| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I reject the idea of a 'divine pact'. Because the idea of the entire Chaotic side of the pantheon agreeing to a set of rules is kind of silly, especially when said rules predate their own divinity.
Instead, I think it's more like a Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. And I don't even mean 'if <Good Deity> mucks with the mortal world, <Evil Deity> will too, and it just escalates.' No, I mean that we have good evidence that when Gods do things in person instead of by proxy (proxies being allied outsiders or clerics), they die. Not because the exertion kills them or something, but because it exposes them to risk. When your lifespan is on the order of millions or billions of years, even a minuscule chance of death is unacceptable.
Worse, when a God does die, the thing they represent is changed as a consequence - when Churchanus was slain by Lamashtu, it changed the relationship between mankind and beasts, forever. No mortal knows what elements of Goodness and Beauty were lost when Dou-Bral became Zon-Kuthon. And by definition, the thing that would be changed or damaged by the death of a God is the very thing that God cares the most about.
To a certain degree, a full God of a thing is that thing.
And, to a very large degree, Gods don't need to intercede directly. They have clerics, minions, and servants for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reject the idea of a 'divine pact'. Because the idea of the entire Chaotic side of the pantheon agreeing to a set of rules is kind of silly, especially when said rules predate their own divinity.
Instead, I think it's more like a Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. And I don't even mean 'if <Good Deity> mucks with the mortal world, <Evil Deity> will too, and it just escalates.' No, I mean that we have good evidence that when Gods do things in person instead of by proxy (proxies being allied outsiders or clerics), they die. Not because the exertion kills them or something, but because it exposes them to risk. When your lifespan is on the order of millions or billions of years, even a minuscule chance of death is unacceptable.
Worse, when a God does die, the thing they represent is changed as a consequence - when Churchanus was slain by Lamashtu, it changed the relationship between mankind and beasts, forever. No mortal knows what elements of Goodness and Beauty were lost when Dou-Bral became Zon-Kuthon. And by definition, the thing that would be changed or damaged by the death of a God is the very thing that God cares the most about.
To a certain degree, a full God of a thing is that thing.
And, to a very large degree, Gods don't need to intercede directly. They have clerics, minions, and servants for that.
Can we address the fact that it seems like the only time pantheons actually change is when the good gods die?
Murder wasn't affected one whit when Bhaal bought it, but if Mystara dies then all magic goes crazy until the situation normalizes again.
I'm not so sure that's true. Gods dying is a pretty infrequent event - it would be impossible for a Golarion resident to tell you if Goblins were affecting by the Barghest demigods switching from imprisoned in Hell to Lamashtu's pets, or Minotaurs by Baphomet's imprisonment and escape from Asmodeus. We don't know the names of the Gods that died fighting Rovagug - the things they represent are either gone or adopted (in altered form) by other gods.
Aroden wasn't Good - he was Lawful Neutral. He was an avatar of Mankind's manifest destiny (which is pretty cool if you're human...less so if you're an elf that lives in a forest that human loggers are turning an eye toward.) Iomedae is the Inheritor - she took over Aroden's role as 'God of Mankind'*. But it means something different for a Lawful Good warrior god to be your racial patron instead of a Lawful Neutral wizardly god of progress.
* God of Avistani, roughly Azlanti-descended mankind, anyway.
Forgotten Realms - there was a brief stretch where there was no God of Death. Cyric had just been ousted, and Kelemvor had not yet been enthroned.
For that brief stretch, no one on Toril could die.
They could still be horrifically injured, but they couldn't die.
Functionally, there was a few hours where Nightripper's Curse of Living Death ability got applied to the entire planet.
That was pretty bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have trouble believing that Norborger (or any god) sits around wistfully looking back on the good ol' days when they were a mythic mortal and could interfere more directly.
No, because Norgorbor now rules the entirety of Axis's undercity. He's made out quite well.
The affairs of mortals on the prime material are regrettably minor concerns compared to a deity's extraplanar holdings.
If anything, it's remarkable that a deity's able to direct their attention to the prime material at all - Pathfinder deities aren't actually omnipotent and omniscient; just merely strong enough that you have to look to find the boundaries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back on the days where they could interfere more directly is like an adult looking back on that time they won at tag as a five year old. Sure, it's a fond memory, but the big takeaway is 'I can't believe there was a time when I thought that s@** mattered'.
Edit: To be clear, it does matter - but only to children. But mortals' problems are mortals', the same way children's problems are children's. A parent can't, and shouldn't, solve every problem for their children. They provide guidance and hope that the child learns the right lessons. The same goes for Gods and mortals. A God who wants to take away all of a mortal's struggles because they don't matter is like a parent who doesn't let their children have an actual childhood. They're missing the point. And possibly Asmodeus.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember... the PRIMARY reason we have our deities so hesitant to interact with the world is because they supersede PC choices and actions. They don't follow rules. In fact, you could even look at EVERYTHING THE GM DOES as being the gods manipulating and adjusting the world around your PCs in ways that are too complex for you to understand. The GM just rolled a lot of crits and TPKed the party out of random chance? That was Norgorber giving your enemies a boost in order to take you down. The party bard managed to somehow use Diplomacy to recruit a family of red dragons as minions? That was Shelyn intervening to bolster the bard's voice. And so on.
AKA: The adventure writers, campaign creators, and the GMs out there are basically doing the active involvement of the gods in-world. Along with portraying NPC actions.
Direct in-play interactions tend to either neuter the gods (as mentioned above) by making them not able to impact PC actions , or they make the game no fun to play by removing player choice from the game.
If Golarion were a shared world just for novels, this would be VERY different. In this case, the gods COULD directly interact with the world in interesting ways, because we don't have to worry about players being frustrated.
That's not the case.
^Shhh . . . don't tell the deities of Golarion that they're just puppets. Think of what that would do to their self-esteem . . . .
In terms of the deities' own reasons for not interfering as they see it, I would tend to go along with the Mutual Assured Destruction threat, similar to major nations of Earth limiting their military adventures to invasions of nations that DON'T have weapons of mass destruction, but even then not daring to move openly into the backyards of other nations having weapons of mass destruction (clandestine operations are another story). Of course, every once in a LONG while, the deterrent isn't enough -- hence Rovagug's rampage. (I wonder if this had to do with Rovagug seeing that he was losing his home anyway due to the Demonic invasion of the Abyss, so might as well go out with a bang.)
* * * * * * * *
Edit: Oh, and with respect to Aroden, I have a theory that what really happened is analogous to what happened to Metro Man in Megamind.
^Shhh . . . don't tell the deities of Golarion that they're just puppets. Think of what that would do to their self-esteem . . . .
In terms of the deities' own reasons for not interfering as they see it, I would tend to go along with the Mutual Assured Destruction threat, similar to major nations of Earth limiting their military adventures to invasions of nations that DON'T have weapons of mass destruction, but even then not daring to move openly into the backyards of other nations having weapons of mass destruction (clandestine operations are another story). Of course, every once in a LONG while, the deterrent isn't enough -- hence Rovagug's rampage. (I wonder if this had to do with Rovagug seeing that he was losing his home anyway due to the Demonic invasion of the Abyss, so might as well go out with a bang.)
* * * * * * * *
Edit: Oh, and with respect to Aroden, I have a theory that what really happened is analogous to what happened to Metro Man in Megamind.
Well JJ has said pretty much to anyone who will listen that Aroden is actually 100% totally dead, no take-backsies.
He isn't only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead!
Okay, I'm sure I must have missed something in that enormous thread. But if Aroden wasn't dead, he'd have to have good cover, right?
He isn't only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead!
He's hiding from Iomedae, who got a bit too clingy towards her senpai.
Man's gotta have some space, even if that man's a god.
Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.
|
Contributor
|
What are the implications of the encounter in wrath of the righteous book 5 with Iomedae?
** spoiler omitted **
There are implications that Iomedae may have overstepped her bounds in her interactions with mortals, and she may very well pay the price for it somewhere down the line.
In answer to all of your other questions.
Dieties may do whatever the hell the writer wants them to be able to do for the purposes of plot. Plot of course, may demand that a price be paid for it though.
I'm thinking about doing something with this in my own WotR campaign. ^_^
Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.
I'm not sure I follow.
|
Contributor
|
Don't forget Ms. Pleiades element of existential horror.I'm thinking about doing something with this in my own WotR campaign. ^_^What are the implications of the encounter in wrath of the righteous book 5 with Iomedae?
** spoiler omitted **
There are implications that Iomedae may have overstepped her bounds in her interactions with mortals, and she may very well pay the price for it somewhere down the line.
In answer to all of your other questions.
Dieties may do whatever the hell the writer wants them to be able to do for the purposes of plot. Plot of course, may demand that a price be paid for it though.
I don't want to put the whole of it on a public board (just in case). But feel free to PM me if you want the whole plan. ^_^
Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.If you're referring to Ms. Pleiades, I'm assuming that what she means is the implications of just how badly the gods manage Golarion due to the fact that PC's are needed to fix things so often.
Oh, okay, thanks :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, okay, thanks :)Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.If you're referring to Ms. Pleiades, I'm assuming that what she means is the implications of just how badly the gods manage Golarion due to the fact that PC's are needed to fix things so often.
Existential horrors? Oh man. :D
Well there's also the fact that its implied that everybody's souls ultimately belong to Asmodeus because of wheeler-dealer stuff and they only avoid a terrible fate in hell from their gods stashing them like non-taxable bills in a mattress.
Or the fact that the daemons are out there 'consuming' souls, and continue to be born and developed.
Desna may or may not be a giant Derleth style elder-god space butterfly gathering up souls for insidious purposes.
The entire test of the starstone may be an elaborate long-ruse developed by the elder masters of the aboleth, with folks like Cayden Cailen just gears in a giant machine designed to further their control over the innocent.
Apparently demigods can be forcibly raised as the undead.
Pharasma is apparently so crappy at her job that fiends, daemons and the like seem to quasi-routinely make lunch out of people who die.
When you die, all memory and true personality is ripped away from you and the various powers begin attempting to refine you into some variety of outsider, in some cases smushing your essence together with others.
Iron Gods teaches us that the gods can be bootstrapped into existence with custom portfolios.
Rovagug is apparently more powerful then the other gods, and only was barely confined.
Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.
That's just a few.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not existential horror, that's a generalship among the tin foil brigade.
Yes... certain things can happen, that doesn't mean that they do, much less are routine occurrences. Iron Gods for instance should also teach you how much trouble and time (in terms of millennia) it takes to set up for that one shot for all the marbles.
So someone hijacks a soul from Pharasma every once in a while, considering how many dead she has to process, that's a pretty good chance of things going as they should be for almost every one.
The concept that grandma can live a virtuous life and end up being a snack for a random fiend that happens by is pretty indicative that the universe is pretty crappy. While everyone's standing around at the funeral, her immortal essence is dissolving in the belly of a chortling fiend. And ultimately, nothing can be done for it.
Its nature and nation-states all the way up. Faith isn't a virtue, its just a political affiliation, and good or bad living doesn't determine your ultimate fate, its ultimately up to chance.
And tied in with that, evil gnaws incessantly at things from every angle. Literally unstoppable as long as sin exists in the world, with no cosmic justice, mercy, or the like to give true solace. The gods of good themselves are incompetent super-kings ruling over kingdoms where they have to worry about a celestial realpolitik instead of actual defenders of light or justice.
When you call on Iomedae you don't get assured salvation or assistance. You only get it if she can muster up enough power to do something. And given that the golarian cosmology doesn't really have an ultimate good (and instead buys into that balance nonsense) this means that evil gets to keep doing what it does, with you and others just having to suffer for it.
There is no punishment for evil. The evil get exactly what they really wanted.
Although at the same time, what you do in your life is meaningless from a cosmic perspective.
Your personality, memories and existence are pointless footnotes for the entity you eventually will become. One devoid of any memory or indeed personal connection to you.
And when that entity is destroyed (and it will be given enough time) it ceases to be entirely, or becomes part of the nearby scenery.
Also, the source of life is not some beneficent creator, its the impartial uncaring positive energy plane, that craps out life force like a spewing nuclear sewage line.
|
Yeah...anything involving 'existential horror' as a core part of the setting is sorta ignoring how Gods work in Pathfinder.
They're fallible and by no means omnipotent. This means that the fact that bad things happen doesn't mean that all the Gods are malevolent, it means the Good ones were outnumbered or outgunned or busy stopping something worse.
And the fact that Gods can mess with you if they feel like it is really no more terrifying for 99.99% of people than the fact that 20th level Wizards can do the same. It's scarier once you hit a level where you have some prayer against a 20th level Wizard, but only then.
Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.
That's the only thing I really have a problem with in your post. Gods are not the embodiment of concepts or control concepts. If every single god of the sun died, the sun would still be around, as well as any other concept. They are just powerful beings with powers (and limited control) of the sun.
Which may actually be worse, depending on your point of view.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I would need to read the exact encounter in order to really wiegh in, and seeing as I want to play WotR as a player I may have to wait a while to do that.
That said, as a GM I would probably change the encouter so that it wasn't Iomedae and instead by one of her high level captains. This is because I view gods and their nature in a certain way that goes against such an encounter.
The short of it is that there would be very strict conditions that would need to be met in order for a god to reveal themselves to a mortal. Doing so would have implications that can not only end up damning and harming the mortals, but put the god in a undesireable position as well. The mortal would have to have such strong faith in the god that it transcends into a perfect knowledge.
There is more to it than that, but I don't have time.
|
|
Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.That's the only thing I really have a problem with in your post. Gods are not the embodiment of concepts or control concepts. If every single god of the sun died, the sun would still be around, as well as any other concept. They are just powerful beings with powers (and limited control) of the sun.
Which may actually be worse, depending on your point of view.
This came up on another thread.
Basically in Golarian when some dude called Churchanus got killed by Lamashtu it 'forever changed the relationship between man and beasts.'
Although as I pointed out in that thread, the only time that major catastrophic changes seem to occur to concepts or the like are when its a bad change.
And yeah, the alternative is that they're just a guy who looks after the sun, meaning that the eternal entity to whom you rely upon and put your faith in, is just some dude who sits in an office marked 'God of the Sun, West Branch.'
|
Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.That's the only thing I really have a problem with in your post. Gods are not the embodiment of concepts or control concepts. If every single god of the sun died, the sun would still be around, as well as any other concept. They are just powerful beings with powers (and limited control) of the sun.
Which may actually be worse, depending on your point of view.
This came up on another thread.
Basically in Golarian when some dude called Churchanus got killed by Lamashtu it 'forever changed the relationship between man and beasts.'
Although as I pointed out in that thread, the only time that major catastrophic changes seem to occur to concepts or the like are when its a bad change.
And yeah, the alternative is that they're just a guy who looks after the sun, meaning that the eternal entity to whom you rely upon and put your faith in, is just some dude who sits in an office marked 'God of the Sun, West Branch.'
The death of Curchanus was also a VERY long time ago. For all we know, the fabric of reality was much more malleable at that time, so Curchanus' death had a greater impact on the world than Aroden's death did. And actually, that's probably the case to point to - if the death of gods irrevocably changes the concept of humanity, how come humanity is both still around and recognizable as such after Aroden died?
The death of Curchanus was also a VERY long time ago. For all we know, the fabric of reality was much more malleable at that time, so Curchanus' death had a greater impact on the world than Aroden's death did. And actually, that's probably the case to point to - if the death of gods irrevocably changes the concept of humanity, how come humanity is both still around and recognizable as such after Aroden died?Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.That's the only thing I really have a problem with in your post. Gods are not the embodiment of concepts or control concepts. If every single god of the sun died, the sun would still be around, as well as any other concept. They are just powerful beings with powers (and limited control) of the sun.
Which may actually be worse, depending on your point of view.
This came up on another thread.
Basically in Golarian when some dude called Churchanus got killed by Lamashtu it 'forever changed the relationship between man and beasts.'
Although as I pointed out in that thread, the only time that major catastrophic changes seem to occur to concepts or the like are when its a bad change.
And yeah, the alternative is that they're just a guy who looks after the sun, meaning that the eternal entity to whom you rely upon and put your faith in, is just some dude who sits in an office marked 'God of the Sun, West Branch.'
There might also be a big difference between the "elder gods" versus those gods which arose from humanity and other mortal races. The "elder gods" such as Pharasma, Asmodeus, etc might actually be bound into the underlying fabric of reality, such that their demise or drastic personality change does change the very meaning of how some concepts work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's true that the beast thing may be a myth. But I'd also note that Aroden's death didn't happen all that long ago, cosmologically speaking. And I don't think that there's a new god of humanity yet, either. So you could go with the assumption that it's just a myth. Or you could presume that humanity has and is changing as a result of Aroden's death, but that change is not yet particularly notable...though we know that modern day humans are individually less powerful than the...The death of Curchanus was also a VERY long time ago. For all we know, the fabric of reality was much more malleable at that time, so Curchanus' death had a greater impact on the world than Aroden's death did. And actually, that's probably the case to point to - if the death of gods irrevocably changes the concept of humanity, how come humanity is both still around and recognizable as such after Aroden died?Apparently some concepts have literally ceased to exist with the death of their deities.That's the only thing I really have a problem with in your post. Gods are not the embodiment of concepts or control concepts. If every single god of the sun died, the sun would still be around, as well as any other concept. They are just powerful beings with powers (and limited control) of the sun.
Which may actually be worse, depending on your point of view.
This came up on another thread.
Basically in Golarian when some dude called Churchanus got killed by Lamashtu it 'forever changed the relationship between man and beasts.'
Although as I pointed out in that thread, the only time that major catastrophic changes seem to occur to concepts or the like are when its a bad change.
And yeah, the alternative is that they're just a guy who looks after the sun, meaning that the eternal entity to whom you rely upon and put your faith in, is just some dude who sits in an office marked 'God of the Sun, West Branch.'
What if humanity did change but in a more subtle way with Arodens death? When Aroden the lawful god of humanity who promoted human expansion and civilization died at least two human empires that we know of (Cheliax and Lung Wa in Tien Xia) and had little to nothing to do with each other collapsed with his death. So what if the ability to create human empires was the fallout of his death?
If the Gods were omnipotent how does "bad things" happening make them malevolent? You do know that "All Powerful" does not mean absolute control right?Yeah...anything involving 'existential horror' as a core part of the setting is sorta ignoring how Gods work in Pathfinder.
They're fallible and by no means omnipotent. This means that the fact that bad things happen doesn't mean that all the Gods are malevolent, it means the Good ones were outnumbered or outgunned or busy stopping something worse.
And the fact that Gods can mess with you if they feel like it is really no more terrifying for 99.99% of people than the fact that 20th level Wizards can do the same. It's scarier once you hit a level where you have some prayer against a 20th level Wizard, but only then.
Please articulate a definition of "all powerful" i.e. Omnipotent that does not involve the capability to control everything at every single moment of time?
There are a large number of Gods, with conflicting goals and methods. It's logically inconsistent to describe more than one of them as being omnipotent.
We've all heard of the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force, which are mutually exclusive concepts. What does it look like when two unstoppable forces get in a slap-fight?
Planets lose.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
All-powerful suggests that they have the ability to do everything. Create universes, planets, stars, creatures, planes, and destroy the same.
Omnipotent is all-knowing. They are able to perceive and understand all things in time and space.
I am of the opinion that Golarion gods, with maybe the exception of a couple, are neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.
Edit -
A God can be all-knowing and all-powerful, they can be only all-powerful, or they could be neither. It can be debated that they if they are all-knowing they are always all-powerful, but I personally believe that an entity that knows all things will have the knowledge needed to do all things and thus be all-powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Omnipotent is not all-knowing. It's all-powerful.
Omniscient is all knowing.
Omnipotence implies omniscience, because 'know' is a verb. (However, it does not guarantee omniscience, as just being able to do something doesn't mean you bother.)
Omniscience does not imply omnipotence: it's easy to imagine knowing something and being unable to act on it.
Omnipotent and All-powerful mean the same thing. I can't see a way to describe a being as omnipotent that doesn't logically imply that the being can cause any possible event to occur at any time. It may CHOOSE not to do something, but that's not the same thing as not being able to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder deities are crushingly powerful, but not omnipotent.
Hell, you can just look at the cleric class to find a hard limitation for any deity - they can't utilize powers opposed to their own alignment.
The dieties are very much extraplanar (or prime material) sovereigns - though sovereigns over vast, vast kingdoms that can be measured in astronomical units.
There is no punishment for evil. The evil get exactly what they really wanted.
Well, actually...
Hell - if you're lucky, after about 2000 years of torture you'll become a lemure and then be randomly selected for transformation into a higher devil. If you're unlucky, you'll spend eons as screaming, suffering building materials.
Abaddon - If you're lucky, you'll successfully consume enough of your fellow petitioners to transform into a daemon. You're far more likely to be consumed by a daemon or another, luckier, petitioner, though.
Abyss - After being immediately demoted to a maggot-person with no memories of your prior existence (Nightripper got Lamashtu's attention by actually keeping his memories), you'll spend an unknown of time being little more than glorified livestock. If you survive long enough to not be consumed by a demon, then the Abyss itself will consume you to birth demons from your sins.
There is quite a lot of punishment for evil. Any evil petitioner that actually makes it to exemplar status pretty much won the lottery.
The concept that grandma can live a virtuous life and end up being a snack for a random fiend that happens by is pretty indicative that the universe is pretty crappy. While everyone's standing around at the funeral, her immortal essence is dissolving in the belly of a chortling fiend. And ultimately, nothing can be done for it.
I suspect the odds of one's soul getting snarfed are closer to the odds of dying in a lightning strike than they are to the odds of getting rained on.
It merely being possible does not by any means make it common.
Now, if the issue is that it can happen at all - well, welcome to a cosmos that's at war and needs heroes.
|
|
If the Gods were omnipotent how does "bad things" happening make them malevolent? You do know that "All Powerful" does not mean absolute control right?
It does in English. Specifically, the first definition of omnipotent I found says this:
"Having unlimited power, force or authority."
If it's unlimited it can definitionally control everything. Now, if you wanna get into free will, sure, that explains some stuff, but it's a choice on the omnipotent being's part, not a limitation on their power.
On the subject of the punishment for Evil:
In way better than 99% of cases, going to the Lower Planes is metaphorical as well as literal Hell. In way better than 99% of cases, going to the Upper Planes is pretty nice. So...the vast majority of the time, being Evil is punished and being Good rewarded.
The system isn't perfect, and there's certainly injustice (such as a serial killer going on to become a Demon Lord), but it's pretty rare, and the system is pretty good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay? But you did not explain how "omnipotent"="malevolent"
If a child is being tortured to death by supernatural beings and you can stop it by waving your hand, and you don't, I think that makes you malevolent.
For mortal-on-mortal violence there's the 'free will' excuse for not doing so (which I even buy), but for natural disasters or something like daemons eating souls? If you can stop that at no risk to yourself and don't...well, that fits my definition of malevolent. Or at least so uncaring that it makes no difference.
using that same type of logic you can say Good things happen means "omnipotent"="benevolent".
No. Because an actually benevolent omnipotent force could do both that and keep the bad things from happening. Benevolence requires somewhat higher standards than malevolence, as a general rule.
I mean, you don't call someone who burns down orphanages and gives to charity benevolent because of the charity, you call them malevolent because of the burning down orphanages.