't.
Acts should be evil because of what they're used to accomplish, not because "They just are, okay?"
Raising the dead to slaughter the innocent: Evil
Raising the dead to be your personal servants: Kinda icky, but overall morally neutral
Raising the dead to protect the innocent: Good (or at least Neutral).
But saying people are "stupid" for liking settings to have a moral foundation...which is what you are doing...
Go back and read again. I said the rule was stupid, not anybody who like it.
Also this is not an issue with having a "moral foundation" (which I see you're trying to use to imply I'm some kind of morally bankrupt a@#@~&~ or something), this is an issue with THIS PARTICULAR "moral foundation".
@Everyone else: Yes, I'm aware of the rules. Quite aware in fact. Which is why I make multiple mentions of the fact that said rule is stupid. Because I know it's a rule, yes.
I do not like the fact that it is, which is what this discussion steered towards a long time ago. I think it detracts from the game as a whole, and leads to nothing but frustration for everyone who does not, exactly, see eye to eye with the devs.
Morality and game mechanics should be entirely separated. There is no reason they should be bundled together like that.
If Monopoly (the rulebook itself, not the other players) told you you were an a#*+&~# for putting a hotel on Park Place, a lot of people would find that rule stupid too.
This is the same deal.
Removing it does nothing but help the game. Should be a table by table issue not a rules one.
Rynjin, we get it. You want a morally relative universe.
There are game systems that have what you want.
You can play Pathfinder the way you want.
It's just that's not the way it's written.
That's all. No need to get upset. Be as morally relative as you like. But morally absolute rules are not "stupid" they're just rules.
You can play Pathfinder the way you want.
Actually, I can't.
I can RUN Pathfinder any way I want, but when I'm PLAYING the rules are constraining options arbitrarily and without consistency to boot (<Insert my favorite SKR quote on blood drinking here...>.
Look at it this way, if it's removed from the rules and made a table by table decision:
-The people who care will implement it anyway.
-The people who are neutral towards it don't care.
-The people who dislike it are happy.
-Bonus points: Inconsistencies removed.
As it is now:
-The people who like it use it.
-The people who are neutral towards it are still arbitrarily constrained by rules they don't have any moral feeling towards.
-The people who dislike it are pissed off because it doesn't make any sense to them.
The former is clearly better than the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pretty consistent stance across human culture that desecrating human remains is quite a heinous act.
The ends and the means and all that. Some things are inherently "wrong" to most people, regardless of purpose. That's reflected in things like Animate Dead being evil.
And just because it's "consistent across human culture" (though certainly not unanimous) doesn't mean it's Evil.
It's pretty consistent across cultures that cannibalism is "evil". Does that make it so? Is a culture that practices ritual cannibalism (say, at funerals), evil because they're not "consistent" with the rest of human culture?
When slavery was "consistent across human culture", does that mean slavery was morally good? Or was that just a cultural thing?
Geez Rynjin, if we want to start a thread called "PF Rules you just can't stand" I'm sure yours will end up right there alongside "martial characters suck".
Cannibalism is an inherently evil act, which is why virtually all civilized cultures have been repulsed by it. Same with desecration of the dead. And slavery, while accepted for a while, fell into disfavor virtually everywhere because people recognized, unsurprisingly, that it's evil.
Some things are intolerable by an ordered society.
Cannibalism is an inherently evil act
And why do you think this?
Who does it hurt?
What bad thing does it lead to?
Give me an actual REASON besides "I was told this".
So Rynjin, let me turn this back onto you. Is there ANYTHING that you think qualifies as an "inherently evil act?" I mean just the act, not the motivation behind it. Is MURDER inherently evil? I mean if you murder one innocent person and it saves 100, is that still evil?
Assuming you have any moral boundaries at all, where are they? Where is the line in your world?
|
|
And just because it's "consistent across human culture" (though certainly not unanimous) doesn't mean it's Evil.
So you are mad because the game isn't custom designed for your minority views on the world?
So the rest of us should modify how we want to play to accommodate your minority view.
OR
You can adapt to the table you are at until you can find enough like minded people to have a pocket table for your minority view.
So Rynjin, let me turn this back onto you. Is there ANYTHING that you think qualifies as an "inherently evil act?" I mean just the act, not the motivation behind it.
No, I don't.
Is MURDER inherently evil?
Yes. Murder is not an act. Killing is an act. Murder is defined by the circumstances surrounding it.
Legally, it's an "Unlawful killing".
Morally, to me is is "Killing for no or for petty reasons" (obtaining more wealth, or power, or for jealousy, etc.).
I mean if you murder one innocent person and it saves 100, is that still evil?
Killing someone to save more is not evil, I don't think, no.
Assuming this is a hypothetical scenario where you know for very certain that that person's death WILL save the others, not just as an off chance it might.
Assuming you have any moral boundaries at all, where are they? Where is the line in your world?
"The" line? There is not just one line. There are many lines, different ones for every action.
So you are mad because the game isn't custom designed for your minority views on the world?I wouldn't call it a minority view. That would assume that A.) The majority of people believe there are inherently evil things AND B.) They agree on what those are.
So the rest of us should modify how we want to play to accommodate your minority view.
Please actually read what I write, for once in your life.
This wouldn't change how YOU want to play in the slightest. It would stop ENFORCING it, increasing flexibility and inclusiveness.
This is not a bad thing.
Something to consider about all rules (and in this case, lets consider a moral code as a set of rule): All rules can at times forbid the most appropriate course of action.
Using the door in an exceptional circumstance once will not be a problem, but it is still possible to be punished. When you go through that door, you are valuing saving your life as more important than avoiding a punishment. Most people will not punish you, but some might.
Using the door for your own convenience is definitely punishable, and you show a disregard for the rules to value getting to your car 5 minutes faster as more important than possibly getting punished.
The difference in these two ideas is more aligned with "lawful" versus "chaotic", following what others expect or being unconcerned.
Good and evil rely on motivation. Evil people have no problem inconveniencing others to help themselves, and good people do not mind inconveniencing themselves to help others.
Using an [evil] spell to help people certainly makes you chaotic, but the fact that you are risking your safety to help others, if anything, is an inherently good act, more so than using a good spell to help others. The risk, like getting fined for opening the wrong door to save your life, is still present. What risk and to what degree is up to the GM. Maybe calling on evil spells brings you to the attention of evil gods, maybe it does corrupt you a little, requiring extra "good" actions to counteract it. Maybe the laws of magic state that a "good" person metaphysically and physically cannot cast an [evil] spell.
Lets say this player is a necromancer who routinely uses [evil] spells for good. He is clearly showing a disregard for the morality convention of magic, but he is accomplishing good. This makes him CG. If he starts getting carried away, doing it because it is easy/convenient, it shifts him to CN. If he goes off the deep end, harming others because it is easy/convenient to him, he has made the slide to CE.
|
|
@Rynjin - I did. Your logic is completely flawed.
You are arguing the majority view should go away to make room for your personal minority view. That we should remove rules you don't like, but we can put them in if we want them, as long as you don't have to follow them...meaning the majority can't actually follow the rules they want, because you want to ignore them.
That is akin to saying we don't need laws against theft, because those who don't like theft won't steal and it hinders people who like theft.
If you want to ignore it, you can implement it your way. You can have a setting where raising dead bodies to follow your commands is not evil.
That isn't the setting that seems to be selling, however...
I mean if you murder one innocent person and it saves 100, is that still evil?Killing someone to save more is not evil, I don't think, no.
Assuming this is a hypothetical scenario where you know for very certain that that person's death WILL save the others, not just as an off chance it might.
So it is a Good act to sacrifice a baby to a demon so that it will not destroy the whole town. That is exactly what you are saying.
That is akin to saying we don't need laws against theft, because those who don't like theft won't steal and it hinders people who like theft.
No, it's more like exactly what I said up above.
"Don't put a hotel on Park Place or you're an a$%%%&+."
VS
"Raise the dead and you're evil."
So it is a Good act to sacrifice a baby to a demon so that it will not destroy the whole town. That is exactly what you are saying.
Good? Nah.
Always Good acts are just as stupid.
"Not evil"? Yeah.
Babies are cute. One baby is not worth potentially hundreds of other lives.
Lord Twig, is it a good act to selfishly keep your baby, and so (in essence) murder an entire town?
Sacrificing something dear to you for the greater good is if anything the definition of a good act. If the baby were old enough to comprehend such as issue, it should sacrifice itself (like heroes do, right?). Sacrificing a sentient being against its will is in fact an evil act, but if it is being done to prevent an even bigger definite loss, then atoning for it should not be so hard. Again, in terms of game alignment, repeatedly doing "evil" things to help others should shift you down the alignment scale towards chaotic, only switching to evil when you start doing them only to benefit yourself.
Babies are cute. One baby is not worth potentially hundreds of other lives.
OK, I'll believe that you believe this when it's YOUR baby being sacrificed Rynjin.
This is an ancient, ANCIENT debate whether small evil in the pursuit of good intentions is evil or not. This is, in fact, precisely where the maxim "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from.
Killing an innocent baby to save a town is still killing an innocent baby.