As far as I'm aware, Gods are completely incapable of entering the Positive Energy plane. It's possible they are incapable of entering the Negative Energy plane too.It's been said around the forums that the "cannot enter PEP" deal may be on the retcon pile in the future if they revisit planar material.
When was it ever stated in PF that they couldn't enter the PEP? (and yes I'm going to have egg on my face if it's something I said in print)
The natives don't like outsiders there (ok the natives don't much like anyone intruding there) because they view anyone there as trying to interfere with their task of shepherding immature souls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was mentioned in the Great Beyond.
Positive Energy Plane: The glowing heart of life and creation, the origin-spark of mortal souls and the Material Plane itself, this plane remains out of bounds for most planar travelers, and somehow forbidden to gods. Populated by shining, phoenix-like beings of light known as the jyoti, the plane’s interior resembles the molten heart of an active star, and as such little true information exists about it, pending exploration by heroes of truly epic stature. It has the major positive dominant and subjective directional gravity traits.
I took this to mean it was similar to some places in the Forgotten Realms where Gods had no power. That they were basically incapable of entering the plane.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand egg on my face since I wrote that. In hindsight I would make that line much more flexible/ambiguous/speculative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's all good. Maybe when you guys do another planes book, it'll be a good chance to remove it.
*hint, hint* make another planes book *hint, hint*
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odraude, you talents at subtly amaze me. I almost didn't catch that.
-_-
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odraude, you talents at subtly amaze me. I almost didn't catch that.
-_-
What can I say? I put the 'b' in subtle. :)
Here's my take on the issues. What's the difference between animated objects/constructs and mindless undead? It's that when you don't give orders to the animated objects it does nothing, when you don't give orders to the undead, it tries to kill the living.
Mindless yes, but not without desire, specifically the desire to kill the living. Any time they show up in writing, the first thing they do when they encounter the living is to try to kill, unless their creator, or whoever is commanding them, orders them not to. That's what makes them inherently evil, and why only undead with a mind could be capable of becoming neutral (or even good), the ability to consciously overcome that desire.
Interesting concept, yet the same can be said for an Owlbear or any of the Slimes and Jellies, or any of the less intelligent plant creatures-- yet they are all listed as neutral.
I still hold that non-sentient creatures cannot have an alignment. Is the River evil because it tries to drown anything that swims in it?
The difference is that while owlbears are ill-tempered and aggressive, they aren't dedicated solely to killing for the sake of killing, they kill to eat, to defend their territory, for reasons that make sense to an animal. Likewise, the river doesn't TRY to kill those who swim in it, that's due to human (or otherwise) errors and accidents. Unless the river was actively attempting to kill anything that swims in it, then yeah, it would be an evil river.
The difference is that while owlbears are ill-tempered and aggressive, they aren't dedicated solely to killing for the sake of killing, they kill to eat, to defend their territory, for reasons that make sense to an animal. Likewise, the river doesn't TRY to kill those who swim in it, that's due to human (or otherwise) errors and accidents. Unless the river was actively attempting to kill anything that swims in it, then yeah, it would be an evil river.Mindless yes, but not without desire, specifically the desire to kill the living. Any time they show up in writing, the first thing they do when they encounter the living is to try to kill, unless their creator, or whoever is commanding them, orders them not to. That's what makes them inherently evil, and why only undead with a mind could be capable of becoming neutral (or even good), the ability to consciously overcome that desire.Interesting concept, yet the same can be said for <snip> any of the Slimes and Jellies, or any of the less intelligent plant creatures-- yet they are all listed as neutral.
At what point does something's "reason" make it "not evil" to effectively be a "kill anything that gets near"?
(Also, I'd argue that the river isn't trying to kill anything as well - it's totally a combination of biology, chemistry, and physics. Or rather, the interaction of those.)
In any event, a mindless plant-creature, a gray ooze, and the like: they only kill things and have no reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what about ghouls that actually need to eat to survive? How is their eating to fulfill their need more evil than an owlbear?
And what about ghouls that actually need to eat to survive? How is their eating to fulfill their need more evil than an owlbear?
Actually, if I recall correctly from Classic Horrors Revisited, ghouls don't actually need to eat to survive. They simply have a drive to constantly feast upon the flesh of dead creatures.
As far as I know, there are no undead that actually need to feast to survive. Eating is simply part of their curse. Including Vampires. From Blood of the Night,
“Hunger” is perhaps a misleading term to describe a vampire's lust for flesh, consciousness, or youth. As unliving things, they technically require no sustenance, and yet ravenousness is often considered a key characteristic of those who walk without life. In truth, this desire is driven not by need, but by psychological greed. Feasting grants the undead no physical nourishment, but does fill them with a pleasure and power they can't attain by any other means. For undead, the act of feeding can be likened to that of an addict satiating her inner demon.
Which is why I'm in the camp that most undead are evil. Course, there are exceptions that depend on various things, including the culture the creature is coming from. For example, I recently statting an hupia from Taino folklore, which were known for being either good, evil, or neutral. For me, having different alignments made sense with the folklore, so I kept it. Same with ghosts.
I think that even if a vampire or ghoul starts off as a good person, I think that constant drive to feed is going to wear them down. How long before they give in? Who will they give in on? Given the isolation they also must endure from most of humanity, before long people start be viewed as tools and food, not actual beings. Those who don't gradually give in to Darkness are likely either driven mad or commit suicide.
There are good ghouls and vampires. There are old ghouls and vampires. There are no old good ghouls and vampires.
I think that even if a vampire or ghoul starts off as a good person, I think that constant drive to feed is going to wear them down. How long before they give in? Who will they give in on? Given the isolation they also must endure from most of humanity, before long people start be viewed as tools and food, not actual beings. Those who don't gradually give in to Darkness are likely either driven mad or commit suicide.
There are good ghouls and vampires. There are old ghouls and vampires. There are no old good ghouls and vampires.
I think part of the "good" vampire (or intelligent undead) stems from people looking at it from a biological standpoint, rather than as a magical curse. You see the biological part from media like Underworld, Daybreakers, Blade, and I am Legend, where vampirism is a separate evolution from man and these vampires are just other species trying to survive. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, it's just not how I like to run my undead. I prefer the old, more sinister folklore, where undeath is a curse and very few of my intelligent undead are neutral (and none are good). Course, it also depends on on the folklore. Different cultures treat death differently and I take that into account when I stat new monsters.
I think the infectious bit also poses a difficulty, since anyone can become a ghoul/vampire/etc. In a lot of old legends you essentially had to be damned to become a vampire.
That's more or less part of the problem here. That you can be turned against your will and are forced to be evil, against your will, despite being sentient.
It makes one question, "sentience" as a thing.
It's especially dissonant, as sentience is one of the main things we use in real life to differentiate humanity from non-humanity, and it's the defining "dividing line" between "morally-responsible" and "morally incapable".
That and the reverence held for the (nebulous) concept of "free will".
It's always bothered me as well Tactics. You take a Lawful Good Paladin, and if he fails his save against something like Vampirism (before he is immune), he's now Evil, and Fallen. Since it's 'implied' in published material, and James Jacobs confirmed it in his thread, being Undead actually interferes with your soul passing on (in canon Golarion). So, a Vampire, because of a disease, is turned Evil, and forever damned, denied his paradise in the afterlife, because it's unlikely a party of adventurers is going to come along and redeem the former Paladin.
The Paladin did nothing wrong. Hell, he was probably doing exactly as his duty commanded him to in fighting the Vampire. Yet his God(s) seem to just abandon him, his allies kill him, and his soul is sent to Hell because of a disease, instead of any action on his part.
F%!$ that.
There is no good story there, it's just BS. Sentience is supposed to come with free-will. Being sent to Hell or the Abyss or Abaddon is supposed to be something that a person choses to do, because of his actions.
The idea of free-will is quite suspect, since you can be forced to completely alter your entire world view, with what amounts to being a simple bite. Your very soul, the nature of your being, is forever altered, with no choice on your part.
That is why the curse of undead is evil. It forces good mean to turn evil. Some people dig that. Others don't. It's fine either way.
Although...
Also I'm sure there are some mechanic ways to cure a person of vampirism, albeit... expensive :)
|
I believe that a setting with rather common non-Evil undead would look very different from what most fantasy RPG players expect.
After all, if undead does not automatically (or almost automatically) means evil, then why prefer life/death to undeath ?
Note though that those non-evil undead could not be healed by the common practices of their fellow good Clerics nor even by the Neutral Clerics of the Good deities the undead themselves might worship. In fact those basic blocks of the powers of Good would bring nothing but harm to the undead, no matter how Good he is.
And a Good undead Cleric would not be popular with his Good undead fellows ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that a setting with rather common non-Evil undead would look very different from what most fantasy RPG players expect.
After all, if undead does not automatically (or almost automatically) means evil, then why prefer life/death to undeath ?
Note though that those non-evil undead could not be healed by the common practices of their fellow good Clerics nor even by the Neutral Clerics of the Good deities the undead themselves might worship. In fact those basic blocks of the powers of Good would bring nothing but harm to the undead, no matter how Good he is.
And a Good undead Cleric would not be popular with his Good undead fellows ;-)
Well let me give you an example.
In the setting I run, it is based on psuedo-Caribbean island chain with natives and colonists. There is a creature in folklore called the hupia, which are the spirits* of the dead that can be any alignment and try and go back to their old lives. However, while they start off preferring undeath, they soon fall into the "Immortality Syndrome", where the people from their past lives die and possibly move on. Not to mention that the afterlife is really super awesome, so they are missing out. So, these hupia are treated in an almost sorrowful way, since like ghosts, they can't move on. Many native churches try to help them move on, while many colonist churches assume undead = evil. Some villages allow the hupia to stay with the people they were with in life. So I'd say that in this particular sense, the sentient undead are treated with pity.
Of course, undead and death itself are treated rather differently in my setting, especially depending on which of the seven death gods are in charge of their respective realm.
*Hupia are "ghosts" in a sense, but they can be incorporeal or corporeal.
Paladins never become immune to Vamparism, as far as I know.
Ghoul Fever, sure.
That is why the curse of undead is evil. It forces good mean to turn evil. Some people dig that. Others don't. It's fine either way.
And that's the thing. We're talking about a matter of degrees.
The first part is, "Can sentient creatures choose their alignment?" (The answer is, "yes" for many.)
The second part is, "Why is undeath evil?"
The answers given tend to be tautological in nature.
"It's evil, because it's evil."
OR
"It's evil, because it turns people evil, thus it's evil."
OR
"It's evil, because it turns people ravenous and evil, thus it's evil."
All of which are just saying the first thing, and never answers, in any functional way, the actual question of "Why?" for those (like myself) who don't like the idea of forcing undead to be evil.
"Because negative energy." doesn't work, as noted, and "Because they kill things and give nothing back." doesn't work because it's not true.
Although...
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah... and that one in particular bothers me a lot.
The way I explain it, is the "thralldom" that comes with vamparism. With no way of resisting their master, they become corrupted. That, I can see.
That one... hm. It specifies that, even if atoned, they fall eventually. That really chaps me.
Also I'm sure there are some mechanic ways to cure a person of vampirism, albeit... expensive :)
Yep: true resurrection. Expensive. :)
I love the sound of your homebrew world.
After all, if undead does not automatically (or almost automatically) means evil, then why prefer life/death to undeath ?
The Afterlife, mostly. Also the slow "loss" of everything and everyone you knew and loved. And making sentient undead a difficult prospect to attain makes it relatively rare.
There are also lots of other potential (story-based) "flaws" with undeath that you could apply. Which totally make sense to me. That's perfect campaign-setting-reasoning to come up with.
It's always bothered me as well Tactics. You take a Lawful Good Paladin, and if he fails his save against something like Vampirism (before he is immune), he's now Evil, and Fallen. Since it's 'implied' in published material, and James Jacobs confirmed it in his thread, being Undead actually interferes with your soul passing on (in canon Golarion). So, a Vampire, because of a disease, is turned Evil, and forever damned, denied his paradise in the afterlife, because it's unlikely a party of adventurers is going to come along and redeem the former Paladin.
The Paladin did nothing wrong. Hell, he was probably doing exactly as his duty commanded him to in fighting the Vampire. Yet his God(s) seem to just abandon him, his allies kill him, and his soul is sent to Hell because of a disease, instead of any action on his part.
F++! that.
There is no good story there, it's just BS. Sentience is supposed to come with free-will. Being sent to Hell or the Abyss or Abaddon is supposed to be something that a person choses to do, because of his actions.
The idea of free-will is quite suspect, since you can be forced to completely alter your entire world view, with what amounts to being a simple bite. Your very soul, the nature of your being, is forever altered, with no choice on your part.
Golarion is a world were stuff happens, there are demons entering through a planar hole up north and things are suffering the fate of being corrupted into abyssal monstrosities for the sole reason of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
It isn't a world of justice. It's a world where innocents can be condemmed to the Abyss because they were sacrificed in dark rites for the empowerment of evil priests and the creation of liches. It's a world where evil is on the ascendance. And yes, it's a world where things are frequently unfair.
In short... it's a world where heroes are needed more than ever.
The problem with being able to sacrifice an innocent and forcing it into hell, is that it totally destroys the whole point of things like Devils, which seduce you into embracing evil.
What's the point of enacting huge plots and plans to corrupt people, if you can just have your clerics sacrifice all the innocents and force them into hell?
The answer may be that it's 'Lawful Evil Fun' and they enjoy it. But that doesn't make sense. A single Evil Cleric could condemn more souls to his the Abyss/Hell/Abaddon by just rounding up a bunch of peasants, and sacrificing them on his black altar.
Now, that's not to say there shouldn't be creatures that can forcefully send souls to the evil planes, but those should be really rare, and that ability should be a unique aspect of them, which is what makes them so terrifying.
But you have creatures of relatively low CR able to do it with almost no effort on their part. All it takes is a simple bite.
Any creature with a Create Spawn ability, does the same thing. Shadows, for instance, just come along and touch people while their sleep and BAM, forced to evil planes. Not only that, but now the soul of that person, will go off and condemn others to evil torment with it's very own create spawn.
If there were a few creatures with the rare ability to force a person into hell, that'd be one thing. But the ability to do so is so prevalent, it's beyond ridiculous.
Even worse, there is no Good counter-part. Any good being that sacrifices a person, isn't really a good being. If there were, there would be no point in trying to redeem someone, as a Good being could just come a long and force people to be Good.
Even worse, there is no Good counter-part. Any good being that sacrifices a person, isn't really a good being. If there were, there would be no point in trying to redeem someone, as a Good being could just come a long and force people to be Good.You're making a commmon mistake of assuming a false symmetry. Good and Evil aren't simply mirror copies of each other. If that were true, there literally would be no difference between them.
Good doesn't do those things, because quite simply, the nature of Good is that it doesn't' roll that way. If it did, it'd be Evil and feed the cause of Evil. Which is why if left to itself, Evil does have that advantage. And that's intentional, there's no point of heroes in a world that doesn't need them.
Except there is a symmetry. For every Evil, there is an Opposite Good. Demons and Azatas, Devils and Archons, Daemons and Aeons. There were Good Elemental Lords, but the Evil ones killed them off.
You may want to say there is no symmetry, but when you start looking at the published material, there is supposed to be a symmetry. For every good guy, there is an evil guy, for every bad guy, there is a good guy. There is a balance of powers and abilities, yet there is no Good opposite to the ability to force souls to evil planes without the souls being evil themselves.
To be clear on the question of sentience, I can entirely see the ability of an inherent alignment with sentience. I've made the arguments that such is possible.
However, having an "inherent" alignment is similar to having a congenital birth defect.
Here and Here are locations that I've talked about this stuff previously.
I... really don't feel like typing it all out again. :)
EDIT: the fact that I was responding to my own post, and missed about two hours of updates strangely leaves my post somewhat relevant to the current topic.
For Tels' symmetry, might I suggest a Helm of Opposite Alignment?
For Laz's assertion, you're not wrong that evil is easier. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Golarion is a cesspit of awful everywhere. It's in bad shape right now, but those very heroes are beacons of hope. But that may well just be a matter of presentation than a disagreement.
For The black raven's point: I don't necessarily consider rare good undead bad design. It's "no" good undead (and all undead eventually being evil) that is... chaffing. Especially when options specifically designed to create that behavior are then removed.
Golarion is a world were stuff happens, there are demons entering through a planar hole up north and things are suffering the fate of being corrupted into abyssal monstrosities for the sole reason of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.It isn't a world of justice. It's a world where innocents can be condemmed to the Abyss because they were sacrificed in dark rites for the empowerment of evil priests and the creation of liches. It's a world where evil is on the ascendance. And yes, it's a world where things are frequently unfair.
In short... it's a world where heroes are needed more than ever.
Which is fine in a world where you the PCs have to play the good guys. But Pathfinder is not that game. Every alignment is supposed to be as valid a choice-- good, evil, lawful, chaotic, neutral. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scotty and Laforge discussing tech manuals regulations.
Also, Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra when the walls fell.
I don't mind Golarion's setup when I'm playing in Golarion, but I dislike the assumption that every world is going to see undead and negative energy the same way. Part of the reason I like Eberron is that they were willing to make good undead and evil undead in the same setting, and it still made sense. In my personal world, negative and positive energy don't have inherent alignment connections; many cultures may attach alignment, but that's on the culture, not on the base nature of positive and negative energy. Because of this, undead can be created from either positive or negative energy, and not everyone views undead the same way. It allows for a variety of different views depending on the campaign that I am looking to run at that time.
|
|
For The black raven's point: I don't necessarily consider rare good undead bad design. It's "no" good undead (and all undead eventually being evil) that is... chaffing. Especially when options specifically designed to create that behavior are then removed.
It is good then that Blood of Night specifically mentions that non-Evil vampires exist in Golarion (even though they are vey rare). Even Good vampires exist in Golarion, but they are likely no more than a handful ;-)
|
|
I don't mind Golarion's setup when I'm playing in Golarion, but I dislike the assumption that every world is going to see undead and negative energy the same way. Part of the reason I like Eberron is that they were willing to make good undead and evil undead in the same setting, and it still made sense. In my personal world, negative and positive energy don't have inherent alignment connections; many cultures may attach alignment, but that's on the culture, not on the base nature of positive and negative energy. Because of this, undead can be created from either positive or negative energy, and not everyone views undead the same way. It allows for a variety of different views depending on the campaign that I am looking to run at that time.
Well, a GM can always do as he wishes in his home setting.
And negative and positive energies not having an inherent alignment is indeed RAW.
However, I feel that something is missing in your world : living beings naturally created from negative energy.
That said, if negative and positive energy are just mirrors of each other in such a way, why even have 2 different energies if they end up doing the same thing and having the same role ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For The black raven's point: I don't necessarily consider rare good undead bad design. It's "no" good undead (and all undead eventually being evil) that is... chaffing. Especially when options specifically designed to create that behavior are then removed.It is good then that Blood of Night specifically mentions that non-Evil vampires exist in Golarion (even though they are vey rare). Even Good vampires exist in Golarion, but they are likely no more than a handful ;-)
Yes... but this isn't borne out anywhere else ever.
AP spoilers-lite version: even if you get them to be good (and they want to be good) they go bad again if you don't kill them.
This... doesn't support the Blood of Night's interpretation at all.
Or the fact that Spirit Vessels of the Juju oracle - which was made for Golarion to exist in Golarion - was retconned out of Golarion so the ability to create good undead couldn't exist.
And then Juju Oracle was replaced with a newer dumber Juju Oracle.
That totally doesn't replace it.
Except that's not how anything that's published behaves and specifically goes against everything else that's published.
Except in this case.
My problem isn't that they "allow" for the occasional non-evil undead. It's that even when they allow for the occasional non-evil undead (except for ghosts) they treat it like you're a terrible person for allowing them the right to exist and they'll totally go evil later, 'cause you suck and are a bad person for not killing them. Even if they're good. Or the ability to have non-evil undead is retconned out of existence.
So, you know, that's a lot of negative feedback, there.
Also I'm sure there are some mechanic ways to cure a person of vampirism, albeit... expensive :)Yep: true resurrection. Expensive. :)
I love the sound of your homebrew world.
Well, that makes one person these days. :/
I am curious as well.
Well, that makes one person these days. :/
Also I'm sure there are some mechanic ways to cure a person of vampirism, albeit... expensive :)Yep: true resurrection. Expensive. :)
I love the sound of your homebrew world.
My own recent homebrew world has a ton of "death gods" as well of all different alignments. Came about very "organically", too, if you count rolling on random charts for gods-replacing-other-gods (and gaining their portfolio) "organic".
It created a very fascinating homebrew world. I don't think I would have been into the idea of multiple death gods prior to that. But now it's really cool. (As is the Yamaraj - the critters make absolutely amazing "gods" for most worlds, too!)
|
|
For The black raven's point: I don't necessarily consider rare good undead bad design. It's "no" good undead (and all undead eventually being evil) that is... chaffing. Especially when options specifically designed to create that behavior are then removed.It is good then that Blood of Night specifically mentions that non-Evil vampires exist in Golarion (even though they are vey rare). Even Good vampires exist in Golarion, but they are likely no more than a handful ;-)Yes... but this isn't borne out anywhere else ever.
AP spoilers-lite version: even if you get them to be good (and they want to be good) they go bad again if you don't kill them.
This... doesn't support the Blood of Night's interpretation at all.
Or the fact that Spirit Vessels of the Juju oracle - which was made for Golarion to exist in Golarion - was retconned out of Golarion so the ability to create good undead couldn't exist.
And then Juju Oracle was replaced with a newer dumber Juju Oracle.
That totally doesn't replace it.
Except that's not how anything that's published behaves and specifically goes against everything else that's published.
Except in this case.
My problem isn't that they "allow" for the occasional non-evil undead. It's that even when they allow for the occasional non-evil undead (except for ghosts) they treat it like you're a terrible person for allowing them the right to exist and they'll totally go evil later, 'cause you suck and are a bad person for not killing them. Even if they're good. Or the ability to have non-evil undead is retconned out of existence.
So, you know, that's a lot of negative feedback, there.
Well, I do not see it like this. Way I see it, the very rare non-Evil/Good undead is a tool for the GM and NOT for the players.
This can only be ensured through rules that say undead are always evil. Because only the GM can lift such a ban. The GM keeps total control of how non-evil undead appear and are used in his game.
I am quite happy that the revelation of the Juju Oracle to permanently create non-evil undead (and even worse IMO, permanent non-intelligent non-evil undead) has been deleted.
My beef is not with temporary non-evil undead. It is with permanent non-evil undead (especially non-intelligent ones) becoming commonplace. Because it creates a very different setting (and one that requires a LOT of work from the GM).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do tell. :)I have a feeling that Mikaze would really love the death god in my setting.
Or at least, one of them ;)
I have a set of seven death gods (The Dark Septemvirate) whose reigning cycles every couple of centuries or so to prevent one god from having control over all the souls (including those dreadful Neutrals ;) ). Some are good and kindly shepherds to lost and wayward souls and undead, treating them more with sympathy and pity. Others treat undeath as a curse that prevents the gods from harvesting/devouring/transferring the souls. Some treat reincarnation as a blessing, while others treat it as hindering the soul from moving on. And some death gods are just plain sinister and actively want more souls to stay trapped in their realm to be tortured or devoured.
Their churches also exist to try to increase the influence of their religion so that their god can be the next in charge of the influx of souls. There's even a separate religious movement that worships all seven of the Septemvirate and seek to make sure no one gods' influence overtakes the others in bad ways, for the good of mortal souls. The current god, Maketaori, is a kindly god of birth, death, and reincarnation and the only of the seven that has the portfolio of reincarnation and the Domains of healing. He treats undead as people who have lost their way, and need to be brought back not as enemies, but as lost souls. So more with pity rather than hatred. Another death god is undead and treats undead as those (the good ones) that aren't ready to move on yet. His arms are open to those undead and he treats them as brothers, instead of things to hated or pitied. And then there's Supay, that loves undead because it means that he gets to torture already tormented souls trapped in the undead. He's a dick.
I felt that with this setting, death should play a larger part in being worshiped, since it is based on a lot of Latin American and Pre-Colombian American folklore. So there are things like the Mayan Death Gods, The Day of the Dead, skeleton motifs, psychopomps, and such. I never got into it as much in the game I ran, since I didn't quite have religion all figured out until recently. I pulled each god of death from real-world gods from different sections of the Americas, though I need to sit down and really flesh out each one.
My beef is not with temporary non-evil undead. It is with permanent non-evil undead (especially non-intelligent ones) becoming commonplace. Because it creates a very different setting (and one that requires a LOT of work from the GM).
I don't see how an alignment shift would create THAT much work for a GM, and I say this as one myself.
@Odraude: Your deities of death sound pretty cool, and actually gave me an idea that I could later work on...
|
|
My beef is not with temporary non-evil undead. It is with permanent non-evil undead (especially non-intelligent ones) becoming commonplace. Because it creates a very different setting (and one that requires a LOT of work from the GM).I don't see how an alignment shift would create THAT much work for a GM, and I say this as one myself.
Well, you have to consider the implications of permanent non-evil non-intelligent undead being commonplace. It means you have a free workforce through necromancy. No need for constructs anymore (which are usually of higher CR than undead and rarer). Neutral skeletons and zombies everywhere. A very different take on Death/Life/Undeath, and the Death gods, and Necromancy. How do people see being raised as such a drone ? And so on, and so on.
It is even worse than infinite Create Water
Well, a GM can always do as he wishes in his home setting.
And negative and positive energies not having an inherent alignment is indeed RAW.
However, I feel that something is missing in your world : living beings naturally created from negative energy.
That said, if negative and positive energy are just mirrors of each other in such a way, why even have 2 different energies if they end up doing the same thing and having the same role ?
Interesting point about natural creatures based on negative energy; I actually kind of have done that with a variant of vampire that doesn't have the create spawn ability and functions more like a race or culture than the traditional vampire does. It's definitely an interesting concept to keep in mind as I further flesh out the world.
As for doing the same thing, they still don't; there's more overlap than in the published worlds, but they are still separate and distinct in their capabilities and uses.
Positive energy tends to create, though exceptions exist, such as the positive plane being able to kill any creature not from that plane, but most societies will still associate positive energy with good and treat accordingly.
Similarly, negative energy is a destructive force; it's necessary, and few societies will call it outright evil, but it being far more useful for the evil inclined means it's gets the rep of it's most common users.
Undeath, whether it feeds off of positive or negative energy, is virtually universally accepted to be wholy and entirely an unnatural process, and anyone who chooses to use it has to accept those ramifications. Still, disrupting the natural order is something that an individual or society often decides is justified in other circumstances with other things, even in the real world, so getting everyone to agree that undeath is universally evil and bad is much harder, and there will be those who are able to use it for good just as there are those will abuse it. It will always be more represented on the evil side, because evil folks are a lot more willing to overlook the means as long as it accomplishes the end goal, but there will be times on the good side it is accepted and even welcomed, albeit very rarely.
Which energy source is used will be reflected in the ultimate purpose of the undead in question and will reflect in turn how that undead is perceieved and treated. Someone trying to create an eternal guardian to defend a society will look to positive energy because they are basically seeking to defend and create, not destroy. Liches may also choose to feed off of positive energy as they see a contuation of their studies as a force of creation. These undead, and similar undead, are likely to be tolerated, even if they aren't greeted with open arms. Those with more destructive goals, or of an inherently more destructive nature, such a vampires requiring feeding off of nonvampires, possibly at great cost to their dinner, will tend toward negative energy as their source. These are going to have much larger problems being accepted in society as a whole, and will frequently be hunted down for simply existing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do tell. :)I have a feeling that Mikaze would really love the death god in my setting.
Or at least, one of them ;)
I have a set of seven death gods (The Dark Septemvirate) whose reigning cycles every couple of centuries or so to prevent one god from having control over all the souls (including those dreadful Neutrals ;) ). Some are good and kindly shepherds to lost and wayward souls and undead, treating them more with sympathy and pity. Others treat undeath as a curse that prevents the gods from harvesting/devouring/transferring the souls. Some treat reincarnation as a blessing, while others treat it as hindering the soul from moving on. And some death gods are just plain sinister and actively want more souls to stay trapped in their realm to be tortured or devoured.
Their churches also exist to try to increase the influence of their religion so that their god can be the next in charge of the influx of souls. There's even a separate religious movement that worships all seven of the Septemvirate and seek to make sure no one gods' influence overtakes the others in bad ways, for the good of mortal souls. The current god, Maketaori, is a kindly god of birth, death, and reincarnation and the only of the seven that has the portfolio of reincarnation and the Domains of healing. He treats undead as people who have lost their way, and need to be brought back not as enemies, but as lost souls. So more with pity rather than hatred. Another death god is undead and treats undead as those (the good ones) that aren't ready to move on yet. His arms are open to those undead and he treats them as brothers, instead of things to hated or pitied. And then there's Supay, that loves undead because it means that he gets to torture already tormented souls trapped in the undead. He's a dick.
I felt that with this setting, death should play a larger part in being worshiped, since it is based on a lot of Latin American and Pre-Colombian American folklore. So...
Neat. I love the specific aesthetics being pulled from too. (I was really happy to see psychopomps finally tapping the Day of the Dead)
Also, I do indeed like the cut of this Maketaori's jib. :)
Honestly, that makes me feel like mine are a bit underdeveloped. My primary death god essentially operates more like a LN Pharasma(more like Wee Jas with no sinister bias but ramping up the macabre) that looks like a female version of Death from Seventh Seal. Grim, serious business ascetic clergy, on the exterior at least.
Got a lesser known NG patron deity of shepherding undead that maybe be a bit close to Maketaori(and a bit similar to Golarion's Ashava), Nox Miara. Also responsible for stillborn souls, though that aspect would definitely be downplayed depending on the table. Helps some undead move on and helps others remain after finding a sort of sustaining balance, putting her at odds with LN death god lady.
Also, using the neutral goddess Evening Glory from Libris Mortis, because damn. There's someone that could get play amongst romantic goths and Egyptian-analogue royalty. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sedna would be my grim, serious business Pharasma of the seven. But I also have a NE death god Cizin that is much like a cross between Nerull and Charon. Loves mass deaths to devour souls, and is more likely to eat a soul than see it transferred to the afterlife. Which is why most gods do not like Cizin.
Also glad that the Catrina was added in the B4. Definitely is going into my setting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm I'm liking what I'm reading Demon Lord. While my setting has different deities that govern different aspects of undeath (revenge, longevity, power, etc) I only have one life-death-procession of souls Deity, when the universe was still new the first Undead, Kelevra, a slain god, emerged from a void that lies beyond bering a bay girl Who would grow into Leinth my N death goddess. She doesn't judge souls, merely observes, and does little to no interacting with others, spending most of her time in a dream trance, this coupled with her origins, tends to greatly unnerve the other deities :3
I don't mind Golarion's setup when I'm playing in Golarion, but I dislike the assumption that every world is going to see undead and negative energy the same way. Part of the reason I like Eberron is that they were willing to make good undead and evil undead in the same setting, and it still made sense. In my personal world, negative and positive energy don't have inherent alignment connections; many cultures may attach alignment, but that's on the culture, not on the base nature of positive and negative energy. Because of this, undead can be created from either positive or negative energy, and not everyone views undead the same way. It allows for a variety of different views depending on the campaign that I am looking to run at that time.Well, a GM can always do as he wishes in his home setting.
And negative and positive energies not having an inherent alignment is indeed RAW.
However, I feel that something is missing in your world : living beings naturally created from negative energy.
That said, if negative and positive energy are just mirrors of each other in such a way, why even have 2 different energies if they end up doing the same thing and having the same role ?
Dhampir's are basically living fueled by negative energy.
Funny thing about the Dhampir, is they are another case where it shows how little free-will is actually involved in Golarion. Read the fluff, it mentions how basically all dhampir are evil (also implying those aren't evil are almost never good), almost every alliance with a dhampir ends badly, and almost all dhampir succumb to the evil of their undead half.
Well, I do not see it like this. Way I see it, the very rare non-Evil/Good undead is a tool for the GM and NOT for the players.
This can only be ensured through rules that say undead are always evil. Because only the GM can lift such a ban. The GM keeps total control of how non-evil undead appear and are used in his game.
I am quite happy that the revelation of the Juju Oracle to permanently create non-evil undead (and even worse IMO, permanent non-intelligent non-evil undead) has been deleted.
My beef is not with temporary non-evil undead. It is with permanent non-evil undead (especially non-intelligent ones) becoming commonplace. Because it creates a very different setting (and one that requires a LOT of work from the GM).
Except, of course, it's always easier to remove than to add. And now that Juju is gone, the player has no options at all. As a GM, I don't like that.
Your assertions contradicts virtually everything that's ever been written about the game worlds of TSR, WOTC, and Paizo. There are a LOT more evil outsiders than good ones. (a look at your average Bestiary will confirm this) There never has been Worldwound type event where angels are tearing the ground open and overunning the world. And there isn't a "good" equivalent to the Beast that IS the center of the world.
How much of that bias towards evil outsiders is due to mechanical reasons, not setting reasons. Of course there are lots of demons, devils, etc. They are easier for a DM to use, since they are can be easily used as antagonists. Unless you are running an all-evil party, how likely are you to need tons of angel stats?
Chronicles of the Righteous implies there are TONS of empyreal lords, at least on par with the number of evil demigods.