| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyhow. The fact that you can be a cleric of a god without adhering to every piece of their dogma, or even their alignment, can make for some of the most interesting religious characters. I believe that there's even a heathen (LN) cleric of Zon-Kuthon in Shattered Star that believes that Zon-Kuthon's commandments are a result of his condition rather than his desires, and who further postulates that the reason he was corrupted was so that Shelyn wouldn't be in his place, thus making ZK a god of martyrdom, at least in this worshipper eyes.
One of my favorite villains which I've used in my game was a zealous, NE bugbear inquisitor absolutely obsessed with Pharasma, and one of my favorite PCs was a CN inquisitor of Rovagug. This latter character believed that destruction in Rovagug's name actually soothed the Rough Beast with the knowledge that destruction was still perpetrated despite his absence, while simultaneously allowing this worshipper the right to choose the targets of his destruction, preferably the "insane heathens" who actually attempts to free the destroyer from his imprisonment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you like, you can post a thread complaining. Something classy like, "THREADS ARE WAY TOO LONG!"
I bet that'll have results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zon-Kuthon's sort of a Buddha gone wrong.
As opposed to escaping suffering through attaining enlightenment, Zon-Kuthon takes the stance that only through suffering can one attain enlightenment.
As only suffering can bring enlightenment, Zon-Kuthon has a duty to make sure that everyone suffers as much as necessary.
From his perspective, he's doing this for everyone's benefit.
The fact that he loves his job is merely a bonus.
Anyhow. The fact that you can be a cleric of a god without adhering to every piece of their dogma, or even their alignment, can make for some of the most interesting religious characters. I believe that there's even a heathen (LN) cleric of Zon-Kuthon in Shattered Star that believes that Zon-Kuthon's commandments are a result of his condition rather than his desires, and who further postulates that the reason he was corrupted was so that Shelyn wouldn't be in his place, thus making ZK a god of martyrdom, at least in this worshipper eyes.
One of my favorite villains which I've used in my game was a zealous, NE bugbear inquisitor absolutely obsessed with Pharasma, and one of my favorite PCs was a CN inquisitor of Rovagug. This latter character believed that destruction in Rovagug's name actually soothed the Rough Beast with the knowledge that destruction was still perpetrated despite his absence, while simultaneously allowing this worshipper the right to choose the targets of his destruction, preferably the "insane heathens" who actually attempts to free the destroyer from his imprisonment.
You've seen that movie, Martyrs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, my first thread and it gets derailed
Now... you are ready to be King. :)
Welcome to the boards, Gaius!
Dot. This is the best alignment discussion thread. The counter intuitive, downright hypocrisy in the PF setting is what makes it great. I am super curious as to what Liz removed.
One could start a whole series of threads on god alignments. The best answer is alignment "is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules." (this should carry over to alignment dependent spells, etc. IMO)
|
So I have to agree that.Z-K being lawful makes sense due the hierarchical nature of his church, the fact he / his followers follow set rites / rituals, and that when making an agreement, he sticks to it.
He's evil due to his habit of, you know, mutilation, torture, etc. All methodically carried out, but definitely evil.
As to the "evil does not exist in the real word" arguments being tossed around, I have one question. Do those who believe that evil does not exist in the real world believe that good exists in the real world?
You've seen that movie, Martyrs?
No. A quick wikipedia/imdb search does make it seem like a near perfect concept for a Kuthite sect, save perhaps for the lack of self-inflicted harm. But I don't really expect that dimension of the faith to be a constant across all worshippers, just most of them.
I'm personally a bit too squeamish for this kind of film though, so I'll have to give it a pass :).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the "evil does not exist in the real word" arguments being tossed around, I have one question. Do those who believe that evil does not exist in the real world believe that good exists in the real world?Good is a more generic term. The opposite of good is bad.
For morality, the terms right and wrong, are also generic.Evil though is very much a Christian concept - the domain of the Devil versus God. So as a concept it doesn't exist in many cultures, not even in pre-Christian European religions.
Good is not a generic term when the concept of alignment is tossed around. As this is the case within this thread, the concept of good would be in consideration of a good-neutral-evil axis, not a good-bad dichotomy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is a more generic term. The opposite of good is bad.
For morality, the terms right and wrong, are also generic.Evil though is very much a Christian concept - the domain of the Devil versus God. So as a concept it doesn't exist in many cultures, not even in pre-Christian European religions.
Although in common speak, evil often just means morally wrong in the extreme. So the opposite of "evil" in feeling is not really "good" but "saintly".
Evil is a concept that has existed in almost every culture, Christian or non-Christian. Now what those cultures defined as evil and non-evil differ, but they did exist. God v Devil also isn't the source of dualistic morality, which is more accurately attributed to Zoroastrianism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. Not inherently. Everyone tends to agree that Nazis were bad...using them as an example of badness isn't all that controversial.What's not Lawful about all that? His cultists don't tend towards the subtle...but neither did the Nazis, and they're sorta textbook Lawful Evil.Let us not go there. Deal? This will get messy.Nazis were bad, that's 100% indisputable, rock fact. But by Pathfinder standards, they were not Evil (which is different from being bad), not by a longshot. No Nazi rebelled on the suffering of all that was good and nice, they were generous to those they considered their peers, they espoused values of harmony and kindness to nature (look up their angor rabbit fur production efforts), they loved culture based on beauty and virtue, and so on.
They did commit genocide on massive scale, but that was against members of races they considered malignant. If butchering orc babies is not Evil, then neither are them Germs.Are you familiar with Magic: the Gathering? To me, Nazis are the archetypical Lawful Good, White-magic villains - people who pretend they know what's best for everyone and attempt to create a world shaped towards their own image of perfection and harmony.
No, they were evil. Even evil can be good to their own. It means they aren't CE.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil though is very much a Christian concept - the domain of the Devil versus God. So as a concept it doesn't exist in many cultures, not even in pre-Christian European religions.
Speaking as a pagan and an avid student of various mythologies/religions...I'd strongly disagree that it's a Christian notion.
There've certainly been widely varying definitions of what evil is, but the basic idea that some acts are anathema, utterly unacceptable, and wrong on a profound metaphysical level? That's pretty close to universal. For example, inslaying and violations of hospitality often fall under this definition in various pre-Christian religions, for example. As does oath-breaking in some.
So...yeah, not really a Christian notion per se. Nor does it require dualistic or oppositional deities to exist and be believed in.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm going to share my philosophy with regards to these gods.
A god's official alignment is actually a distinct entity from its alignment as a character.
Think about it. As a PC, if I help an orphanage, then burn down another, I don't get away with anything less than Lawful Evil! But it's common behavior for gods like Gozreh, Boccob and Nethys. "Balance", right? And let's talk about gods like Gorum. Gorum is pretty much a warmongering a@+&+&&. I have a bit of trouble buying his character not being some shade of evil, but can I buy him having good-aligned worshipers? Absolutely.
A god's alignment is less a reflection of that god's true character and more of the compatibility of that god's portfolio with differently-aligned worshipers. At least, that's how I rationalize it.
That's pretty much my take on it.
Sometimes a god's alignment fits like a hand in glove (Abadar, for instance, the only Golarion god who is both aligned and actually a *god of that alignment*), others, it seems like they were made alignment X to fill the quota of 'we need two CN gods, even if both of them strongly lean evil' or 'we want Pharasma to be not-good and not-lawful, despite her hating both evil and people who break her laws, and having serious problems with her own Domain spells, her own NE and CN clergy, etc...'
Still, this does create some fun opportunities.
What does the CN church of Lamashtu look like? Could they have some freakish uneasy alliance with Sarenrite redeemers, savagely protecting humanoid children with deformities or mental disabilities from cultures that would discard or shun them?
A NE cult of Pharasma, sending holy assassins to cull those who have, according to their teachings, defied the sacred cycle of life and death (either by being created, instead of born, like androids, or by cheating death by seeking immortality)?
A CG temple to Gorum, teaching those in war-ravaged lands to fight in their own defense, making sure that anyone capable of holding a weapon and wearing armor is capable of exercising that right?
A LN sect of Kuthites, all about strengthening *themselves* through physical hardship and overcoming pain, seeming, to the outside observer, more like a harsh group of self-perfecting Irori worshippers than refugees from a Clive Barker movie?
The Godclaw is a great example of this. LN Hellknights who revere Iomedae (if not her every good tenet) stand side by side with LN Hellknights who revere Asmodeus (if not his every evil tenet), and both of those gods continue to grant spells to LN clergy, so neither of them are necessarily 'getting it wrong.'
Zon Kuthon's very concerned with hierarchy and control. The entire country he rules (Nidal) is basically a totalitarian state in many ways. He also values loyalty and, as is demonstrated in the aforementioned bargain with Abadar, keeps his given word.
What's not Lawful about all that? His cultists don't tend towards the subtle...but neither did the Nazis, and they're sorta textbook Lawful Evil.
I think I am in the minority in thinking ideological Nazis were CE, but the Lawful Good argument is a new one to me. :)
You also apparently don't understand morality. Even the ultrasimplistic version used for Pathfinder morality.
Evil creatures being nice to others that do things for them is still a neutral action. Being nice to your loved ones and comrades is neutral period. To be good one must be performing uneven actions that do not favor oneself. For instance sacrificing yourself to save someone, or having mercy on your enemies. The Nazis are undeniably evil due to committing genocide. Genocide is always evil, orc babies are specifically sighted as a moral test in Pathfinder because the proper good choice is to find a way to raise them to be good. Killing them is a semi-pragmatic easy answer. Good is never about the easy answers though, it's making sacrifices of yourself for the good of others. In this case the sacrifice of your time and resources to give those little green babies a shot at being the good guys.
No, they were evil. Even evil can be good to their own. It means they aren't CE.
How about NO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zon Kuthon's very concerned with hierarchy and control. The entire country he rules (Nidal) is basically a totalitarian state in many ways. He also values loyalty and, as is demonstrated in the aforementioned bargain with Abadar, keeps his given word.
What's not Lawful about all that? His cultists don't tend towards the subtle...but neither did the Nazis, and they're sorta textbook Lawful Evil.
I think I am in the minority in thinking ideological Nazis were CE, but the Lawful Good argument is a new one to me. :)
You also apparently don't understand morality. Even the ultrasimplistic version used for Pathfinder morality.
Evil creatures being nice to others that do things for them is still a neutral action. Being nice to your loved ones and comrades is neutral period. To be good one must be performing uneven actions that do not favor oneself. For instance sacrificing yourself to save someone, or having mercy on your enemies. The Nazis are undeniably evil due to committing genocide. Genocide is always evil, orc babies are specifically sighted as a moral test in Pathfinder because the proper good choice is to find a way to raise them to be good. Killing them is a semi-pragmatic easy answer. Good is never about the easy answers though, it's making sacrifices of yourself for the good of others. In this case the sacrifice of your time and resources to give those little green babies a shot at being the good guys.
No, they were evil. Even evil can be good to their own. It means they aren't CE.
How about NO.
How about NEIN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is a concept that has existed in almost every culture, Christian or non-Christian. Now what those cultures defined as evil and non-evil differ, but they did exist. God v Devil also isn't the source of dualistic morality, which is more accurately attributed to Zoroastrianism.Good is a more generic term. The opposite of good is bad.
For morality, the terms right and wrong, are also generic.Evil though is very much a Christian concept - the domain of the Devil versus God. So as a concept it doesn't exist in many cultures, not even in pre-Christian European religions.
Although in common speak, evil often just means morally wrong in the extreme. So the opposite of "evil" in feeling is not really "good" but "saintly".
I agree with most of your reasoning but I won't say Christianity has a dualistic view on cosmology: according to Christianity (and to an extent to Hebraism and Islam) God is omnipotent and omniscent, the Adversary (literally "Satan") is allowed to do what it does to test mankind but his final defeat is all but assured because he's actually working according to God's plan. This is intrinsecally different from the dualistic notion of Good vs Evil exposed by Zoroastrianism.
That said I's stay aeay from the idea of applying the fixed schematics of D&D's morality to the real world: seen with our contemporary lenses the whole culture of people such as the vikings could be called "evil" (for them murdering unsuspecting people, stealing their riches, raping their women and taking away their children to raise them as thralls was not only tolerable but actually worthy of deep respect and praise). When one discusses the nazis it's easy to say they were evil (as their own philosopy was built around the idea of a "superior race" and "lesser races" who nedeed to be enslaved or exterminated according to some madman's ideas), but one could argue that the actions of Commodore Matthew Perry against Japan in order to force it to open to commerce were evil or the bombing of Dresden or dropping A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were all evil acts, and the history of humanity is full of events as these and I've no doubt it will be full of them in the future.
In short, when it comes to real life applying black and white lenses usually fails to capture the complexity of events. One must decide what's good and what's evil for himself and then decide where the limit past which he will say "no more", but one should not presume everyone else should conform to his own vision, because peoples, cultures, nations are different and forge different ways to see the reality around us.
P.S.
Re-reading me... I think I might be CG... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said Christianity was dualistic, I just said it wasn't the source. Though I probably should have been more specific. Though various heretical sects such as the Cathars and Gnostics throughout history have been dualistic.
Regardless I don't think it's difficult to be granular with morality. Saying the viking performed evil by raiding but good by their relative gender equality compared to southern europe aren't inherently at odds. Though to condemn an entire nation as good or evil is usually wrong simply due to variety of peoples within a culture. Nazism is much easier to condemn because it is a fairly focused and short lived ideology rather than an entire nation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Christianity Satan is allowed to do what he wants.But he is not working according to God's plan.Satan is allowed to exist in order to give mankind a Choice between God and Satan AKA(Good and evil). in Christianity this Choice is made by having faith in jesus Christ even a little bit or rejecting jesus Christ.
Reread yourself: if Satan is allowed to exist in order to give mankind a choice between good and evil how can you say that's not according to God's plan? If God is truly omnipotent and omniscent how could Satan be allowed to exist if not according to His plan?
Edit: I think I know where this particular point is coming from, so for the sake of clarification let me say I'm not saying (that according to Christianity) God is evil because he's allowing evil to exist. I'm merely stating that, according to Christianity (and we should define which confession we are talking about) He has a plan.
IT: As for Z-K I think the ritualistic nature of the worhip he demands, the rigid structure of his clergy and him being showed to uphold his given word all point to LE being the correct allignment. He's not into the pain business just for self gratification but because, according to him, that's the mean to reach perfection.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the issue is that in PF, every god has their alignment as a domain. Which I think is a bad idea to begin with. Through having it as a domain, Zon-Kuthon is made to be a god of evil and law; law and evil are not merely his personality, it's his power.
By separating a god's alignment from their domains, so that only gods to which a central part of their faith is the spread of alignment or similar actions have that as a domain, it makes much more sense.
- Abadar, Norgorber, Iomedae, Urgathoa, Sarenrae, Shelyn, Torag and Rovagug should remain unchanged.
- Asmodeus would have the Law domain, but might change Evil to Nobility.
- Cayden Cailean should have the Chaos domain, but might change Good to either Liberation or Luck.
- Calistria might remain unchanged, not because she's really a god of chaos (honestly, she could as well have had NN or NE alignment, though certainly not the evil domain) but because I just can't think of what domain would fit better. Perhaps Destruction or Fire but neither seem that good a fit. Her portfolio is kind of short to begin with. Though I could see a homebrewed "Revenge" domain.
- Desna would keep the Good domain but change Chaos to either Protection (as she protects and shields travellers) or a new Dream domain.
- Erastil would swap both good and law for Protection and Weather.
- Gorum swaps Chaos for Earth.
- Lamashtu keeps Evil but swaps Chaos for Animal
- Zon-Kuthon keeps Evil, but swaps out Law, either for Madness or Void (due to the legends of Duo-Bral)
I don't know enough about the Tian Xia deities to say anything about them, though.
Thus, a god like Zon-Kuthon or Erastil can personally have a lawful alignment (being methodical or traditional) without that being a defining trait of their faith.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Christianity Satan is allowed to do what he wants.But he is not working according to God's plan.Satan is allowed to exist in order to give mankind a Choice between God and Satan AKA(Good and evil). in Christianity this Choice is made by having faith in jesus Christ even a little bit or rejecting jesus Christ.
A misrepresentation. It's not a choice between God and Satan, it's a choice between God, and anything that isn't God. If God is infinitely good, then to come short of Him, and all that he wants for us, by any amount is an infinitely large distance, because 0.1 times infinity is still infinity. Satan doesn't need to drive a person to himself in order to drive a person away from God. The dualistic representation of Satan being free to do as he pleases is going in a circle.
And the very first sentence pretty much ignores the Book of Job, where Satan has to get permission from God in order to try to show that Job is only a fair weather worshipper.
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Satan then has to come back and get permission to affect Job himself, taking away his health, and so on.
Evil is a concept that has existed in almost every culture, Christian or non-Christian. Now what those cultures defined as evil and non-evil differ, but they did exist. God v Devil also isn't the source of dualistic morality, which is more accurately attributed to Zoroastrianism.
This is truest in only the weakest possible since. Most cultures have had some concept of evil, in some form, in some part of the culture, but it is not true that almost every culture's dominant culture acknowledged evil. Buddhism, for instance, talks about suffering, not about essential evil. Buddhism teaches about "evil" only in the sense that the word "evil" in the broadest sense refers to things that are harmful, eg., Influenza is an evil. Plato's mysticism taught "justice" and "not-justice," and he specifically made the argument that just as you do not injure an animal to improve it, you do not injure a person to make them more just. Aristole taught wisdom, and not-so-wisdom. Even some branches of Catholic theology suggest that Hell should be considered more as the state of being separate from God, not a realm under Satan's control, and Judaism (I'm being simplistic here) teaches something similarly. Shinto doesn't really deal with evil, just with proper reverence for nature and spirit. "Evil" in Shinto has more to do with ritual taint that can result in danger. The Greeks and Romans had no deities of "evil"; even Ares/Mares, the terrible god of war, was viewed also as a patron of warriors and athletes. Hekate, patron of magic and various foreign powers, was also revered as a local deity in the role of a mother goddess.
In general, "evil" or "sin" in most cultures is legally prohibited behavior. It is equivalent to the idea of acting uncleanly or without righeusouness. The idea of supernatural Evil, that is, the idea of a Satan or other force opposing Good, the idea that behavior could be not only profane but actively an alliance with evil powers, occurs only in religions with dualistic elements. Christianity shades into this area, but dualism, per se, was declared heretical centuries ago. Dualism was rejected by every early council of the Christian bishops.
So, yes, "evil" exists in almost every culture, if you include even minor or heretical belief systems, and if you are willing to broaden the definition to include "anything that is considered immoral."
I suppose "evil" in any culture can be defined by the things the villains in myths, legends and folktales do, and "good" by what the heroes do.
Although its hard finding many commonalities between cultures widely separated by era or geography. Murder, rape and torture are things the heroes of many historic cultures do. So the only common "evils" are usually crimes against your parents, blasphemy against the recognized gods and perhaps underhanded murderous deceptions if the victim is a friend or ally.
Many also have a them versus us mentality. So you can commit any atrocity against the "them" and it only becomes "evil" when the victim is a member of your own tribe or nation.
Though I'm hardly an expert on the subject, it's also worth mentioning that many mythological beings have had their stories, or at least the representation thereof, somewhat skewed by later scholars and authors tampering with the stories, many primarily oral prior to the rise of Christianity in the region, to better fit the dualistic narrative of good and evil.
This is especially true for deities like Loki, who were seen mostly as tricksters and troublemakers rather than outright villains, and who often served practically as Thor's sidekick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Christianity Satan is allowed to do what he wants.But he is not working according to God's plan.Satan is allowed to exist in order to give mankind a Choice between God and Satan AKA(Good and evil). in Christianity this Choice is made by having faith in jesus Christ even a little bit or rejecting jesus Christ.A misrepresentation. It's not a choice between God and Satan, it's a choice between God, and anything that isn't God. If God is infinitely good, then to come short of Him, and all that he wants for us, by any amount is an infinitely large distance, because 0.1 times infinity is still infinity. Satan doesn't need to drive a person to himself in order to drive a person away from God. The dualistic representation of Satan being free to do as he pleases is going in a circle.
And the very first sentence pretty much ignores the Book of Job, where Satan has to get permission from God in order to try to show that Job is only a fair weather worshipper.
Satan then has to come back and get permission to affect Job himself, taking away his health, and so on.9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
The book of job was about having faith in god even when everything is going bad.In the book of job god hope that job would love him and have faith in him no matter what.It was more of a lesion to the faithful that no matter what Satan does to you love and have faith in god because he will look for you in the end.
After all in the end god restored every thing job had plus more
And the LORD restored...
You know you can extract more than one lesson from a single part of the Bible, right? It's possible to convey a number of ideas, especially if given a few dozen pages for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does the CN church of Lamashtu look like? Could they have some freakish uneasy alliance with Sarenrite redeemers, savagely protecting humanoid children with deformities or mental disabilities from cultures that would discard or shun them?
Heh.
A few possibilities come to mind. Thats a good one though
A wanderer looking to spread his seed as far and as wide as possible, but has some standards at least about how they do that.
Monster freedom fighter- think a violent People for the Ethical Treatment of Abominations. If the monster kills people then oh well, its only fighting back/stop expressing its true nature
"Not in the face, not in the face" people praying for lamashtu to stay her hand and offering her obedience and supplication.
Monster aficionado. Loves to learn about and discover new and fascinating things about monsters for its own sake
I think part of the issue is that in PF, every god has their alignment as a domain. Which I think is a bad idea to begin with. Through having it as a domain, Zon-Kuthon is made to be a god of evil and law; law and evil are not merely his personality, it's his power.
By separating a god's alignment from their domains, so that only gods to which a central part of their faith is the spread of alignment or similar actions have that as a domain, it makes much more sense.
** spoiler omitted **
Thus, a god like Zon-Kuthon or Erastil can personally have a lawful alignment (being methodical or traditional) without that being a defining trait of their faith.
Also, to follow up on my own post, this could be useful for distinguishing which alignments are accepted within the major denominations of the faith; basically, clerics can be one step away, but clerics that are one step away from an alignment the god has a domain would be seen as heretical or a splinter sect.
So while most clerics of Desna would be chaotic good, neutral good clerics would be fully accepted within the major churches. Chaotic neutral Desnaites, however, would generally be relegated to splinter cells, being viewed as egocentric in a way that most Desnaites can't support.
Likewise, while most clerics in the church of Asmodeus would be lawful evil, lawful neutral clerics would be fully accepted; they can follow the rules and adhere to the all-important hierarchy. Neutral evil clerics however, would be seen as heretics by the larger church, as they don't show proper respect and heck, might as well ally with demons and slips!
