|
Please keep arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger aren't evil.
I've answered those and other questions throughout the thread. Several times in the case of dominate person, actually. No matter how many times I answer, you are still going to claim I haven't answered them.
*shrug*
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what, other than racism, is evil.
But I'm not expecting you to, considering you are arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger don't indicate evil.
If it didn't so help my argument that you are simply rejecting anything you want to do being evil, I'd be exasperated.
But since it kind of proves my argument, I'm just grateful.
|
|
I've answered those and other questions throughout the thread. Several times in the case of dominate person, actually. No matter how many times I answer, you are still going to claim I haven't answered them.
*shrug*
So...is killing neutral children with holy word evil? You never said. You just said that holy word couldn't be used for evil because a god would stop it. Which doesn't answer the question.
Please keep arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger aren't evil.I don't have to: you never provided the slightest shred of an argument that they ARE evil, and the default assumption is that most actions are neutral, so they are not evil unless you can provide some explanation as to how they are evil.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what, other than racism, is evil.
But I'm not expecting you to, considering you are arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger don't indicate evil.
If it didn't so help my argument that you are simply rejecting anything you want to do being evil, I'd be exasperated.
But since it kind of proves my argument, I'm just grateful.
I hadn't realized your comprehension was that bad. I'll just quote myself from earlier in the thread, explicitly giving examples of evil acts:
Not that I expect you to read my answer anyways.Murder. Torture. Slavery.
More specifically, casting Boneshatter.
Actually it does answer the question. You can't do it. The God doesn't "stop it". The god simply doesn't grant the power to do it.
Boneshatter is a damage spell. Why would it be evil?
As to your three, I agree they are all evil. So let us compare, shall we.
Murder...so if I kill the sentient ghoul without a trial I am more evil than the person who created it.
Torture and slavery...it would not be evil to kill my enemy and raise them as an undead servant, but it would be evil to enslave or torture them.
As to "Haunt" and "Unnatural Hunger" (I really can't thank you enough for keeping this up!)
A Haunted house is:
A) A fun place to hang out with your kids
B) A Holy shrine to good
C) A place full of evil
Unnatural Hunger is:
A) Really needing a snickers
B) A Big Mac Attack
C) An unnatural, insatiable craving for things like human flesh.
Pretty please with sugar on top, keep arguing that "Haunt" and "Unnatural" aren't indications of evil.
Pretty please with sugar on top, keep arguing that "Haunt" and "Unnatural" aren't indications of evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I mean, I agree that animate dead is evil and have no issues with it being evil, but come on...
|
|
Actually it does answer the question. You can't do it. The God doesn't "stop it". The god simply doesn't grant the power to do it.So, if your Good cleric in your game said they wanted to use holy word on a room full of neutral children, what would you tell them? Would you just say "no, you can't do that?"
I would ask them how they think the god they worship would want to grant them the power to do that and see what they say.
@Ilja - Remember the context. We are discussing the unnatural hunger of ghouls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger aren't evil.
I've answered those and other questions throughout the thread. Several times in the case of dominate person, actually. No matter how many times I answer, you are still going to claim I haven't answered them.
*shrug*
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what, other than racism, is evil.
But I'm not expecting you to, considering you are arguing that haunt and unnatural hunger don't indicate evil.
If it didn't so help my argument that you are simply rejecting anything you want to do being evil, I'd be exasperated.
But since it kind of proves my argument, I'm just grateful.
So... if "unnatural hunger" is "inherently evil," then why isn't the spell Unnatural Lust and evil spell. I mean, I certainly believe that sexual assault is clearly evil. Do you think it is? And if so, why then is there this glaring contradiction on Golarion: specifically that Animate Dead is "evil" but Unnatural Lust is not.
The rest of that clause isn't needed--murder is evil.
Who said murder. I said kill your enemy.
No enemies are killed in your game? To racist?
Why do you keep "poking fun" at racism?
|
|
So... if "unnatural hunger" is "inherently evil," then why isn't the spell Unnatural Lust and evil spell. I mean, I certainly believe that sexual assault is clearly evil. Do you think it is? And if so, why then is there this glaring contradiction on Golarion: specifically that Animate Dead is "evil" but Unnatural Lust is not.
Isn't it?
If something is not specifically listed it is not evil?
Because I don't remember reading explicitly that sexual assualt is evil on Golarion, but it seems we agree it is. So if you used that spell in a way that is evil, it would be an evil act. And I think most uses of that spell would be evil actions. Some wouldn't, so it isn't inherently evil.
Likely evil in application, but not inherently evil, like raising undead minions.
Of course we are talking about an unnatural hunger for human flesh, aren't we. Is there a time that is not evil? Not a hunger mind you, an unnatural
And do you want to discuss haunted not indicating evil as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... if "unnatural hunger" is "inherently evil," then why isn't the spell Unnatural Lust and evil spell. I mean, I certainly believe that sexual assault is clearly evil. Do you think it is? And if so, why then is there this glaring contradiction on Golarion: specifically that Animate Dead is "evil" but Unnatural Lust is not.
Isn't it?
If something is not specifically listed it is not evil?
Because I don't remember reading explicitly that sexual assualt is evil on Golarion, but it seems we agree it is. So if you used that spell in a way that is evil, it would be an evil act. And I think most uses of that spell would be evil actions. Some wouldn't, so it isn't inherently evil.
Likely evil in application, but not inherently evil, like raising undead minions.
Of course we are talking about an unnatural hunger for human flesh, aren't we. Is there a time that is not evil? Not a hunger mind you, an unnatural
And do you want to discuss haunted not indicating evil as well?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not evil, seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not evil seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
But isn't the lust unnatural? So isn't it "evil?" Why should it matter that you cast it on farm animals, the spell causes an unnatural urge.
I don't think Animate Dead is evil because of the effects but rather that the spell simply deals with some kind of evil effect.
Because yes, otherwise spells like Dominate Person and even more spells like Unnatural Lust _would_ be evil.
A spell like unnatural lust really has no non-evil uses barring very contrived scenarios. Honestly, I feel the least evil uses of unnatural lust are easily on par with the least evil uses of animate dead (looking at direct effects of the spell rather than the goal of using the spell such as saving a village, which would have to be judged separately).
Thus, I think it's more that [evil] spells simply are made up of evil in some way, just like [evil] outsiders are. In some cases it might depend on who invented the power, like how Asmodeus invented infernal healing.
But that a spell is evil in virtually every applicable situation does not seem to make it get the [evil] tag, so I don't think arguing for that reasoning is good when it comes to Animate Dead.
|
|
But isn't the lust unnatural? So isn't it "evil?" Why should it matter that you cast it on farm animals, the spell causes an unnatural urge.If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
It is unnatural. Kind of like Polyester I guess. More likely to be evil than if it were not unnatural, to be sure. But context matters.
Unnatural lust is certainly more likely to be evil that regular lust. If someone said "I have an unnatural lust for X" that would be much more likely to be evil than "I have a lust for X", would it not?
Now if something had an unnatural craving for human flesh...not sure when that isn't evil. Can you tell me? I answered your unnatural lust question, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
So, mind controlling the bodies of dead animals is evil, but mind controlling living animals by implanting magically enforced hornyness is NOT evil?
If you want to treat animals as individuals and that arbitrary enslavement/animating/killing/hurting of them is evil, that's fine. We do that too. Our paladin is a vegetarian.
If you want to treat animals as soul-less creatures that can be treated as objects and forced to breed, arbitrarily hurt etc that's also fine and it's kind of the base assumption of the game (and the real life world).
But don't flip-flop to whatever fits your argument best.
|
|
@Bigger Club - But the setting in many ways depending on having good and evil. When you summon a creature from the plane of evil...well...evil exists.
Similarly, when you are good the only way to rationalize killing things without trial is them either being evil or likely to cause evil outcomes.
Part of the reason the setting is what it is comes from the fact that less black and white worlds, such as the one we actually live in, make traveling adventurers risk becoming wandering murder hobos.
|
|
If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
So, mind controlling the bodies of dead animals is evil, but mind controlling living animals by implanting magically enforced hornyness is NOT evil?
If you want to treat animals as individuals and that arbitrary enslavement/animating/killing/hurting of them is evil, that's fine. We do that too. Our paladin is a vegetarian.
If you want to treat animals as soul-less creatures that can be treated as objects and forced to breed, arbitrarily hurt etc that's also fine and it's kind of the base assumption of the game (and the real life world).
But don't flip-flop to whatever fits your argument best.
The "mind control" isn't "The" issue any more than arguing rape is evil because it involves sex, and sex is sin.
Hell, I just did an entire post on the last page breaking this down.
Unnatural Lust is generally going to be used for evil purpose. There are scenarios where it can be used and not be evil. Same with dominate person.
Most times you use it, you are doing something sketchy.
There are zero scenarios where infusing a corspe with evil magic, which defiles the corpse and animates it into an undead slave is not evil.
What you do with that defiled undead abomination later may not be evil, but it doesn't change the fact that the act itself was evil.
If I kidnap you and later we fall in love, I still kidnapped you in the beginning.
But isn't the lust unnatural? So isn't it "evil?" Why should it matter that you cast it on farm animals, the spell causes an unnatural urge.If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
It is unnatural. Kind of like Polyester I guess. More likely to be evil than if it were not unnatural, to be sure. But context matters.
Unnatural lust is certainly more likely to be evil that regular lust. If someone said "I have an unnatural lust for X" that would be much more likely to be evil than "I have a lust for X", would it not?
Now if something had an unnatural craving for human flesh...not sure when that isn't evil. Can you tell me? I answered your unnatural lust question, after all.
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil. Once again... you're recycling old arguments anew.
As I stated before (of which ciretose "artfully" dodged by misquoting me):
I am really asking you why raising the dead is "literally" evil. Which of course, has been the subject of this tread. You can't appeal to the descriptor to explain why the descriptor is being applied. You've tried a whole bunch of different arguments to explain why the descriptor "evil" is applied to this spell (arguments, which have all be roundly dismissed as incoherent), but as far as anyone can tell, it's a purely arbitrary assignment.
Now of course, Bigger Club has pointed out that the answer is that on Golarion there is a metaphysical "evil" that is separate from moral evil. When these two types are conflated, they produce stupid results; a specific example being sexual assault spells are somehow "not evil," while arguably neutral spells (Animate Dead) are "evil."
Appealing to the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of a thing is just faulty grounds for moral reasoning (Ilja pointed this out through a Wikipedia link).
I guess what I am saying is that ciretose's reasoning bounces back and forth from the obviousness of Animate Dead's "evil" descriptor and the arguable moral evil of casting the spell Animate Dead. In conflating these two obviously different conceptions of evil, it sounds just like the stupid results that we get when we try to explain why sexual assault spells less "evil," than Animate Dead (something Ilja and I argued, but from different perspectives).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you keep "poking fun" at racism?You must have missed Ben's earlier posts where he explained it was racist to assume demons and devils are evil.
You are deliberating misinterpreting what 137ben said. Let's use the magic of the search functionality:
Example: Racism is Evil. In Golarion, though, (and in the real world), racism runs rampant, and people still kill baby orcs... You want to play a racist serial killer who runs around executing people without trial or justification. But Evil PCs aren't allowed in most campaigns, you are trying to come up with some half-baked justification for how your racist serial-murderer who runs around killing people on sight, enslaving sentient beings with Dominate Person, and torturing sentient beings with boneshatter is somehow not evil.
The same way you justify killing animals before you question them, or humans, or elves, or orcs, or anything else. If you assume a fully sentient creature is automatically evil based on no evidence other than their appearance or species, that is racism (which is Evil...)
and, personally, I find it repugnant that harmlessly making a tool out of dead matter could be considered more evil than racism (killing orcs for no reason), enslavement (dominate person), and brutal physical torture (boneshatter)
If undead are Evil, more horrific acts like physical torture (boneshatter), slavery/psychological torture (dominate person), soul bind, and racism (killing sentient mortals based on their green skin) should also be evil. If the setting/game doesn't consider those inherently evil (in Golarion it's apparently okay to ruthlessly slaughter people on the basis of their race...) then I have a really, really hard time taking the setting's alignment system seriously.
Huh, I was under the impression that Golarion rewards racist murder hobos, since its perfectly okay to go around brutally slaughtering or Dominating (read: enslaving) free-willed mortals based on their race (dragons, mummies, orcs, goblins)...
As you can see, the majority of the time 137ben has mentioned racism in Golarion, it has been in the context of humanoids. Once was this expanded to include dragons and mummies. You are the only one who keeps trying to bring demons and devils.
That said, let's back up from this thread a bit and remember some context about the world we live in. Racism is rampant in modern western societies. For many people, racism is not this hypothetical thing in fantasy roleplaying game settings, but rather an aspect of their actual, day-to-day life. When you say stuff like
But if he were playing with you, he would need to make sure the mildew wasn't good mildew, lest he be racist...
you are being incredibly insensitive. You are making light of a serious social problem and contributing to its trivialization. Stop doing that.
|
|
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil.
Can you point to a post where I said it is?
Cannibalism is not infusing a corpse with evil magic to make it an undead slave, is it?
But once again you throw up things I didn't say and ask me to defend them.
What is that called...
|
|
you are being incredibly insensitive. You are making light of a serious social problem and contributing to its trivialization. Stop doing that.
Let me see if I understand this.
Equating knowing that devils and demons and other evil things in a role playing game are evil with racism is fine.
Pointing out that it ridiculous is insensitive to a very serious social problem.
Is that what your are saying?
This is almost as good as the "haunted doesn't mean it is evil" argument...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil.
Can you point to a post where I said it is?
Cannibalism is not infusing a corpse with evil magic to make it an undead slave, is it?
But once again you throw up things I didn't say and ask me to defend them.
What is that called...
It was in the post I quoted of yours:
Now if something had an unnatural craving for human flesh...not sure when that isn't evil. Can you tell me?
It which I answered:
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil. Once again... you're recycling old arguments anew.
As I stated before (of which ciretose "artfully" dodged by misquoting me):
I am really asking you why raising the dead is "literally" evil. Which of course, has been the subject of this tread. You can't appeal to the descriptor to explain why the descriptor is being applied. You've tried a whole bunch of different arguments to explain why the descriptor "evil" is applied to this spell (arguments, which have all be roundly dismissed as incoherent), but as far as anyone can tell, it's a purely arbitrary assignment.
Now of course, Bigger Club has pointed out that the answer is that on Golarion there is a metaphysical "evil" that is separate from moral evil. When these two types are conflated, they produce stupid results; a specific example being sexual assault spells are somehow "not evil," while arguably neutral spells (Animate Dead) are "evil."
Appealing to the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of a thing is just faulty grounds for moral reasoning (Ilja pointed this out through a Wikipedia link).
I guess what I am saying is that ciretose's reasoning bounces back and forth from the obviousness of Animate Dead's "evil" descriptor and the arguable moral evil of casting the spell Animate Dead. In conflating these two obviously different conceptions of evil, it sounds just like the stupid results that we get when we try to explain why sexual assault spells less "evil," than Animate Dead (something Ilja and I argued, but from different perspectives).
Do you want to try to address the whole of this post?
Ciretose, stop it. Stop with the sophistry. It was okay when this was just about things completely diverged from reality (undead aren't real and all that) but you moved from talking just about fantasy things to making light of actual things in the real world. Stop digging yourself deeper and just admit you did something wrong.
@Annabel - If you leave out the word "Unnatural" yes.
I didn't.
To which I replied:
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil. Once again... you're recycling old arguments anew.
As I stated before (of which ciretose "artfully" dodged by misquoting me):
I am really asking you why raising the dead is "literally" evil. Which of course, has been the subject of this tread. You can't appeal to the descriptor to explain why the descriptor is being applied. You've tried a whole bunch of different arguments to explain why the descriptor "evil" is applied to this spell (arguments, which have all be roundly dismissed as incoherent), but as far as anyone can tell, it's a purely arbitrary assignment.
Now of course, Bigger Club has pointed out that the answer is that on Golarion there is a metaphysical "evil" that is separate from moral evil. When these two types are conflated, they produce stupid results; a specific example being sexual assault spells are somehow "not evil," while arguably neutral spells (Animate Dead) are "evil."
Appealing to the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of a thing is just faulty grounds for moral reasoning (Ilja pointed this out through a Wikipedia link).
I guess what I am saying is that ciretose's reasoning bounces back and forth from the obviousness of Animate Dead's "evil" descriptor and the arguable moral evil of casting the spell Animate Dead. In conflating these two obviously different conceptions of evil, it sounds just like the stupid results that we get when we try to explain why sexual assault spells less "evil," than Animate Dead (something Ilja and I argued, but from different perspectives).
Do you want to try to addressing the whole of this post again?
|
|
Ciretose, stop it. Stop with the sophistry. It was okay when this was just about things completely diverged from reality (undead aren't real and all that) but you moved from talking just about fantasy things to making light of actual things in the real world. Stop digging yourself deeper and just admit you did something wrong.
Uh...who brought it up and equated racism with fantasy monsters?
Hint: It wasn't me.
EDIT: How do I keep getting called on to defend the arguments made by people on the other side?
|
|
@Annabel - If you leave out the word "Unnatural" yes.
I didn't.
To which I replied:
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil. Once again... you're recycling old arguments anew.
As I stated before (of which ciretose "artfully" dodged by misquoting me):
I am really asking you why raising the dead is "literally" evil. Which of course, has been the subject of this tread. You can't appeal to the descriptor to explain why the descriptor is being applied. You've tried a whole bunch of different arguments to explain why the descriptor "evil" is applied to this spell (arguments, which have all be roundly dismissed as incoherent), but as far as anyone can tell, it's a purely arbitrary assignment.
Now of course, Bigger Club has pointed out that the answer is that on Golarion there is a metaphysical "evil" that is separate from moral evil. When these two types are conflated, they produce stupid results; a specific example being sexual assault spells are somehow "not evil," while arguably neutral spells (Animate Dead) are "evil."
Appealing to the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of a thing is just faulty grounds for moral reasoning (Ilja pointed this out through a Wikipedia link).
I guess what I am saying is that ciretose's reasoning bounces back and forth from the obviousness of Animate Dead's "evil" descriptor and the arguable moral evil of casting the spell Animate Dead. In conflating these two obviously different conceptions of evil, it sounds just like the stupid results that we get when we try to explain why sexual assault spells less "evil," than Animate Dead (something Ilja and I argued, but from different perspectives).
Do you want to try to addressing the whole of this post again?
It isn't a faulty grounds for reasoning.
It is a description from the bestiary.
Ghouls have an unnatural hunger for human flesh. I believe it is also insatiable.
Not remotely the same thing as cannibalism, which by the way certainly can be evil depending on context.
In fact generally is considered as such.
You are trying to conflate the rare occasion where cannibalism is not evil with the unnatural hunger for human flesh of a ghoul.
I'm pointing out the comparison is ridiculous.
Ciretose, I told you to stop it. Arguing that you weren't making light of racism by saying
But if he were playing with you, he would need to make sure the mildew wasn't good mildew, lest he be racist...
is not going to be convincing and it's not going to magically erase the problematic aspects of your posts. Stop misrepresenting the arguments of others so that you can reproduce harmful tropes.
|
|
Ciretose, I told you to stop it. Arguing that you weren't making light of racism by saying
But if he were playing with you, he would need to make sure the mildew wasn't good mildew, lest he be racist...is not going to be convincing and it's not going to magically erase the problematic aspects of your posts. Stop misrepresenting the arguments of others so that you can reproduce harmful tropes.
I'm making fun of the argument that killing something evil in a game without asking if it is evil is racist.
Which is what he did. Many times, as you quoted.
If you think equating fantasy good vs evil is wrong with racism, take it up with the person who made the argument, not me.
Ghoul's are evil (in part) because they have an unnatural hunger for human flesh.
Who disagrees with this?
They are intelligent, and most of the post about created undead are from the animate dead spell(mindless zombies/skeletons), rather than create undead(Intelligent undead). Ghoul's are also a creature on their own and not a template as far as I can tell.
Yes, they're evil because they crave human flesh and go out of their way to murder and feast according to their ecology. They also have 13 intelligence! Probably safe to say its not the best idea to raise those if you want to be a good necromancer. Those things have a mind of their own...
|
|
Ghoul's are evil (in part) because they have an unnatural hunger for human flesh.
Who disagrees with this?
They are intelligent, and most of the post about created undead are from the animate dead spell(mindless zombies/skeletons), rather than create undead(Intelligent undead). Ghoul's are also a creature on their own and not a template as far as I can tell.
Yes, they're evil because they crave human flesh and go out of their way to murder and feast according to their ecology. They also have 13 intelligence! Probably safe to say its not the best idea to raise those if you want to be a good necromancer. Those things have a mind of their own...
Finally!
Anyone disagree with this?
And we have also established Zombies are out due to
"Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
Not to mention
"Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed."
Any debate on this point?
So, I say ghouls are evil and add in text about how they are intelligent and that's a large part of it, which means... Zombies are evil despite being unintelligent?
@Annabel - If you leave out the word "Unnatural" yes.
I didn't.
To which I replied:
Plenty of people have given plenty of arguments for why, in some contexts, cannibalism or eating human flesh isn't evil. Once again... you're recycling old arguments anew.
As I stated before (of which ciretose "artfully" dodged by misquoting me):
I am really asking you why raising the dead is "literally" evil. Which of course, has been the subject of this tread. You can't appeal to the descriptor to explain why the descriptor is being applied. You've tried a whole bunch of different arguments to explain why the descriptor "evil" is applied to this spell (arguments, which have all be roundly dismissed as incoherent), but as far as anyone can tell, it's a purely arbitrary assignment.
Now of course, Bigger Club has pointed out that the answer is that on Golarion there is a metaphysical "evil" that is separate from moral evil. When these two types are conflated, they produce stupid results; a specific example being sexual assault spells are somehow "not evil," while arguably neutral spells (Animate Dead) are "evil."
Appealing to the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of a thing is just faulty grounds for moral reasoning (Ilja pointed this out through a Wikipedia link).
I guess what I am saying is that ciretose's reasoning bounces back and forth from the obviousness of Animate Dead's "evil" descriptor and the arguable moral evil of casting the spell Animate Dead. In conflating these two obviously different conceptions of evil, it sounds just like the stupid results that we get when we try to explain why sexual assault spells less "evil," than Animate Dead (something Ilja and I argued, but from different perspectives).
Do you want to try to addressing the whole of this post again?
It isn't a faulty grounds for reasoning.
It is a description from the bestiary.
Ghouls have an unnatural hunger for human flesh. I believe it is also insatiable.
Not remotely the same thing as cannibalism, which by the way certainly can be evil depending on context.
In fact generally is considered as such.
You are trying to conflate the rare occasion where cannibalism is not evil with the unnatural hunger for human flesh of a ghoul.
I'm pointing out the comparison is ridiculous.
Did you even read the Wikipedia page on "Appeal to nature"? Because it addresses the faulty moral reasoning. And I have no idea how the fact that you believe it is insatiable has any bearing on the issue.
But more to the point, you're actually just changing your argument every time your point is refuted, and you a re recycling old points into your renewed effort to counter obvious contradictions in Golarion moral system(s).
It's getting boring to discuss this with you because of the randomness of your responses. It is clear that there are a lot of people in this thread who are willing to discuss the moral ambiguity of Animate Dead. Except you.
I'm not really interested in rehashing all your old arguments over and over and over again.
The only advice I can give you is to stop misrepresenting other people's arguments as a means to score some petty har har points. If you don't understand 137ben or Vivianne Laflamme arguments about racism, don't try to speak on them. If you can't see how ascribing inherent "evilness" to fantasy humanoid races with dark skin is a form of racism... well that's your problem. You're not being productive or helpful in this discussion, whether the subject is Undead or Drow.
|
|
@Annabel - I'm changing my arguments while recycling them...
It isn't morally ambiguous. It's evil. Labeled even.
You are arguing that Unnatural Lust is evil with no possible ambiguity while arguing there are possible good ways to infuse a corpse with foul magic to create an undead slave.
And you are calling me inconsistent...
So, I say ghouls are evil and add in text about how they are intelligent and that's a large part of it, which means... Zombies are evil despite being unintelligent?I thought more the seeking living creatures to slaughter and devour when unattended while being created out of foul magic.
Yeah, but they don't do that if you create them with animate dead. They follow the orders of their creators indefinitely, though some things wrestle that control from their creator explicitly(Command undead). Intelligent undead continue to resist you and can break free, and even take revenge on someone who took control of them(Its a lot like Dominate Person to intelligent undead). You can also choose to let them go free, which is... Why? Its usually suggested to destroy the things when your done, if you want to be a good guy.
Ghouls and zombies are different creatures created by different spells and react differently to command undead.
|
|
So, I say ghouls are evil and add in text about how they are intelligent and that's a large part of it, which means... Zombies are evil despite being unintelligent?I thought more the seeking living creatures to slaughter and devour when unattended while being created out of foul magic.Yeah, but they don't do that if you create them with animate dead. They follow the orders of their creators indefinitely, though some things wrestle that control from their creator explicitly(Command undead). Intelligent undead continue to resist you and can break free, and even take revenge on someone who took control of them(Its a lot like Dominate Person to intelligent undead). You can also choose to let them go free, which is... Why? Its usually suggested to destroy the things when your done, if you want to be a good guy.
Ghouls and zombies are different creatures created by different spells and react differently to command undead.
Unless left unattended apparently.
Unless left unattended apparently.
Flavor text and only matters when the zombie isn't under anyone's control. Unless you think that its supposed to follow its ecology when ordered to stand around and do nothing. If ordered to do so it does so! Until someone else is in control or its somehow set free(or destroyed!)
|
|
If you cast it on farm animals for breeding, would that be evil?
But I don't see how using the spell Unnatural Lust could ever be not seeing as how it is a form of sexual assault. So shouldn't the spell have the "evil" descriptor?
So, mind controlling the bodies of dead animals is evil, but mind controlling living animals by implanting magically enforced hornyness is NOT evil?
If you want to treat animals as individuals and that arbitrary enslavement/animating/killing/hurting of them is evil, that's fine. We do that too. Our paladin is a vegetarian.
If you want to treat animals as soul-less creatures that can be treated as objects and forced to breed, arbitrarily hurt etc that's also fine and it's kind of the base assumption of the game (and the real life world).
But don't flip-flop to whatever fits your argument best.
Also, command undead is not evil.
The issue is with creating undead. Descrating bodies with foul magic to create dangerous undead slaves is evil.
If they already exist, commanding them isn't
|
|
Unless left unattended apparently.Flavor text and only matters when the zombie isn't under anyone's control. Unless you think that its supposed to follow its ecology when ordered to stand around and do nothing. If ordered to do so it does so! Until someone else is in control or its somehow set free(or destroyed!)
Amazing how when it supports you it is rule but when it doesn't it is flavor...
Amazing how when it supports you it is rule but when it doesn't it is flavor...Unless left unattended apparently.Flavor text and only matters when the zombie isn't under anyone's control. Unless you think that its supposed to follow its ecology when ordered to stand around and do nothing. If ordered to do so it does so! Until someone else is in control or its somehow set free(or destroyed!)
Erm, how so? The ecology section really is flavor text, much like a class description. The stat blocks, class features, and spell text I'm referring to is actually rules. Because Grenadier says he drinks in combat better doesn't mean he does for instance, its his class features that determine what he actually does. I'm not even suggesting you go against the ecology, I said to listen to it if its free of control.
|
|
A horse can decide not to pull. An undead can't. It is a mindless slave.That's a rather weak strawman, unless you are in favor of the idea that using horses to pull wagons is slavery and therefore evil. (In which case it's still a weak argument, but at least it wouldn't be a strawman anymore.)Slavery is evil, but creating an undead slave is not evil...If animating a corpse is not evil, what is?Slavery, torture, rape, murder...
Why does animating a corpse count as evil? What does the original soul care? They're in their afterlife, not caring about the living anymore.
Is it unpleasant? Sure.
Is it upsetting? To most, sure.
But is it evil? Only because a keyword says so. And the placement of that keyword has no actual RAW support other than, "cuz we said so, so deal with it." Which is not an argument.By your definition the forced importation and labor of Africans in tobacco, cotton, and sugar plantations in the Americas was not slavery. They could refuse to work and be beaten until they changed their mind or died, just like the draft horse.
Do you really want to go there?
It is slavery. I said mindless slavery.
Are you arguing african slaves were mindless?
EDIT: Also, read the whole thread chain you just posted and tell me what you are actually arguing for.
If it is slavery, than it is evil, correct?
Because it seems you just want to argue against me at this point, but that focus is making you argue for my position, ironically.
Slavery is bad. Undead are mindless slaves. This is one of the several reasons why making undead is evil.
|
|
Erm, how so? The ecology section really is flavor text, much like a class description. The stat blocks, class features, and spell text I'm referring to is actually rules. Because Grenadier says he drinks in combat better doesn't mean he does for instance, its his class features that determine what he actually does. I'm not even suggesting you go against the ecology, I said to listen to it if its free of control.Amazing how when it supports you it is rule but when it doesn't it is flavor...Unless left unattended apparently.Flavor text and only matters when the zombie isn't under anyone's control. Unless you think that its supposed to follow its ecology when ordered to stand around and do nothing. If ordered to do so it does so! Until someone else is in control or its somehow set free(or destroyed!)
The description of how an unattended creature will act in the game is not part of the rules.
Or at least not when it disagrees with what you want.
Got it.
Personally, I don't think using robots is evil nor that material supports that idea(to be fair, not many robots in setting). Unless of course they're self-aware, but at that point your screwed anyway if Terminator and I-Robot have taught me anything.