|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There actually is a (very rough) rule for tracking alignment points in Ultimate Campaign. And at least one 3PP with a much more detailed system. Agreed these systems aren't standard, though.
This is begging the question.Also, take into account what is needed for Infernal Healing...
Unholy Water (requires an evil spell being cast by someone to create)
No, it's a tautology. Evil spells are, by definition and by game rule, evil.
Except the argument is about how the tautology is justified. And it's begging the question when you try to prove a tautology using that same tautology.
"True by definition" is logically valid, but as I explained earlier is a deeply unsatisfying justification for this particular tautology - hence the resistance to this explanation and the search for other justifications such as the many interesting explanations presented on this thread.
In my campaigns, infernal healing works by stealing health from otherwise healthy people and transferring it to the recipient. So every time you cast it, a child falls out of a tree and breaks an arm or a kindly grandmother gets cancer or some other misfortune befalls an innocent. Thus every time it's cast the overall misery and pain in the world increases just a little bit.
Is it a justification? Yes. Is it strictly mentioned in the spell description? No. But I feel that Evil spells bring more evil into the world in the same way that Fire spells bring more fire into the world.
And I would look just as much askance at a character that deliberately cultivated an alliance with the plane of water but consistently cast a bunch of Fire spells afterward, as I would at an otherwise good-aligned PC who uses Evil spells routinely.
And yes, that means when someone casts protection from evil that some orphanage somewhere finds a valuable old coin tucked away in the corner of the attic while cleaning or other good fortune. Brining good energy into the world makes things slightly better for everyone.
If paizo published a book that said that "this is what happens when you cast x alignment spell" I'd be completely satisfied with those spells.
On another note, let's not use classical interpretations of good and evil. They're old and outdated these days and Pathfinder is no longer AD&D.
|
|
Except killing people can very easily turn you to Evil. Killing innocents is evil. Killing when you have the option of simply knocking off is evil. Killing as anything but a last measure is very close to the Evil end of Neutral. It is certainly not Good.
I agree. However, that does not mean that every act of killing is an evil act. A paladin is allowed to kill in at least some circumstances.
See: why use Infernal Healing when Healing is available? Why Summon Devils when summoned Archons, or heck, even hired hands could do what you want them to do?
Because it's easier. Because it's more expedient. Because I wanna show them who's boss
All of which are the kind of thinking that will eventually lead someone to lose consideration for others... Which is the opposite of what the Good alignment is all about.
But expedience is only evil when it actually comes at the expense of others. Killing someone because it's easier than taking them prisoner, yes. Buying a prepared meal instead of cooking, no. Again going back to my "where's the harm" question, if casting an [evil] spell doesn't actually come at the expense of someone else somehow somewhere down the line, why is it evil?
I mean... At the very least, you are using the energies of planes who are objectively Evil, bent on corrupting you, and dedicated to spread suffering, oppression and despair through the whole multiverse... How is that not evil?
But what does it actually mean to use the power of objectively Evil planes? Does it strengthen those planes (either directly or indirectly by increasing the amount of suffering and despair in the world)? Does it increase those planes' claim on your soul after death? Or does it actually weaken those planes by drawing on their reserves of magical power?
Yes and no. Numbers = alignment, notsomuch... I agree entirely with you there. But there are a host of ways that crunch (i.e. hard mechanics) does directly impact alignment (and thus RP and story), and some groups could be put off by suddenly have it be more "fluffy" than their used to.
Examples include all of the detection and protection spells, the <alignment word> spells, magic circles, and <alignment smite> spells. Those are hard numerical results of alignment. Then again, there are effects like the atonement spell or the helm of opposite alignment - effects that explicitly and...
I think you kind of missed my point. Yes, there are numbers that your alignment affects, but what is the mechanic that tracks alignment? Stealing is unlawful, so how many Chaotic points does stealing net you? Burning down an orphanage is both Chaotic and Evil, but if you burned it down because it was a gateway to the Abyss and you evacuated the children beforehand, how does that affect your alignment?
Those bonuses you're talking about don't affect alignment; it's the other way around. For example, you don't become lawful from getting a +2 to your AC, you get the bonus because you're already lawful. If you go around lying and breaking contracts, then your DM should have your character end up chaotic and lose that bonus. But, here's the thing; there's no set mechanic in the Core Rulebook for the DM determine how he's supposed to adjudicate alignment. Other than the descriptor for evil spells, there's no real method for determine what, by RAW, constitutes an evil act.
I actually didn't miss your point - I addressed it, noted it was correct for many (but not all) groups and inicated that not all folk who were against it were against it for the one reason you did, with examples as to why.
It is, in fact, the other way around - you missed my point - not that you were wrong, but that you were incomplete in your initial explanations for people's motives. I get what you're saying. But it doesn't cover everyone's perspective - because many take RP-value from those mechanics. And again, some are only looking at numbers instead of RP. But some take their RP from numbers and mechanics as well - a nuancing of your original point, not a direct opposition to it.
Orfamay: *sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffff; inhaling the sweet, sweet knowledge bombs *
Thanks! More of a response when I have the time and/or if Indont forget, but that's some sweet, sweet info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. However, that does not mean that every act of killing is an evil act. A paladin is allowed to kill in at least some circumstances.
The operative words here being "some circumstances". If a Paladin starts to kill willy nilly, he is not a Paladin anymore. The same reasoning applies to alignment and using evil spells.
But expedience is only evil when it actually comes at the expense of others. Killing someone because it's easier than taking them prisoner, yes. Buying a prepared meal instead of cooking, no. Again going back to my "where's the harm" question, if casting an [evil] spell doesn't actually come at the expense of someone else somehow somewhere down the line, why is it evil?
Again - Why does Infernal Healing exists? Because Hell wanted to give it's minions an easier, more efficient way of healing themselves? One which could be easily found by Hell's enemies and used to their advantage?
Or because Hell inserted some subtle malicious corrupting influence on a spell that just seems to good a deal to pass up?
But what does it actually mean to use the power of objectively Evil planes? Does it strengthen those planes (either directly or indirectly by increasing the amount of suffering and despair in the world)? Does it increase those planes' claim on your soul after death? Or does it actually weaken those planes by drawing on their reserves of magical power?
Every time you summon a fiend, there a not negligible chance that it will escape and proceed to burninate the countryside or twist it to it's evil ends. There a not negligible chance it will corrupt YOU and have another tool of evil and oppression in the word. Spells like Infernal Healing probably have side effects designed to spread Hell's influence over Golarion. And all sorts of s&@@.
I don't know what's so difficult to understand. You are dealing with spells that were created by, or involve, fiends. Immortal beings probably way smarter than you and with a thousand crafty ways to further the cause of Evil on the Multiverse. Why deal with them if you're not tempted by Evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.
Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.
Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
I thought the assumption was you only use that spell when you don't have another healing spell to use.
Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
Magi cannot cast Cure Wounds, and not everyone likes to play Clerics.
I thought the assumption was you only use that spell when you don't have another healing spell to use.Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
That's not a standard assumption that I've seen. The normal reason people pack infernal healing in my experience is that it gives the most hit points per gold piece. Even if you're a wizard, a "good" wizard would, or should, be willing to shell out 50 gp for an oil of CLW that can be used by anyone.
Magi cannot cast Cure Wounds, and not everyone likes to play Clerics.Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
And in character a sorcerer has no control on what spells they get, they could get infernal healing as a result.
That's not a standard assumption that I've seen. The normal reason people pack infernal healing in my experience is that it gives the most hit points per gold piece. Even if you're a wizard, a "good" wizard would, or should, be willing to shell out 50 gp for an oil of CLW that can be used by anyone.I thought the assumption was you only use that spell when you don't have another healing spell to use.Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
Nope, a level 2 wand of hex vulnerability with the healing hex gives the most HP per charge!
Nope, a level 2 wand of hex vulnerability with the healing hex gives the most HP per charge!That's not a standard assumption that I've seen. The normal reason people pack infernal healing in my experience is that it gives the most hit points per gold piece. Even if you're a wizard, a "good" wizard would, or should, be willing to shell out 50 gp for an oil of CLW that can be used by anyone.I thought the assumption was you only use that spell when you don't have another healing spell to use.Having evil spells that heal affect your soul causes a soul paradox when used to save a life. Having an evil healing spell that breaks the leg of a child elsewhere turns it into a greyish act when used to save a life.Not that simple.
If you use a spell that breaks a leg somewhere to save a life while there1s a perfectly good healing spell that doesn't break legs out there means that you are, at minimum, disregarding suffering that you could easily avoid for the sake of... What? Expediency?
Wasn't that errated?
|
|
The operative words here being "some circumstances". If a Paladin starts to kill willy nilly, he is not a Paladin anymore. The same reasoning applies to alignment and using evil spells.
Except that as written, casting an evil spell is always an evil act, but killing is not always an evil act.
Again - Why does Infernal Healing exists? Because Hell wanted to give it's minions an easier, more efficient way of healing themselves? One which could be easily found by Hell's enemies and used to their advantage?
Or because Hell inserted some subtle malicious corrupting influence on a spell that just seems to good a deal to pass up?
Or because it wants a spell that it can use to efficiently heal its own minions which also has a stigma attached to it that makes enemies hesitant to use it and causes suspicion and paranoia to fall upon any of its enemies who do use it. Distrust among goodly peoples is gold for fiends, and the belief that your friend the wizard has been corrupted by dark magic may very well become a self-fulfilling prophecy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit of shakey reasoning.
Or because it wants a spell that it can use to efficiently heal its own minions which also has a stigma attached to it that makes enemies hesitant to use it and causes suspicion and paranoia to fall upon any of its enemies who do use it. Distrust among goodly peoples is gold for fiends, and the belief that your friend the wizard has been corrupted by dark magic may very well become a self-fulfilling prophecy...
More importantly (IMHO), it's not really relevant.
The spell is, by game rule and definition, an "evil" spell and casting is an evil act.
Also by game rule and definition, a person who routinely commits evil acts is not acting in a good way -- whether you use a descriptive version of alignment ("this person isn't acting "good," so their alignment isn't "good") or a judgmental one ("this person is committing evil actions, which corrupts them and shifts their alignment away from good"), a person who routinely casts that spell is not acting in a good way.
The entire "but infernal healing shouldn't be evil" argument fundamentally rests on the fallacy of ignorance. "I personally don't see why it should be evil, therefore it shouldn't be evil." There's a proverb about THIS, too: Ignorantia non excusat ("ignorance excuses nothing.") Tell a cop (or a judge) that you didn't realize an act was a crime, and see how far that gets you.
Except in this case, it's even weaker, because everyone involved understands that the spell is evil, but a few people are arguing that because they don't understand the why of it, the spell should not be evil. Try telling the judge that you understand your act to be a crime, but because you don't understand why it's a crime, it's not really a crime (for you).
A number of people have proposed suggestions -- wild speculations, really -- about possible reasons why the spell might have negative consequences beyond the spell description. The game designers and publishers have not seen fit to provide definitive answers, largely because that's way beyond the scope of what they consider their role. This is, after all, a TTRPG, not a Ph.D. dissertation in moral philosophy. They've similarly not provided an explanation for why Desna, a good goddess, has access to the Curse subdomain. Again, that's out of scope. Indeed, they've not even provided a definitive creation story.
None of which affects what the game rules do say.
It's definitely defined as evil within the game. I guess we just have to swallow Divine command theory like good little Christians.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've similarly not provided an explanation for why Desna, a good goddess, has access to the Curse subdomain.
While I agree with the rest of your post, this jumped out at me as weird. Why shouldn't a Good deity, especially a Good deity of luck, curse their enemies? That makes perfect sense to me. None of the spells it provides have the [evil] descriptor or anything.
It's definitely defined as evil within the game. I guess we just have to swallow Divine command theory like good little Christians.
Speaking as a non-Christian, firstly, this phrasing is kinda insulting to Christians, so maybe you shouldn't say it that way.
And secondly, the situations aren't precisely equivalent. Even without an explicit statement of how and why Evil spells are Evil there's a fair bit of empirical evidence to support them being so for pretty good reasons in-world. What those reasons are is ambiguous, but their existence is not, and is certainly more than a 'Because Person X Said So', IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except in this case, it's even weaker, because everyone involved understands that the spell [i]is evil, but a few people are arguing that because they don't understand the why of it, the spell should not be evil. Try telling the judge that you understand your act to be a crime, but because you don't understand why it's a crime, it's not really a crime (for you).
If I ever find myself before an Indonesian court charged with atheism, I will most certainly tell them that I don't consider atheism to be a crime. Even though it won't avail me in the slightest.
However, we are discussing the rules of a game, not real life crime and punishment. Not liking the rule in a game is a perfectly valid reason for changing it. (You should probably be cautious about changing rules if you don't understand why they are what they are, but I don't fall into that category in this case and I'm not sure anyone else here does either.)
The lack of reference points for the why of evil is exactly what divine command theory is about. It's good because the book says it is or its bad because the book says it is, exactly like the Bible. Your not allowed to object.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, we are discussing the rules of a game, not real life crime and punishment. Not liking the rule in a game is a perfectly valid reason for changing it. (You should probably be cautious about changing rules if you don't understand why they are what they are, but I don't fall into that category in this case and I'm not sure anyone else here does either.)
I don't think anyone here is actually arguing against changing the rules. I'm certainly not. I'm arguing against the idea that the world ceases to make sense if you don't change them.
If you prefer a world where it works differently? By all means. My argument has always and entirely been against people who complain that the current rules aren't workable and result in [insert dumb thing here]. Which is, in my opinion, not true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit of shakey reasoning.
Or because it wants a spell that it can use to efficiently heal its own minions which also has a stigma attached to it that makes enemies hesitant to use it and causes suspicion and paranoia to fall upon any of its enemies who do use it. Distrust among goodly peoples is gold for fiends, and the belief that your friend the wizard has been corrupted by dark magic may very well become a self-fulfilling prophecy...More importantly (IMHO), it's not really relevant.
The spell is, by game rule and definition, an "evil" spell and casting is an evil act.
Also by game rule and definition, a person who routinely commits evil acts is not acting in a good way -- whether you use a descriptive version of alignment ("this person isn't acting "good," so their alignment isn't "good") or a judgmental one ("this person is committing evil actions, which corrupts them and shifts their alignment away from good"), a person who routinely casts that spell is not acting in a good way.
The entire "but infernal healing shouldn't be evil" argument fundamentally rests on the fallacy of ignorance. "I personally don't see why it should be evil, therefore it shouldn't be evil." There's a proverb about THIS, too: Ignorantia non excusat ("ignorance excuses nothing.") Tell a cop (or a judge) that you didn't realize an act was a crime, and see how far that gets you.
Except in this case, it's even weaker, because everyone involved understands that the spell is evil, but a few people are arguing that because they don't understand the why of it, the spell should not be evil. Try telling the judge that you understand your act to be a crime, but because you don't understand why it's a crime, it's not really a crime (for you).
A number of people have proposed suggestions -- wild speculations, really -- about possible reasons why the spell might have negative consequences beyond the spell description. The game...
in a world where laws change according to region, time, culture, and sometimes even gender and race, telling the judge that you don't consider something to be a crime encompasses everything from boorish defiance, noble resistance, or even just plain existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of reference points for the why of evil is exactly what divine command theory is about.
Except when we're talking about a work of fiction, it's not "divine command theory," but "authorial perogative."
Why is Spock half-Vulcan? Is this even medically possible? Obviously, yes, because Spock demonstrably exists within the Star Trek universe; much fan-fic ink has been spilt over this question, but the idea that Spock is not half-Vulcan doesn't get much traction.
Why do the Potterverse wizards use the stupid galleon-sickle-knut system instead of a more rational currency that can be exchanged with their Muggle neighbors? There's a lot of fan-fic ink on this question as well, but you're not going to get very far with the idea that Harry's bank account really is denominated in pounds and pence.
Why didn't Gandalf just get the eagles to fly the damn Ring to Mt. Doom and drop it directly in the cracks? From a Doylist perspective, the Ring quest makes for so much a better story that the idea wasn't even discussed from a Watsonian perspective. Maybe Gandalf and Elrond are simply dumb, maybe there's some subtle reason they didn't share with the reader, and (again) fan-fic has been working on this question for decades. But don't try to deny the in-world existence of the hobbits' journey on the grounds that you personally don't understand why it was necessary.
And, as long as we're discussing Doyle and Watson, why was such a stupid method of murder chosen in The Hound of the Baskervilles? Why not simply train a giant dog to attack and kill an old man instead of trying to frighten him to death? Lots of fan-fic on this question as well, but you're not going to get anywhere claiming that Sir Charles Baskerville actually died of dog bites.
If PF rules are "divine command theory," so is Spock's genetic makeup. Shrug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in a world where laws change according to region, time, culture, and sometimes even gender and race, telling the judge that you don't consider something to be a crime encompasses everything from boorish defiance, noble resistance, or even just plain existence.
I'd consider this a lot more responsive -- or even relevant -- if I thought there were a huge number of PF players, writers, developers, or publishers in 13th century Iceland, or Mesopotamia c. 3000 BCE, or Coruscant "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Oddly enough, for a game written in the 21st century and published almost exclusively in English (and US English, at that), the game as written assumes the reader has the cultural trappings of the early 21st century United States. (But I'm sure they'll publish an Etruscan translation when they feel the market warrants it, and when that happens, your point will TOTALLY be relevant.)
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.
The Vulcan analogy really doesn't represent that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.
No, I don't. And that's the fundamental disagreement. You have your own view of how things (in this case, the nature of evil) have to be which you are then attempting to impose upon someone else's work of fiction. Which is not only arrogant, but also stupid.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.
The Vulcan analogy really doesn't represent that.
Or there's some intervening variable you aren't aware of. Like the aforementioned Evil consequences several have posited for Infernal Healing.
To continue the example, in the original Star Trek, Spock being an alien/human crossbreed made no biological sense. That really shouldn't be possible on a profound level. But, in TNG it was eventually revealed that all (or at least most) of the humanoid species were actually related genetically (I believe through a precursor species).
What once did not make sense suddenly did.
It's very possible for a GM to insert such an explanation rather than either changing the rules or deciding that the universe is unjust.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.
The Vulcan analogy really doesn't represent that.
Or there's some intervening variable you aren't aware of. Like the aforementioned Evil consequences several have posited for Infernal Healing.
To continue the example, in the original Star Trek, Spock being an alien/human crossbreed made no biological sense. That really shouldn't be possible on a profound level. But, in TNG it was eventually revealed that all (or at least most) of the humanoid species were actually related genetically (I believe through a precursor species).
What once did not make sense suddenly did.
... which gets back to the real point. Spock exists because the writers want him to exist (Doylist explanation) or for reason that the characters don't understand or at least don't bother to explain to the reader/viewer (Watsonian explanation). As one of the tech advisors is famously supposed to have said in response to the question "How does the Heisenberg compensator work?" -- "It works very well, thank you."
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.No, I don't. And that's the fundamental disagreement. You have your own view of how things (in this case, the nature of evil) have to be which you are then attempting to impose upon someone else's work of fiction. Which is not only arrogant, but also stupid.
I'm arrogant and stupid because I point out logical inconsistency with the concept of objective morality... Really? I can certainly be arrogant as can anyone, but the topic of discussion and the nature of my responses put the lie to the second.
It's all irrelevant really, because attacking my person has no impact on my position.
I think certain things have to work a certain way because if they don't, then the defined thing becomes senseless.
"There is objective good, but no one knows or can know what that good is because no one is or can ever be objective."
So, if the above is true, what's the point in this idea of objective good/evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of reference points for the why of evil is exactly what divine command theory is about.Except when we're talking about a work of fiction, it's not "divine command theory," but "authorial perogative."
Why is Spock half-Vulcan? Is this even medically possible? Obviously, yes, because Spock demonstrably exists within the Star Trek universe; much fan-fic ink has been spilt over this question, but the idea that Spock is not half-Vulcan doesn't get much traction.
Why do the Potterverse wizards use the stupid galleon-sickle-knut system instead of a more rational currency that can be exchanged with their Muggle neighbors? There's a lot of fan-fic ink on this question as well, but you're not going to get very far with the idea that Harry's bank account really is denominated in pounds and pence.
Why didn't Gandalf just get the eagles to fly the damn Ring to Mt. Doom and drop it directly in the cracks? From a Doylist perspective, the Ring quest makes for so much a better story that the idea wasn't even discussed from a Watsonian perspective. Maybe Gandalf and Elrond are simply dumb, maybe there's some subtle reason they didn't share with the reader, and (again) fan-fic has been working on this question for decades. But don't try to deny the in-world existence of the hobbits' journey on the grounds that you personally don't understand why it was necessary.
And, as long as we're discussing Doyle and Watson, why was such a stupid method of murder chosen in The Hound of the Baskervilles? Why not simply train a giant dog to attack and kill an old man instead of trying to frighten him to death? Lots of fan-fic on this question as well, but you're not going to get anywhere claiming that Sir Charles Baskerville actually died of dog bites.
If PF rules are "divine command theory," so is Spock's genetic makeup. Shrug.
I'm confused. Are you saying a writer has no responsibility to address plot holes or contribute to world building?
Because that what it sounds like you're saying. "It IS, therefore no WHY is necessary" seems to be your general argument, which is...really weird.
Just because something exists doesn't mean a reasoning for WHY it exists is unnecessary. Quite the opposite, to not give an explanation for why something seemingly nonsensical or absurd exists is detrimental to the integrity of your story.
The story's not going to collapse on itself just because wizards use silly currency, but little things like that add up. Best to address them somehow, in a setting book or appendix or similar.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a very different view on all of this, based on the way that the River of Souls works. Here's an abbreviated version (I'm on a phone) -- more later.
In the Golarion universe, good, evil, law, and chaos are *substances*. A spell with the law descriptor creates particles of law, and some of that law rubs off on your soul and stains it.
Certain acts will tend to attract any loose particles of law that may be floating around. We call these lawful acts, but it is important to understand that this is not a moral judgment of the act, it is a description of the metaphysical result.
I look at the soul as a sort of air filter -- it is keeping all these toxic metaphysical particles from infecting you. But it gets stained with the amalgamation of particles you hang around.
After you die, your soul is taken to the big recycling center that is the Boneyard. Then it is sorted and sent to the appropriate Outer Plane -- not as any kind of moral judgment, but to see which toxic waste dump it belongs in. Once it has been purified of all the alignment particles tainting it, it can return to the Prime Material plane.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. Are you saying a writer has no responsibility to address plot holes or contribute to world building?
I think it's more that an author isn't required to give a detailed explanation of every little part of their world. And just because something isn't explained doesn't mean that there isn't a valid setting reason for it.
In this case, it's not a plot hole. It's an unexplained minor part of the setting.
If authors had to give explanations of every tiny bit of their world - fantasy & sci-fi books/movies/rpgs would never be finished. And when they DO give an explanation - even when it sort of makes sense, sometimes you wish they'd left it as an unknown. (midichlorians anyone?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. Are you saying a writer has no responsibility to address plot holes or contribute to world building?
Goodness, no. A writer has no responsibility to anyone except possibly to the acquisitions editor if she has a contract to fulfill. If you think that there's a plot hole sufficient to prevent you from buying and enjoying a work, don't buy it.
Having said that, I don't believe that this is a plot hole. It's an in-universe fact that a lot of people seem unwilling to accept. If this in-universe fact is sufficient to prevent you from buying and enjoying a work,.... well, you should be ahead of me at this point. But the fact that the Heisenberg compensators -- or for that matter, warp drive itself -- remain unexplained is not a plot hole, and the fact that I know enough physics to know that these are probably inconsistent with the real world doesn't prevent me from enjoying a well-told and visually compelling space opera.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. Are you saying a writer has no responsibility to address plot holes or contribute to world building?Goodness, no. A writer has no responsibility to anyone except possibly to the acquisitions editor if she has a contract to fulfill. If you think that there's a plot hole sufficient to prevent you from buying and enjoying a work, don't buy it.
Lol - while true plot holes (this isn't) are a pet peeve of mine, you're certainly right. There are enough successful and otherwise fun books which are chock full of plot holes & inconsistencies. Like - Harry Potter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in a world where laws change according to region, time, culture, and sometimes even gender and race, telling the judge that you don't consider something to be a crime encompasses everything from boorish defiance, noble resistance, or even just plain existence.I'd consider this a lot more responsive -- or even relevant -- if I thought there were a huge number of PF players, writers, developers, or publishers in 13th century Iceland, or Mesopotamia c. 3000 BCE, or Coruscant "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Oddly enough, for a game written in the 21st century and published almost exclusively in English (and US English, at that), the game as written assumes the reader has the cultural trappings of the early 21st century United States. (But I'm sure they'll publish an Etruscan translation when they feel the market warrants it, and when that happens, your point will TOTALLY be relevant.)
last I checked, Golarion was comprised of several different countries and cultures. Unless you have left the game behind and are waxing poetic about the world we live in today? I which case my original statement and point still stands. We are still divided by everything I just mentioned, within and without America.
Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.
Uh...no.
Self-employed people who personally make things for other people to buy have no obligations of any sort in regards to the nature of their product. They just aren't gonna make any money if people don't like what they make. So...they have a huge incentive to provide a quality product, but no obligation.
And writers generally fall somewhat into that category, though they're far from the only ones to do so.
Those employed to write a specific thing (like most freelancers in the RPG industry), not so much, but most novelists without an ongoing contract? No obligations at all, just a strong incentive.
I'm arrogant and stupid because I point out logical inconsistency with the concept of objective morality... Really? I can certainly be arrogant as can anyone, but the topic of discussion and the nature of my responses put the lie to the second.
It's all irrelevant really, because attacking my person has no impact on my position.
I think certain things have to work a certain way because if they don't, then the defined thing becomes senseless.
"There is objective good, but no one knows or can know what that good is because no one is or can ever be objective."
So, if the above is true, what's the point in this idea of objective good/evil?
Its more the issue, I think, that you're demanding that, before you agree with a stated rule that the author must explain the full rational behind that rule AND that rational must meet your personal standards.
For example:
I've got several suits of heavy armor in real life. One is a set of scale. It was fitted to me and while wearing it I don't notice much of a decrease in agility and, in fact, can turn cartwheels while wearing it with negligible increase in difficulty.
History also says that is a fact. Armor does not impact mobility generally.
Pathfinder limits agility in armor and inflicts a penalty on top of that. The rationalization is silly, but, at the end of the day it's the rule.
The same is true with infernal healing. It's clearly healing that comes from an evil source. The spell itself is evil regardless of what you're using it for.
This isn't a plot hole. This is just something you don't like.
It's not a plot hole issue, it's a universe that contradicts itself issue. Objective good is like saying it's black white out. It makes just that much sense. There's no way to be objective and place value because to place value requires subjectivity. Let me reiterate; valuation requires consciousness, consciousness is fundamentally subjective innately, subjectivity cannot be objective ever.
All these analogies relating to armor statistics being off or some other element of the universe is at least consistent within its universe, objective value is completely inconsistent with itself and the reality it lives in.
If your whole universe would implode immediately due to the rules you place on it, then I suggest that those rules are not plot holes, they're black holes devouring your whole setting before you play.
I guess my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. It's kind of like trying to describe how gravity isn't a force as much as a consequence of curved spacetime to a person who doesn't really get relativity.
There's a tonne of people out there who believe they can sense consciousness in rocks, so people believing in objective value isn't that surprising.
Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.Uh...no.
Self-employed people who personally make things for other people to buy have no obligations of any sort in regards to the nature of their product. They just aren't gonna make any money if people don't like what they make. So...they have a huge incentive to provide a quality product, but no obligation.
And writers generally fall somewhat into that category, though they're far from the only ones to do so.
Those employed to write a specific thing (like most freelancers in the RPG industry), not so much, but most novelists without an ongoing contract? No obligations at all, just a strong incentive.
I'm not sure I really see the distinction, at least from a practical perspective.
Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that peopke want, or you're out of a job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.Uh...no.
Self-employed people who personally make things for other people to buy have no obligations of any sort in regards to the nature of their product. They just aren't gonna make any money if people don't like what they make. So...they have a huge incentive to provide a quality product, but no obligation.
And writers generally fall somewhat into that category, though they're far from the only ones to do so.
Those employed to write a specific thing (like most freelancers in the RPG industry), not so much, but most novelists without an ongoing contract? No obligations at all, just a strong incentive.
I'm not sure I really see the distinction, at least from a practical perspective.
Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that peopke want, or you're out of a job.
Here is a good distinction at work I share my position with the owner's son. If I want to keep my job I am obligated to show up be at my desk and answer the phone among other things. His son has incentive to do so, by that I mean his dad has flat out told my supervisor that he won't relocate or fire his son he can come and go as he pleases deal with it. But if he does manage to show up for at least 3 days a week he gets he truck payment made.
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.
The Vulcan analogy really doesn't represent that.
Or there's some intervening variable you aren't aware of. Like the aforementioned Evil consequences several have posited for Infernal Healing.
To continue the example, in the original Star Trek, Spock being an alien/human crossbreed made no biological sense. That really shouldn't be possible on a profound level. But, in TNG it was eventually revealed that all (or at least most) of the humanoid species were actually related genetically (I believe through a precursor species).
What once did not make sense suddenly did.
It's very possible for a GM to insert such an explanation rather than either changing the rules or deciding that the universe is unjust.
That story only made sense if you can believe that DNA can serve as a holographic personnal message from the past at the same time when it's determining how every humanoid race in the Galaxy is built. And where talking about waiting three decades for an explanation?!
It's a classic example of a clear decision to throw away science in order to present some redressed magic.
Some of us knew the patent impossibility of halfbreeds like Spock, or that the idea that alien life would look anything like human. We also understood that the purpose of science fiction is mainly to provide alternate backgrounds and circumstances to tell human stories and rolled with it.