By the rules it does prevent resurrection. Even True Resurrection.
And while animating your corpse as a skeleton doesn't directly involve your soul, creating higher level undead seems to - particularly the various intangible ones.
Why do I have to repeat myself, it's even in the first post of the page:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and True Resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
In the entry of the SPELL it says they have to be destroyed first.
In any case, these spells can't destroy undead, as they require a free soul willing to return.
The game has been published by English speaking North Americans.
Traditionally, the mores and values of this group has been applied to the game.
Generally, defiling corpses is seen as bad.
If you come from a culture where this isn't the case, it may seem odd to you, but to 'us', it is evil. Cannibalism isn't normal here, animating dead isn't 'normal' in the game world.
Assumptions are made, generalities applied.
Giving examples that go against this has no relevance, as there are exceptions to virtually all things.
As for channeling negative energy to animate a corpse, I guess I'm assuming another cultural bias. The words 'negative' and 'animating a corpse' SOUND evil (again, cultural bias).
That's a pretty terrible reason for a cosmological decision, that you're automatically applying to ALL cultures in the game, 99% of which aren't North America.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty terrible reason for a cosmological decision, that you're automatically applying to ALL cultures in the game, 99% of which aren't North America.The game has been published by English speaking North Americans.
Traditionally, the mores and values of this group has been applied to the game.
Generally, defiling corpses is seen as bad.
If you come from a culture where this isn't the case, it may seem odd to you, but to 'us', it is evil. Cannibalism isn't normal here, animating dead isn't 'normal' in the game world.
Assumptions are made, generalities applied.
Giving examples that go against this has no relevance, as there are exceptions to virtually all things.
As for channeling negative energy to animate a corpse, I guess I'm assuming another cultural bias. The words 'negative' and 'animating a corpse' SOUND evil (again, cultural bias).
The base framework of the game WAS designed by a fairly homogeneous group, then Pathfinder was born with another fairly culturally biased group... disagreeing with that doesn't make it any less accurate of a statement.
If YOU want to have a culture in your game that sees animating dead as normal/good/non-evil, go ahead. Welcome to house rules.
But the creators of the game call it evil, thus it is.
The base framework of the game WAS designed by a fairly homogeneous group, then Pathfinder was born with another fairly culturally biased group... disagreeing with that doesn't make it any less accurate of a statement.If YOU want to have a culture in your game that sees animating dead as normal/good/non-evil, go ahead. Welcome to house rules.
But the creators of the game call it evil, thus it is.
We know that creating undead is evil in this game. We are asking "Why?". Because currently the best reason there is "They forgot that their view morality isn't universal". And... since anyone above the age of 12 should be able to tell you that not everyone has the same viewpoint on morality... it's a terrible reason.
We know that creating undead is evil in this game. We are asking "Why?". Because currently the best reason there is "They forgot that their view morality isn't universal". And... since anyone above the age of 12 should be able to tell you that not everyone has the same viewpoint on morality... it's a terrible reason.
The base framework of the game WAS designed by a fairly homogeneous group, then Pathfinder was born with another fairly culturally biased group... disagreeing with that doesn't make it any less accurate of a statement.If YOU want to have a culture in your game that sees animating dead as normal/good/non-evil, go ahead. Welcome to house rules.
But the creators of the game call it evil, thus it is.
Not agreeing with an explanation of something doesn't mean it is wrong.
It just means you don't agree.
I might be wrong too, until the developers speak up, it is ALL just assumptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game has an objective morality system. That's not going to match all existing or historical cultures. To some extent, it's got to be based on the morals of the main customer base.
Indeed. That's one of the hardest things for people to wrap their heads around - that in Golarion good and evil are objective and quantifiable. Good is a certain set of tenets that are constant throughout the pathfinder multiverse. The same with evil. Moreover, they are, to some extent, species and culturally interlocked - particularly with entities like undead. It doesn't matter if an entity is sentient or not, if its listed as evil and your god is pro-destroying it, then not only are you doing your god a service by killing it, you are doing your god a disservice by not. And this is in a world where gods are very present among the people.
In short, viewed from a certain lens, Golarion can be a very intolerant world. Not judging, here. It just is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not really a problem at conceiving it, there are objective evil and good in reality too.
The real mess starts when you have to quantify what is "worse" or "better" and the net result of mixed actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't just about what the group of developers believed at the time they wrote a rule book.
Those devs (and I'm pretty sure this predates Pathfinder so it was those other devs) set out to make a UNIVERSAL code of alignments. A paladin must be LG, even if he goes to Cheliax where their society allows things that paladin couldn't lawfully do back home.
In other words, the standard for alignments created IN this game apply to the whole game, everywhere, all cities, all countries, all worlds, all planes. Everywhere. It's not like creating undead is evil in Absolom while it's actually good in Westcrown - it's still evil there, too. Creating undead is just as evil in the Abyss as it is in Heaven.
Some posters don't seem to like it, but there it is. In the Pathfinder game system, it is multiversally (universally on a grander scale) evil to create undead.
As to the question of why, we've had at least one dev take a stab at answering it - trapping and tormenting souls. We have rules in the spells and monster descriptions that support this.
That should be all we need. No more "Why?", now all that's left is to accept it or house-rule it, right?
In other words, the standard for alignments created IN this game apply to the whole game, everywhere, all cities, all countries, all worlds, all planes. Everywhere.
As to the question of why, we've had at least one dev take a stab at answering it - trapping and tormenting souls.If you are serious, I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics you'd need to do to use both of those sentences in the same post.
As I noted earlier in this thread, it's probably a sign that you aren't actually serious:)
I guess that's lost on me. I am serious, and don't see why those two sentences are incompatible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
everything bad is always bad
everything good is always good
well that was easy
I cannot imagine anyone poking holes in this
or coming up with examples to the contrary
kappa
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't just about what the group of developers believed at the time they wrote a rule book.
Those devs (and I'm pretty sure this predates Pathfinder so it was those other devs) set out to make a UNIVERSAL code of alignments. A paladin must be LG, even if he goes to Cheliax where their society allows things that paladin couldn't lawfully do back home.
In other words, the standard for alignments created IN this game apply to the whole game, everywhere, all cities, all countries, all worlds, all planes. Everywhere. It's not like creating undead is evil in Absolom while it's actually good in Westcrown - it's still evil there, too. Creating undead is just as evil in the Abyss as it is in Heaven.
All absolutely true!
Some posters don't seem to like it, but there it is. In the Pathfinder game system, it is multiversally (universally on a grander scale) evil to create undead.
That'd be me!
... but not quite true universally.
As to the question of why, we've had at least one dev take a stab at answering it - trapping and tormenting souls. We have rules in the spells and monster descriptions that support this.
... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhh... not quite, though it's possible to choose to view things that way.
We have some support, yes, absolutely, but we have many other things that don't support it or even conflict with it.
That should be all we need. No more "Why?", now all that's left is to accept it or house-rule it, right?
The problem that this is getting at includes why people come to this rule system (or game) itself in the first place.
For me, some of the elements that attract me to the system is both how versatile it is (how capable it is of handling various ideas and elements within its basic frame), how adaptable it is (how well it handles changes and tweaks), and how consistent it is within itself (so that the rules apply equally to all).
Turns out that many people feel at least partially the same way, though, of course, not all do, and even those who share my reasons may well have different values for each element.
(Also: while some of these seem contradictory, they are not inherently so; whether they contradict or not depends entirely on what you're doing with them and how you're prioritizing and balancing them, which is intrinsically subjective.)
What does this have to do with anything?
Easy: much like alignment rules, when you have something that the system proclaims for itself (or that you believe the system proclaims for itself), that the system then violates, it creates a values dissonance.
For example, there are Christians (of whom I consider myself) that believe that God is inherently Good and the only Good creature that you may worship without falling to sin.
Within those folks who hold such beliefs*, there are some of those who have - for whatever reason - an easier time separating real life and fantasy. It is among this group* that you will often find those who demand that, in such fantasy gaming, you must be limited to one god - the God - as well as hold certain values as absolutely true, or else you are violating the tenet of "There is only one God, there is no other; thou shalt have no other gods."**
In such instance, such folk* thus cannot play in games that take place in settings such as Forgotten Realms, or Golarion (though, interestingly, they can play just fine in Eberron). It is from this group* that you often get such stories as "they wanted all the other clerics - who worship false gods - to have less powers or no spells" or similar ideas or stories. ()
It's a similar reaction that causes alignment debates. "Chaotic GOOD?! That's not chaotic good! That's chaotic evil!" We have a recent thread about how it's impossible (from one person's view) to have a "good" Mesmer with their capstone. Sharess of Forgotten Realms and Arshea of Golarion both represent intense challenges to many conservative* mindsets by being defined as "good" instead of "neutral" (or even "evil", depending on the type and kind of "conservative"*).
** I am aware. Also, for reference: Isaiah and Exodus.
Now... why am I bringing this up?
Because some of the same set of arguments apply here... but this is not the same thing.
By indicating "The Devs have spoken, what more is there?" the two ideas are equated: "You have your view, the Devs have the correct one: change it for your games or adapt." is a fine idea if you're directly contradicting primary elements within the system or setting or rules. This certainly falls into that.
But this also has something else going on. This has internal dissonance.
It disagrees with many other elements that are within the setting - free will, the ability to choose, and what is good, evil, hopeful, grimdark, etc.
Beyond that, it stretches the bounds of (certain kinds of) logic - logic that, otherwise, holds fairly solid within the setting and creatures and themes presented.
There are some things that agree. There are other things that disagree. Because there is some amount of ambivalence, it's a situation that lends itself towards people applying their own interpretation. Once this interpretation takes hold... it's very hard to get rid of.
And the heck of it is, this interpretation is built from the system itself.
In this case, you have a valid set of interpretations of the data, running up against a second also valid set of interpretations of the set of data.
Thus it's less "You have your view, the Devs have the correct one: change it for your games or adapt." and more "You have your view, the Devs have theirs: change it for your games or adapt."
These are very similar, but ultimately different in an important way.
And, let me be clear: while you said the latter, it comes off more as the former (intentionally or not). So, yes, I basically just did a whole huge tangent for a fine distinction.
But the point is actually really important: interpretations derived from the system (internally consistent) and the setting (less solid) are not so easily shed, especially when the reasons are, if understandable, not convincing. And this is a really hard thing to get through - hard to understand, emotionally or intellectually.
But it's very important. It undercuts themes that are otherwise integral to the setting and game - carves into and against the very reasons some of us play, our reason for being here.
I think James' post above, I think, helps ease things immensely, however. It actually is insightful enough to avoid the natural corollary of hopelessness or self-determination, while still allowing James' view to hold more solidity.
While I still don't like the position... the presentation at least somewhat compelling, or, at least, something that isn't aggressively pushing against some of the things that draw me in the first place.
... and that, for sure, is something that's worth getting out of having these conversations over and over again: even if we don't come to an agreement, we can come to harmony within that.
(It's also the reason I try to be so clear and overly-wordy: not to make people see it my way, but to hopefully explain things in a way that people can understand.)
... and that is a long post. Sorry.
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a wordy post :)
I don't agree that monotheists can't play in certain settings though.
I played a devout Christian in 3.5, custom setting... I leveled him in Cleric, despite him not gaining spells.
He considered it a test of his faith.
Played that character to level ten. The GM at that point relented and gave me the spells I deserved. It was tough, but hilarious, the smug "I told you all so" my character got to say was just...
Classic.
:D
Thankfully, the party until that point had taken pity on me and given me an extra share of treasure, plus he picked up a follower, so he wasn't totally useless...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a long post. I thought I was the only one who did that...
It boils down to when you said "You have your view, the Devs have theirs: change it for your games or adapt."
But you seem to not like this position. Nevertheless, you're correct, this IS the position. And because the devs have their view and write it into books we buy, we have no choice. Their view IS the existing view, right, wrong, or otherwise.
Crating undead has the [evil] descriptor. Period. Because the devs wrote it that way. They wrote it. They explained it. So we have to accept it or create house rules to change it. That's all we get, short of finding another game (which probably won't help because THOSE devs have their own views on things and you're just switching from one set of canon to another - the fundamental issue of accepting canon or rejecting it remains the same).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... where does that intelligence come from? Are you making a brand new female elf soul to create a banshee? Just... out of nothingness? Cuz I'm pretty sure that if you make a banshee that doesn't have a soul... you don't have a banshee.
From a deity of death and/or undead.
Actually - Order of the Stick had that happen with a vampire. The vampire had the original person's soul trapped to continue to be able to tap his memories etc - but he had absolutely no control over his body anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a long post. I thought I was the only one who did that...You obviously don't know TL.
TL hasn't favorited any of my posts in a while. I don't think he loves me the way he used to.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always amused by the hysterical level of circular logic used in these threads:
Creating Undead is evil because it creates evil creatures...
Undead are evil because they are created by Evil magic
The magic that creates them is Evil because it has the [Evil] descriptor
Create Undead has the [Evil] descriptor because it creates undead, which is an evil act.I used to think that those people just didn't read or think very hard about what they wrote. Later I started to wonder whether they had any self awareness at all.
Then I realized that this is the internet and that they probably aren't serious to begin with.
It's borderline circular - but it's also internally consistent.
Frankly - a lot of real life involves circular reasoning of some degree.
"Bears are dangerous."
Why are bears dangerous?
"Because they're bears and might hurt you for no good reason."
What makes you sure that they might hurt me for no good reason?
"Because bears are dangerous."
It seems kinda circular - and the only things that can break that circularity are discussing the specifics of bears with solid facts/real examples involved. The very things that people argue about when it comes to undead. And - being fiction - are not solid facts/real examples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was a wordy post :)
I don't agree that monotheists can't play in certain settings though.
I played a devout Christian in 3.5, custom setting... I leveled him in Cleric, despite him not gaining spells.
He considered it a test of his faith.
Played that character to level ten. The GM at that point relented and gave me the spells I deserved. It was tough, but hilarious, the smug "I told you all so" my character got to say was just...
Classic.
:D
Thankfully, the party until that point had taken pity on me and given me an extra share of treasure, plus he picked up a follower, so he wasn't totally useless...
Hah! Exactly my point about grouping things.
To be clear (again), I'm totally a devout monotheist in real life.
I also love the divine critters, settings, etc. in the various games, and highly enjoy such settings. So... weird.
But your own experience is an excellent example of 'not falling into norms' that I was trying to get at with my asterisks. Ah, well.
That is a long post. I thought I was the only one who did that...
It boils down to when you said "You have your view, the Devs have theirs: change it for your games or adapt."
But you seem to not like this position. Nevertheless, you're correct, this IS the position. And because the devs have their view and write it into books we buy, we have no choice. Their view IS the existing view, right, wrong, or otherwise.
Crating undead has the [evil] descriptor. Period. Because the devs wrote it that way. They wrote it. They explained it. So we have to accept it or create house rules to change it. That's all we get, short of finding another game (which probably won't help because THOSE devs have their own views on things and you're just switching from one set of canon to another - the fundamental issue of accepting canon or rejecting it remains the same).
Oh, my, no. We haven't hung out enough, obviously. :D
It boils down to when you said "You have your view, the Devs have theirs: change it for your games or adapt."
As stated!
But you seem to not like this position.
Not exactly. I don't like the lack of nuance that simply laying down such a statement without caveat or clarification seems to indicate.
There's a difference between "Hey, this is the way: deal wit' it!" and "This is the truth, but there are understandable others." even if that difference is ultimately minute.
Nevertheless, you're correct, this IS the position. And because the devs have their view and write it into books we buy, we have no choice. Their view IS the existing view, right, wrong, or otherwise.
... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... not exactly, though fairly close.
Again, it's a matter of fine distinction.
As a solid example of this: written into the books we buy are paladins of Asmodeus and juju oracles that raise non-evil (even good!) undead of any kind (two different APs, for the record), as well as the implication of polytheistic clerics.
However these things have been deemed "non-canon" after-the-fact, by James. He's inherently correct because he's in charge of the setting, but the problem is that such elements are already written into the game we've purchased and that we play.
Beyond that, similar conclusions can be arrived sans any input via the rules that we follow and know already... not to mention various elements or the (hypothetical) ability to research and develop spells with differing descriptors and similar results.
3E had actively good undead... that became deathless... which were then changed to deathless with different rules... which were later given slightly different campaign-specific rules that got adopted back into the main game. Just to 'preserve' the whole "undead = evil" thing... while also allowing "good undead" (though they're "totally not undead!") to be around. PF was originally sold as "3.5 lives Thrives!" which, frankly, was (and is) awesome... but it's understandable that while Paizo made the (very good and important) decision to leave that, there are going to be people who go, "But... this isn't what I invested in or wanted."
What's more, there are non-evil undead in Golarion (though they mostly seem to "fall" eventually, for various reasons). The juju oracle gave great hope, but was then declared "non-canon" in the setting that it first appeared in... and was then hidden by making a whole different archetype (with topical similarities) of the same name... and then being informed that (after the original archetype was kind of "lost" in most of it's "available" formats due to that) we could go use that one if we wanted... what?
It's a hard pill to swallow to anyone who liked that sort of thing, even though it is the Dev's decision.
This is very similar, in some regards, to the outcry against the Star Wars prequels; as a direct result, there is Canon, canon, CANON, and cannon ()... and lots and lots of angry fans who feel cheated.
This is, of course, a different 'tier' than what happened in that fandom... but at it's core, it's the same basic principle, just on a different scale.
And that's fine. It's how things go with creators and fans (and multiple authors!).
People are sold conflicting accounts. They choose one. They are then told "NOPE, you're wrong for <arbitrary reason>!" ... which isn't convincing compared to having already evaluated and chosen based on the available evidence.
Let me put it this way.
- 1) I publish a setting using the Core rules and definitions
- 2) I establish that undead are auto-evil, and even destroying them just kind of annihilates the soul instead of allowing it to live on
- 3) created a deity named, I dunno, "Sarenrae": made her neutral good, deity of the sun and strength and healing...
- 4) ... and then, about four books in, I reveal that Sarenrae is secretly working on a project to kill all the good people, turn them into (always evil) undead, and fry them with her "holy" power...
... you're going to have too much internal dissonance to accept that.
That's not "good" - it doesn't follow any of the game's definitions of "good" as we understand it.
... buuuuuuuuuuuu~uuuuut, I'm not wrong due to, as you say, being the author. There are mental gymnastics I can move through to "prove" this is, in fact, the work of a "good" creature. But those gymnastics are going to wear thin, and to many, it'd understandably seem like I'm pretty firmly thumbing my nose at the things I've written.
While this (clearly) isn't the same degree, there is a degree of similarity. I have conflicting truths. I've got to choose which ones I want.
Some of the Devs and Authors have chosen differently... but since they're not a monolith, they're is disagreement, even within published material.
As I've said, James is correct: undead are almost-always evil in published settings. I disagree with his reasoning for why, but I understand and respect that. He's a cool, clever guy and a great designer, and disagreeing with that doesn't mean I don't like him or the work he does. (In fact, the opposite: I'm passionate about the work he does, because he's such a good designer!)
But it does mean I disagree... and we've both got published, printed canon on our side.
Hence, though my words are weird here, it's not as easy as saying, "They're correct." even when, in fact, they are, by definition, "Correct."
EDIT: Let me try putting it this way: it's true... but misleading.
It's a bit of a weird mental space to be in... but I hope, at least, it makes sense, and I've explained myself and it somewhat. :D
TL hasn't favorited any of my posts in a while. I don't think he loves me the way he used to.That is a long post. I thought I was the only one who did that...You obviously don't know TL.
I've been busy and not on the forums as much as I used to be. Sorry! :D
That is a long post. I thought I was the only one who did that...You obviously don't know TL.
... does anyone? I mean... really?
(Yes. The answer is "Yes.")
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we say something like "This feat has a prerequisite of +7 base attack bonus," but then if we errata that later to "This feat has a prerequisite of +5 base attack bonus" folks seem to be able to understand that the +7 version was an error and that it was never intended to be and that the +5 version is the correct one, despite the fact that we did indeed print the (incorrect) +7 version first.
If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?
It baffles and depresses and frustrates me.
Paizo's policy for not issuing errata unless we reprint a product combined with almost only reprinting rules-heavy products doesn't help, of course.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignments represent immutable standards that are not defined by mortal perceptions.
Deities, immortals, and other profound beings don't determine the alignments. Rather, their personal alignments are determined by how close they stand to the absoluteness of the alignments.
The alignments ARE the standards. You don't get to set them.
On a mortal, cultural level - what is ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR has nothing to do with something as profound as alignments. It is nice, normal acceptable behavior in Cheliax to be a devil-admiring, racist, caste-obsessed slaveholder. There's nothing wrong with it from a cultural standpoint...from Cheliax's standpoint, you're a 'good person.' Go kick a halfling slave today!
That does not mean you're Good on the profound scale.
And it's this conflict which creates all sorts of ire in people who aren't 'Good'. Because they CANNOT set the standard. Because even if their culture considers it 'good', they are going to Hell when they die. Because committing all sorts of non-Good behavior while living has immortal consequences for the soul, and you think it's fine while living, only to find out otherwise when dead, which is a huge WTF moment for many people, because people don't like to think they are Not Good.
So, yes, making undead is an Evil act. It's Evil everywhere. But, in some cultures, such as Geb, it's a good thing, and perfectly acceptable behavior. It's immortality! It's power and preservation! It's freedom from the tyranny of mortality and the gods! It's the RIGHT THING TO DO, and HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME!!!
By the alignments and standards of the Game itself, it's Evil. Go down to Geb, revel in your rightness. When you stand before Pharasma, you'll find your standards aren't THE Standard.
======
And, as noted above, if your corpse is animated, you cannot come back to life via any means until your undead self is destroyed. Even True Resurrection specifically notes this.
They even reference the tactic in Wrath of the Righteous, where they take away the body of a silver dragon and turn it into undead so the good guys can't just restore her to life. ANd potentially you could try, since you're holding her scales since practically the first encounter!
==Aelryinth
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?
Judging by the ACG errata threads, they give both equal amounts of respect.
playing my pc to get him to pc heaven
I just houseruled that creating undead requires human sacrifice. Makes portraying it as irrevocably bad so much easier.
Then again, I also put all the healing spells back under necromancy, where they belong.
What if you wanted to create an undead dwarf, do you still sacrifice a human? What about an undead T-Rex or an undead dragon?
And if you kill a T-Rex, is that a sacrifice (and if it is, is it an irrevocably bad one?) or simply ridding the world of a nasty predator?
You can sacrifice a member of one humanoid race to create undead from another humanoid race. With animals, has to be in the same genus. Sacrificing housecats to make undead is certainly not on the same level as sacrificing humans, though it is still viewed as bad, especially because you are sacrificing creatures to very evil spirits, demons, or minor gods, who pay you back with undead. Willingly giving evil outsiders sacrifices is in and of itself bad.
Zombies also tend to have higher crs in my games, because you don't just get a raised corpse, you get a raised corpse with demonic powers. How else is a zombie to be a threat to heavily armed professionals?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?Judging by the ACG errata threads, they give both equal amounts of respect.
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, I love your avatar. Always have.
For some reason, whenever I read your posts, I see (in my mind's eye) the dinosaur's mouth moving as it speaks your post out loud. How do you make it do that?
(I hope that happens with mine, too...)
|
In Golarion creating undead is an evil act because you take a person's soul and trap it in its body and keep him away from the afterlife. (Or stop the party from raising a fallen partymember.) What I didn't realize until now is that undead are almost always evil and by that logic, their mangled and tortured souls would end up in the lower planes once they get slain.
Is this true? Can you shift someone's alignment to evil after they passed away by turning them into zombies?
It's evil because evil is a substance, and spells with the [evil] descriptor bring more of it into being.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...
It's relevant that recent rules errata clearly indicate that some things were indeed changed in intent and not just reworded to reflect what the intent was all along.
Because I don't believe that for example the Scarred Witch Doctor was intended since the beginning to be an Int caster instead of a Con one, because it would mean that an entire paragraph with actual meaning was a TYPO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we say something like "This feat has a prerequisite of +7 base attack bonus," but then if we errata that later to "This feat has a prerequisite of +5 base attack bonus" folks seem to be able to understand that the +7 version was an error and that it was never intended to be and that the +5 version is the correct one, despite the fact that we did indeed print the (incorrect) +7 version first.
If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?
It baffles and depresses and frustrates me.
Paizo's policy for not issuing errata unless we reprint a product combined with almost only reprinting rules-heavy products doesn't help, of course.
Its a difference in thematic approach that often invalidates characters and choices made in a person's games.
If the BaB requirement to access a feat changes, the feat is still accessible. It still exists even if it is slightly different.
If something gets removed entirely, or changed so much that it no longer does what it used to, that can make people pretty grumpy.
Ultimately, think it comes down to the changes in how Paizo handles playtests.
I've been a part of this since the Pathfinder Beta. I remember the Weapon Swap feat. It was a good solution to the issue of Two Weapon Fighters having to pay twice as much for the gear that made them stay viable at higher levels. It also raised a whole lot of corner cases that were extremely complex. It was decided in the playtest that Weapon Swap created more problems than it solved, so it was dropped and never saw print in the final version of the game.
That was a great way of handling things. The designers got to use the online community as a brute-force stress-test for new parts of the system. If there was an exploit or problem, the community was guaranteed to find it. Then it could be addressed, changed, or explained in clearer ways before it ever even saw print.
That doesn't happen anymore.
Imagine if Weapon Swap had been handled then the way playlists are handled now. It would have been given a cursory in-office playlets and then printed. The message boards would have exploded with questions. FAQs would have flooded in, and then the design team would have been forced to errata it into oblivion but still keep it in the game. It would have just become another addition to the list of parts of the game no one ever plays with.
Playtests only deal with core classes. Archetypes and feats don't get play tested at all.
(You might notice that the vast majority of things that require errata anymore are archetypes and feats)
I can definitely see how these things would be depressing and frustrating for you. I understand that it really isn't your fault.
It is an issue that has come up more and more lately though, and you definitely have the ability to address it with the rest of the design team.
You have an amazing tool in the online community that is being sorely underused.
Playtests should be expanded to include archetypes, feats and spells. It might make more work for the designers up front, but it will certainly make less work later, and seriously reduce the amount of negative feedback that happens when errata is released.
Hope this helps.
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...It's relevant that recent rules errata clearly indicate that some thing where indeed changed in intent and not just reworded to reflect what the intent was all along.
Because I don't believe that for example the Scarred Witch Doctor was intended since the beginning to be an Int caster instead of a Con one, because it would mean that an entire paragraph with actual meaning was a TYPO.
Extremely well put.
Saying "the end justifies the means" is also an "easy way out." Take your scenario, and then take into account that creating intelligent undead utilizes the individual's soul, forcing them into becoming that undead, not just an approximation of Animate Objects on a corpse. That makes it decidedly less Neutral.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?Judging by the ACG errata threads, they give both equal amounts of respect.
Well there's totally a nice undead character in Curse of the Crimson throne or can we assume the NPCs to be errata-fodder now as well?
Some of us are just kind of irritated that things are presented to us that are clearly not evil by the very definitions that define it in the game, rather than actually getting evil.
It is pretty insulting to the audience as people who use reason to deduce answers. All the facts are saying Yay, some devs are saying Nay, but we're not getting reasons. Most of the time we're getting stuff that feels like it was pulled out of a hat and is actively shattered by the way the game actually works. It's smoke and mirrors and not even good ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it isn't as powerful or cheap, but you could use Animate Object and Permanency to animate a corpse.
No alignment restriction there.
:D
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it isn't as powerful or cheap, but you could use Animate Object and Permanency to animate a corpse.
No alignment restriction there.
:D
Wanna know what actually involves enslaving souls?
Golems.
Extremely well put.That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...It's relevant that recent rules errata clearly indicate that some thing where indeed changed in intent and not just reworded to reflect what the intent was all along.
Because I don't believe that for example the Scarred Witch Doctor was intended since the beginning to be an Int caster instead of a Con one, because it would mean that an entire paragraph with actual meaning was a TYPO.
Maybe? But this feels like the wrong thread for it and wrong post to respond to. This is generally about flavor and the mechanics matching what is appropriate for Paizo's general display of Golarion. I doubt it was a world flavor issue that Scarred Witch Doctor was changed.
It feels like a tangent to comment about mechanics errata rather than flavor errata.
On the other hand, juju oracle and paladins of Asmodeus are pretty certainly not changed exclusively because of flavor reasons. Public playtesting for all mechanics within every product would seem to take too much time and that wouldn't have a chance of answering the issues regarding paladins of Asmodeus question including the entire content of the book for public playtest which would seem to be unreasonable.
I know it isn't as powerful or cheap, but you could use Animate Object and Permanency to animate a corpse.
No alignment restriction there.
:D
Wanna know what actually involves enslaving souls?
Golems.
Ooh, good point.
I still like the idea of using Animate Object to create your undead horde...
"Get him, he's a necromancer!"
"No, I swear, I have never cast an evil spell in my life, seriously!"
*nearby crafter walks by with his golem...*
So clearly binding souls isn't intrinsically evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we say something like "This feat has a prerequisite of +7 base attack bonus," but then if we errata that later to "This feat has a prerequisite of +5 base attack bonus" folks seem to be able to understand that the +7 version was an error and that it was never intended to be and that the +5 version is the correct one, despite the fact that we did indeed print the (incorrect) +7 version first.
If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?
It baffles and depresses and frustrates me.
Paizo's policy for not issuing errata unless we reprint a product combined with almost only reprinting rules-heavy products doesn't help, of course.
I'm very sorry that it baffles, depresses, and frustrates you!
(That, at least, is not my intent in any of this.)The last thing you mention is probably part of it, but also there's the fact that ideas, unlike mechanics, can be harder to let go of (and mechanics can be hard to let go of as well, as evidenced by TOZ's post).
Being an RPG, the mechanics and the fluff are pretty deeply married (as you well know), and so, when people get attached to a concept (either mechanically or for flavor) it's a difficult thing to have it shot down.
I think, in our hearts, most people who play RPGs either consider themselves (or, barring that, simply are, by default) creative types who become attached to their own view and concepts - much like the creators of official settings, say! - especially when those ideas and concepts were based on elements they felt very passionate about.
Just as an example, many people were quite frustrated - some to deeply abiding fury - with decisions made by George Lucas in Star Wars with the prequels or Indiana Jones with the Crystal Skull. These (aside from midi-chlorians and mmmmmaaaaaaayyyybe a fridge) were completely lacking on the "mechanical" differences. Indiana Jones more or less worked exactly the same in Crystal Skull as in Temple of Doom; lightsabers held the same potency and traits in Attack of the Clones as Empire Strikes Back. But in both of these cases, the flavor was changed - errata was invoked by Lucas that invalidated many things to better follow his vision. This was intensely unsatisfying to many fans: they had, after all, placed decades of effort and money into learning and being and becoming experts on things that Mr. Lucas had, rather casually, eradicated from canonical existence.
And let me be clear here: Mr. Lucas, however much I disagree with his decisions, definitively had the right to do that. What's more, I don't think he was necessarily wrong to go about doing so. (Where he was wrong was being dismissive and arrogant in the face of fan outcry, but that's really a different topic altogether.)
Further, there is nothing anyone at Paizo has done that is even remotely similar in scope.
But the basic principal is the same.
For Star Wars, if I've logged in years using the old West End material, I'm going to naturally be upset that the films - the very reason that I got into the games in the first place - have literally come out and told me "You are wrong. That never happened. What you did to integrate yourself into the setting you love is invalidated."
That statement isn't made with the menace or cruelty often associated with it, nor the hyperbolic "evil intent" the internet is so famous for placing in and on things. There is no malevolence behind it. Instead, much like an inevitable, it is simple fact.
However, much like an inevitable, it can really ruin your day (or week, month, year, or whatever) because you were stoked and excited and "Wow, that's so cool!"-ing all over the place... and now, that's no longer part of the other thing you liked. Now, you've been told, "No, there is no room for that here: that is wrong."
Very fortunately, unlike in films, RPGs have a wonderful and vitally important thing, called "House Rules" which allow for all sorts of great and important alterations for local play. That helps - immensely!
... but you still love the awesome thing created over here, and have been told this thing that you really liked is now no longer officially allowed (and is frowned upon).
And, again, whether you agree with that decision or not is irrelevant. The decision is made, and that's not a bad thing. In this case, it's not even a bad decision (unlike several of Mr. Lucas').
But because I love so many things that are part of Golarion, I'm passionate about it. And because I'm passionate, I have strong emotions - both good and bad, both up and down.
While I can't speak for others, I can feel confident in saying that others feel at least somewhat similarly.
And that's the thing: I understand for any creative how difficult it is for people to say, "Hey, I don't like what you like." but the thing is, unless I didn't love what you've made, I wouldn't be here, much less talk about Golarion. The fact is what you and others have created is awesome, and I want to hammer that fact home. What bothers me is vanishingly small compared to what I like and what I love about your stuff.
Errata may bother me, or decisions you guys make might not be to my liking, but that doesn't make either whoever makes that decision, or the work as a whole not to my liking - in fact, just the opposite. Just, uh, just talk it over with us before making Bucket-bucket Geebra a major character integral to the setting, or having Aroden be kind of whiny and disliking sand. Or hiding out in a refrigerator the whole time. ;D
And, one more thing, if I may: any criticism given by me? I don't mean it with anything other than deep respect (my {hopefully-} occasional poor word choice aside) both for who you* are and what you* do and the decisions you* make. You guys are all professionals who deal with tremendous amounts of pressure. I get that. Don't take my criticisms as me demanding you change for me - I don't want them to come off that way. I don't even want you to necessarily change based off of my feedback alone - that's just kind of lame and makes me a needy and self-important jerk (though I am definitely self-important... hm...).
Instead, I post them so that you know. Both good and bad, if I don't speak (and others don't) you have no way of reading our minds.
This place, these forums... you guys... awesome. Thanks for listening to us and taking feedback and making the decisions you do, no matter how mouthy or annoying we might get. Prickly, passionate fans, you know. We're a handful!
* Both 'Generic Plural' you, and 'Specific Singular' you intended. :D
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?Judging by the ACG errata threads, they give both equal amounts of respect.Well there's totally a nice undead character in Curse of the Crimson throne or can we assume the NPCs to be errata-fodder now as well?
Some of us are just kind of irritated that things are presented to us that are clearly not evil by the very definitions that define it in the game, rather than actually getting evil.
It is pretty insulting to the audience as people who use reason to deduce answers. All the facts are saying Yay, some devs are saying Nay, but we're not getting reasons. Most of the time we're getting stuff that feels like it was pulled out of a hat and is actively shattered by the way the game actually works. It's smoke and mirrors and not even good ones.
If I may, James has gone on record a few times that -
- are one of the few kinds of undead that tend toward evil less. I'm reasonably certain that no NPC retcons are happening anytime soon.
:D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's good to know. I don't frequent the rulebook errata threads, though, since I don't have a lot to contribute there, since I don't generally work on the rulebooks and me giving rules interpretations tends to make some folks act all weird...If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?Judging by the ACG errata threads, they give both equal amounts of respect.Well there's totally a nice undead character in Curse of the Crimson throne or can we assume the NPCs to be errata-fodder now as well?
Some of us are just kind of irritated that things are presented to us that are clearly not evil by the very definitions that define it in the game, rather than actually getting evil.
It is pretty insulting to the audience as people who use reason to deduce answers. All the facts are saying Yay, some devs are saying Nay, but we're not getting reasons. Most of the time we're getting stuff that feels like it was pulled out of a hat and is actively shattered by the way the game actually works. It's smoke and mirrors and not even good ones.
If I may, James has gone on record a few times that -
** spoiler omitted **
- are one of the few kinds of undead that tend toward evil less. I'm reasonably certain that no NPC retcons are happening anytime soon.
:D
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Understood. Just mentioning that one particular bit. :)