Regarding canabilism. Using rules to justify a moral argument is a bid weak.
For those claiming canibalism isn't evil - can you honestly say if cows, chickens and pigs were intelligent and could speak that it would be acceptable to kill and eat them?
i heartily recommend the book Alive for a mature discussion of canibalism in the modern age.
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?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?
That may not be what was intended, but it was what was said, go back and read the post. I don't consider it an appropriate subject for the pathfinder forum. Is that OK with you?
Regarding canabilism. Using rules to justify a moral argument is a bid weak.
For those claiming canibalism isn't evil - can you honestly say if cows, chickens and pigs were intelligent and could speak that it would be acceptable to kill and eat them?
i heartily recommend the book Alive for a mature discussion of canibalism in the modern age.
Cannibalism and murder aren't the same thing. Cannibalism is the part that involves actually eating a body, and doesn't imply any kind of killing being performed by the cannibal.
Regarding canabilism. Using rules to justify a moral argument is a bid weak.
For those claiming canibalism isn't evil - can you honestly say if cows, chickens and pigs were intelligent and could speak that it would be acceptable to kill and eat them?
i heartily recommend the book Alive for a mature discussion of canibalism in the modern age.
Killing people just to eat them is evil... But the eating itself isn't. I mentioned a couple cases where I'd be very comfortable saying cannibalism a neutral act... Possibly even a lawful or good one.
Regarding canabilism. Using rules to justify a moral argument is a bid weak.
Um, but they're rules about morality.
Likewise, yeah, there's nothing morally wrong with cannibalism that I can see. Can you explain why it's evil? Because if you cannot, it isn't.
For those claiming canibalism isn't evil - can you honestly say if cows, chickens and pigs were intelligent and could speak that it would be acceptable to kill and eat them?
i heartily recommend the book Alive for a mature discussion of canibalism in the modern age.
Kill them? No. Eat them? Definitely.
| 2 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. ^_^
Oddly enough, Whether or not neutral acts exist at all has been the subject of an argument on this forum.
There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action.
As far as I remember, no one else posting in that thread agreed with HWalsh on that claim, but there was an argument over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough, Whether or not neutral acts exist at all has been the subject of an argument on this forum.
There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action.As far as I remember, no one else posting in that thread agreed with HWalsh on that claim, but there was an argument over it.
Why am I not surprised HWalsh was the one who said that?
| 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. ^_^
Oddly enough, Whether or not neutral acts exist at all has been the subject of an argument on this forum.
There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action.As far as I remember, no one else posting in that thread agreed with HWalsh on that claim, but there was an argument over it.
*headdesks*
I give up. There is no hope for this world. (T_T)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy will burn it, if you want, but only because she was gonna do it anyway.
Tammy will burn it, if you want, but only because she was gonna do it anyway.
A lich getting really angry would look very similar to the ten plagues. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy gets the job done. :-)
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...
IIRC, the specific examples of attic whisperers I have seen in Golarion setting materials all were examples of neglect to the point of abuse, not simply mom working two jobs or something. Eledia from undead unleashed died from being locked in a chest for 11 days by an evil caretaker for instance. IIRC, in another book there is a bugbear who specializes in tormenting children to death, who produces attic whispers that he talks to. Even if it's not spelled out in precise language, I think RAI attic whisperers are formed from some sort of abuse, and just being lonely and dying young is not sufficient to spawn one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, the specific examples of attic whisperers I have seen in Golarion setting materials all were examples of neglect to the point of abuse, not simply mom working two jobs or something. Eledia from undead unleashed died from being locked in a chest for 11 days by an evil caretaker for instance. IIRC, in another book there is a bugbear who specializes in tormenting children to death, who produces attic whispers that he talks to. Even if it's not spelled out in precise language, I think RAI attic whisperers are formed from some sort of abuse, and just being lonely and dying young is not sufficient to spawn one.
That's probably because when it comes to telling a story, you try to tell the one that will be considered the most interesting, so you go with the ones most emotive. The game says that a kid that was lonely can rise as an Attic Whisperer, it does not say the kid has to be tormented or traumatized, but when people are writing stories I'd be dumb to ignore the opportunity to tie into something that can generate emotion in the readers and players, so they'll use that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread and like seven others over the past few days have made me sure of one thing if nothing else.. I'm super duper happy I just use this game as a rules set and wouldn't go anywhere near Golarion as a player or a GM for an oppertunity to motorboat every stripper and burlesque dancer in Vegas.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread and like seven others over the past few days have made me sure of one thing if nothing else.. I'm super duper happy I just use this game as a rules set and wouldn't go anywhere near Golarion as a player or a GM for an oppertunity to motorboat every stripper and burlesque dancer in Vegas.
Golarion is fine so long as every little bit of it isn't voted on by a panel of internet form-goers. ;P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tammy doesn't need scripts to ignore people, she just ignores them.
It is very hard to have a rational discussion about evil and evil acts because the concept of evil quite possibly does not exist. In the real world when someone does something we consider evil it is almost always triggered by some trauma that occurred to them, usually in childhood. This doesn't excuse acts but it does remove some of the agency away from that person. In stories we are able to create villains that are evil and look at what they do on a much more black and white level.
For canibalism there is a strong societal interest in not eating your dead. Not least because society shouldn't benefit so immediately and viscerally from the death of its members. There are questions over consent of what happens to your remains and how such actions effect your bereaved relatives. In most societies bodies are treated reverentially, In a world where their are gods and an afterlife desecration of a tomb or corpse is a real thing.
In the real world cannibalism is a taboo. We consider the German fellow who found someone willing to be eaten depraved. But In Golarion this is powerful enough to cause a person to animate as a hideous, stinking, filth encrusted ghoul whose body is wracked and riddled with mutations - claws, sharpened teeth, tongue. You may somehow see this as some form of benign transformation as the result of an ecological process i however see it as a powerful curse because of the archetypal wrongness of the act.
Eating the dead in an extreme survival situation like that described in Alive while morally justifiable is still a traumatising experience and the survivors suffered extreme psychological repercussions from the act. The shame of surviving at their colleagues expense was extremely difficult and many were horrified that the truth was revealed.
Alignment is about your motivations (internal) and your actions (external).
One can effect the other, and vice versa, but don't necessarily have to. It is complicated. It's a two way street. Things can force changes in action (dominate), but not neccessary lay affect motivation. Things can effect motivation (helm of opposition, undead template), but not necessarily affect actions.
Judgement (what happens to a soul after death) is only concerned with action. Having evil impulses, but not acting on them, doesn't get you sent to Abbadon. Souls are only judged by the weight of actions.
That's why babies might actually be Chaotic Evil (hard to tell because they are too low level to respond to alignment detection), but if they die young they would still go to wherever innocents go in the after life. They were never able to take genuinely evil action.
Canniblism straddles the motivation/action line, so it is hard to pin down. The Donner party certainly didn't want to eat each other. They had to. Therefor, their evil action didn't sleep into motivation. It might have been an evil action, but would not have caused an alignment shift. They didn't become evil because of eating each other. The Canniblism Subdomain isn't a survival thing. It is absolutely a motivation thing, which then becomes action, which is directly and tangibly rewarded by an evil god. In that case Canniblism is definitely evil specifically because it is unneccesary. You can't make a choice like this without being evil first. In fact, taking the Canniblism domain would pretty much require a worshiper to be evil first (or would quickly cause an alignment change).
It terms of alignment change, actions carry more weight. If you have good impulses, but still do evil things, you won't really be able to fall back on your impulses long. If you are an evil person, but you decide not to give into those impulses for long enough, eventually you won't really be able to be judged for your evil thoughts anymore.
So, undead who want to become non-evil pretty much face the same struggles as people with severe addictions. They just have to stop giving into their cravings. After long enough they won't be the same person slaved to their impulses. They may still have them sometimes, but that isn't what made them Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of cannibalism...
Eating an object is not evil. Cannibalism does not hurt, oppress, or kill anyone in and of itself. If you're not doing those things you are not doing evil. That's the beauty of the alignment system. It breaks it down into simple, reasonable, and most of all rational explanations for what is and is not aligned.
Not being evil, however, has nothing to do with what is or is not acceptable in society. Social settings often allow great evils, or may frown upon certain acts of good. This is irrelevant to alignment. It would be gross to see the party's barbarian roast orc-meat over the campfire and dig in, but it's not evil, because the barbarian is acting upon an object (a corpse). The barbarian isn't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone. This is assuming the orc in question was already dead (probably for trying and failing to ambush an adventuring party). Killing someone to eat them is evil because of the killing, not the eating part.
|
The act of cannibalism taints your soul and turns you into a ghoul or a ghast upon death, more often than not. In the real world I'd also argue that simply eating a fellow human to survive, especially if I didn't murder him, isn't evil, but in Pathfinder it's pretty well established that it's an inherently evil act, no matter the context.
It would seem that the defining factor for deciding if eating something is evil or not would be if that creature was sentient. Therefore, eating an orc is evil, just as an orc eating a human would be evil, from how I understand it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The act of cannibalism taints your soul and turns you into a ghoul or a ghast upon death, more often than not. In the real world I'd also argue that simply eating a fellow human to survive, especially if I didn't murder him, isn't evil, but in Pathfinder it's pretty well established that it's an inherently evil act, no matter the context.
It would seem that the defining factor for deciding if eating something is evil or not would be if that creature was sentient. Therefore, eating an orc is evil, just as an orc eating a human would be evil, from how I understand it.
If (act hurts, kills, or oppresses others)
{act.alignment = evil;
}
else
{
act.alignment != evil;
}
This is not hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, the specific examples of attic whisperers I have seen in Golarion setting materials all were examples of neglect to the point of abuse, not simply mom working two jobs or something. Eledia from undead unleashed died from being locked in a chest for 11 days by an evil caretaker for instance. IIRC, in another book there is a bugbear who specializes in tormenting children to death, who produces attic whispers that he talks to. Even if it's not spelled out in precise language, I think RAI attic whisperers are formed from some sort of abuse, and just being lonely and dying young is not sufficient to spawn one.
Interestingly enough, Eledia isn't evil aligned despite driving Mother Comfort to suicide (Though she was already unstable).
Meanwhile, Mother Comfort is firmly set as evil aligned.Neither chose to be undead, either way the orphanage is a pretty cool encounter, enjoyed using it.
The act of cannibalism taints your soul and turns you into a ghoul or a ghast upon death, more often than not. In the real world I'd also argue that simply eating a fellow human to survive, especially if I didn't murder him, isn't evil, but in Pathfinder it's pretty well established that it's an inherently evil act, no matter the context.
It would seem that the defining factor for deciding if eating something is evil or not would be if that creature was sentient. Therefore, eating an orc is evil, just as an orc eating a human would be evil, from how I understand it.
That still doesn't cover the very neutral and very cannibalistic Lizardfolk. They'll eat you but attach no other value to it. Meat is food, why waste any?
Same actually goes for animals and, to a lesser extent, other animalistic beings. They can kill you and eat you but that doesn't make the crocodile evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The dislike of morality labels comes from the fact that when something is labeled evil that we think, automatically, that it is wrong. People don't like to be told they are doing things, especially if they enjoy it, as being wrong in that. This is true of just about anything.
I, for example used to play Magic. I used to play rogue decks. My friends were hardcore tournament players. They'd often say I was building my decks wrong as I didn't make T1 and T2 decks. I didn't like it.
People get upset about being told they are RPing wrong. You see this behavior everywhere.
When the game has an overarching morality system in place that labels people... Surprise... They don't like it when they feel they are saddled with being called evil.
And it's silly as there is nothing, at all, wrong about playing, or having fun playing, an evil character.
To add: I'm referring to Tier 1 and Tier 2, not Type 1 and Type 2.
What people are saying is that they disagree when the game calls them Evil because they don't agree with the creators of the game on ethical issues, and then it actually has mechanical consequences. Let me show you an example-a player(let's call him Richard, or R for short) is arguing with their GM(Gregory, or G for short)
R:Right, so I finish crafting my robe of an archimagi(white), and put it on.
G:You gain three permanent negative levels.
R:What? Wait, what allignment am I?
G:Evil, obviously.
R:What the...Since when?
G:Since you became a lich, of course. See, The Magnificent Rulebook says that liches are "any Evil", so as a lich, you are Evil.
R:This is ridiculous. I never did an Evil act and you know it.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:That wasn't even my decision! I was flipping forced to do so by the BBEG!
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Look, fine, maybe I did, whatever. What about all the good stuff I did? I have been spreading Good all over the place since...well, since the start of the game.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:I have singlehandedly decreased illiteracy from 89% to 0.4% in four neighboring countries.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:GDP has risen ten times since the start of my "evil carnage", trade never was as lucrative before and we now have proper free healthcare.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R: Mortality rates are 1/5 of what they used to be, child mortality rates are 1/20th and I estabilished proper patrols of the wilderness, so mortality due to monster attacks has decreased by two orders of magnitude.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Involuntary child labor is practically nonexistant, I created a state-supported school system and estabilished at least ten universities, which is 9 more than there were at the start.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Every major city has Continual Flame-based lighting system now! Crime at night has dropped like a rock.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Demonic incursions into our realm have been halved!
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:My country even has a plane shifting program now! Non-mages have walked on the plane of fire and lived. It was shown all over the place through the magical television, which, come to think of it, was also invented by me.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Natural disasters are swiftly averted by a specialised team of Wizards. Last time a city was destroyed by a hurricane or an earthquake was 30 years ago.
G:Yes, but you became a lich.
R:Look, whatever. I'll go play Fallout 4 instead, they at least have supermutants.
EDIT:for all of those who think that allignment determines behavior and this person would have never done these things, assume other partymembers debuffed him into -5 will saves and then put a helm of opposite allignment on his head after he has been turned into a lich.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of cannibalism...
Eating an object is not evil. Cannibalism does not hurt, oppress, or kill anyone in and of itself. If you're not doing those things you are not doing evil. That's the beauty of the alignment system. It breaks it down into simple, reasonable, and most of all rational explanations for what is and is not aligned.
Not being evil, however, has nothing to do with what is or is not acceptable in society. Social settings often allow great evils, or may frown upon certain acts of good. This is irrelevant to alignment. It would be gross to see the party's barbarian roast orc-meat over the campfire and dig in, but it's not evil, because the barbarian is acting upon an object (a corpse). The barbarian isn't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone. This is assuming the orc in question was already dead (probably for trying and failing to ambush an adventuring party). Killing someone to eat them is evil because of the killing, not the eating part.
It hurts the bereaved of the person you eat because you are desecrating their remains.
Recycling the dead for sustenance is desecration in the same way that animating the dead is desecration.
The rates of birth and death mean it is impossible for a community to survive on its own dead, even supplementally. It is a narrow divide between eating your own people and going after some other people's corpses. It is also a narrow divide between eating corpses and making corpses.
Ghouls dig up the dead to feast or make new corpses. This is fairly well established in lore and practice. If lizardman see nothing special about eating a dead sapient creature then that by itself may not be sufficient to shift their entire alignment to evil if in all other regards they are neutral.
If however the lizardmen attack and raid caravans for dinner then the community alignment would shift to evil.
On the subject of cannibalism...
Eating an object is not evil. Cannibalism does not hurt, oppress, or kill anyone in and of itself. If you're not doing those things you are not doing evil. That's the beauty of the alignment system. It breaks it down into simple, reasonable, and most of all rational explanations for what is and is not aligned.
Not being evil, however, has nothing to do with what is or is not acceptable in society. Social settings often allow great evils, or may frown upon certain acts of good. This is irrelevant to alignment. It would be gross to see the party's barbarian roast orc-meat over the campfire and dig in, but it's not evil, because the barbarian is acting upon an object (a corpse). The barbarian isn't hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone. This is assuming the orc in question was already dead (probably for trying and failing to ambush an adventuring party). Killing someone to eat them is evil because of the killing, not the eating part.
It hurts the bereaved of the person you eat because you are desecrating their remains.
Recycling the dead for sustenance is desecration in the same way that animating the dead is desecration.
The rates of birth and death mean it is impossible for a community to survive on its own dead, even supplementally. It is a narrow divide between eating your own people and going after some other people's corpses. It is also a narrow divide between eating corpses and making corpses.
Ghouls dig up the dead to feast or make new corpses. This is fairly well established in lore and practice. If lizardman see nothing special about eating a dead sapient creature then that by itself may not be sufficient to shift their entire alignment to evil if in all other regards they are neutral.
If however the lizardmen attack and raid caravans for dinner then the community alignment would shift to evil.
And if the bereaved are the ones being cannibals, because this is what everyone does in their culture when a relative dies?
As for surving on dead people, well, neither can any community survive on Beluga caviar, yet people still eat it, as a delicacy.
At the very least, I would hope, that no society in pathfinder could be considered "good" and be accepting of cannibalistic activities.
As for surving on dead people, well, neither can any community survive on Beluga caviar, yet people still eat it, as a delicacy.
Sanctity of a corpse is a real tangible thing in Golarion. There are gods and spirits that give a damn what happens to their bodies or bodies of their worshipers.
Pissing off a dieity can get you turned into a tree or a pig. these are things that actually happen in this world.
Also, I feel it is worth stating that we are talking about IG here. IG emotions like wrath, pain, and lust are evil. There are physical embodiment of these things that have evil as a type.
Also, I feel it is worth stating that we are talking about IG here. IG emotions like wrath, pain, and lust are evil. There are physical embodiment of these things that have evil as a type.
But lust itself isn't evil in Golarion. It's chaotic, maybe, but not evil. I mean the main goddess of lust is CN after all, and the unnatural lust spell does not have any alignment.
But lust itself isn't evil in Golarion. It's chaotic, maybe, but not evil. I mean the main goddess of lust is CN after all, and the unnatural lust spell does not have any alignment.Also, I feel it is worth stating that we are talking about IG here. IG emotions like wrath, pain, and lust are evil. There are physical embodiment of these things that have evil as a type.
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Nocticula
The Lady in Shadow, Nocticula (pronounced nok-TICK-you-lah), is a demon lord who concerns herself with the metaphysical qualities of darkness and lust.
I'll grant that the god embodyment of it is neutral, so at least it isn't a good concept.
Also the runelord "virtues of rule" would say otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alot of made-up evil going on in this thread, now. Alot of flavour and personal narrative, delivered by people whose arguments are completely removed from the word of the game.
If, by now, you're among those who have yet to read the chapters on alignment, and as such have yet to understand that the list of things that are evil, according to the game itself is:
- Debasing innocent life
- Destroying innocent life
- Hurting others
- Oppressing others
- Killing others
Then let me be the one to point you to that very list and say "This is it". Those 5 things are the complete and total extent of any and all acts that ARE actually evil, in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Any other thing, any thing that in its execution, does not make itself guilty of one of those 5 things, is not evil as far as the game is concerned. YOU may find it morally reprehensible, entities IN your setting, be they gods, societies, religions or ethnic groups, may find it morally reprehensible, but it is not evil. It is a thing that someone doesn't like, it may be icky, sticky, amoral, wrong and injust, but it is not evil. Not unless it qualifies on the above list.
I would say that now that we know this, we can all stop making up nonsense, but I don't truly expect certain people to care. Someone is bound to ignore it and stick to their own vision of how the game "should be". And how they think the game "should be", they will argue that the game actually IS, and heed no argument to the contrary, even when provided with proof in the form of the written word of the game itself.
-Nearyn
|
Cannibalism : using the Cook People hex is Evil. Even if you did not kill them beforehand. Even just knowingly eating its product is Evil. Just because you are willingly eating something made magically from the dead body of an intelligent humanoid creature.
And yes what you do to a body can hurt innocent people. Maybe its relatives or other people who knew it. Or maybe its spirit/ghost/previous occupant.
If you do hurt innocent people, then it is an evil act.
If you don't, then it's not IMO.
- Debasing innocent life
- Destroying innocent life
- Hurting others
- Oppressing others
- Killing others
In Golarion souls can care a lot what happens to their bodies. The consumption of a loved one debases their family.
(This might be a tangent, sorry if it is)
Even the writers have said they assume some common sense (I cant seem to place the exact phrasing right now) from their players, otherwise being dead would do nothing mechanically.
So this "List of Five things that are evil full stop do not pass go thing" isn't really helping much.
And yes what you do to a body can hurt innocent people. Maybe its relatives or other people who knew it. Or maybe its spirit/ghost/previous occupant.
This is mechanically and cannonically incorrect.
Killing a despotic warlord would not be an evil act just because the guy had a loving family who cared about him. Putting that warlord's head on a spike as a message to the rest of his followers would also not be evil, no matter what his family thought of it.
Putting his head on a spike would also not affect his departed spirit in any way. Nor would eating him. Or animating his corpse.
Even if Mr. Warlord was himself a cannibal, who died and then rose from the dead as a Ghoul, that would still not effect the departed spirit.
That ghoul is not the warlord. The warlord's spirit has already moved on to be judged by Pharasma. The ghoul is just an echo of who the warlord used to be.
A creature becoming undead does not affect the soul that resided in the body when it was alive.
Yes, it's weird. No, I don't necessarily think it's a great element of the Golarion cosmology. However, that's the way it works in the setting, and it's one of the areas where setting canon directly influences game mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Nocticula
The Lady in Shadow, Nocticula (pronounced nok-TICK-you-lah), is a demon lord who concerns herself with the metaphysical qualities of darkness and lust.
I'll grant that the god embodyment of it is neutral, so at least it isn't a good concept.
There's a demon lord who concerns himself with winged creatures, does that mean birds are evil?
Raise Dead: A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.
I'm pretty sure Raise dead not working means the spirit of the dead can care quite a bit if its body is reanimated.
If Golation's cosmology says that none of those acts are evil, are any of those acts necessarily "Good?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a demon lord who concerns himself with winged creatures, does that mean birds are evil?http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Nocticula
The Lady in Shadow, Nocticula (pronounced nok-TICK-you-lah), is a demon lord who concerns herself with the metaphysical qualities of darkness and lust.
I'll grant that the god embodyment of it is neutral, so at least it isn't a good concept.
Yes in Golarion there are Evil birds.
|
|
Alot of made-up evil going on in this thread, now. Alot of flavour and personal narrative, delivered by people whose arguments are completely removed from the word of the game.
If, by now, you're among those who have yet to read the chapters on alignment, and as such have yet to understand that the list of things that are evil, according to the game itself is:
- Debasing innocent life
- Destroying innocent life
- Hurting others
- Oppressing others
- Killing others
Then let me be the one to point you to that very list and say "This is it". Those 5 things are the complete and total extent of any and all acts that ARE actually evil, in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Any other thing, any thing that in its execution, does not make itself guilty of one of those 5 things, is not evil as far as the game is concerned. YOU may find it morally reprehensible, entities IN your setting, be they gods, societies, religions or ethnic groups, may find it morally reprehensible, but it is not evil. It is a thing that someone doesn't like, it may be icky, sticky, amoral, wrong and injust, but it is not evil. Not unless it qualifies on the above list.
I would say that now that we know this, we can all stop making up nonsense, but I don't truly expect certain people to care. Someone is bound to ignore it and stick to their own vision of how the game "should be". And how they think the game "should be", they will argue that the game actually IS, and heed no argument to the contrary, even when provided with proof in the form of the written word of the game itself.
-Nearyn
I completely agree that "This is it".
It is just that I likely disagree with some of what you read in it (and that you consider obvious RAW) ;-)
That is the root cause of any Rules debate actually.
Because what is obvious to one person may not be that obvious to another one. Who could actually have a very different "obvious" reading of what is written.
That is even more the case with alignment rules because they deal with morality and we ALL have a very deep but personal knowledge and opinion on morality.
|
|
BTW, I love people using the RAW as gospels when they believe it strengthens their case and casually disregarding it when it does not. Such as the Bestiary entries on most undead saying that they are Evil.
I just cannot fathom how one can use part of the RAW to try and disprove another part of the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stat-block entry to any kind of creature is inconsequential to whether or not the creature can be of a given alignment.
Looking at the entry for ghouls and saying "ghouls are neutral evil" is no more valid than looking at the entry for Aasimar and saying "Aasimar are neutral good".
If we're going to talk about the bestiary, why don't we talk about how there is only one creature type in the game that is stated to always be of one alignment, and that is animals.
Animals are Always Neutral. The only creature type in the bestiary, who have their alignment set in stone.
If you read on, you'll notice that it says that conventional skeletons are always neutral evil, and that conventional zombies are always neutral evil, but we're talking about individual creatures and the mindless undead here. The undead creature type, the category of creature shared by all undeads, provides no alignment restriction whatsoever.
-Nearyn
*Edited, ironically, because of DnD-related brainfart
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that creatures with alignment sub types have it as well.
For the case of monsters, listing an alignment is an INCREDIBLY easy way to summarize a monster's personality with two letters. It also helps to give monsters social categories—one can imagine a bunch of LE monsters hanging out together, for example. In many cases, the choice is relatively arbitrary—one picked by the designers, who look at the monster's traditional role in the game and make the decision there. A monster's alignment is a great way to organize monsters as well. It's certainly the predominant alignment of the monster—it's not an inborn trait for non-ousiders, but all monsters have an alignment that they default to. There can be variances, just as you can have unusual colors in monsters, or monsters with slight other differences in appearance, but the majority should be of the listed alignment. If you change the monster's alignment, in other words, you need to justify that change in game with descriptive text.
Be careful trying to compare monster alignments to real world species, though, because not only is alignment NOT a real-world concept (it's a completely artificial game mechanic aimed at giving game designers and players a swift way to summarize a creature's baseline personality), but the vast majority of real-world creatures that appear in the game as well are all animals. And thus neutral aligned—which is the best alignment to assign something that isn't inherently good or evil, I guess. Humans would be neutral if they had an entry in the Bestiary.
|
|
The stat-block entry to any kind of creature is inconsequential to whether or not the creature can be of a given alignment.
Looking at the entry for ghouls and saying "ghouls are neutral evil" is no more valid than looking at the entry for elves and saying "elves are chaotic good".
If we're going to talk about the bestiary, why don't we talk about how there is only one creature type in the game that is stated to always be of one alignment, and that is animals.
Animals are Always Neutral. The only creature type in the bestiary, who have their alignment set in stone.
If you read on, you'll notice that it says that conventional skeletons are always neutral evil, and that conventional zombies are always neutral evil, but we're talking about the mindless undead here. The undead creature type, the category of creature shared by all undeads, provides no alignment restriction whatsoever.
-Nearyn
There is no entry for elves ;-)
If the alignment info has no value in the Bestiary, why even add it ? It eats precious wordcount for nothing.
That said, I agree that it does not mean that there cannot be a non-Evil ghoul. Just that they are definitely an exception.
And I do not believe ANYONE in this thread argued seriously for "no exception at all, Evil only".
The stat-block entry to any kind of creature is inconsequential to whether or not the creature can be of a given alignment.
Looking at the entry for ghouls and saying "ghouls are neutral evil" is no more valid than looking at the entry for elves and saying "elves are chaotic good".
If we're going to talk about the bestiary, why don't we talk about how there is only one creature type in the game that is stated to always be of one alignment, and that is animals.
Animals are Always Neutral. The only creature type in the bestiary, who have their alignment set in stone.
If you read on, you'll notice that it says that conventional skeletons are always neutral evil, and that conventional zombies are always neutral evil, but we're talking about the mindless undead here. The undead creature type, the category of creature shared by all undeads, provides no alignment restriction whatsoever.
-Nearyn
There is no entry for elves ;-)
If the alignment info has no value in the Bestiary, why even add it ? It eats precious wordcount for nothing.
That said, I agree that it does not mean that there cannot be a non-Evil ghoul. Just that they are definitely an exception.
And I do not believe ANYONE in this thread argued seriously for "no exception at all, Evil only".
So long as they are a major exceptions, sure.
If the alignment info has no value in the Bestiary, why even add it ?
To give a general idea of the moral disposition of the average example of that creature, and to let you know how it reacts to alignment detection, smite, and other alignment based effects.
Further, he's talking about subtype. Elves aren't a subtype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undeath screws you up psychologically and spiritually.
Nevermind the fact your brain might be literally rotting inside your skull. Undeath degrades your psyche and your connection with the living. The game, especially in the Golarion setting, firmly establish that undeath is an unhealthy state for your soul. In classic literature and modern fiction, undeath is seen as a curse or an unpleasant state that only a monster would revel in. Even benevolent undead (like Jacob Marley from Christmas Carol) find it absolutely miserable. As a result, I find no fault in having the game consider creating undead an evil act and that undeath gradually corrupts your mind and soul into a creature of a hate and malice.
And don't argue that the rules should be setting neutral and that these concepts should not exist as a result. Any tabletop RPG makes basic assumptions about the game setting in order to better facilitate the game mechanics. Even GURPS makes assumptions about what setting you're playing in.