|
You were the one arguing that undead are people, not me.
"In D&D/PF, there is no distinction between "people" and "non-people", except that "creatures" are distinguished from "objects". The distinction (by RAW) is that creatures have wisdom scores, and objects don't.
A further distinction is made between creatures with animal level intelligence (1-2) and creatures with human level intelligence (3+).
Undead with intelligence scores at least three fall into the latter category. So yes, they are people."
Said you.
|
|
You were the one arguing that what counts as "people" is in any way related to alignments.
And given that the entire basis of your argument is that undead and dragons aren't 'people', it is completely nullified by the fact that what counts as 'people' has nothing to do with the rules.But now I'm curious:
Suppose you suddenly gained access to some epic magic which could kill a target, and every creature related to that target (wipe out an entire family line!)...let's call this spell "familicide". Would you consider it Evil to use such a spell on an undead? How about a black dragon? Since, ya know, they aren't 'people' (whatever the heck that means inside your head) and their entire families are probably evil anyways, would you think it was okay to use 'familicide'?
Is that my argument?
I thought my argument was that creatures have definitions, and throwing them all under a made up category of "people" is silly and that if your argument depends on that, you have built on a foundation of sand.
As to your straw...er...question. Would killing all demons be evil? Probably not. Same with devils. And similarly, removing all undead from existence would not seem to be an evil act.
For most, if not all, good religions, it would be a legendarily good act and they would make you a Saint or a Herald.
Or was St. Patrick evil?
Are Demons and Devils "People", since they have wisdom scores?
|
|
Although I will ask you again:
would you consider casting Familicide on an evil dragon or undead to be a non-evil act?
If it worked only on evil dragons, it would not be an evil act. On all dragons it would be, as there are as many if not more good and neutral dragons as evil ones.
That wasn't even a good trap question.
I already answered undead. Ridding the world of all undead would be considered a good act by I believe all of the good deities. In the same way ridding the world of all demons and devils would be a good act.
You said anything with a wisdom score is a "person" and therefore undead are "people". Devils and Demons are, by that definition, people.
So killing Devils and Demons, by your definition, is killing people.
Sorry you don't like the definition you created out of thin air.
|
If demons can atone (Succubus Paladin!) then anyone can. But it's exceedingly rare, rare enough that most undead creation gets the [Evil] tag. That seems to me the simplest way to handle it.
BoVD and Libris Mortis include lines about undead creation increasing the "wrongness" in the world - perhaps weakening the veil that allows for malicious and uncontrolled undead spirits/animating forces to slip through. If that is the case, then creating undead, even for benign purposes, is irresponsible at best - like creating a new form of bacteria or fungus that resists all medication so that you can use one strain for your research, knowing full well the havoc it can wreak if it gets loose and also knowing that you can't guarantee it won't.
That would be my explanation why creating undead is evil.
Back to the point really:
Negative energy isn't inherently evil any more than fire is. It is a force of nature more than anything. Fire (and acid) are forces of absolute entropy, of destruction. They are still not inherently evil.
However, negative energy is essentially a force of anti-life. Now, this doesn't mean that the energy itself is evil, but I think it shows why undead are. Undead are an expression of willpower, even if it is not their own. You are giving a force of life-destruction a will of it's own? Yes, that is inherently evil.
I would also think that living fire should be inherently evil too, but I don't have the bestiary on hand to see. A force of absolute destruction with a mind certainly sounds evil.
Finally, James Jacobs points out that there are exceptions to every rule, so I think it's fine to play with that. I mean, it's not even that hard to think of a back-story for an undead that is striving for good despite his heart being filled with the destruction of life. It can't be a very happy unlife though. A great deal of opposition.
I don't think it was a straw-man, I think it was a trap. Different thing altogether.
Actually, demons and devils don't necessarily have family, as I understand it, though a few seem to (story arbitration is funny that way).
But, ciretose, let's go with you're alt idea. Let's include demons and devils and presume they have families.
So, using on a particular demon or devil and eliminating everyone in its family would include:
1) demons or devils related
2) half-fiends related
3) tieflings related
4) non-tieflings who had tiefling ancestry (such as certain sorcerers)
5) people related to those people
It would destroy a metric crapton of demons or devils, but it would also cause a tremendous amount of collateral.
So, you know, that spell sucks. In case you're wondering, this is an "actual" epic spell that "really exists". It comes from Order of the Stick.
Another way to handle trap situations is to think about the possible repercussions and explain them instead of just avoiding things. I mention to lower the hostility and frustration level all over.
Similarly, if someone isn't playing, just go ahead and explain your point. It'll work out better.
But let's drop that, because you're refusing to play along.
M'kay?
Instead, let's go with a more reasonable Epic Spell, something with similar scope to the Familycide spell.
Let's call it "Mass Extinction". It targets a specific, definable hit dice (or, if you'd prefer, CR) of a given creature type, and doesn't stop until all of that creature type is destroyed. Let's presume it has comprehensible rules.
Easier targets would be things like "all skeletons" or "all zombies" or something. Harder targets would be "all succubi" or "all black dragons".
Now, let's assume the creator - who is one bad mutha - decided to go big and then go home. So, sure, the spell will kill him without any sort of raising possible (among other things), but he targeted his "Mass Extinction" to all chromatic dragons. (Let's also presume that the spell handles the corpses in such a way as to make it "environmentally friendly" and cause the least amount of problems possible.)
Would such a thing be a good act? Far and away the preponderance of chromatic dragons are exceedingly evil. It would generally be seen as a good act by the preponderance of people who've ever had interactions with chromatic dragons. However, would it actually be a good act, regardless of what "most" civilized people would say?
Another Epic Spellcaster, deciding, "hey, that was a good idea", creates their own Mass Extinction spell. It targets all Undead. Is that a good act?
Another one targets all Succubi or better yet all Balors (not their progeny, just those with the actual demon subtype).
Certainly great good is done here.
It's quite possible that it's a good act.
But in destroying the evil creatures, you're also going to destroy some good creatures, though few in number. It's that latter part that's the sticky-wicket as it were. Is it right to destroy a good, sentient creature?
For the curious, Paizo's take on it seems to be, "Yes, if they would otherwise fall into evil." and, most of the time, undead definitively "fall into evil". My take is less sure, but over-all I'd say it may well be "worth it" in the end to save all of the good and noble lives that it would, regardless of what it does to me, personally. I'd make the sacrifice of myself (and, potentially, the mark against my alignment, if it came to that). That's not to say that "destroying evil, no matter the cost" is the best idea. It's not the best idea, because the "cost" may well be too high. But, given the cost I've noted, such effects would likely be far better than not (with, again, the setting-specific exceptions).
Familycide, for comparison, on the other hand, would not be worth it to me - far too much collateral damage in the preponderance of most settings.
Destroying a single good (or even non-evil) undead? Hm... harder to decide. I'd come down against it, myself. But in "Paizo's Golarion" (as opposed to home games) it's not a bad thing, and, depending on the situation, is probably necessary in many cases (though not all). I don't really like it, but then again, I don't have to.
One thing to keep in mind about all this is that, as James has said, PCs are the exceptions to the exceptions. The idea of a good demon and good undead is more likely than PCs. Not PC-classed creatures, mind, but PCs. That's... a pretty interesting comment and point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To paraphrase myself from earlier, I think "good undead" is certainly possible, just as I think undead can be created with good in mind. But in Golarion at least, doing so is still evil, and I proposed a number of ways to justify it. In the end though, it doesn't really need to be justify, it's just the way things are.
Although I will ask you again:
would you consider casting Familicide on an evil dragon or undead to be a non-evil act?For what it's worth, I don't think actions in D&D/PF can be categorized that easily without more information; the only actions that are unambiguously good or evil are casting spells with an alignment descriptor.
Thought experiment: Cast Holy Word in a nursery full of neutral-aligned babies. Note that even if the babies save, they take 3d6+CL damage, so they die anyway. If you do this with intent to kill innocent babies, you are clearly doing an evil thing, but your action is also by definition a "good act" because you are casting a spell with the [good] descriptor.
BoVD does cover this - casting an aligned spell is only a "minor" act of that alignment, whereas murder and harming the innocent (e.g. children) are both heinous/serious acts. So the evil resulting from this hypothetical action would far outweigh the tiny bit of good gained from casting a good spell.
And BoED mentions that end results matter - giving the example of Healing normally being a good act, but that healing an injured Blackguard so he can continue battling the forces of good would not be.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tangent: Honestly, I just GM-fiat Holy Word to have no effect on innocents, because wtf.
For the curious, Paizo's take on it seems to be, "Yes, if they would otherwise fall into evil." and, most of the time, undead definitively "fall into evil". My take is less sure, but over-all I'd say it may well be "worth it" in the end to save all of the good and noble lives that it would, regardless of what it does to me, personally. I'd make the sacrifice of myself (and, potentially, the mark against my alignment, if it came to that). That's not to say that "destroying evil, no matter the cost" is the best idea. It's not the best idea, because the "cost" may well be too high. But, given the cost I've noted, such effects would likely be far better than not (with, again, the setting-specific exceptions).
I think I still fall into the "it's evil" camp on this one. Semi-Origenist and the genocide hate and all. Especially considering all the innocent souls that have been turned into demons.
It gets complicated for me if this gets aimed at things like devourers, demiliches, and daemons and the like though, but then that gets into my own biases about which creatures could be entirely evil beyond even the possibility of redemption.(combined with the existential threat they present).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, using on a particular demon or devil and eliminating everyone in its family would include:
1) demons or devils related
2) half-fiends related
3) tieflings related
4) non-tieflings who had tiefling ancestry (such as certain sorcerers)
5) people related to those people
Thank you for pointing this out.
That spell is an abomination in the eyes of all that is good.
|
Tangent: Honestly, I just GM-fiat Holy Word to have no effect on innocents, because wtf.
in the jewish faith if the high priest went into the "holy of holies" and even thinks a sin, such as coveting, he would die on the spot.
this is the high priest we are talking about, they even had a rope they tied around his waist because if they (the lesser priests) touched his dead body in there they would also die
So, just actually getting around to my real point, which got lost in my other point, and also responding to something.
First:
"People" are not defined in Pathfinder. "Person" is. Sort of.
Charm Person
Hold Person
Enlarge Person
Dominate Person
Reduce Person
Those all specify "humanoid" as a target, and they are the "person" spells, which oppose the "animal" and "monster" variants thereof.
Spells like Helping Hand or Residual Tracking actually seem to make the case stronger by clarifying "person (or any creature)" as well.
HOWEVER: if we follow this line of logic, the following spells become either really specific, or substantially more... strange.
Legend Lore "person, place, or thing" - I suppose "thing" covers non-persons, such as monsters, but there are no actual rules for them, and thus "legendary" - which is not a defined term other than for "persons" - is exceedingly vague. Vision has similar questions.
Mirror Sight - "known person" only applies to humanoids, thus you can target a mirror you know, a place you know, or a humanoid you know, but nothing else.
Sculpt Corpse - you can scuplt the body to look like "another creature" or even "a specific person", but not a "specific creature". This leads to the question if it only works well for humanoids.
Contingency - "your person"? We all know what that means, but if we take the PF-definition of "person" for a rule, this spell suddenly becomes useless to non-humanoids. Unless, of course, they cast it on their slaves. Which they can't do, because it's range. Dancing Lantern has similar wording issues.
Aurgy - "made by the same person"... so auguries made by anything other than a humanoid may or may not receive the same answer?
Teleport - "only objects held or in use (attended) by another person" brings more than one problem. First, it implies that only a humanoid can use the spell ("another" person). Second, it implies that only items held by humanoids get a save. Sucks to be liches, I guess.
Disguise Self - a long-discussed thing that has multiple well-known issues with it. A tiefling, for example, could use it to look like a coloxus or an omox, but not a human.
Illusory Script - "Only the person (or people) designated by you at the time of the casting can read the writing" could be saved by the "or people" (which isn't defined), but it's a little vague. It also seems broad enough to include "creature" below.
Rope Trick - "can be climbed by only one person at a time"... so familiars, animal companions, and the like are kept out? Can undead use this? No?
Plane Shift - "several willing persons"... well, at least now we know why the infernal hordes don't invade en-mass! (Spelling on this one? Autocorrect assures me it's "en-mass" but I thought it was en masse...)
Malicious Spite - "the malice toward this other person" implies that only a humanoid can cast it, and only at other humanoids.
Sanctify Corpse - "If the corpse is of a person", so anything other than humanoids just get turned into undead?
Form Validation - "belonged to the same person", which means it doesn't work on non-humanoids?
Phantom Steed - "only by you or by the one person" no wonder we never see undead on phantom stee- ... oh, wait. Hm. Phantom Chariot is similar.
Retribution - "have the temerity to assault your person"... okay, this one does work on undead's slaves.
Foresighte - weird readings might indicate that while under this spell you can only yank humanoids back, but I'm pretty sure that's inclusive rather than exclusive language used.
Raiment of Command - "met in person"... uh... um... hm. Well. That's... certainly... I'll not describe what comes to mind. One is too gross, the other too... er... "public and not PG".
That's just spells. Certain traits, Oils in general, firearms, alignment, honor, skills, monsters, magic items, and cultural norms also become strange with that interpretation. I didn't list everything that would, by the way. That list took long enough!
Of course, this is all completely demolished by Awaken.
"The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead becomes a person—an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language." (Found here, for the curious.)
That's pretty solid, but it's backed up by, "in the same way a normal person of their intelligence level would" (indicating abnormal, but still a person).
So, a "person" is not only "any humanoid" (as the spells guarantee that any humanoid is considered a "person" due to their titles) but, by RAW, also "an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language."
That's... exceedingly specific. It's RAW, but exceedingly specific.
On the other hand, I think the RAI is pretty clear: a "person" is (and, by extension, "persons" and "people" are) a sentient creature. And creature is definitively defined.
Although I will ask you again:
would you consider casting Familicide on an evil dragon or undead to be a non-evil act?For what it's worth, I don't think actions in D&D/PF can be categorized that easily without more information; the only actions that are unambiguously good or evil are casting spells with an alignment descriptor.
Thought experiment: Cast Holy Word in a nursery full of neutral-aligned babies. Note that even if the babies save, they take 3d6+CL damage, so they die anyway. If you do this with intent to kill innocent babies, you are clearly doing an evil thing, but your action is also by definition a "good act" because you are casting a spell with the [good] descriptor.
First, you're making some presumptions about the alignment (due, I presume, to presumptions about the relative intellect) of the babies.
Second, the spell might be good, but the reckless or wicked use thereof is not.
Food is a good thing. Giving it to the hungry is good. Gluttony is still a sin. As is beating the hungry to death with beets. ()
When you're using something inherently good for evil ends (as described above), you're doing something far more evil. Succubi became demons for that exact reason.
EDIT: wording change for clarity, and making a tag work correctly.
EDIT: adding the first part!
Responding to a lot 'cause, you know, NINJA'D. Because I write too much.
For the curious, Paizo's take on it seems to be, "Yes, if they would otherwise fall into evil." and, most of the time, undead definitively "fall into evil". My take is less sure, but over-all I'd say it may well be "worth it" in the end to save all of the good and noble lives that it would, regardless of what it does to me, personally. I'd make the sacrifice of myself (and, potentially, the mark against my alignment, if it came to that). That's not to say that "destroying evil, no matter the cost" is the best idea. It's not the best idea, because the "cost" may well be too high. But, given the cost I've noted, such effects would likely be far better than not (with, again, the setting-specific exceptions).I think I still fall into the "it's evil" camp on this one. Semi-Origenist and the genocide hate and all. Especially considering all the innocent souls that have been turned into demons.
It gets complicated for me if this gets aimed at things like devourers, demiliches, and daemons and the like though, but then that gets into my own biases about which creatures could be entirely evil beyond even the possibility of redemption.(combined with the existential threat they present).
And I could see that.
I disagree (to a point, see below), but I could definitely see it. At the level of destruction done to good compared to the innocents that are harmed by it, though? I'm pretty sure the over-all net effect for good far, far outweighs the over-all net effect for evil.
And, even if the cosmos disagrees with me, I'm willing to risk that.
Setting-specific presumptions can really mess with that presumption, however.
In Golarion/the Outer Planes, for example, if I kill all of one type of demons, the others will rouse themselves - an event even the gods fear. If, on the other hand, I destroy all the demons, the qlippoth will rise, as they exist in limited numbers only because the demons exist so widely. Besides that, the Abyss is going to continue to spit out demons no matter what. It's too late to take away that "trick" from the Abyss. (Though destroying and/or sanctifying the Abyss might just be a great option!)
In Greyhawk/Planescape, on the other hand, if I destroy all the demons of the Abyss, I just won the Bloodwar for the Devils. I just doomed multiverse.
In those settings, accomplishing what I stated would naturally lead to terrible consequences - I accomplished little other than harming the universe even more (though if I wiped out all the demons in Golarion-verse, it's quite possible that the qlippoth could be similarly "handled", since they're far fewer).
However, eliminating all demons comes with the following benefits: there are no more demons. That's really huge.
No more demons turning innocents into demons.
No more demons corrupting good, neutral, or even evil toward darker purposes.
No more demons influencing the world(s) in any way whatsoever: the vast, vast majority of demonic influence is evil, and, thus, the net effect of eliminating all of them is a major good.
Creatures with strong tendencies toward alignment, but not inherent alignment, I'd be much, much more cautious about.
But again, all of that comes down to personal tastes and views.
Tangent: Honestly, I just GM-fiat Holy Word to have no effect on innocents, because wtf.in the jewish faith if the high priest went into the "holy of holies" and even thinks a sin, such as coveting, he would die on the spot.
this is the high priest we are talking about, they even had a rope they tied around his waist because if they (the lesser priests) touched his dead body in there they would also die
... actually it's only if he's currently in sin that hasn't been atoned for, and he had a rope so the other priests didn't go in while in sin themselves. They could pull him out without parting the veil.
|
|
Yes.
A strawman is a false scenario you create, then defeat and claim victory for doing so.
For example asking me to cast familicide on dragons. You brought up this spell, then asked me to use it, and I guess are claiming "victory" because I can't defeat your scenario...
So thanks for pointing out something from a webcomic that isn't in the rules, because it would be incredibly dumb to have in the rules.
That demonstrated...well...nothing at all really...
|
|
Tangent: Honestly, I just GM-fiat Holy Word to have no effect on innocents, because wtf.
I go with "Since you have to be good to cast this, and you are asking your good aligned god to give you magic to do evil, they decline and if you are a cleric of a good god you just grossly violated the code of conduct required by your god, and you lose all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons."
|
|
So, using on a particular demon or devil and eliminating everyone in its family would include:
1) demons or devils related
2) half-fiends related
3) tieflings related
4) non-tieflings who had tiefling ancestry (such as certain sorcerers)
5) people related to those peopleThank you for pointing this out.
That spell is an abomination in the eyes of all that is good.
Which is why it is from a comic strip and not actually a rule in the game...