Except that "evil" has in game mechanical impacts where orange and green do not.Of course. But that is just further evidence that the alignment system within Pathfinder doesn't actually represent anything nuanced in terms of actual ideas about good and evil. You might as well have the alignment system be arranged around colors. Paladins must be Orange Red and raising undead is a Green act.You didn't need to keep "nuanced" in there. You're still right if you take it out.
But by your own admission the pathfinder setting is a "world where "evil" and "good" are literal things not things which are ineffable, debatable and morally ambiguous." Therefore, it has nothing to do with real world notions of good and evil. So, if they aren't related, then the pathfinder version is an internal convention which arbitrarily assigns some things as "good" and some as "evil." You could simply map the Pathfinder notion of "evil" to "green," and "good" to "red" and you'd have the same effect.
Annabel, if you want to play semantic games, you can find someone else to play them with.
The words "good" and "evil" were chosen in game precisely because of their real world meanings and you well know that. It is relevant to the discussion that the developers decided to use "good" and "evil" in the game.
Now, as to whether the whole concept is arbitrary or not. Well, they are game rules, meaning they are by definition arbitrary. But arbitrary or not IN THE GAME they mean something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I am quite certain that in the 7 levels of hell they view themselves as the paragons of their beliefs.
And they are still evil.
And Mario murders "innocent" Turtles and he is the hero.
I find it ironic that being willfully obtuse about definitions is trying to be passed off as being clever. Reminds me a lot of a documentary called "Exit through the gift shop"
Being able to pull off playing the non-traditional requires a full understanding of the context in which the non-traditional exists, and how that irony is the source of conflict that makes the concept at all interesting.
Removing the conflict removes the only thing that would make the concept even remotely interesting.
I see a forum full of "Mr. Brainwash" who think they are being Banksy, not in on the joke...
It's kind of amusing actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it ironic that being willfully obtuse about definitions is trying to be passed off as being clever.
Read this. All of it. And then read some of the papers and books it cites as well as some of the related entries.
Annabel, if you want to play semantic games, you can find someone else to play them with.
The words "good" and "evil" were chosen in game precisely because of their real world meanings and you well know that. It is relevant to the discussion that the developers decided to use "good" and "evil" in the game.
Now, as to whether the whole concept is arbitrary or not. Well, they are game rules, meaning they are by definition arbitrary. But arbitrary or not IN THE GAME they mean something.
It's not really a semantic game, but rather a demonstration that the similarity as a result in word choice does not lead to a similarity in notions. There real world meanings (as they have drawn out in this thread) are in conflict with the Pathfinder game universe. It's fine that Paizo has chosen to do this, but it's silly to argue that undead are evil because of some "truth" that transcends fiction and reality. You're not arguing against my point, just outlining the important differences between "evil" and evil.
|
|
I find it ironic that being willfully obtuse about definitions is trying to be passed off as being clever.Read this. All of it. And then read some of the papers and books it cites as well as some of the related entries.
Thank you for proving my point.
Thank you for proving my point.I find it ironic that being willfully obtuse about definitions is trying to be passed off as being clever.Read this. All of it. And then read some of the papers and books it cites as well as some of the related entries.
Haha! Vivianne posted that five minutes ago. I don't think you've read any of that.
|
|
It's not really a semantic game, but rather a demonstration that the similarity as a result in word choice does not lead to a similarity in notions. There real world meanings (as they have drawn out in this thread) are in conflict with the Pathfinder game universe. It's fine that Paizo has chosen to do this, but it's silly to argue that undead are evil because of some "truth" that transcends fiction and reality. You're not arguing against my point, just outlining the important differences between "evil" and evil.Annabel, if you want to play semantic games, you can find someone else to play them with.
The words "good" and "evil" were chosen in game precisely because of their real world meanings and you well know that. It is relevant to the discussion that the developers decided to use "good" and "evil" in the game.
Now, as to whether the whole concept is arbitrary or not. Well, they are game rules, meaning they are by definition arbitrary. But arbitrary or not IN THE GAME they mean something.
There are no demons or undead in the real world, are there?
I personally don't think there are any gods either.
It isn't the real world we are discussing. It is a game, with rules and subjective morality that allows you to kill without trial and still be morally "good".
Which is why it is so ironic someone would link to a ethical discussion pertaining to reality in a discussion of...well...not reality.
It isn't ethically justifiable for adventures to kill so indiscriminately in a world where evil isn't an actual thing that can be defined.
Which is why it is defined. And testable.
Discussing why the setting has to have rigid definitions of good and evil is like asking why McDonald's doesn't serve Filet Migion on the dollar menu.
Because then it would cost more than a dollar, and McDonalds exists to make money.
The Setting isn't reality. In reality if I stab someone because it was the will of my god, I'm probably going to jail and I'm definitely in a morally precarious position.
But in Golarion, or really any setting that is going to have a viable campaign with any logical consistency, I am justified in the action I am taking based on the morality of the setting. Good is good, evil is evil, my actions exist in that framework.
Trying to show how clever your understanding of ethics is in such a setting is absurd, and demonstrates a failing to understand the distinction between the two.
|
|
@I Hate Nickleback
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
...But in Golarion, or really any setting that is going to have a viable campaign with any logical consistency, I am justified in the action I am taking based on the morality of the setting. Good is good, evil is evil, my actions exist in that framework.
Trying to show how clever your understanding of ethics is in such a setting is absurd, and demonstrates a failing to understand the distinction between the two.
I would agree, the internal consistency of a campaign setting is important to its viability. Which is exactly why meta-ethical concerns are being raised here. Whatever inherent "evilness" is built into the mechanics of raise dead is in conflict with the inherent goodness of keeping children and families from starving.
I appreciate your complement; I really enjoy the concept of Undead throwing the question of "good" and "evil" into disarray.
Likewise, mindless undead are mindless beings created of a neutral, though perhaps disliked, substance (negative energy), so why should they be proclaimed evil?
The answer is obvious... Zebra muscles are evil! EVIL! We must go forth and Smite! but seriously, I have no idea if it is unnatural or not. Really positive and negative energies are both probably unnatural if negative has to be, 2 sides of a coin gig, if you dig. Both require summoning forth forces from another plane.
|
|
It is a in a world that actually has defined and testable "Good" and "Evil" and those definitions are what allows heros to kill sentient beings without trial.
The entire point of having a setting that is not based in modern morality is to be able to do those things without having the hero cease to be a hero, as they would with actual morality in a world where there isn't clear division between good and evil.
So applying real world morality to a not real world is akin to applying the Christian-Judeo ethic to Martians.
Even suggesting is kind of silly when you consider it is a world where you can literally detect evil. Literally, that is a thing you can do. It is an actual testable thing. Not thought puzzle testable. Actually can be tested like you would run a blood test.
It is purely an attempt at rationalization at best, and at worst it is an attempt to manipulate others to accept what they don't want to have in there game by applying ethical standards that aren't in any way applicable in the context being discussed.
...It is purely an attempt at rationalization at best, and at worst it is an attempt to manipulate others to accept what they don't want to have in there game by applying ethical standards that aren't in any way applicable in the context being discussed.
There is an attempt here to reconcile the mechanical workings of the "good/evil" split with the explanations of these concepts present within Paizo material. So, while it <i>appears</i> to be a application of "real world" ethics into Golarion, it's actually a recognition that the books are writing in "real" English drawing on real world meaning to become intelligible.
The Core book states:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
So, now we have a Gray paladin with the Oath of Charity. He's oathbound to dedicate his life "to protecting those who can’t protect themselves and giving to those who are in need" (UM, p. 62). He stumbles onto this out of the way village, and the conflict between denizens of the valley and a band of zealous White paladins.
This Gray paladin recognizes how important the local custom of raising family members after they pass is as a means to supply more labor in the valley. The Gray paladin is intelligent, and knows that if the practice of raising undead were to be stopped, there would be no way for the villagers to live in the valley. The Gray paladin knows that if the undead are slain then the villagers would starve to death.
The Gray paladin is approached by the leader of the White paladins, who informs him that the White paladins are going to put a stop to this practice. "Undead are evil, no ifs, ands, or buts" the White paladin declares.
Well, the Gray paladin knows that the altruistic thing to do would be to leave these people to their practice of raising their deceased family members as undead. Whether the local practice "respect for life" is questionable, but as far as the Gray paladin can tell, no one in the village is ever purposefully slain in the process to create more undead. And the practice certainly is concerned "for the dignity of sentient beings," seeing as how it is necessary for the people in the valley to survive.
The Gray paladin believes that by killing the undead and ending the practice, the White paladins will certainly be "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." By even considering it, the White paladins seem to lack any "compassion for others" and are willing to "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" (the locals have nothing remotely like a militia). In fact, the near irrationality that hostility that Pharasma, and those who follow her, seem to show towards any and all undead seem problematic because it's hard to tell if the White paladins themselves are evil, or do they just serve an evil master?
I mean, whatever the resolution this conflict must take, it's clear that what's important here is that a person seriously considered what's right. The Gray paladin has given this issue some honest thought rather than referencing some sort of "black and white" notion of "good" and "evil."
Yeah neutral is probably the most good any necromancer could get.
*in a dungeon, a fighter and necromancer are cornered by a horde of demons*
Fighter: "there are too many of them we are cut off."
Necromancer: "Not if I can help it!" *casts raise dead, kills all the demons*
Fighter:" Isn't that evil?"
Necromancer: "Only if I don't put them back when I'm done with them." *commands the dead to return to their graves and ends spell* "Besides how do you think you're still alive."
Fighter: "What?" *looks at chest and sees a sword sticking out of him*
Necromancer: "Don't worry I'll have a cleric properly resurrect you when we get back."
There seems to be some idea by some in this discussion that a good character can't do an evil thing for a good purpose. Sure they can. Good clerics can animate dead. It's just that when they do it, they are doing an evil act. Such a thing should be very carefully considered, and upon the first opportunity, it should be atoned and some sacrifice made to indicate that it was done in extremis.
Before anyone starts on the paladin bandwagon, I'll just come right out and say that I really don't like the paladin class for a lot of reasons, so I don't play them. And when one is in a party I GM, I don't purposefully put them in compromising positions just for fun.
Heck, even my neutral characters will sometimes atone for their evil acts if they feel badly enough about them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One day the Paizo server will flub again.
And this thread will be necromanced.
I wait for that day.
3. It creates evil creatures that want to annihilate anything living if not controlled.
For 3, this I feel is the strongest explanation in itself. Undead (with very few exceptions) are evil. All unintelligent undeads are evil through and through, and if control of them is lost they'll go ahead and try to kill anything they come across. Animate Dead creates machines of pure destruction, with no exceptions. You can force them to...
Where are people getting this argument from? Hollywood?
Unintelligent undead in D&D/Pathfinder do nothing unless ordered to do so. A skeleton/zombie will just stand in one spot doing absolutely nothing, much like a golem, until ordered into action. It's not like the movies where these things just go around causing death and mayhem unless stopped. And, most importantly, there is nothing in the raw to even suggest that they do.|
|
Good clerics can animate dead. It's just that when they do it, they are doing an evil act. Such a thing should be very carefully considered, and upon the first opportunity, it should be atoned and some sacrifice made to indicate that it was done in extremis.
Except for the rule in the CRB that says that a good cleric can't cast a spell that has the [evil] descriptor.
The real question becomes: even though the good cleric can't cast [evil] spells, are those spells still on the good cleric's spell list, or not. Personally, I'm leaning towards not.
I suppose, in any case, the Cleric could UMD an animate dead scroll or wand...which would then satisfy the rest of your post.
Tough to kill... Flesh and bone growing back... Evil... Feeds on others... Omg, trolls are a lot more dangerous than I thought they were.
Nice! Now we know what trolls are, and why they are that way. They're all infected with positive energy poisoning. :)
Trolls all kinda look like old men, so this actually kinda makes sense.
I was also thinking that Lycanthropy might be another kind of Positive Energy poisoning. Infectious, regenerating, in constant flux, etc.
I'm a guardsman that got slaughtered by the BBEG's advance through my town.
Along comes a PC who is an Ancestor Oracle. He uses his Speak With Dead ability to ask me what happened. He asks me if I'd like the chance to fight again, and possibly save my family who was captured by the BBEG.
I say Yes. I become undead.
Is the PC who raised me evil?
You aren't fighting again. That is raise dead.
Not remotely the same thing.
You're avoiding the question, so I'll tighten the parameters.
I am raised as self-willed undead. Maybe I'm just a Wraith with a Ghost Touch sword or something.
It was my choice, I'm trying to save my family, I'm now undead.
Is the person who made me undead Evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something else I want to point out to people who think anyone in-setting is going to flip their lids over a horde of undead:
LoRT is kind of THE archetypical fantasy that D&D/Pathfinder is largely based on.
In Return of the King, Aragorn has a massive horde of vengeful undead spirits (The Dead Men of Dunharrow) join in the fight against Sauron, and not a single one of the "good guys" even bats an eyelash about it.
Just because something is theoretically upsetting in real life, does not mean that same thing earns the same reaction in game-life.
Also, no one has offered a real answer to the contradiction in the rules:
Mindless things can have no alignment because they are incapable of making moral choices.
vs.
Undead are always [Evil].
Also, no one has offered a real answer to the contradiction in the rules:
Mindless things can have no alignment because they are incapable of making moral choices.
vs.
Undead are always evil.
I actually addressed this in an earlier post. The short version is that if mindless undead are inherently evil, then they simply do evil things mindlessly.
I actually addressed this in an earlier post. The short version is that if mindless undead are inherently evil, then they simply do evil things mindlessly.Also, no one has offered a real answer to the contradiction in the rules:
Mindless things can have no alignment because they are incapable of making moral choices.
vs.
Undead are always [Evil].
Actually you haven't, but that's my fault for not being more clear in my meaning. I've updated the post and your quote for a more accurate portrayal of my issue.
Skeletons/Zombies are forced to have the Evil alignment, when the rules about alignment specifically say that they are incapable of having any alignment at all. (It has nothing to do with what, if any, evil actions they do or do not take.)
Something else I want to point out to people who think anyone in-setting is going to flip their lids over a horde of undead:
LoRT is kind of THE archetypical fantasy that D&D/Pathfinder is largely based on.
In Return of the King, Aragorn has a massive horde of vengeful undead spirits (The Dead Men of Dunharrow) join in the fight against Sauron, and not a single one of the "good guys" even bats an eyelash about it.Just because something is theoretically upsetting in real life, does not mean that same thing earns the same reaction in game-life.
Adding to this what I had said earlier, not all cultures in the world considered undead beings evil.
Actually you haven't, but that's my fault for not being more clear in my meaning. I've updated the post and your quote for a more accurate portrayal of my issue.
If a creature has choice then they can choose their alignment. Many creatures don't get a choice, but that doesn't necessarily make them neutral.
Angels are Good by default. Demons are Evil. They don't get a choice. They never became that way. They just are. The only choice they get in the matter is whether or not they stay that way. (angels can fall, demons can be redeemed. both are exceedingly rare situations)
In Golarion, and any other setting that assumes undead are evil by default, it doesn't matter if undead are mindless. They're evil anyway. They aren't evil because they choose to be. They're evil because the energy that powers them is Objectively objectionable, and drives them to destroy life and innocence and generally be jerks (even if they don't realize they're being jerks).
|
|
I find it very funny that a good-aligned undead could not be healed by a good Cleric or the Neutral Cleric of a Good deity.
In Golarion, undead are almost always evil. Non-evil undead (or even good ones) exist but are very very rare (I guess on par with Non-evil Fiends).
This allows the GM to use non-evil undead every once in a while to surprise the players. While it prevents players from flooding the game with non-evil undead. Which would undoubtedly happen if the undead = evil convention was not so strongly supported in the setting.
Regarding Negative energy, while it is not evil by itself, its use to animate dead bodies is always evil. Sounds fine to me as I find it a rather wicked distortion of nature to use the destructive energy to create a parody of life.
Also it gives a good reason for the fact that natives of the negative energy planes have a utter hatred of undead.
Also it gives a good reason for the fact that natives of the negative energy planes have a utter hatred of undead.
Source, please?
|
As a side note.
Cure spells back in the day were necro. It wasn't til 3.x they went over to conjure for no good reason can think of other than clerics channel energy and that's how they sack for spells so the must all be conjuration......
Also the reason liches are evil is they murder unicorns and eat babies so they can transfer their souls out of their bodies. Good liches don't do those things and keep their souls and ghost forms tied together and were helped by their gods to be that way. Ex. Balnorns from the realms were more ghost than lich really. And lets not forget the Nerthese guys who wraith or shadow liches.... Note I'm refering to Ander from the Elminster the making of a mage.
I'm talking about this:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html
Mindless things are incapable of moral action, and are therefore neutral. Except mindless undead are "always Evil."
It's a contradiction in the alignment mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. The alignment rules establish a general statement. The Undead subtype provides an exception.
The game is full of those sorts of things. They aren't contradictions. They are special cases.
I suppose you can reflavor the creation of undead to somthing not Evil but then i dont think it will taste like necromancy. But let us know how it works out for you.
And on a different note a World with shades of Grey ( but not 50) instead og Black and White still have Somthing similar to evil it is the pure good that is in question there.
Justify???? Necromancy is LOVE baby!
Chew on this...
Dead departed spirit: "Oh Woe is me! Ive died and now Im all alone here with no one to talk to at all! I used to be sooo important..."
Necromancer" "Oh lost spirit...speak to me of what you know of this occurance..." (Casts speak w dead)
Dead departed spirit: "Oh THANK YOU kind and wonderful necromancer! I get to be important again! Such joy!"
and of course...
What is a more openly showing of love and devotion to ones fellow man than eagerly and happily allowing someone to animate your old and forgotten bones to do further actions in the land of the living? It is not like you need them anymore...
Necromancer "Rise and help save the orphans from this horrible death by their orphanage burning..."
Dead departed spirit: "Oh YES! Use my long forgotten bones to save the children! For the innocent children...."
SEE? Necromancy is LOVE!!!!!
This reminded me of that one goddess from Libris Mortis. Too bad I forgot her name.
I just found two quotes that might be sort of generally germane to this discussion.
In the entry for Magic Jar, there's this:
"Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls."
So that's that settled.
On creatures with an alignment subtype, or any creature really (such as a thinking undead) having an unchangeable alignment, there's this about the evil subtype:
"This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment."
Won't clear everything up by a long shot, but at least gives some indication to two of the issues discussed in this thread.
