| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a system where Medieval French Knights Run Around with Renaissance Era Plate Armor, Worship Greek Gods, and Wield Persian scimitars, where a native american shaman clad in hides of beasts of the sahara desert and transform into prehistoric dinosaurs, where modern japanese schoolgirls wield a tokugawa era daisho and wear black kabuki stage hand pajamas, where an old man in robes can demasculate the universe by verbally solving complex mathematics while performing gangster gestures, where an anemic little loligoth can be so skilled at puppetry she can make the gods her servants, where cowboys from the wild west wield firearms from the 17th century, and shoot highly advanced robots with modern rounds, all banding together to fight brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, collossal fire breathing flying reptiles, pale sparkly emo teenagers, and reanimated corpses.My opinion on genre mixes in Golarion:
If we can have Maasai warriors wandering around with cell phones, or genuine Mongolian yurts with satellite dishes in real life, then stuff like Numeria doesn't even faze me as unbelievable.
Well, there's always room for jello!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But still not good aligned necromancers.
I can think of one, but they don't use the Animate Dead/Create Undead spells (although otherwise, good-aligned, specializes in necromancy, yadda yadda, badda bing badda boom, bob's your uncle, and three's a crowd).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the Death Star hasn't tried to blow up Golarion yet, so I don't think they've gone too far yet.
Though that could make for an interesting Numeria themed adventure path. Not just dealing with the crashed aliens, but finding out there's a planet crushing spaceship/space station on its way to completely wipe out Golarion. The PCs eventually have to teleport on board and stop it before it succeeds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the Death Star hasn't tried to blow up Golarion yet, so I don't think they've gone too far yet.
Though that could make for an interesting Numeria themed adventure path. Not just dealing with the crashed aliens, but finding out there's a planet crushing spaceship/space station on its way to completely wipe out Golarion. The PCs eventually have to teleport on board and stop it before it succeeds.
Given that a Death Star already exists in Golarion's solar system, this is actually pretty feasible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But still not good aligned necromancers.I can think of one, but they don't use the Animate Dead/Create Undead spells (although otherwise, good-aligned, specializes in necromancy, yadda yadda, badda bing badda boom, bob's your uncle, and three's a crowd).
there are plenty of harmless uses for mindless zombies. being mindless, zombies should be considered neutral, not evil, because they can't think for themselves, and negative energy is a completely neutral energy source. plus what stops a temple guardian from becoming a mummy so he can protect the corpse of his pharaoh for eternity or a completely harmless bard from overcoming an intense disorder by pursuing lichdom as the one valid cure?
this whole undead = evil needs to be stomped into powder, placed in an explosive canister and sent to the sun, for we have plenty of modern literature and plenty of egyptian myths where undead weren't inherently evil, hell, in the orient, many demons aren't considered inherently evil either. there are some whom are warned against for having bad behaviors, but media spanning from egypt all the way to japan is loaded with good aligned undead, benevolent and purehearted demons, and monsters who seek to redeem themselves in the eyes of the human race. japan even has a whole race of demonic giants that are often portrayed as guardians of the human race.
Becoming?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that there isn't room for "undead are inherently evil". To make undead, you bring literal anti-life onto the material plane to fuel dangerous and often times infections undead. They are also a bastardization of the circle of life and defying the natural order.
And considering "japanese demons aren't always bad", they aren't demons as we know them in the west. They are yokai and not chained to burning hellfire and literal evil like actual Demons (of Judeo-Christian mythology). Demon is just a word we throw on them to approximate them to western ideals. An Oni is often called an ogre, demon, or both, but it is really neither. So it's okay for pathfinder "demons" to be all evil because they aren't the only classification of monster.
Demon is a lot more narrowly defined than undead. Would you make a whole new creature type to stat Cold Hands in Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.
Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...
And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.
Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...
I mean the word encompasses a group of entities too large and variable to lump together into an always-evil category. It should have been used in place of "outsider" in my opinion.
I mean the word encompasses a group of entities too large and variable to lump together into an always-evil category. It should have been used in place of "outsider" in my opinion.And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.An interesting thing about demon: "demon" comes from "dæmon" which from "δαίμων" (daímōn). The term demon has, over the years, been vilified thanks to Christian influence (whether intentionally or not) in English.
Demons were never "always evil" entities. That's a bone I've had to pick RPGs for years...
But not in English usage, correct? Certainly not in modern English common use.
Besides, demons were in the game long before the category "outsider" was invented.
I think the point we're trying to avoid is that demon/dæmon is now (as of X centuries ago) used to designate creatures or spirits that are foreign have no place in the Judeo-Christian mythos. And that of course is "evil".
Demons (and consequently devils) appeared early on due to Western culture's influences that I've previously mentioned. The early D&D monster manuals needed threats, so what better than artistic depictions of evil spirits tagged with terms mutated into expressions of malevolence?
On undead.
I can see something like a Revenant being Chaotic Neutral…exists only to avenge it's self, once completed it dissipates.
haunts dont necessarily have to be evil, or ghosts for that matter…. wasn't there a non evil ghost or specter or something in the prison in carrion crown?
Haunts dont necessarily have to be evil, or ghosts for that matter…. wasn't there a non evil ghost or specter or something in the prison in carrion crown?
Yeah, good-aligned to boot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point we're trying to avoid is that demon/dæmon is now (as of X centuries ago) used to designate creatures or spirits that are foreign have no place in the Judeo-Christian mythos. And that of course is "evil".
... no.
Demons (and consequently devils) appeared early on due to Western culture's influences that I've previously mentioned. The early D&D monster manuals needed threats, so what better than artistic depictions of evil spirits tagged with terms mutated into expressions of malevolence?
... yes, sort of.
"δαίμων" (daímōn) was a word used to designate certain creatures or spirits that are foreign to Judeo-Christian mythos (and native to another, specific mythos), but, both daemon and demon (I think differentiated slightly by usage from "dæmon", though I couldn't swear to it) - the eventual English words that we use - are words that, to the best of my knowledge, were never used in any manner except as one that was conflated to the concept of the Satan - sorry, "השָׂטָן" (ha-satan; i.e. "the Adversary" or "the Enemy") - the big bad spirit(s) that exist in the Judeo-Christian mythos), as the "δαίμων" was believed to be devils in disguise. This entity was translated (into Greek) as the diabolos (i.e. the devil). Or, if they were, it was in a specific counter-cultural context (as some groups do today).
Of course, "δαίμων" being dangerous was an idea that was absorbed by Judeo-Christian from other elements (most notably Plato, if I recall?) rather than being invented by it. In that case, it was a simple matter to form a kind of syncretism between the two different cultures: "Hey, you have a disruptive meddling spirit, and we have a disrupting meddling spirit! That sounds like the same thing!"
Had the original Homeric concept held sway, I'd suggest that it's likely that they would have been conflated with the angelic servants of God instead, and we'd be talking about those evil Shedu or those awful Satyrs as the origin of all evil or something.
You're not wrong that the origin from whence the word derives is not, in itself, evil. That's a given.
But as long as it's been an actual English word, it has been.
I mean, I could demand that we never refer to really smart people as "genius" because a "genius" was really just their guiding spirit, and, in fact, I'd probably have a stronger case.
By trying to suggest that RPGs should use the word in any other context, you're actually doing nothing but trying to start a fight, and to make it more repugnant to the majority of other English speakers - purposefully or not. By going the route that they have, RPGs have done two things: one, they've acknowledge the actual use of the actual word, and two, have enabled people to go, "oh, by defining them as evil and things to defeat, they, like me, realize that they're evil, reject them, and don't worship them".
The latter had some dubious success in the 80s, but that's just an incorrect assumption on the part of the second party. The RPG industry, in general, and D&D in specific, did not, of course, worship demons. They did the best they could to clarify this.
And it worked. Now we have RPGs that are broadly accepted.
Doing things the other way is a sure-fire way to get the industry in trouble. Again.
(And be using incorrect English while doing so.)
The only reason we can have non-evil Shedu or Satyrs is because, frankly, it's not well known enough by the common populace (as it was replaced by demon).
Now, if you want to talk about "daimon" being a non-evil spirit, I'd be willing to listen... and I suspect others would too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be very on board with calling outsiders "spirits" or something similar, though. Similarly, I'm entirely enthused about undead not inherently being evil. :D
You could easily have non-evil mindless undead, in your own game, just change the flavor of undead.
Since this is referencing Golarion specifically though, mindless undead have since the beginning always been evil. Because, in Golarion, they are full of mindless hate and rage and hunger towards the living on a level similar to instinct. They don't kill for survival as a wolf does, nor are they automatons likes constructs which do nothing unless ordered to do so. When not ordered otherwise, mindless undead seek to kill the living, without pity, without mercy, without needing to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's always room for jello!Pathfinder is a system where Medieval French Knights Run Around with Renaissance Era Plate Armor, Worship Greek Gods, and Wield Persian scimitars, where a native american shaman clad in hides of beasts of the sahara desert and transform into prehistoric dinosaurs, where modern japanese schoolgirls wield a tokugawa era daisho and wear black kabuki stage hand pajamas, where an old man in robes can demasculate the universe by verbally solving complex mathematics while performing gangster gestures, where an anemic little loligoth can be so skilled at puppetry she can make the gods her servants, where cowboys from the wild west wield firearms from the 17th century, and shoot highly advanced robots with modern rounds, all banding together to fight brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, collossal fire breathing flying reptiles, pale sparkly emo teenagers, and reanimated corpses.My opinion on genre mixes in Golarion:
If we can have Maasai warriors wandering around with cell phones, or genuine Mongolian yurts with satellite dishes in real life, then stuff like Numeria doesn't even faze me as unbelievable.
Which is why it's always trying to eat you.
Had the original Homeric concept held sway, I'd suggest that it's likely that they would have been conflated with the angelic servants of God instead, and we'd be talking about those evil Shedu or those awful Satyrs as the origin of all evil or something.
By trying to suggest that RPGs should use the word in any other context, you're actually doing nothing but trying to start a fight, and to make it more repugnant to the majority of other English speakers - purposefully or not. By going the route that they have, RPGs have done two things: one, they've acknowledge the actual use of the actual word, and two, have enabled people to go, "oh, by defining them as evil and things to defeat, they, like me, realize that they're evil, reject them, and don't worship them".
That's one of the downsides of slipping elements of an active religion into a fantasy game. At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training. The ideal that one creature embodies means nothing to me, as I just look at their parts, components, and how everything works in tangent (a necromancer to the last). Outsiders should be rare and relatively unique, from my perspective.
One man's mythology is another man's religion or cultural identity. I'm not trying to piss on any of it, but to explain how I look at the outsider puzzle with relation to game design.
On a side note: at least they got satyrs right and shoved them into the Fey camp.
I'd be very on board with calling outsiders "spirits" or something similar, though. Similarly, I'm entirely enthused about undead not inherently being evil. :D
This should've been used from day-one; it would've resolved so many issues surrounding the planes and their contents. The term properly defines the mindset needed to deal with semi-religious subject matter and distinguishes it from the near-scifi.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i don't get why people get hung up on the "Undead are always evil" aspect of Golarion.
last i checked Paizo staffers weren't knocking on peoples's doors saying "those Zombies Better be evil motherf+%&ers!"
if you don't like a rule dont use it, house rules exist for a reason:)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
of course now i think they should have a charity auction for the various Paizo Staffers to come to your house and verbally berate you, the bigger the donation the bigger the name:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About evil undead:
It's not that being an undead creature type makes you automatically evil, it's more the fact that a lot of undead are created after doing something quite vile, distasteful and atrocious (without much regret) and just have the evil cling to them.
With that reasoning, I would also argue that undead spawn, those who become undead after being slain by a master-type undead (vampire, wight, etc.) will not be automatically evil (though still under control of a master). But often those undead are the "suck-the-life-out-of-everything-to-survive" kind that *eventually* turn evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer having almost exclusively evil undead. Undead as a lifestyle choice sucks some of the life out of the horror genre. Instead of being horrific, unnatural abominations they are reduced to evil (or neutral or good) eccentrics who made an oddball undead lifestyle choice.
Having undead as a condition that very very frequently drives one to evil is interesting, something like super drug addiction. Having neutral undead that are so dedicated to a task they gave up or deferred access to an afterlife is also interesting. Having undead as evil individuals harming others to escape death is interesting. Having some of these just assume full control and override their personality is also interesting. Saying that all creatures of a given type have to be the latter instead of any of the former is not interesting. I'm cool with things like bodaks being always evil, vampires being 99.9% evil, and the like but saying "is evil because negative energy" is dumb.
|
|
At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training.
You mean aside from size, flying ability, weaknesses, abilities, immunities, origins, ecology, behavior...
They're two outsiders who happen to both be CR 6.
|
i don't get why people get hung up on the "Undead are always evil" aspect of Golarion.
last i checked Paizo staffers weren't knocking on peoples's doors saying "those Zombies Better be evil m&!*%$!@+~!$s!"
if you don't like a rule dont use it, house rules exist for a reason:)
For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.
Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.
At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training.You mean aside from size, flying ability, weaknesses, abilities, immunities, origins, ecology, behavior...
They're two outsiders who happen to both be CR 6.
Aside from their very nature.
They manifest from the souls of the pious dead who possessed exceptional musical talent and pure spirits in life.Some claim the Four Horsemen created these creatures to serve as summoning fodder. Others believe that they form from neutral evil souls who commit suicide.They weren't trained. They didn't take courses at the Outsider academy. There isn't an Outsider Academy, for that matter.
When I said "training" that meant "everything they've gone through to get where they are now". Not all training is formal; the Outsider Academy bit was a generalization.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.
Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.
Even putting aside the corpse stuff, communicating with ancestral spirits, seeking their counsel, propitiating and honoring them, etc. has been a thing for millennia, and continues on in various cultures even to this day.
The concept that once a person dies their body and soul *both* become corrupt and malicious and / or insane is both kind of bleak (a lifetime of being a paladin or pacifist healer or whatever, and you get killed by a shadow and your soul turns evil (and possibly smarter and / or more charismatic than you ever were..., but forgets all the skills you had???), and you are now doomed to go to Abaddon when the shadow that is all that is left of your soul is destroyed, since you are now an evil abomination, through no choice of your own? Grim.) and takes away a ton of potential, as well as creating a surreal sort of situation where every culture essentially hates and fears their ancestors. Grandma's love causes her to manifest to distract orc raiders from the children hiding under the bed, and, 'oh wait, it's Golarion,' so instead she kills the kids and has to be smited by a Paladin or something. A young couple seek the blessing of their ancestors on their union, and instead get level-drained to death, because every soul that has left its body is Always Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I said "training" that meant "everything they've gone through to get where they are now". Not all training is formal; the Outsider Academy bit was a generalization.At the end of the day, I see no difference between a choral angel and a ceustodaemon other than that they're X alignment, they took different courses at the Outsider Academy, and they're appearance was shaped by their training.You mean aside from size, flying ability, weaknesses, abilities, immunities, origins, ecology, behavior...
They're two outsiders who happen to both be CR 6.
Aside from their very nature.
They manifest from the souls of the pious dead who possessed exceptional musical talent and pure spirits in life.Some claim the Four Horsemen created these creatures to serve as summoning fodder. Others believe that they form from neutral evil souls who commit suicide.They weren't trained. They didn't take courses at the Outsider academy. There isn't an Outsider Academy, for that matter.
now i have an image of an Outsider Academy in Axis like professor X's from X-Men, thank you:) now if James L. Sutter can write a module that takes place there, that would be awesome!
I prefer having almost exclusively evil undead. Undead as a lifestyle choice sucks some of the life out of the horror genre. Instead of being horrific, unnatural abominations they are reduced to evil (or neutral or good) eccentrics who made an oddball undead lifestyle choice.Having undead as a condition that very very frequently drives one to evil is interesting, something like super drug addiction. Having neutral undead that are so dedicated to a task they gave up or deferred access to an afterlife is also interesting. Having undead as evil individuals harming others to escape death is interesting. Having some of these just assume full control and override their personality is also interesting. Saying that all creatures of a given type have to be the latter instead of any of the former is not interesting. I'm cool with things like bodaks being always evil, vampires being 99.9% evil, and the like but saying "is evil because negative energy" is dumb.
mindless undead should be neutral and intelligent undead should have free will by virtue of sentience. a Vampire drinking blood is no different from a tiger preying on a gazelle. are tigers evil for eating meat?
vampires are tigers? Really? Ok then if that works for you:) it is pretty funny that a thread that started about realistic borders has turned into Vampires, free Zombie laborers, outsider higher learning institutions and tigers:) talk about your six degrees of seperation:)
For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.
Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.
Even putting aside the corpse stuff, communicating with ancestral spirits, seeking their counsel, propitiating and honoring them, etc. has been a thing for millennia, and continues on in various cultures even to this day.
The concept that once a person dies their body and soul *both* become corrupt and malicious and / or insane is both kind of bleak (a lifetime of being a paladin or pacifist healer or whatever, and you get killed by a shadow and your soul turns evil (and possibly smarter and / or more charismatic than you ever were..., but forgets all the skills you had???), and you are now doomed to go to Abaddon when the shadow that is all that is left of your soul is destroyed, since you are now an evil abomination, through no choice of your own? Grim.) and takes away a ton of potential, as well as creating a surreal sort of situation where every culture essentially hates and fears their ancestors. Grandma's love causes her to manifest to distract orc raiders from the children hiding under the bed, and, 'oh wait, it's Golarion,' so instead she kills the kids and has to be smited by a Paladin or something. A young couple seek the blessing of their ancestors on their union, and instead get level-drained to death, because every soul that has left its body is Always Evil.
My understanding is, if you were turned undead against your will (like say a shadow), that doesn't impact your destination after death. With maybe an exception for those who willingly do horrible acts to become undead, or still maintain a sound enough mind and free will to control what you do.
A lot of spirits which would fall into the "ancestral spirits" camp would probably be considered outsiders in Pathfinder. Real life doesn't really have that firm categorization of spirits into Fey, Outsiders, Undead, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the opposite. I view undeath as a curse, like in most literature. Being undead is a terrible curse. It's not a biological thing like you see in modern films. It's a curse that poisons your mind into becoming evil. Difference between a vampire and a tiger is that a vampire actually doesn't need to feed to stay alive. Granted, it'll be very unhappy without blood, but it doesn't need to feed. Feeding is more like a drug. A drug that gets them addicted and spirals them down into oblivion. Now mechanically they can go for animal blood. I allow that in my settings, but animal blood doesn't have the same satisfaction that real living sapient blood does. It'd be like doing pure cocaine for a long time, then having to ween off with cut, unpure stuff. For a vampire that has had human blood, it will barely stave off the hunger, but for a fresh vampire, it can help while they find a cure.
Mind you, one thing I don't do is make the vampire automatically evil right when it is turned. I do give the afflicted a chance to look for a cure and fight it. Because fighting the curse is more compelling than both "All vampires are evil automatically" and "Vampires can be of any alignment, it's cool." Tragedy is always more interesting to me anyways ;)
As for mindless undead, I view them as evil too. Like someone said, they don't need sustenance. They just automatically kill anything near them because they are mindless malice personified. Again, undeath is a curse and I feel it should be treated as such.
This doesn't mean that people who are turned into undead against their will are automatically going to Hell/Abyss/Abaddon when they are released. Most are thankful for being freed from their curse to finally move on to the Great Beyond. In how I run, clerics and shamans even bless the souls after they have been freed from the husk of undeath as a ceremony of good will and peace, ensuring that their actions during the curse do not affect their afterlife.
Now, there are always exceptions to the rule. Ghosts are a good example. of this. A revanant would be another one. In fact, in my setting, I have statted a Taino undead called the hupia that can be of any alignment. However, even in these cases, undeath is a curse. They all want to be free and move onto the Great Beyond, but cannot. In the case of the hupia, they are an intermediary position of the reincarnation cycle in my setting. They are spirits that became frightened at the prospect of moving on, so ran away from the realm of the dead. But in doing that, they doomed themselves into undeath. Some aren't accepted by their family while others are, but at the end, they are cursed with living forever long past their loved ones and never joining them in a better afterlife. Though there is a cure (read the statblock).
That said, I do change how undeath and death is viewed. Some view them with scorn and will hunt and kill them. Others view them with pity and mercifully aid them with their consent. If a guy is turned into a vampire against his will, some clerics will aid them in a cure or, if asked, a peaceful death surrounded by their loved ones. There is even an undead Death Deity I use that embraces undead into his arms and allow them to pass onto the Great Beyond.
At the end of the day, I find undeath being a curse much more compelling and less stifling creativity-wise than others allow. But, I also do it differently than most GMs do.
Actually, being turned into an undead against your will absolutely does impact your destination after death, in that it prevents your soul from moving on TO that destination. That's the primary reason why, in Pathfinder, undead are mostly evil.
I guess I meant to say that becoming a shadow against your will doesn't doom you to Abaddon or whatever after you are finally destroyed. Or at least I would hope not
Also, you're powered by Anti-Life.
vampires are tigers? Really? Ok then if that works for you:) it is pretty funny that a thread that started about realistic borders has turned into Vampires, free Zombie laborers, outsider higher learning institutions and tigers:) talk about your six degrees of seperation:)
vampires aren't the same species as tigers, but a Vampire's need for the amino acids found in blood is no different from a Tiger's need for meat, a required sustenance. in other words, just as tigers are apex predators, so are vampires. humans only see them as evil because they are lower than the vampires and most undead on the food chain. much like how most cattle would realistically percieve a human as evil due to being lower than a human on the food chain. but humans actually treat their livestock worse than vampires treat theirs.
Not seeing it your way here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that's not how vampires work at all in Golarion. Vampires don't need the sustenance since they are undead. 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.
In addition, under the rules for undead, undead do not need to actually eat. The issue is that you are looking at vampires (and zombies) in a modern, more biological light. This is something you see in modern movies like Underworld, I Am Legend, any zombie movie since Dawn of the Dead, etc. However, in Golarion and the game, undeath is magic. There is no biological reason why undead feast, just like there is no biological reason why outsiders don't need to sleep. Almost no undead needs to actually feed to survive because they are magic. Unlike a tiger, which actually does require sustenance to survive.
So, in regards to Golarion and the setting neutrality of Pathfinder, you are incorrect about vampires requiring food. However, in your own setting, you can obviously do what you want.
Not seeing it your way here.
just as humans use cattle on farms for sustenance required to survive, vampires use free humans for sustenance. at least vampires don't cage their "meal tickets" the way humans do. humans keep cattle encaged behind small fences on a farm to be raised for nothing more than to die and feed their human masters, vampires don't do that to humans at all.
Actually, that's not how vampires work at all in Golarion. Vampires don't need the sustenance since they are undead. 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.In addition, under the rules for undead, undead do not need to actually eat. The issue is that you are looking at vampires (and zombies) in a modern, more biological light. This is something you see in modern movies like Underworld, I Am Legend, any zombie movie since Dawn of the Dead, etc. However, in Golarion and the game, undeath is magic. There is no biological reason why undead feast, just like there is no biological reason why outsiders don't need to sleep. Almost no undead needs to actually feed to survive because they are magic. Unlike a tiger, which actually does require sustenance to survive.
So, in regards to Golarion and the setting neutrality of Pathfinder, you are incorrect about vampires requiring food. However, in your own setting, you can obviously do what you want.
if a vampire had no biological reason to drink blood, they would have stopped drinking it a long time ago as a means to keep themselves out of trouble.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how it works. While there is no need, the drive is there. It's a part of the curse. Again, undead do not follow normal biological processes. The curse of undeath forces them to find blood, or flesh (for ghouls), or life force (for shadows) because that's an inherent propery of the curse of undeath. It's like a drug to them. They are addicted and if they don't get their fix, they start to lose it. Unless you've been through that type of withdrawal, it is difficult to understand the force that kind of addiction has. With most undead (ghosts being one exception), this is every day life.
Again, in your setting, you can do whatever you want. But in Golarion and the basic setting, undead feed because of an insane drive caused by the curse of undeath. That's why it's a curse, not a biological function. Zombies and vampires in Pathfinder aren't alternate species of humans like in Underworld/Blade, nor are they infected biological creatures like in Dawn of the Dead/I am Legend. They are dead and cursed via magic, not science.
James Jacobs says that the Vampires hunger is supernatural. Quote. But thats for golarion.
Under the Undead Creature Type, it states that undead do not need to eat. And the bestiary says they have to feast on creature's blood. So it is safe to assume that their hunger is not biological in nature.