Removing choice from people is a point where "lawful*" itself has become evil.I disagree with this sentiment strongly. Everything in society, in our very lives is based on varying degrees of choice that we lose. It's in the nature of being alive that our choices are taken away. Is a parent evil for telling his child he can only have one cookie? He must be, he's taken away his child's choice of having more than one cookie. Is a government evil for telling you you can't murder someone? It must be, according to your definition.
In fact, based on your definition, the only purely GOOD institution is anarchy, which is not only absurd, but also an indication that the practice of removing an individual's choice is more closely related to the conflict between Law and Chaos than the one between Good and Evil.
While I'm willing to admit that Arkalion might have an extreme case of hubris, and might be evil for it, his actions in and of themselves are not evil. In order for his limitation of choice to be evil, he must be using his power to the detriment of others. This leaves us with the question: are Arkalion's actions bringing people undue suffering, or are they--as Anzyr claims--ultimately bringing about the greater good?
He's not real big on hubris and he's only acting because he has actual factual knowledge of what the afterlife is like and from what he can see he's the only one willing to. He'd probably be hedging closer to Good if he were more "passionate" for lack of a better word about saving peoples souls. He's very pragmatic about it, which is why I place his actions more as Neutral.
And I mean, he is reincarnating everyone free of charge. Which would be super Good of him, if it wasn't again out pragmatism, which in my opinion makes it Neutral. But he's most definitely not Evil about it, since even when he does have to soul bind someone it's to protect them from the afterlife not out of ill will.
Alicorn, sorry for missing your note about the definition of lawful. For me, law itself is the loss of freedom. But to be perfectly honest, law doesn't remove choice, it just removes your ability to make some choices without punitive consequences. Under our law, you still have the choice to steal from people, there will just be more consequences than there would have been without the presence of the law. In a way, Arkalion's actions aren't even this extreme, because he's not presuming to punish anyone for "disobeying" him.
I agree with this outlook on what Lawful is. The laws of our society in the real world are not to remove choice. They are to punish your choices. Sometime by reducing your number of meaningful choices by say restraining your liberty in a prison. You haven't had any choices removed, but you've had many choices prevented.
Being soul trapped is the supreme removal of choices.
Against a government, at least the choice remains to risk consequences to do something, and in prison there is still a level of activity and choices.
Further, what about those who want the afterlife?
Besides, extremes in any direction is bad, and knowingly doing something bad is evil. It is all about balance really.
I think another issue here is that many tend to think of what happens after our death as inviolate, the one thing even our greatest enemies can never touch. Ark is in a world where not can he affect souls and what happens after death, but he has gone and attacked the very concept with all his might, which basically means that nothing is inviolate, there is no fashion in which one has any inviolate aspects. It is removing something from people, the one thing that they take for granted.
In the real world, it does not matter the truth of whether there is an afterlife, as the thought and belief in one is the greatest comfort one who faces death, or watches a loved one die, can have.
Further, there is a reason J.R.R. Tolkien said that Illuvitar giving men death was a gift. A gift Ark is intent on taking away.
Again, removing choices doesn't necessitate evil. And what about those who want the afterlife? Under the circumstances, and given that the afterlife is often a very uncomfortable existence for the souls in question, isn't it right for Ark to try to prevent that? You may say it's unacceptable to take away a person's choice, even when their choice brings them detriment, but what if someone close to you wanted to hurt themselves? People who stop this behavior aren't looked down on, and they're certainly not considered evil.
Ultimately, when it comes to morality, a lot depends on motivation. It's not morally permissible for someone to shove you to the ground because you're in their way. However, shoving you to prevent you from being hit by a bus IS morally permissible. And to further establish that motive is what matters, consider the situation if he had pushed you because you were in his way, but the end result was that you were saved from the bus. While they may be congratulated on the situation, they would still be looked down on for their intentions.
In the real world, morality can be hard to determine, and a lot of the times that's because we can never know what a person's true motivation is. With Arkalion however, we CAN know his true motivation. We CAN make an objective determination of his moral standing. In my opinion, it's clear that his intentions are good, and that he should therefore be of Neutral alignment, at least.
And honestly, I don't think the idea of death is inviolate in Golarion. At the very least, reincarnation doesn't infringe on it.
And honestly, I don't think the idea of death is inviolate in Golarion. At the very least, reincarnation doesn't infringe on it.
Part of my point was that real emotions were potentially affecting the view of some on Ark's behaviour, despite real emotions being based on facts that are not true in the fictional world, namely the inviolate nature of death.
Besides, I do not believe that it is always good to forcibly prevent someone from experiencing a bad thing. Commonly, certainly, but not always. Bad things give meaning and appreciation to good things.
If someone wanted to commit suicide, I would think them stupid and childish in most cases and would act on the expectation that they would regret that choice later, but I am also smart enough to know that isn't always the case, and thus simply preventing their suicide isn't always good (for those needing an example of why anyone might want to suicide and not regret it later, imagine someone about to be caught by reavers, about to be raped, brutalized, and kept alive while being butchered and eaten. Death would certainly be preferable.).
It is generally accepted that shoving someone to prevent them from being squashed would be met with thanks from the one who was saved, thus it is seen as good because people expect that afterwards, the individual would be thankful, would want that action once they knew what the alternative is.
Basically, it is seen as good because they expect the golden rule to be true, "treat others as you want to be treated."
The problem arises when one individual treats others in manner they want to be treated, yet that is not desired by others, basically, when the golden rule leads to anger.
Thus, it is good to help others when they will like your efforts, but not when they dislike your efforts. Generally it is still seen as good when you don't have time to discern whether they would like your efforts, so you act according to your expectation of what they would like. Ark is evil because he does what he wants with no consideration of desires of those he is affecting despite having ample opportunity to discover their desires.
Maybe Ark is misguided, but that's a long way from being truly evil. He's not acting out of self interest, and he's not acting without consideration of what others want. In fact, his actions stem directly from what he assumes others want. So yes, maybe he's not exactly right. The point is that he's not EVIL. If you prevent someone from committing suicide, you may be causing them more harm in the long run, and they may hate you for it, but you're not EVIL. Unless of course you're doing it with the express purpose of putting them through that suffering. Again, motivation is the key. Because we know that Ark is not doing this to gain power for himself or to relish in the pain of others, his actions, aren't evil. However, because he is mistakenly assuming that he knows what is best for everyone else, he's not exactly good either. Soooo...he's in the middle. Neutral.
His motivations aren't evil, but he is doing evil, and dedicated to doing evil even if he doesn't think of it that way. The effect of that on alignment is debatable, but I'd certainly put it under evil.
If you have a bunch of people telling you that you are wrong and you still do it to them anyway, you are stupid, broken (as in crazy, or similar mental issue), or selfish (caring more for your own desires than for others.)
I've seen people look at others in a crisis, not as people but as victims, and treated those people more like objects to be cared for than actual people. Not once would call it good or even neutral. It just brings more suffering and makes a difficult situation even more difficult. I've even seen this forcibly done to people who just wanted to go home, but the bystanders literally forced them to stay against their will. The meddlesome bystanders were more traumatizing than the incident that started it all.
I've seen it in person, in real life. It is evil, a complete and utter perversion of kindness.
For me, evil isn't determined by action alone. I can understand where you're coming from, I simply disagree. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder system for alignment is notoriously (although perhaps necessarily) simplified. For the confines of the game, action alone might be enough to determine alignment but I think that is ultimately a call that would need to be made by the GM. Another reason why I feel ultimately that this character would be more appropriately stationed in an NPC role, where the players could debate his intentions and characteristics as a part of the game rather than a predecessor to it.
What he believes is their own good may or may not be what the people believe. He is removing their choice in the matter: they may actually want to go to Heaven, or Hell, or whatever they believe takes place when they die. Though Arkalion doesn't like this happening, this doesn't invalidate their choices.
I think this is the best argument against the "neutral" interpretation.
What alignment is it to prevent someone from making such a significant (after)life choice? The definition of good is framed in terms of respect for life, although it also refers to the dignity of sentient beings. Evil refers to hurting, oppressing and killing others. Neutral people in this context have compunctions about killing the innocent, even if they lack the empathy to actively intervene.
In this specific case, what matters is the wizard's treatment of a soul after death - most relevantly the souls of devout, innocent people who have lived in a particular way with a view to obtaining a particular result in the afterlife. I think I'd rule that depriving a soul of its choice is denying a sentient being respect and also a form of oppression. If pressed, I might point out that ones destination in the afterlife is decided by ones actions whilst alive and thus form part of the living creature's legacy. To be neutral, one mustn't be so cavalier about innocent's rights - even if you think they're making an error.
Real world analogies are irrelevant, in my opinion, because good-evil and law-chaos are defined in the game world as objective things. Unfortunately, they use the same names as real world concepts, but they are not analogs. At best, they are very poor models of "real world morality".
I think another point to bear in mind is that the rules explicitly declare that there's no mechanic for resolving this issue. Alignment is "solely a label the GM controls". Hence, by RAW, the answer to "what alignment is this PC?" will depend on the GM's interpretation. There is no objective answer to be found explicitly - interpretation is part of the RAW.
What he believes is their own good may or may not be what the people believe. He is removing their choice in the matter: they may actually want to go to Heaven, or Hell, or whatever they believe takes place when they die. Though Arkalion doesn't like this happening, this doesn't invalidate their choices.I think this is the best argument against the "neutral" interpretation.
What alignment is it to prevent someone from making such a significant (after)life choice? The definition of good is framed in terms of respect for life, although it also refers to the dignity of sentient beings. Evil refers to hurting, oppressing and killing others. Neutral people in this context have compunctions about killing the innocent, even if they lack the empathy to actively intervene.
In this specific case, what matters is the wizard's treatment of a soul after death - most relevantly the souls of devout, innocent people who have lived in a particular way with a view to obtaining a particular result in the afterlife. I think I'd rule that depriving a soul of its choice is denying a sentient being respect and also a form of oppression. If pressed, I might point out that ones destination in the afterlife is decided by ones actions whilst alive and thus form part of the living creature's legacy. To be neutral, one mustn't be so cavalier about innocent's rights - even if you think they're making an error.
Real world analogies are irrelevant, in my opinion, because good-evil and law-chaos are defined in the game world as objective things. Unfortunately, they use the same names as real world concepts, but they are not analogs. At best, they are very poor models of "real world morality".
And as I keep saying and the "Evil" side has no answer for is Pharasma already is deciding people's destination in the Afterlife and is Neutral.
And as I keep saying and the "Evil" side has no answer for is Pharasma already is deciding people's destination in the Afterlife and is Neutral.What alignment is it to prevent someone from making such a significant (after)life choice? The definition of good is framed in terms of respect for life, although it also refers to the dignity of sentient beings. Evil refers to hurting, oppressing and killing others. Neutral people in this context have compunctions about killing the innocent, even if they lack the empathy to actively intervene.
In this specific case, what matters is the wizard's treatment of a soul after death - most relevantly the souls of devout, innocent people who have lived in a particular way with a view to obtaining a particular result in the afterlife. I think I'd rule that depriving a soul of its choice is denying a sentient being respect and also a form of oppression. If pressed, I might point out that ones destination in the afterlife is decided by ones actions whilst alive and thus form part of the living creature's legacy. To be neutral, one mustn't be so cavalier about innocent's rights - even if you think they're making an error.
Real world analogies are irrelevant, in my opinion, because good-evil and law-chaos are defined in the game world as objective things. Unfortunately, they use the same names as real world concepts, but they are not analogs. At best, they are very poor models of "real world morality".
I think there's a couple of answers to that which spring to mind:
Firstly, they made their choice knowing that Pharasma was going to determine their fate (and with the option of opting out).
Another response would be that the rules don't apply to the gods - that their designated alignments are, at best, approximations.
Alignments are always, at best, approximations. Unfortunately, the rules of the game don't reflect this well. That's why after a while it becomes pointless to talk about morality and alignment. The sad truth is that alignment is as much a game mechanic as movement speeds. The simple fact that lots of class features and effects rely on alignment means that even though sometimes an approximation is the best answer, alignments are cut and dry.
There is an answer, but (as per p168 of the CRB) that cut and dried answer is a matter of GM discretion.
My reference to an approximation there was as a potential distinction between gods and PCs. I thought the argument might fit with Anzyr's philosophy (since he earlier referred to gods as statless entities outside the mechanics of the game).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further indication of Arkalion's complete psychopathy:
Reincarnate has a 10 minute cast time, unless you've got a way to bypass the cast time (like a simulacrum that can cast wish or limited wish).
Soul bind has to be cast within 1 round per level of time of death, or it outright fails. And shinigamis can't teleport. So the shinigami needs to be present at death to have any chance to soul bind a victim.
Which means that every single person on one of Arkalion's conquered worlds is being followed by a shinigami and whatever monster is wishing for the reincarnate. And possible even a third monster to handle the greater restoration to clear away the 2 negative levels or 2 point con drain.
Seriously, every single person has one of these, along with one or two other critters that are probably every bit as intimidating, following them around at all times, waiting to eternally imprison their souls if they should dare to tell Arkalion "no."
Arkalion's running a police state where there's two or more gestapo for every citizen =P
Arkalion isn't necessarily evil because of his goal (though honestly, "I must stop people from going to Heaven at all costs!" IS an evil goal, though I'm sure Anzyr will claim it's not purely for the sake of argument =P).
Arkalion is evil because of his horrific methodology.
(Bonus: Shinigami destroy their captured souls as part of their standard combat tactics. So Arkalion believes that eternal solitary confinement or outright annihilation is better than going to Heaven.
Arkalion's delusion that he's not evil is staggering.)
Yes, I'm aware that I'm feeding the troll, but the conversation's actually kind of entertaining.
Arkalion isn't necessarily evil because of his goal (though honestly, "I must stop people from going to Heaven at all costs!" IS an evil goal, though I'm sure Anzyr will claim it's not purely for the sake of argument =P).
It's also "must stop people from going to Hell at all costs!", which as I recall is the premise of a group that is certainly not considered evil by a great many.
Arkalion isn't necessarily evil because of his goal (though honestly, "I must stop people from going to Heaven at all costs!" IS an evil goal, though I'm sure Anzyr will claim it's not purely for the sake of argument =P).It's also "must stop people from going to Hell at all costs!", which as I recall is the premise of a group that is certainly not considered evil by a great many.
Really? Trying to save people from hell "at all costs"? What group would that be?
-stuff that was already covered-
I'll get back to why this Confirmation Bias: The Post later.
Really? Trying to save people from hell "at all costs"? What group would that be?
I hear some guy named Jesus tried that. I guess you'd call him Evil to.
If only more religious people could actually follow the example set by the prophet or god/man/thing they worship.
I.E. Muhammad had great respect for women, but Islam, not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Trying to save people from hell "at all costs"? What group would that be?I hear some guy named Jesus tried that. I guess you'd call him Evil to.
Not the way I heard it. He died to remove all barriers to people receiving salvation. All that need still be done is:
Acknowledge that one is a sinner.
Acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is the one way to be saved.
Accept His gift.
And for His gift to be accepted, the person must have the possibility of rejecting it. The person is allowed to say "No". It's not good for the person, and it's deeply saddening to God, but a person's choice is the one thing he owns.
Switching gears to an alternative example. Specifically, what do the Borg do? Well, they operate based on their conclusions that organic life is imperfect, being imperfect must be avoided at all costs, and individuality is one of the biggest impediments to achieving perfection. And you're just supposed to take their word for it.
They (at least, the one consciousness that is allowed to exist within their Collective mind) are honestly under the impression that they're doing all sentient life a favor. If only the Federation wouldn't continue resisting the way they do. The Borg are just figuratively trying to give the galaxy a big hug. And if they are resisted, the Borg shove their so-called perfection down your throat.
It's for your own good. Resistance is futile.
Right, cause a decent god would totally not allow a good man into heaven because he was skeptical of 2000 year old stories perpetrated by an organization that uses the greatest weapon known to mankind (religion, for those who didn't know) and used that weapon to murder millions of innocents.
[/sarcasm]
Not my idea of a decent god.
Besides, please note that Jesus sacrificed himself, but he didn't force a choice upon us, he merely showed us the way to a particular option. Also, back then the worst thing that you could do to someone was desecrate their body when they died, so criminals were thrown into the trash heaps and burned. Something tells me that was what was meant by burning in hell.
This isn't a question of real world morality, this is a RAW question. The only thing that's relevant to resolving the question of this PC's alignment is the alignment section of the rules.
Question: you keep insisting that gods are powerless because they have no stats, so why are you trying to keep the gods from getting power?
Question: you keep insisting that gods are powerless because they have no stats, so why are you trying to keep the gods from getting power?
Don't stop there.
If they don't have stats? Yes. Because if they don't have Stats, Arkalion uses his "All Dimensions, All Deity, Instant Death, 100% Accuracy, 100% Success" spell. What that? That spell isn't in his stats? Exactly.
That spell is not statted out, therefore it does not exist.
The gods' stats are not given, therefore they do not exist.
If they don't exist, then they cannot possibly be perpetuating this so-called awful afterlife that Arkalion is trying to spare people from.
So what basis does he have to complain?
If he does have a basis to complain, then the gods can do things despite not being statted out.
If they can do things whilst not being statted out, then one of the things they can do is shut Arkalion down before he ever starts.
Algebraically, this is the equivalent of saying:
"X is not allowed to equal 0. If X = 0, then Y."
...
For that matter, let's see the stats for the awful afterlife (and if they don't exist, the awful afterlife doesn't exist).
You know, it probably says a lot about your alignment when you're giving people less of a choice for what happens to them when death comes around than Asmodeus. 'Cause, you know. At least he has you slowly earning your way into his friendly little corner of reality, with the potential to improve your situation eventually by getting other people to go to Hell. Actually, with as many Simcularums that Arky has running around, he might have more of a police state vibe going on than Big A himself. Really impressive, I must say.
This isn't a question of real world morality, this is a RAW question. The only thing that's relevant to resolving the question of this PC's alignment is the alignment section of the rules.
Well, let's see what RAW says:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
A fair amount of the argument in this thread seems to be whether Anzyr's character is altruistic. , one may also notice that the RAW definition of good says that altruism is a necessary condition. It says nothing about sufficient conditions. Hence, by a very strict parsing of RAW, there are no sufficient conditions for Good, and hence it is impossible for any creature to be Good-aligned.
On the other hand, let's look at the RAW definition of Evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
So, I think that a lot of what Arkalion does counts as oppression. But, again, using a strict parsing of RAW, that is only a necessary condition for being Evil, not sufficient. Hence, no character can be Evil-aligned by RAW.
And, of course, the same wording is used in the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, so by RAW, everyone must be neutral on the law-chaos axis as well.
So what did we learn?
Which, frankly, would settle most of the forum arguments about alignment. And it would eliminate monk threads (lawful alignment restriction that nobody can meet).
But then we'd all go back to arguing about fighters all the time. So to keep alignment threads afloat in the forums, we have to deviate from RAW on alignment:D
You missed the bit on page 168 where alignment is declared by RAW to be a matter of GM fiat.
From page 167 - 168...
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom he hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.
You missed the bit on page 168 where alignment is declared by RAW to be a matter of GM fiat.
Nu uh! While page 168 says
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something’s in accordance with its indicated alignment,
It never explicitly uses the phrase "GM fiat". Your attempt to describe alignment as GM fiat is pure GM fiat!
You missed the bit on page 168 where alignment is declared by RAW to be a matter of GM fiat.Nu uh! While page 168 says
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something’s in accordance with its indicated alignment,It never explicitly uses the phrase "GM fiat". Your attempt to describe alignment as GM fiat is pure GM fiat!
It also says alignment is "solely a label the GM controls". What do you think GM fiat entails?
It also says alignment is "solely a label the GM controls". What do you think GM fiat entails?
Note the poster's name, Steve.
-stuff that was already covered-I'll get back to why this Confirmation Bias: The Post later.
Really? Trying to save people from hell "at all costs"? What group would that be?I hear some guy named Jesus tried that. I guess you'd call him Evil to.
It's necessary that we understand that Pathfinder Hell is completely different from real Hell.
inb4 the euphoric crowd calling out the phrase "real Hell."
Skimming the last few pages. Basically, it's very lawful neutral kind of thing to do. Whatever happens in Arkalion's side of the megaverse is Vegas - what happens there stays there.
There could be a lot of unseen complications due to those actions, planar sciences isn't exact and who knows if the changes would be better in the end?
There is also the question of what happens if there are no complications and Arkalion succeeds. What kind of gaming world would such actions produce?
Further indication of Arkalion's complete psychopathy:
Reincarnate has a 10 minute cast time, unless you've got a way to bypass the cast time (like a simulacrum that can cast wish or limited wish).
Already covered. The Solar Simulacrums can handle this with Wish. Or more likely Miracle.
Soul bind has to be cast within 1 round per level of time of death, or it outright fails. And shinigamis can't teleport. So the shinigami needs to be present at death to have any chance to soul bind a victim.
Or the Solars can take one with them using Miracle to Greater Teleport to the location. Remember Arkalion can have them prepare 4 Miracles in their 9th level spell slots.
Which means that every single person on one of Arkalion's conquered worlds is being followed by a shinigami and whatever monster is wishing for the reincarnate. And possible even a third monster to handle the greater restoration to clear away the 2 negative levels or 2 point con drain.
Seriously, every single person has one of these, along with one or two other critters that are probably every bit as intimidating, following them around at all times, waiting to eternally imprison their souls if they should dare to tell Arkalion "no."
No, they use Contact Other Plane to determine if someone is going to die and then only follow them then (invisibly and only close enough to respond). When that persons dies they first attempt reincarnate and then go to Soul Bind if that fails. Again to protect the persons soul. If someone is reincarnated they use Heal to remove the CON drain.
In the event Contact Other Plane does not work, Vanths's are deployed en masse to monitor groups of people using their at-will invisibility to avoid general detection and avoiding getting to close. When someone perishes they use greater teleport to inform a Solar/Shinigami pair. Only people who travel constantly would require one to follow them and since they only intervene when someone dies it's pretty much what a Psychopomp does anyway.
Arkalion's running a police state where there's two or more gestapo for every citizen =P
Arkalion isn't necessarily evil because of his goal (though honestly, "I must stop people from going to Heaven at all costs!" IS an evil goal, though I'm sure Anzyr will claim it's not purely for the sake of argument =P).
Arkalion is evil because of his horrific methodology.
Except it's not a police state. Arkalion only intervenes in a singular matter that people have no choice in anyway and serves in the exact same capacity in that role as Pharasma does, who is again Neutral. And there's nothing Evil about preventing people from going to Heaven in Golarion. Don't confuse their Heaven with Christian Heaven, they are very very different things.
(Bonus: Shinigami destroy their captured souls as part of their standard combat tactics. So Arkalion believes that eternal solitary confinement or outright annihilation is better than going to Heaven.
Arkalion's delusion that he's not evil is staggering.)
This was already covered as well. Arkalion tells the Shinigami not to use that ability. In fact destroy souls goes completely against his goals. Your argument is "Arkalion would do this Evil thing that is completely against his principles." And then when asked why he would do that respond with "Because he's Evil." You are arguing against a strawman that you have simply named Arkalion and are not even discussing the actual one at this point.
I thought it was spelled Cleveland.
No, that's just a Hellmouth. Common mistake.
I feel like the thing Anzyr is missing from the whole "Pharasma does this, why is that different" thing is that Paizo has (smartly, in my opinion) mostly kept the gods from being singular entities with wishes, goals, motivations, and impulses the way that mortals have them. The possible exception to this is the Ascended, and I personally have always assumed that part of their Ascension was them switching over to being beyond all that.
So all and none of the stories are true, because the gods aren't conceivable in simple, linear, reason-bound terms. (In fact, hasn't Paizo intentionally propagated conflicting myths before?) Pharasma isn't some super-powerful woman who sits in a chair in the Boneyard and judges people--that's just the way mortal (and, for that matter, outsider) minds conceive her, the story we tell. Pharasma on some level is death.
She doesn't judge you because that's her job, but because that is What She Does. Or maybe Is.
I feel like the thing Anzyr is missing from the whole "Pharasma does this, why is that different" thing is that Paizo has (smartly, in my opinion) mostly kept the gods from being singular entities with wishes, goals, motivations, and impulses the way that mortals have them. The possible exception to this is the Ascended, and I personally have always assumed that part of their Ascension was them switching over to being beyond all that.
So all and none of the stories are true, because the gods aren't conceivable in simple, linear, reason-bound terms. (In fact, hasn't Paizo intentionally propagated conflicting myths before?) Pharasma isn't some super-powerful woman who sits in a chair in the Boneyard and judges people--that's just the way mortal (and, for that matter, outsider) minds conceive her, the story we tell. Pharasma on some level is death.
She doesn't judge you because that's her job, but because that is What She Does. Or maybe Is.
Which makes Arkalion doing the same thing any less Neutral how?
Because Arkalion is doing it as a volitional act. He does it despite the fact that (for all he knows, remote as it may be) he could be wrong. He is not the universe in operation the way Pharasma is; he is a person screwing around with the universe.
I'm also not going to argue necessarily that Arkalion is strictly speaking Evil with a capital E. But he certainly would make a much better villain than a hero.
And he does sound (1) megalomaniacal, (2) despotic, (3) ambitious, (4) uncaring, and (5) heedless. Any one of which alone would just be neutral, but they do kinda start to stack up...
Arkalion only intervenes in a singular matter that people have no choice in anyway...
They do have a choice - they can opt-out via "atheism" or act in various ways in the justified belief their soul will be sent to the appropriate afterlife. Arkalion tries to give them no choice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arkalion is a BBEG. One who requires a GM who's gonna give a lot of leeway for a couple of things:
1) How he accomplishes these things. As several posters have pointed out, there are some gaping plotholes on this particular road from theorycraft to actual playability.
2) How he does this without any of the gods having smote him down while this plan was still in it's infancy, much less once it's actually in operation.
...
I just realized something. Arkalion is the anti-Buddha. He wants an endless cycle of resurrection and wants to eliminate the existing way that the cycle can be interrupted / ceased.
Arkalion only intervenes in a singular matter that people have no choice in anyway...They do have a choice - they can opt-out via "atheism" or act in various ways in the justified belief their soul will be sent to the appropriate afterlife. Arkalion tries to give them no choice.
No they can't. Even if they are Golarion Atheists they cannot opt out Pharasma's judgment.
ecause Arkalion is doing it as a volitional act. He does it despite the fact that (for all he knows, remote as it may be) he could be wrong. He is not the universe in operation the way Pharasma is; he is a person screwing around with the universe.
I'm also not going to argue necessarily that Arkalion is strictly speaking Evil with a capital E. But he certainly would make a much better villain than a hero.
And he does sound (1) megalomaniacal, (2) despotic, (3) ambitious, (4) uncaring, and (5) heedless. Any one of which alone would just be neutral, but they do kinda start to stack up...
Except he does in fact know. And yes he is screwing with the universe, but that is a Chaos thing, not an Evil thing. It counterbalances quite nicely with Law part of his actions.
I also think you need to find different words to describe:
1 - He's in no way a megalomaniac, he's not even asking for thanks let alone respect or worship.
2 - He's not a despot, people can live their lives freely without his intervention for good or ill. The only aspect he controls is one that people had no control over in the first place.
3 - He is definitely ambitious, but not for personal gain. And there's nothing Evil about ambition in the first place. His ambition is Neutral with a slant towards Good.
4 - He's not uncaring. He cares about what's most important, which may make him seem uncaring of smaller issues, but that's to be expected. Again, not an Evil thing even if he were.
5 - Heedless? Huh? What does this have to do with anything?