Iredeemable acts of evil


Advice

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


bigrig107 wrote:

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.


bookrat wrote:
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.


Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
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.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
bookrat wrote:
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. :)


Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
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?


I don't recall any specific acts within the rulebooks saying what is evil and what is not. All I can find are a bunch of moral philosophies, not certain actions.

That said, Ultimate Campaign has a more in-depth description for Evil Alignment than the Core Rulebook. It might be useful to look through it. You can find the link to it here.

In said page of Ultimate Campaign, the author himself admits that "Alignment is a curious creature." I don't know what you're trying to do with a RAW definition of evil acts, but it seems even the authors think Alignment is not a ironclad concept.

Shadow Lodge

Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
I need RAW not RAI.

There is no RAW. Even the alignment description only says that evil implies killing.

Only the GM can define evil and irredeemable acts in his campaign.


bookrat wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
bookrat wrote:
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. :)

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

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
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!


LazarX wrote:
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
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!

I prefer keyboard keys because they taste great!

Also RAW alignment is notion even worse than alignment itself; which is already one of the sillier notions in the game. No one here is going to be able to give a RAW set of ethics, even if Paizo wrote a 500 page book on these issues. Morality is too complex for RAW. Other will say differently, but it will be yet another set of subjective opinions and assertions pretending to be more than that.

Keyboards taste great! Remember if you eat your keyboard keys, video or it didn't happen.


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.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
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?


If no being in the cosmology is truly omniscient, then no act can be known as irredeemable, since not all consequences and subsequences may be predicted accurately. Only One who knows all could say, "Yep ... no one can come back from that."


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.

Silver Crusade

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:

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.


Mikaze wrote:

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.

Your tears are all the pay I'll ever need!


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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Starting an alignment thread is iredeamably Evil.


So from Pathfinder I can't find a list of actions, but

Dragons Revisited Page 50 wrote:
On the other hand, silver dragons are the metallics most likely to go bad. Such practically irredeemable creatures do not lightly cross to darkness...

From 3.X there's more varied literature, but most of it focuses on creature types.

Lords of Madness Page 204 wrote:
While you embody the virtues of compassion and love for your fellows, you understand that your enemies—aboleths, <protected IP>, and other unhuman monstrosities—are creatures of irredeemable evil...
Complete Champion Page 34 wrote:
Churches of good are likely to be engaged in missionary work. Souls turned to evil or apathy must be aided in any way—even by destroying their mortal forms if necessary. All churches of good openly preach messages of redemption, but some take a stiffer stance than others on how such redemption should be delivered. Some teach that certain kinds of evil creatures are irredeemable and must be destroyed.
Book of Exalted Deeds Page 120 wrote:
Redeeming a suit of demon armor is one thing; dealing with the <protected IP> or the <protected IP> is another matter entirely. Even a talisman of ultimate evil is an item so suffused with evil power that the evil cannot be cast out from the item. Evil artifacts, like most evil outsiders, are beyond redemption.

There's even a flavor template to make your villain unredeemable.

Exemplars of Evil Page 7 wrote:
A disturbing villain is irredeemable, and his actions show it.
The best list of what actions are irredeemable though comes from this:
Complete Warrior Page 143 wrote:
Among their number are found some of the most irredeemable and vile persons ever to walk under the sun. Soldiers who betrayed their country and oaths for profit, kidnappers who murdered their victims though the ransom was paid in full, mass murderers whose crimes are too heinous to describe.

Scarab Sages

Physically Unfeasible wrote:

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.


Nohwear wrote:
If you actually call yourself evil, you are likely beyond saving.

I have a lot of friends that are irredeemable it would seem


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.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
bookrat wrote:
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. :)
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.

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.


In plain language:


  • Silver dragons who go evil are almost all irredeemable.
  • Aberrations are irredeemable.
  • Some religions deem certain creatures irredeemable.
  • Evil artifacts and certain other evil magic items are irredeemable.
  • If you make your villian a "disturbing villain" he's irredeemable. What actions you do for that are detailed further on that page, but left specifically vague because it's a fluff template you can apply to any villain.
  • Soldier who betray their country/forsake their oaths for money are irredeemable. Kidnappers who murder their victim after being paid are irredeemable. Mass murderers who do something too heinous to mention are irredeemable.

Like I said, lots of things that say certain creatures/items are irredeemable, and even a thing that says irredeemable varies from church to church. The only explicit list is the last point, and part of that is still left vague.

And I don't think the succubus thing is because they're a "hot chick" (though that is unfortunately true of a certain segment of the population), I think it has more do with the fact that they're mostly human looking. It's hard to treat something that looks and acts mostly human (we can all understand the destructive potential of lust) as a manifestation of pure metaphysical evil. It looks sort of like us, acts sort of like us, and so we treat it like us.

Same as PETA uses the cute animals to try to make its point (kittens of the sea). You wouldn't eat your pets/cute and cuddly things, so why would you eat this fish?


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. :)


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
  • 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.


There is no RAW irredeemable. By RAW everything is redeemable. Ever.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you commit suicide while doing an evil act, you've pretty much closed yourself from any avenue of atonement or redemption.


Even where the rules explicitly state something is irredeemable the term is not necessarily being used in a strict legalistic sense. A diverse number of writers write sentences, some of which occasionally use the word "irredeemable." However, they are not necessarily using these as a term of art or in the sense of a definition. The mechanics of the fall of a silver dragon, is not the place from which to create an entire hardcore rule system regarding redemption. If for no other reason than notice, because if you need to look at the definition of aberrations to decide whether or not a particular action is "irredeemable" it's pretty much impossible to think that any player has done this sort of consideration. I would take the lack of actual mechanical rules on this front as maybe the clearest sign that there are and should be no hard and fast mechanical rules re: redemption.


LazarX wrote:
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. :)

Scarab Sages

Why must there be an ultimate evil? Maybe this irredeemable act does, in fact, vary according to which god you're following?

But regardless, the text above contains every reference I could find. YouTube links please. :)


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.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

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.

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.

His acting in episode 2, for example.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Iredeemable acts of evil All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.