Iredeemable acts of evil


Advice

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

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

Dr. Evil says you're wrong...

Shadow Lodge

If you want to know what irideemable evil is, it doesn't come down to how many people you've killed or what atrocities you've committed.

It's the inability to recognize that your actions are evil or not caring. For if you don't realize your actions are in need of redemption.....then you can't ask to be redeemed.

Hope that was helpful,

Kerney

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.

9/10 bards agree. The 10th was holding out for an Incubus.


Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.

From a paladin. Saving the multiverse, one session at a time.

So to speak.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.
9/10 bards agree. The 10th was holding out for an Incubus.

Why not both?


Vritra wrote:
This is something that varies drastically based on the nature of the setting. It depends on the nature of evil.

Indeed. It also depends on the GM, as ALL things alignment do.

You can't RAW or RAI any kind of roleplaying, or anything else as utterly subjective as morality/alignment. It's simply impossible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Vritra wrote:
This is something that varies drastically based on the nature of the setting. It depends on the nature of evil.

Indeed. It also depends on the GM, as ALL things alignment do.

You can't RAW or RAI any kind of roleplaying, or anything else as utterly subjective as morality/alignment. It's simply impossible.

Is the impossibility of this RAW or RAI?


Common sense.


It was a joke. :/


I know. :)


Whew. I was afraid we lost our sense of humor around here. :)

Shadow Lodge

I think some people have theirs surgically removed. :(

Scarab Sages

Ha.


TOZ wrote:
I think some people have theirs surgically removed. :(

nah, It gets popped and deflates when the stick is inserted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.

you say snuggling, I say motor boating…

Potato , Potatoe.

Scarab Sages

Pendagast wrote:
Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.

you say snuggling, I say motor boating…

Potato , Potatoe.

PotatOH MY...


All this talk of succubi and nobody's brought up the bare bear druid wrestling? For shame.

On a slightly more topically related note, a black hole of links for Evil Feels Good and I am a monster, both from Borderlands 2 and Krieg (one of the playable characters).

Krieg wrote:
"There is no me, there is no you! There is only the never ending spit and bile of combat! The twenty-four hour murder spree of shining metal! I drink the blood and eat the loot and breathe the numbers, because I AM A MONSTER! NOW AND FOREVER!"

He's completely redeemable though, despite what that says. Well, as redeemable as a psycho murder machine on a death world populated by the descendants of convicts and criminals and ruthlessly exploited by heartless and amoral corporations could be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

To be irredeemable, one must be incapable of the desire, or capacity, to be redeemed.

Demons and Devils are irredeemable, as their very essence, and ability to exist, is that they must be evil.

They must be something that is not Devil, or Demon, to become something other than evil.

When this change occurs, it is not redemption, but a corruption, and reincarnation of their existence.

So, only those who cannot exist as anything but evil, can be considered truly irredeemable. For, them to be anything but evil, is to not exist.

Ceasing to exist, is not redemption.


Davor wrote:
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.

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.

Reduces and highlighted to the relevant part. I was assuming it is (under another assumption) for the sake of pointing out it isn't true.

Now yes, in a more correct argument, alignment is usually worked off a majority of actions. But I doubt a character that only kills threats to people at large, and does nothing else, would be assumed as evil among players.

To steal something with citations, however (glad someone had an idea where to go);

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
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.

As pointed out, these are all really vague. It shows that there are irredeemable evils, but aside Soldiers who betray their country/forsake their oaths for money are irredeemable. Kidnappers who murder their victim after being paid are irredeemable. , there's nothing specific.

But hey, we have a benchmark - now for interesting discussions. Unfortunately, I know of no other sources - but taking those (much as many are 3.5 sources) as a starting point, a definition can being.
Not that I'm currently bored and trying to stir debates. :P

Quote:
Thank you Bob x 3 for not going all Socratic on me. Even Euthyphro had a point in how a discussion with Socrates was cyclical on the subject of piety, but Socrates made a valid point that a definition of piety that changes constantly is equivalent to Daedalus's moving statues. Mainly I want something that stands as the penultimate example of evil, for while Euthyphro took his own father to trial for murder, his opinion that his fathers actions were impious has foundation in unsteady ground. But this being a fantasy world there are "actual" gods and many texts of lore to define acts of evil and therefore there must be one that is greatest among these rather than the transient musings of the gentlemen and ladies of the messageboard.

Citing the Greeks in 2014. Huh.

Silly responses aside, that was a valid point. Anyway, for evil without irredeemable in there (which can be vaguely covered by above vague ideas of "disturbing"), is there not a vast slew of ideas the system puts under evil just looking at deity portfolios?


In the Inner Sea Gods book (which a friend currently has, so, not in front of me), it mentions that Sarenrae (goddess of good, healing, and redemption) tries to redeem all evil she can, only refusing to try on those she essentially considers iredeemable. They are: Rovagug (destroy ALL the things!), Asmodeus (might be wrong on him, don't think I am), and whomever the evil god of assassination is (fool me four or five times...).

All because, not only have they expressed a desire too not be redeemed, they revel in their status, and take pride/pleasure in their evilness.

Aside from a situation like that, there are no irredeemable acts of evil in PF and storytelling in general unless the storyteller says so. Free will means even the most evil bastard that ever was can someday have a conscience attack, and repent their ways, and that makes it a STORY issue, not a mechanics issue.

So, as was said above, it's up to the GM.

How's about telling us what your trying to do, either as a gm or a player? :P


Evil is any act that
requires one to place change into the douchebag jar

Irredemable evil is anything that requires one to place more than a dollar into the douchebag jar

51 to 72 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.