I need to know what evils are irredeemable if murder is not one of them. I need RAW not RAI. 3.5 and pathfinder are allowed. If I see one arguement I will rip out my keyboard keys and eat them. Please reference book and page number.
Uhm. Technically, there aren't any.
Based on your qualifications.
How is murder not one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that varies drastically based on the nature of the setting. It depends on the nature of evil.
Uhm. Technically, there aren't any.
Based on your qualifications.How is murder not one?
My guess: he got in an argument with one of his players and is now trying to use RAW to prove his point when before he couldn't. His previous argument was based on his own personal beliefs and not any 3.5 or pathfinder rule.
Heck, even in pathfinder, the most evil of evil creatures (demons and devils) have the potential to be redeemed. See Wrath of the Righteous AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before Zhayne.
But seriously Darth Vader killed dozens of children to get some poon, and we're supposed to feel sad when he dies.
Then again, there's gotta be at least one outsider with resurrection as an SLA that is avaialbe via gate, so murder is really just an ultra-expensive form of assault.
Heck, even in pathfinder, the most evil of evil creatures (demons and Devils) have the potential to be redeemed. See Wrath of the Righteous AP.
That was fanservice, because everybody wants succubi to not be evil because killing hot women doesn't sit well with most people even if they're Hitler rapists.
If I see one arguement I will rip out my keyboard keys and eat them.
Umm... do you mean an argument for a reference to irredemable acts of evil, or an argument about the validity of the reference?
In either event, please post the YouTube link.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, even in pathfinder, the most evil of evil creatures (demons and Devils) have the potential to be redeemed. See Wrath of the Righteous AP.That was fanservice, because everybody wants succubi to not be evil because killing hot women doesn't sit well with most people even if they're Hitler rapists.
Really? Huh. That never even occurred to me (I don't separate out hot women as any more worthy of redemption than any other person). One of the better (read: more amusing) uses of it that I saw was the redemption of a dretch. :)
3.5 and pathfinder are allowed.
Does that include the Book of Vile Darkness? It was published before the revision from 3.0 to 3.5, but it seems like every third 3.5 book references it, including the monsters, the feat types, the prestige classes, etc. Hell, the most memorable element of the entire book (apocalypse from the sky) played a key role in the very last 3.5 hardcover ever released.
So, does the big ol' book of evil count?
Really? Huh. That never even occurred to me (I don't separate out hot women as any more worthy of redemption than any other person). One of the better (read: more amusing) uses of it that I saw was the redemption of a dretch. :)Heck, even in pathfinder, the most evil of evil creatures (demons and Devils) have the potential to be redeemed. See Wrath of the Righteous AP.That was fanservice, because everybody wants succubi to not be evil because killing hot women doesn't sit well with most people even if they're Hitler rapists.
I haven't read the whole AP because I don't want to spoil it, but I'm pretty sure a succubus plays a major role in that whole redemption subsystem.
3.0 compatable with 3.5 is acceptable
I don't believe there is a RAW correct answer. As people have pointed out the lore includes redeemed demons. Also I don't know if there is a RAW grounds for attaining redemption other than the atone spell.
This is a difficult thing to codify. Its left vague to allow for GM variation and diverse narrative.
If I see one arguement I will rip out my keyboard keys and eat them.Never promise what you don't intend to deliver.
You really are tempting fate here. Just for that I'll start an argument right now!
LESS FILLING!
UR MOMS A KEYBOARD LULZ
That's how the kids argue these days, right?
If I remember right, Champions of Purity had a section on redemption. Even there though, it was like 80 percent rp and/or GM judgment.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is starting an argument to get someone to eat a keyboard an evil act?
Plenty of lore floating around of demons and devils being redeemed, as has been stated. If anything's gonna be running around the cosmos committing acts too evil to be redeemed for, it's gonna be them, and apparently all is forgivable in the grand scheme of the planes. So far as I remember in my massive pile of books, it isn't defined anywhere what is an irredeemable sin. It's entirely subjective based on your culture, religion, setting, etc. Why do you want to know? Because it does kinda sound like you're in a RAW vs RAI argument with a player, and my friend let me tell you, those never end well.
Also, the Book of Vile Darkness thinks nipple clamps are the epitome of evil, so there's that.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to pick one evil to be irredeemable and looking at the game cosmology from a bit of an Origenest attitude, it would have to be the destruction of souls.
The fact that demons and devils regularly work alongside angels to stop daemons from preying on the River of Souls speaks volumes, even if the first two are guided primarily by self-interest.
Hang on; has no one done annoying-philosophy-debates 101? Let me demonstrate how we should go about it;
1. Define Irredeemable.
2. Define Evil.
Jerking around there because people have pointed out a lack of one RAW.
Also, to be tangential:
I need to know what evils are irredeemable if murder is not one of them.
So, I'm guessing an argument was lost over the idea of murder as irredeemable.
The problem is, murder carries connotations beyond killing, or premeditated killing, such that it is a useless starting point. To see the British system's definition:An unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought express or implied.
And a US code snippet:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Note both reference some concept of law. In this, murder is conceptually a legal, not a moral concept. From this, I would assume we ask can killing ever be justified? Unless you are deontological in ethics to an extreme, an answer would be yes.
But in any case, assuming the the alignment system is deontological. Saying killing is evil would make almost all PCs evil. Which isn't the case. So we can dismiss that idea. Indeed, PCs typically plan encounters with sentient beings with the aim of killing them - so premeditated killing is clearly not evil by system assumptions. Obeying the law is handled by a different alignment axis. Drawing the above definitions, murder is not an evil act in the game system. Let alone redeemable or no.Assuming it's consequential; killed someone and it saved lives? Good on you and of you.
That ramble was quite fun, actually.
I doubt any is. "Redemption" is kind of a matter of "forgiveness"—when we put aside that part of it, it's a simple question of "Are they good now?"
So, either you're asking "What should we NEVER forgive" or "Is it possible to be so evil you can't possibly come back from it?"
The latter has nothing to do with acts, though. By that metric, the answer is no.
There is no RAW on this. It is always up to the GM. There are even demons(very rare) that become good, and I am sure they have done terrible things over their centuries in the Abyss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Destroying the Universe since the evil can't be redeemed if everyone including the person that did it is dead.
|
Note both reference some concept of law. In this, murder is conceptually a legal, not a moral concept. From this, I would assume we ask can killing ever be justified? Unless you are deontological in ethics to an extreme, an answer would be yes.
But in any case, assuming the the alignment system is deontological. Saying killing is evil would make almost all PCs evil. Which isn't the case. So we can dismiss that idea. Indeed, PCs typically plan encounters with sentient beings with the aim of killing them - so premeditated killing is clearly not evil by system assumptions. Obeying the law is handled by a different alignment axis. Drawing the above definitions, murder is not an evil act in the game system. Let alone redeemable or no.
Assuming it's consequential; killed someone and it saved lives? Good on you and of you.That ramble was quite fun, actually.
Actually, I'm going to disagree with that just a bit. The game indicates that a majority of persons, PCs or otherwise, are neutral in alignment, and alignment is, itself, a representation of the overall attitudes of an individual. A person might kill an evil creature, but he also helps the needed and oppressed. A person who regularly kills creatures, but also helps those in need, would be neutral.
Basically, you don't become evil-aligned just by performing evil acts. You become evil-aligned when the majority of the actions you perform can be classified as evil.
If you actually call yourself evil, you are likely beyond saving.
You wont find consistency for this in the rule books or written adventures, as a rule. It would hamper the story telling aspect of the game too much. At best it will be flavor/fluff. That allows for people to write their way around it.
You might be better off explaining the need for this nonexistant rule.
I haven't read the whole AP because I don't want to spoil it, but I'm pretty sure a succubus plays a major role in that whole redemption subsystem.Really? Huh. That never even occurred to me (I don't separate out hot women as any more worthy of redemption than any other person). One of the better (read: more amusing) uses of it that I saw was the redemption of a dretch. :)Heck, even in pathfinder, the most evil of evil creatures (demons and Devils) have the potential to be redeemed. See Wrath of the Righteous AP.That was fanservice, because everybody wants succubi to not be evil because killing hot women doesn't sit well with most people even if they're Hitler rapists.
Based on some other posts in this thread, I'm reminded of redemption stories for Devils and demons from back in 2nd edition. So the concept of redeeming pure evil in the PF/D&D multiverse is already present. I'm still a bit hard pressed to believe that redemption in WotR was put in primarily because people have a hard time killing a hot chick succubus. Paizo is really good about being conscious of the fan base here, even to go so far as to include gay and transgendered NPCs in that very AP. The idea that they'd include characters such as that while also being oblivious to how misogynistic it is to add redemption because they believe players will have a hard time killing a hot chick who has done massive amounts of evil just because she's hot (as opposed to redeeming anyone to the side of good) just seems odd to me.
Bobx3, that makes a lot more sense to me than the hot chick aspect. Closeness to humanity in appearance, rather than attractiveness.
Also, that last bullet point is something I'd disagree with. Soldiers are still human (or even, etc), and can be redeemed. Their country may not forgive them, but redemption is about forgiving yourself and becoming vigilant of correcting your past evil actions while working to never commit similar acts again. Redemption is about changing your life to work towards making the world a better place. Even a traitor can be redeemed.
For me, irredeemable is the person who promises to redeem themselves and consistently refused to even try. But then again, if come religions are true, maybe they'll come back in another life for another chance at redemption. I'm hard pressed to find anything truly irredeemable except villains in a story for whom the author has written to be irredeemable (aka works of fiction). I know, this is a fiction based game, but still - we're talking morality here. :)
- Soldier who betray their country/forsake their oaths for money are irredeemable. Kidnappers who murder their victim after being paid are irredeemable.
Except when they feel bad and turn good and help people in need for the rest of their lives. Then they get to go to Heaven with everyone else. Unless the GM says they're Evil forever. Then they go to Hell anyway.
Basically, nothing is explicitly unforgivable or irredeemable unless the DM flat out says so. The rules are always vague on alignment stuff.
If you commit suicide while doing an evil act, you've pretty much closed yourself from any avenue of atonement or redemption.
Except in the afterlife. :)
Hey, I never said I agreed with any of my citations. OP just asked for books and page numbers with acts specifically described as irredeemable. Those are just the list of what I found.
Fair enough. :)
Aberrations? All of them? Even if you're using the 3.5 elan? That seems...odd. Going to rot forever in the lower planes because you chose a subpar race with some crappy abilities and a horrendous ability score set. Tsk, tsk.
I realize the updated version is an aberrant humanoid, though, so I suppose even they've been redeemed.
This thread can only end in tragedy.
Vader killed the younglings? the ones that had been trained to use lightsabers since before Anakin was too old to begin training to use them?
Combat trained children, in brown shirts, taken from their mothers, and trained in secret, with no outside contact to be shown and trained in only one truth by their self appointed masters, and are diametrically opposed to your belief system, who wills top at nothing to hunt you down and destroy you…. you know all this for a fact, because you were once one of them, trained and indoctrinated the same way?
The above could easily apply to someone who was a former hitler youth, allied troops killed plenty of hitler youth, and they, weren't 100% sure of their indoctrination, only a former knife toting hitler youth would know that.
So putting Vader in that position, puts a whole skew on the "killing children" thing.
all those 'kids' had three years of lightsaber training with master yoda and were all eligible to be picked as padawans by any master available, who would have tank them to some far off planet to fight by his side….
They weren't really defenseless children.
Id say Bail Organna was more defenseless than they were?
Putting it into that perspective, WHAT is irredeemable?
If no line is drawn, a character can bounce abut the alignment chart at his whimsy, "today Im Lawful because I need a level of monk, now Im evil because I need a level of assassin, and now I'm lawful good so i can continue on as a paladin"
The only one who can stop that in game, is the DM… I haven't found any rules to stop it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just say that Darth Vader did EVERYONE a huge favor by dying as part of his redemption in Empire Strikes Back, because he had a lot more to answer for than just the slaughter of a pack of Jedi children.Vader killed the younglings? the ones that had been trained to use lightsabers since before Anakin was too old to begin training to use them?
Combat trained children, in brown shirts, taken from their mothers, and trained in secret, with no outside contact to be shown and trained in only one truth by their self appointed masters, and are diametrically opposed to your belief system, who wills top at nothing to hunt you down and destroy you…. you know all this for a fact, because you were once one of them, trained and indoctrinated the same way?
The above could easily apply to someone who was a former hitler youth, allied troops killed plenty of hitler youth, and they, weren't 100% sure of their indoctrination, only a former knife toting hitler youth would know that.
So putting Vader in that position, puts a whole skew on the "killing children" thing.
all those 'kids' had three years of lightsaber training with master yoda and were all eligible to be picked as padawans by any master available, who would have tank them to some far off planet to fight by his side….They weren't really defenseless children.
Id say Bail Organna was more defenseless than they were?Putting it into that perspective, WHAT is irredeemable?
If no line is drawn, a character can bounce abut the alignment chart at his whimsy, "today Im Lawful because I need a level of monk, now Im evil because I need a level of assassin, and now I'm lawful good so i can continue on as a paladin"
The only one who can stop that in game, is the DM… I haven't found any rules to stop it.
His acting in episode 2, for example.