I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But didn't provide anything to support that opinion, so...good for you I guess? And no, it's not entirely based on opinion because there is actual rules text for this.
I don't need evidence to support my opinion and as i already showed the rules for alignment are entirely based on the interpretation of the GM and player.
So get off your high horse.
I love that I'm always called a jerk for calling people out on their dishonesty. At this point, I think I actively enjoy being called a jerk on these forums because it's an indication that I'm probably doing it right. It generally means that I or others have already cited and made a case that someone else cannot refute with rules and reason methods and has now gotten angry about it.
I didn't insult your mother, I didn't call you stupid, I didn't bully you and take your lunch money. I said your opinion doesn't mean very much when you have nothing to support it.
I wasn't being dishonest. I didn't claim what i said was the right way to handle things. It's my interpretation of the Alignment rules. I only provided my opinion and nothing more. I even stated that fact.
So yes in this case you are being a jerk.
Trying to argue that alignment determines action IS dishonest. It is fundamentally wrong. At best it is a shorthand description for how a character typically acts but at no point does it determine action.
That is not what i said. Please don't misrepresent my statements.
At least in my opinion Alignment determines actions and actions determine alignment. They work hand in hand to determine your in-game behavior.
So now who is being dishonest?
I'm going to cut your argument short right here by pointing out the absurdity of what you're trying to imply. If we look at what you're getting at, the argument you're making is that the GM can ignore the alignment rules in the core rulebook and say that your character is X alignment even if it's not in keeping with the behavior of the character. Despite the fact this would be violating the consistency part of that, it also means that in such a game alignment really doesn't matter at all because if you can be good and still be categorized as evil, who cares? You only care if you have class features that are affected.
Once again that isn't what i said.
I only showcased in quoting the rules, that it is the GM who interprets what alignment means and controls that label for players and NPCs.
I didn't say any of the trash you claim i did.
So how about you stop being a Jerk who is dishonest and stop misrepresenting what i said.
Though i guess if you had to stop doing that you wouldn't have a leg to stand on anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Arguments"Considering many of them say, "Twists to evil, malice, anger, doom, and hatred of the living pretty many of your counterarguments don't hold up.
Though my favorite is Attic Whisperer. Because according to you, neglecting a child to death isn't an evil act.
Also, are you insinuating that cannibalism is NOT an evil act?
In D&D, Cannibalism is only evil if used for gaining power or powering an evil spell/effect.
I'd assume the same for pathfinder.
Its also evil if you gain pleasure from it, or do it when not necessary or needed.
A dragon eating a person, not inherently evil, a dragon eating people exclusively because they enjoy it. Evil.
Again you've managed to conveniently ignore what the rules say. Does it really need to be quoted again?
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.Whether you gain pleasure from something has no affect on whether it hurts, oppresses, or kills another creature.So eating people for pleasure isn't evil? Because I'm not certain what you are saying here.
Are trying to say that if someone in Golarion found a dead body, and thought, "Well I didn't kill it, and I'm not hungry but I sure do like eating people," isn't committing an evil act?
Its like when i saw a group go full murderhobo and say they were cutting up Kobolds for rations. That's cannibalism and evil.
Considering I'm specifically referring to the act of consuming sentient creatures I'm not certain what you are trying to prove.
Nope. It really isn't. It's icky, but know what else is considered icky? Grave robbing. Know what used to be illegal? Opening up the human body to study the inside. Great to be a doctor huh? So how did they do any research or understanding surgery at all? Grave robbing. Those people who are trying to save lives did something people would to this day call ghoulish and evil. They never hurt anyone. Disrespectful, maybe, but have you seen how modern morticians work a body over? It's way worse than just opening someone up and studying it. Nobody wires a mouth shut in autopsies.
So where am I going with this, right? This is an old argument indeed honestly. Cannibalism being evil has never made sense, it's making peoples feeling of disgust as a pinnacle of morality. I dislike this, and other people feel the same way so it must be evil. This is hardly new but it's very distinctly a cultural issue. There's cultures who have no taboo on it and are fine. Hell, we have symbolic cannibalism in religion but nobody bats an eye.
Nobody is going to argue someone going on manhunts to devour their flesh is a bastion of sainthood. But it's not the eating that makes them awful, it's the fact they are murderers. The eating just makes them creepier, more unpleasant, seemingly less human. But that's pure visceral response. That's social training and stigma. It's not a decider of morality, or else spiders are evil.
So the murderhobos eating kobolds were evil probably for wanton slaughter of other sapients, not for eating them. It's even in the name.
But hey, if you don't believe me, golarion itself specifically calls out most instances of cannibalism are not evil. It... confusingly says only cannibalism for a mechanical benefit is evil. So someones enjoyment isn't really an issue beyond them actively hunting people to devour. Only if they get a bonus from it. It really makes no sense, since how does the universe know about temp hp and morale bonuses and makes a moral judgment on that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the thing that gets up isn't you, then it has no effect on your alignment.
As evil is a value judgment, you would really need to explain how and why all people who ever saw this circumstance (rising again after death) would automatically determine that this is evil without any other factors. Your instantly evil, how does that happen?
Does this mean that your alignment has nothing to do with you? I assume that those inclined towards evil would simply go about killing good people and raising them to be evil so that they would be sent to hell or whatever. You don't have control of your actions anymore, so I would guess your not sentient even if you can think... These are some of the problems I think about.
No will of your own or the freedom to exercise it. Lots of problems come out of alignment determining action.
Once again that isn't what i said.
I only showcased in quoting the rules, that it is the GM who interprets what alignment means and controls that label for players and NPCs.
Exactly. It's the GM's job to interpret what actions are corresponding to which alignment but the GM is supposed to be consistent with the alignments and what they mean. If your GM continues to say that you are evil when you are acting in accordance with a nonevil alignment then the GM is not only in error according to the rules but, more importantly, alignment doesn't matter in that game.
A label itself doesn't matter. It's only what that label represents. If the GM "interprets" your character who is altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for the dignity of others to be chaotic evil, then the GM's opinion doesn't matter in even the slightest little bit. You just continue playing your "evil" character, knowing that they're actually good.
I didn't say any of the trash you claim i did.
So how about you stop being a Jerk who is dishonest and stop misrepresenting what i said.
If you had no point, then why bother talking? What were you trying to prove with your quote? What were you suggesting? Because nothing you said disproved or even slightly hindered the points made by anyone else.
The only thing it appeared that you were saying is that even if you're not actually evil the GM can say you're evil. Which means...nothing. >_>
I'm trying to understand what you were representing at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.
So eating people for pleasure isn't evil? Because I'm not certain what you are saying here.I mean exactly what I said: "pleasure" has virtually nothing to do with what is or is not evil. Whether an action is Evil is, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, a matter of whether that action involveshurting, oppressing, and killing others.That's it. There's no special clause for pleasure or non-pleasure. Evil acts do not become non-evil if you don't enjoy them. Non-evil acts do not become evil if you do enjoy them. There is no relationship whatsoever between pleasure and alignment.
So... I guess everyone who doesn't live out of photosynthesis is Evil, since they all kill stuff to eat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.
to me it is an act of survival when there isn't any other source of food left
The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.
The conditions around an act should define whether something is evil or not. Just claiming something is evil makes no sense.
What if a group of people are stuck in the middle of nowhere after their planes fall due to a blizzard and have to resort to cannibalism to survive? What if after a battle, the warriors from the winning side devour the hearts of their fallen enemies not out of spite, but as a tribute and acknowledgement to their valor?
It literally hurts no one, so why would any of that be evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.
Partly because context actually matters for cannibalism.
In some societies, it's actually part of the funerary rites and how you honor the dead. (And give them one last way to help the community keep living on.)
But I'll agree it's evil when you're actively trying to reduce thinking beings to being just meat.
I.e., there's a difference between eating the heart of your worthy opponent because he was a worthy opponent and that's right thing to do, and eating the heart of someone you were explicitly hunting for his heart.
(And yes, my good-aligned characters normally balk at eating dragon or wyvern or whatever. That was a person, dammit. =P)
|
What if a group of people are stuck in the middle of nowhere after their planes fall due to a blizzard and have to resort to cannibalism to survive?
So... the Donners?
Interestingly - I read a court case once from the very early 20th century where a shipwrecked group voted on and then ate a cabin-boy who had been put in a coma from the crash. The really horrible thing about the situation is that they ended up being rescued the next day, making (in hindsight) the cannibalism unnecessary for survival.
Though of note - none of them were convicted of any crimes.
What if a group of people are stuck in the middle of nowhere after their planes fall due to a blizzard and have to resort to cannibalism to survive?So... the Donners?
I think he was talking about that soccer team who's plane crashed in the montains
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.
If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.This isn't super complicated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.
If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.
This isn't super complicated.
C'mon, Trogdar! Don't be silly!
I mean... How would you know your own reasoning better than HWalsh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.
If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.
This isn't super complicated.C'mon, Trogdar! Don't be silly!
I mean... How would you know your own reasoning better than HWalsh?
To be fair, I think our friend Mr Walsh is accustomed to telling people what they think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling those who disagree with you idiots does not help actually. But it is admittedly easier than trying to understand why they have this differing opinion
This is true.
No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.
If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.
This isn't super complicated.
I think a lot of this confusion/disagreement comes from a difference in timing.
When I'm creating a character, my idea of what's important to that character determines what I assign as their alignment. This is true whether I'm making a PC or an NPC. Sometimes I want a certain alignment and sometimes I have a personality in mind and that dictates an alignment. After that, it's possible that at some point I'll decide the character's alignment doesn't match what's on their sheet. This could either be because I incorrectly assigned it from the beginning or their personality changed from what I was imagining before. It's possible this is just a shift in priorities or the character succumbed to temptation rather than resisting. But the only reason why alignment would prevent this kind of personality->alignment character from behaving a certain way is if (1) the character is aware of alignment as a concept and it's important to them or (2) there are other restrictions because of campaign rules like "don't be evil".
When I'm picking up a character that I don't have a preconceived personality for, alignment serves as a shorthand. It's still not a straitjacket, but unless there's a deeper agenda it's unlikely the green dragon is going to help the virtuous party without payment, although it might oppose them without extra incentives. The gold dragon might assist for free or, if it opposes their goals, attempt to persuade them or otherwise stop them non-lethally.
So any sentient creature can choose to perform any action that's within their power, regardless of alignment. If the alignment is a defining feature rather than an RP tip, though, the player/GM controlling them should understand why they're still good even though they're choosing to perform <evil action X>.
So make an argument for why it is.The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.
It may depend on whether the act is preceded by murder committed specifically for that purpose.
The Curse of the Wendigo is supposed to strike people who commit this specific sin.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that an Evil undead created from a Good person can indeed become Good again by progressing towards redemption, as most Evil creatures can. But not by reverting to the Good person he was. That is gone forever even if it can inspire the undead to reach for Good. Becoming undead is a traumatism of the highest caliber and cannot be casually discarded
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.
Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.
If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.
This isn't super complicated.I think a lot of this confusion/disagreement comes from a difference in timing.
When I'm creating a character, my idea of what's important to that character determines what I assign as their alignment. This is true whether I'm making a PC or an NPC. Sometimes I want a certain alignment and sometimes I have a personality in mind and that dictates an alignment. After that, it's possible that at some point I'll decide the character's alignment doesn't match what's on their sheet. This could either be because I incorrectly assigned it from the beginning or their personality changed from what I was imagining before. It's possible this is just a shift in priorities or the character succumbed to temptation rather than resisting. But the only reason why alignment would prevent this kind of personality->alignment character from behaving a certain way is if (1) the character is aware of alignment as a concept and it's important to them or (2) there are other restrictions because of campaign rules like "don't be evil".
When I'm picking up a character that I don't have a preconceived personality for, alignment serves as a
So the universe is deterministic. The DM is God for all intents and purposes, and players don't have the freedom to exert their Will. That's not for me man.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Hwalsh: And you have no justification to do that either beyond "undead are evil because they are undead." The rules say nothing about the gm being allowed to say "no you're not allowed to change." Besides Helm of Opposite Alignment, a specific instance. And what will you do then? Prevent them from doing anything that isn't evil? Say no you're not allowed to take that action?
If you decide anything they do is evil, evil becomes a meaningless descriptor. If you decide to deny any action that is not evil, then they are not people, they are automatons without free will. They kill because they are simply machines that kill. They have no other possible action because they can't be anything but killers and whatnot. But so are golems, so why aren't they evil? And we're back at square one.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you decide anything they do is evil, evil becomes a meaningless descriptor. If you decide to deny any action that is not evil, then they are not people, they are automatons without free will. They kill because they are simply machines that kill. They have no other possible action because they can't be anything but killers and whatnot. But so are golems, so why aren't they evil? And we're back at square one.
Well, I'd assume that they can still do Neutral things. It's very difficult, even in a black-and-white world, to perform only Evil actions.
I mean, how would you open doors? You'd have to carry innocent people around to bash them open with. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If comes down to, on the Undead issue, if you turn evil... Then you have no justification to just ignore that.
If a PC loses to a vampire and is turned, they become evil. There is none of this:
"Well I'm still good and do what I want. So GM change my alignment back."
I'd go so far as to say that the template constantly applies, as it provides constant benefits, so even an atonement wouldn't hold as the template will just reapply the alignment alteration.
And in that case, the right way to handle that as a GM to decide why vampires are evil rather than just being immortal, stronger versions of their previous selves. At that point, the character's motivations aren't the same as the ones the player created them with depending on what makes vampires evil (I was going to say tick, but I don't think they have heartbeats although it's not in the rules...)
Reasons with my interpretation of proper GM action (not exhaustive, but a fairly large number to make a point):
1.) Vampire isn't really you, it's an evil spirit that inhabits your body: PC becomes an NPC. You can work with the player to figure out the new guy's personality, but otherwise that's that.
2.) Bloodlust eventually overcomes you and you view people as food, not friends: Will saves to avoid attacking people when they're wounded with escalating DCs (or something like that). This is similar to the standard handling of lycanthropy where you don't control yourself unless you embrace your new nature.
3.) Blood dependency means you get weaker if you don't feed, but otherwise the same as above: figure out penalties that happen until the vampire feeds. Over a long time, the vampire probably becomes indifferent to humanity if it keeps feeding on them. Or, the ones that survive a while are the ones that are willing to be evil anyway.
4.) Being undead rewires your instincts to be more brutal/not value life/whatever: Talk to the player about their character's motivations and figure out why they were good before. If it was because of the warm fuzzies, they probably get warm fuzzies from some evil acts now. If it was because of a strictly logical code of conduct, evaluate the underpinnings and decide if those still apply. If not, the character might start out with the same values but then drift as they have "revelations" about how they were so naive before and the like. If the player doesn't play along, depending on how strongly you feel the undead nature applies, either make some roll to avoid certain monstrous actions or make the character an NPC.
5.) The "apprenticeship" period while they're under the control of their sire eventually breaks them: if they're controlled by their sire for a long time, they're probably an NPC then anyway. If the sire is quickly destroyed, no problem. You get to be the same you still.
6.) Power corrupts: If they choose to be them, that's fine. In the meantime, though, play up their newfound strength. Have them unintentionally dominate shopkeepers and see if they use it once they realize or shut it down. If they use it, they're choosing to slide towards evil.
7.) Isolation breeds contempt: have villagers fear them and attack them. If they continue to protect the villagers, great, they're still good. If they turn on them and take revenge, that's why they're evil.
8.) There's a bigger boss making them act this way: Say they're somehow dependent on Urgathoa or some similar being for life. If they don't do what she says she'll either sap their will or their power until they're mindless servants or they waste away. This is similar to 5, but a little lighter touch on the control and a potential hook for a way to escape.
So while I agree that if you just say, "Being a vampire makes you evil, so act accordingly," the player just refusing and expecting to become good is fairly contrary. But if you give them a motivation for why they're evil now, they can either meaningfully have their character defy it or understand the reason their personality changed enough to force an alignment shift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, it really isn't a difficult concept. By default undead are evil. If you as a player can convince your GM to let you play a good vampire, cool. Or if you can convince your party to let you play an evil undead. Good for you. It is your game.
As standard though a PC turned to a Wight or vampire etc should become an NPC unless the rest of party/DM want to take the game in that direction. Undeath changes character abilities so significantly it doesn't fit in most normal games, particularly pathfinder published adventures.
0 Con, immunity to poison, disease, mind affecting enchantments, etc etc not to mention the negative energy healing makes it very difficult to include.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you decide anything they do is evil, evil becomes a meaningless descriptor. If you decide to deny any action that is not evil, then they are not people, they are automatons without free will. They kill because they are simply machines that kill. They have no other possible action because they can't be anything but killers and whatnot. But so are golems, so why aren't they evil? And we're back at square one.Well, I'd assume that they can still do Neutral things. It's very difficult, even in a black-and-white world, to perform only Evil actions.
I mean, how would you open doors? You'd have to carry innocent people around to bash them open with. ^_^
I knew someone who opened doors evily.
My Freshman roomate at Rutgers was a homophobe who detested the dorm we lived in, so he'd open the swing doors by punching them to take out his frustations on living in a gay friendly residence.
I can't say I was sorry for him when one day his fist missed the doorplate and ran through the glass instead.
|
Contributor
|
Blood of the Night touches on this and, if memory serves, it gives feeding itself as the reason. I'm doing a breathing treatment and am on my phone right now but when I get to my comp I can look it up.If comes down to, on the Undead issue, if you turn evil... Then you have no justification to just ignore that.
If a PC loses to a vampire and is turned, they become evil. There is none of this:
"Well I'm still good and do what I want. So GM change my alignment back."
I'd go so far as to say that the template constantly applies, as it provides constant benefits, so even an atonement wouldn't hold as the template will just reapply the alignment alteration.
And in that case, the right way to handle that as a GM to decide why vampires are evil rather than just being immortal, stronger versions of their previous selves. At that point, the character's motivations aren't the same as the ones the player created them with depending on what makes vampires evil (I was going to say tick, but I don't think they have heartbeats although it's not in the rules...)
Reasons with my interpretation of proper GM action (not exhaustive, but a fairly large number to make a point):
1.) Vampire isn't really you, it's an evil spirit that inhabits your body: PC becomes an NPC. You can work with the player to figure out the new guy's personality, but otherwise that's that.
2.) Bloodlust eventually overcomes you and you view people as food, not friends: Will saves to avoid attacking people when they're wounded with escalating DCs (or something like that). This is similar to the standard handling of lycanthropy where you don't control yourself unless you embrace your new nature.
3.) Blood dependency means you get weaker if you don't feed, but otherwise the same as above: figure out penalties that happen until the vampire feeds. Over a long time, the vampire probably becomes indifferent to humanity if it keeps feeding on them. Or, the ones that survive a while are the ones that are willing to be evil anyway.
4.) Being undead rewires your instincts to be more brutal/not value life/whatever: Talk to the player about their character's motivations and figure
Blood of the Night covers #3 in particular, including a subsystem. Some of the other stuff is described, but in a less mechanical sense.
|
Contributor
|
Blood of the Night covers #3 in particular, including a subsystem. Some of the other stuff is described, but in a less mechanical sense.I know it talked about feeding from the living being evil.
Not especially, no (at least in the Hunger section). It notes that feeding grants them protection against those who share an alignment with their victim. So they feed on Good, because most vampire hunters are good. Blood of the Night is one of the best allies that fans of Good undead could have, to be honest.
If I missed something, though, feel free to point me at it when you've had a chance to review your copy.
|
Contributor
|
Regarding vampire paladins, there's a vampire paladin in the AP
** spoiler omitted **
Your memory is correct.
I personally treat the statement 'All Undead are Evil' as a general and default rule. I think the point of this thread is to answer, "What alignment should undead be by default?" And I agree with the rulebook that the default alignment for undead should be Evil.
I'm totally okay with Ghosts being an exception to the rules. Upthread, someone mentioned how Mummy creation isn't really evil either, and I'm okay with that being an exception as well. I'm okay with plot specific events making unusually good-aligned undead. But by default, I think Undead should be evil. And I think the rules got it generally right.
I agree with this, by and large.
Mummies possess a cursed diseased touch that causes people to rot away/dessicate. That sounds pretty evil to me. Being embalmed may be a ritual sign of respect but being animated as a mummified corpse is pretty horrific.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering many of them say, "Twists to evil, malice, anger, doom, and hatred of the living pretty many of your counterarguments don't hold up.
What, the counterargument that "Yes, your alignment is changed to evil. But note there is nothing that suggests that you cannot change your alignment back to good just like any other evil being. Also, side-fact you can hate the living and still be good." Anger isn't evil.
Though my favorite is Attic Whisperer. Because according to you, neglecting a child to death isn't an evil act.
1. You can neglect a child through accident. You might try to run multiple jobs and end up basically seeing your child because you need the money so that the child can still eat and get clothes and pay rent and get medicine and go to school. They might end up neglected without any evil act.
2. Neglecting a child does not have to do with the death. It's a neglected child who has died, not a child that was neglected to death. Major difference in my mind.3. The child specifically does not need to be neglected, just being lonely and dying is enough. If I died as a young child in the pathfinder universe, I would have had a chance to rise as an attic whisperer because I was lonely as hell, but I was not neglected or bullied (well, not at the stage I'm talking about). No evil is necessary.
Also, are you insinuating that cannibalism is NOT an evil act?
Actually, I'm insinuating that cannibalism isn't an evil act in Pathfinder. I see no reason to discuss my personal views on morality as it is irrelevant to a pathfinder alignment discussion.
But the facts are that there are races in pathfinder who cannibalism enough as a thing that it is listed in their bestiary entry, and they are generally neutral. Also, there are things like Blood God Summoner that incorporate cannibalism into character abilities and do not have an evil alignment restrictions. There are even options like barbarians who eat humanoids to get their abilities when they rage, and it lacks an evil alignment requirement. There is actually no sign in the game that cannibalism is an evil act, and evidence to a whole species of cannibals that are not evil.
Yah know, there is one thing I really like about pathfinder. That undead no longer auto-detect as evil. I always think that was a nice change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rarely use the word 'most' because it isn't really substantiated but in this I am quite comfortable to say..
... Most people would consider neglecting a child to be pretty darn evil, whatever manner you try to justify it.
Also I think it is important that this topic doesn't get a bit too real. You can talk about animating the dead, you can talk about canibalism - as rare as it is.
Let's leave the child abuse out of the topic though hey?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mummies possess a cursed diseased touch that causes people to rot away/dessicate. That sounds pretty evil to me. Being embalmed may be a ritual sign of respect but being animated as a mummified corpse is pretty horrific.
Fire elementals are made of fire. Touching them causes horrible burns. They obviously must be evil.
Horrific also isn't the same as evil.
And funny enough, wizards contain a vast array of curses, dusting lasers, fiends, and explosions. Know what them and mummies have in common?
They only have to use them if they want to. A mummy can slap you with a sword without the curse, or they can shake hands without the curse, and a wizard can do way worse to you without being evil. Feel like being trapped forever in the body of a wallaby? How about being turned to stone for all eternity? Or stuck 10000feet underground in a random location in stasis?
None of that's evil. What the mummy is hitting with it decides if the mummy is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rarely use the word 'most' because it isn't really substantiated but in this I am quite comfortable to say..
... Most people would consider neglecting a child to be pretty darn evil, whatever manner you try to justify it.
Also I think it is important that this topic doesn't get a bit too real. You can talk about animating the dead, you can talk about canibalism - as rare as it is.
Let's leave the child abuse out of the topic though hey?
You... You do get we're not saying child abuse is not evil, but that it's not a reason for the undead child to be evil, right?