| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not understand why so many people think they will remain the same in these circumstances when an ordinary mortal life already changes us so much
I can only speak for myself in this regard, but there's a reason I have a high degree of confidence that I would remain myself. I've got a very solid core personality which has endured largely unchanged for at least two decades. Superficial details have changed, such as favourite song or what dish I order when I go to a new Chinese restaurant, but the important things (those which define me in a meaningful fashion) have stayed the same. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but the reality of it is apparent.
Besides, I would counter that it is more far fetched to imply that this would create a drastic change in the individual. A gradual change over time would be believable, but having observed people clinging to ingrained ideas I don't think sudden reversals can be expected. In fact, it seems that sudden changes can often reinforce strongly held ideas, as a mental defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely take the offer, no question.
Once I became bored with immortality (which would probably take me a while), I would then turn to using my powers and devote myself to improving the human condition.
At least, that's what I think I would do with my current mindset. Who knows how I'd feel in a hundred years time? Or even a thousand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But even the Offer itself, regardless of one's choice to accept or not, would impact one's Faith, wouldn't it?
Why ?
Faith exists in the absence of evidence. If you're offered divinely powered spells, that's objective evidence of at least a Deity or a Deity-like Source, even if it isn't the one of your religion or tradition. If you now have evidence of a Deity, doesn't that at the very least prompt reflection upon the core elements of one's faith and Faith?
... aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd...
Obviously the deal is a NO if it would destroy my faith.
Why? In this case the "destruction" comes from certitude one way or the other (there is a God and he is your God, there is no God, or there are many gods, one of which may or may not be your God).
While yes, technically that would destroy your faith (since it is now not a belief, but a known fact), why would you prefer ignorance?
Sort of, but not necessarily impact in any negative way, and certainly not "destroy" regardless of anything else.
Reflection is not the same thing as alteration, and proof doesn't invalidate faith.
Faith, by its nature, exists regardless of evidence - that is, evidence may or may not be present, and faith is itself, either way. Evidence can impact faith, if one also puts faith in evidence - rationally, one would put some faith in evidence (i.e. the scientific method), but that is not a prerequisite for faith in general. Faith is more than just acceptance when no evidence is present - it is action within that acceptance, and reliance upon the object of faith to be exactly what it is, consciously or otherwise.
I do the right thing, because I am certain the right thing is the right thing to do. It's circular. But faith, in general, is.
Belief, if you accept it being different, can be two different things. First, it can based upon evidence - if evidence is granted, then belief is taking that and making a decisions about it. This belief is rational, and is a form of acceptance that only comes with proof of some kind or another. Buuu~uuut defining "belief" to be based off of evidence is shaky, at best. Belief can also be a part of you, without evidence that anyone else can discern. In that way, it can appear similar to faith. The fundamental difference is that belief requires no particular action.
I know what the right thing to do is, but I may or may not do it, even though I am certain the right thing is the right thing to do. This is belief.
Having evidence one way or the other doesn't impact faith, but it may/i] impact belief.
(As an aside: religiously, I find there are similar dichotomies of similar-yet-difference concepts all over the place that are blurred by linguistic distinctions and changing definitions: joy versus happiness, pride versus arrogance, lust versus desire, peace versus... different peace, and so on.)
Furthermore... a deity who would turn you into a walking corpse in order to further its will is... doctrinally questionable.
... why? Again, there are no clear physical, psychological, or personal negatives for taking the deal.
"You no longer need your biological functions to physically interact with the world. You are sustained and have no negative physical impact on those around you. Your appearance is up to you."
The flesh that we have is our only method of interacting with the world. This deal as-presented by the OP makes it so that we don't need stuff that we normally need. Instead, we get a new source of unlimited personal energy, and extreme durability and restorative action.
This argument looks like a long extended "Ew." at nothing in particular.
Unless you're arguing that the deity doesn't take a direct hand until you accept the deal which turns you into a walking corpse, in which case, becoming a creature which promotes life while itself being nothing but death makes for an interesting dichotomy and potential redemption arc.
But... redemption from [i]what? What does one need redemption from, in this case?
The only real reason one would presume redemption is necessary, is if one presumed the state was inherently evil in some way, which is something the OP clearly removed.
Hmmmm...
On Golarion, a lich who turns to Sarenrae,seeking to atone for the sheer nastiness of its existence... good hero OR villain, depending on the narrative need...
That's true - but on Golarion, liches are required to be evil, by default. This isn't the case, per the OP.
It might be fun to do this and then join a convent so people don't freak out as much when I start restoring the dead back to life and healing even the worst injuries with a touch and a prayer.
Perhaps I should explain this more.
It isn't being a lich that interests me in this deal it's the 11th level spell casting. I can select Cleric as my class. Clerics receive their power directly from a god. I would select Jesus as my God. I would be working miracles(spells) granted to me by Jesus. I would be closer to God by taking this deal.
This sounds like a great concept for a villain in a modern fantasy story.
There is literally nothing villainous about the described actions taken.
"I want to help the world and praise my God. If I do it outside of a recognized support structure, people will freak out. Therefore, I'll enter a recognized support structure so that I may explicitly assist others while praising my God."
UFIFY. Even the villain usually thinks he or she is the hero in their own story.
While villains are heroes of their own story, they are still villains because they are engaging in villainous acts. The only way you can surmise that the above are villainous is by presupposing that religion in general or a specific religion is, itself, villainous for unspecified (or specified, but, to my experience, often both circular and bigoted) reasons. A specific religious statement may well be rejected for rational reasons, yes, but broad strokes? Nope.
It's worth nothing, this applies to all religions and institutions, in general.
Well, obviously the lich deal comes from the devil. It works the same way any deals with the devil do - you have the free will to sin by taking it, so God does not prevent it. That you mistakenly think you're still righteous is traditional.
Again, why would you presume this?
(I'm going by the "Well, obviously" rather than the "is traditional." and thus am presuming the argument is, "You're wrong to think it comes from God, sucker." instead of, "You can't inherently assume," which I'll get to below.)
Why would any caster automatically assume that the Power that replenishes their divine spells is Their God, or at least Their God exactly as they've been taught by their Faith? What if he's The God, but it ain't Jesus or the Holy Spirit; instead, it's the Old Testament Yahweh or Islamic Allāh? Or the gnostic God? Or Ra, or Bast, or Set, or Zeus, or Shiva, or Cthulhu, etc.? Heck, assuming the Power even communes with Its divine caster(s), why would the caster(s) assume the Power is telling them the whole truth, or any truth; why would the caster assume their mortal Sense Motive check will beat a Deity's?
Because, if it was any of those other things (outside of the Old Testament Yahweh, or, arguably, Islamic Allāh), the cleric class wouldn't function.
If a caster worships a god that doesn't exist, the caster gets nothing, per the cleric class and every scrap of non-Eberron lore we have (and even then). A dead or non-extant god grants you nothing (without a specific feat, which you get to choose, if you want it).
Effectively, this line of questioning is, "Well... what if the exact things that we know, based on the deal as-presented, aren't actually the things we know."
That said, I chose wizard for this exact reason - I'm not sure that God or Jesus would have game-defined statistics in any reasonable way.
Would you take the deal if it irrevocably drastically alters, or destroys, the foundation of your current Faith?
Well, if it inherently does without my input, than it's not the deal as-presented. If it's a matter of "here is evidence, what say you" than yes, absolutely.
Knowing that your Deity is the one true Power, how would you deal with all the other faiths?
Easily: I'd prove that I've got stuff they don't have, and talk with them. If, on the other hand, they have it, than it falls under the paradigm I described above (either I'd not be cleaving to the faith, and thus not be granted spells in the first place; or it wasn't actually the cleric class as we understand it, currently).
To either prove (or not) my own faith, however, that's easy: plane shift. Instant proof, if it works. No evidence one way or the other (but a tick in the "maybe against" column) if it doesn't.
Fhwe~!
Lot of stuff!
EDIT: Fix Coding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, if it was any of those other things (outside of the Old Testament Yahweh, or, arguably, Islamic Allāh), the cleric class wouldn't function.
If a caster worships a god that doesn't exist, the caster gets nothing, per the cleric class and every scrap of non-Eberron lore we have (and even then). A dead or non-extant god grants you nothing.
And if it turns out Thor IS the source of the power? Or Baal?
Or (ew) the Aztecs turn out to be right?
The deal specifies 11th level casting. It really says nothing about spiritual or religious issues- presumably if you pick Cleric, then you get your 11th level spellcasting capability from... somewhere.
Does the deal rewrite reality to create a deity to let you pick Domains that suit you? Or does it presume the setting-agnostic option that you can be a Cleric and pick domains, but it says nothing about you having a deity?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, if it was any of those other things (outside of the Old Testament Yahweh, or, arguably, Islamic Allāh), the cleric class wouldn't function.
If a caster worships a god that doesn't exist, the caster gets nothing, per the cleric class and every scrap of non-Eberron lore we have (and even then). A dead or non-extant god grants you nothing.
And if it turns out Thor IS the source of the power? Or Baal?
Or (ew) the Aztecs turn out to be right?
The deal specifies 11th level casting. It really says nothing about spiritual or religious issues- presumably if you pick Cleric, then you get your 11th level spellcasting capability from... somewhere.
Does the deal rewrite reality to create a deity to let you pick Domains that suit you? Or does it presume the setting-agnostic option that you can be a Cleric and pick domains, but it says nothing about you having a deity?
Here's the problem with your question.
"If you change everything about the situation, it doesn't look so good, now, does it?!"
You're presuming a "gotcha" that doesn't function with the cleric class.
2)You're instantly granted 11th level casting and craft wondrous item, the other specifics of which are up to you. If your casting class has a book you're granted one with an appropriate amount and type of spells in it.
See that bold bit? "The other specifics" - you're literally trying to RAWyer a "bad" end out of something that literally lets you choose an arbitrary happy conceit in order to... make something be bad? I don't know.
She chose cleric, explicitly to chose to be a cleric of Jesus.
If your premise is, "What if the setting doesn't work like you think it works and doesn't do what you think it does?" than you're asking a question different from the OP.
EDIT: And I'm pretty sure you didn't actually read the general thrust of my argument, besides.
This may well be a setting with elements we don't know about. The OP is ambivalent about that subject of (and, I believe, later mentions he doesn't believe in spiritual afterlife). Similarly, the OP mentions explicitly that he considers undeath to be a horrible state of existence because, in his own opinion, being undead is an abomination. But there's no why it's an abomination given.
"It's unnatural" only functions if you presuppose there is some sort of higher power - like a deity or uber-state of perfect existence somehow - that is denied or subverted by becoming immortal. Basically, the very essence of a (personal or non-personal) godhood effect that isn't acceptable under the "evidence-based" paradigm.
The OP later (after the opening question) opines that you'll no longer enjoy the pleasures of the flesh... but gives no compelling reason for this, other than "it's normally just bones" which ignores the fact that it gains a Perception bonus and can still see and hear (and presumably touch, as it doesn't go around accidentally crushing everything it holds, else it'd be a lot easier to deal with). But even with that, the good that can be accomplished by accepting for the good of all, far outweighs any negative personal repercussions one might experience.
Again, the only arguments against it is, "Presuming an arbitrary, unsupported presupposition..." and, "You might not enjoy things as much." and, "People probably will hate you." - the former being unsubstantiated bias against, the middle being an acceptable sacrifice to help the world, and the latter just a matter of course for any life you live no matter what.
If you find out it doesn't work... you won't be able to select eleven levels of cleric focusing on Jesus, as, by definition, He isn't a God (or the God) you can worship to gain clerical power from. Unless you presume that what she specified isn't what she gets, despite the OP saying that it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just it, some of us believe that the Christian God is no more real than, say, Thor, or Huitztlipochtli... so either the Cleric's choice to have a deity whips that being into existence, or the spells are actually coming from their belief, rather than an entity, or the deal simply fails, because as you note, non-real deities do not grant spells. Unless you wish to argue that someone choosing to be a cleric of Poseidon would somehow fail?
It is an extremely thorny issue to intersect this kind of thing with actual personal convictions- and hence why I believe your choice of Wizard was probably a safer one for a goofy thought experiment on a gaming messageboard.;)
I mean, if the deal can create an actual god, being a Lich is sort of the crummy end of the bargain...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just it, some of us believe that the Christian God is no more real than, say, Thor, or Huitztlipochtli... so either the Cleric's choice to have a deity whips that being into existence, or the spells are actually coming from their belief, rather than an entity, or the deal simply fails, because as you note, non-real deities do not grant spells. Unless you wish to argue that someone choosing to be a cleric of Poseidon would somehow fail?
That's the thing, though. If my faith is "proven" wrong, I've two options, as implied under the faith paradigm: act as if it works, or allow myself to be changed.
If someone can choose (and does, successfully choose) to gain power from Poseidon or Huitztlipochtli or Thor, that proves (for as close to "proof" as you can get) the existence of Poseidon or Huitztlipochtli or Thor, as I noted in my larger spoiler-laden post.
But with a few simple non-divination spells, regardless, I can, by eleventh level, automatically gain proof, one way or the other.
While I have faith that a would-be cleric of Poseidon et. al. wouldn't function, I have no proof (at present), and hence have no real worries if someone chooses that. Hence, I certainly allow for the possibility of it, depending on our setting.
It's only that Aranna's explicit choice was "A" - everyone arguing against it is, "But what if you secretly didn't choose that at all?!" which... is kind of weird.
It is an extremely thorny issue to intersect this kind of thing with actual personal convictions- and hence why I believe your choice of Wizard was probably a safer one for a goofy thought experiment on a gaming messageboard.;)
I totally agree. :)
(That said, as a Wizard, I'd totally get some questions answered soon, anyway. :D)
In context, the "Well, obviously" part was a direct response to the argument that the transformation would fail if Jesus objected to the lich thing. From a Christian viewpoint (as I understand it from outside), the source of such magical power would have to be either God or the devil - there are no other options. If it's God, then you're fine, of course. If it's the devil, then you've fallen prey to demonic temptation and traditionally Jesus doesn't just stop that from working. That's kind of the point of temptation. You're supposed to resist it, not give in and let Jesus keep bad things from happening. That's your free will at work. You can choose sin. Even if you think you're not.
I understand, now, but... that's actually not fundamentally true.
New Testament faith is built upon the foundation of Old Testament faith, and is currently interpreted in a singular way, but that singular way is a cultural understanding thereof, and is not the only way to accurately interpret the things that are currently written, even in the original languages, with the original documents.
Currently, the broad cultural dynamic and understanding is, "God, the devil, and that's it." in the spiritual realm... yet said broad cultural understanding explicitly has no place for something like a lich to exist within (much less the d20 magic casting system).
What that means, then, is that a) something is wrong somewhere (which we generally accept) or b) we automatically reject the deal (as there are hidden strings).
The thing is, by our very own purported faith - we can't accept the deal if it, in some regard, actually separates us from God. It's not possible.
But yes, with the specifics of the deal assuming them to be correct in all particulars, you can't go wrong. OTOH, that wasn't what Aranna was assuming, since she put the Jesus won't let it happen if it's bad qualifier in there.
That the deal, assuming you pick cleric, apparently not only gives you the powers, but creates a deity as a side effect. Which is weird.
I don't think it does, and I'm pretty sure that's not how it works (since most people I know don't think that way way, either)... though, of course, I can always be wrong about what people mean.
See, that's the thing - by putting the "Jesus won't let it happen if..." Aranna is actually submitting to the authority of a higher power - she is, by definition, choosing to be a cleric of Jesus with faith that Jesus will prevent that action, if it's evil to Him. That's her choice - she's not creating a god, she's not instituting a moral code that doesn't exist; she's saying she chooses to be X that does Y. Under that paradigm, God acts as God will, and Aranna will follow with it.
It does presume the existence of God - but then again, unless you change the paradigm (and, admittedly, the OP's variant lich changes the paradigm a lot), a lich presupposes a soul and effective afterlife.
If there's none of that, though, that, again, comes with a reason to accept lichdom. It allows you to go until you're done.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand speaking of "done", I'm going to go spend some time with family... fast-paced fun thread is fast-paced and fun!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand speaking of "done", I'm going to go spend some time with family... fast-paced fun thread is fast-paced and fun!
A pleasure, as always!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just it, some of us believe that the Christian God is no more real than, say, Thor, or Huitztlipochtli... so either the Cleric's choice to have a deity whips that being into existence, or the spells are actually coming from their belief, rather than an entity, or the deal simply fails, because as you note, non-real deities do not grant spells. Unless you wish to argue that someone choosing to be a cleric of Poseidon would somehow fail?
It is an extremely thorny issue to intersect this kind of thing with actual personal convictions- and hence why I believe your choice of Wizard was probably a safer one for a goofy thought experiment on a gaming messageboard.;)
I think the way someone slandered Christians in this thread was a pretty poor choice, and one which possibly should have been flagged as offensive.
Telling someone that everything they believe is evil (or saying their deity or religion is evil) in the context it was given...is a pretty offensive thing at times.
It can be done in a way showing why one feels that way, but in the way it was presented in this thread...I'm not even Aranna's religion (and may possibly push for an atheistic approach at times, especially where deities in RPGs are concerned, I'm one that would rather be able to consider them all killable and slay them all than have a devoted follower of one), but I think the way the post was given originally was a VERY POOR TASTE.
Talking about being clerics or otherwise I think is fine, but specifically stating one's deity is a villain with no real explanations of what caused that, and just saying it because....
I'd say, better to just keep it on topic about Clerics and Lich's than going that far off topic into the grounds of religious faith.
As on the original topic...my thoughts were why become a Lich at all?
I think becoming an immortal Were Wolf Lord is hands down better than any Lich (dead and decaying), Vampire (never see the sun again), or other undead.
You may have an occasional rampage of blood and violence, but hey...no need to be a magic user or other sort of caster to have fun. Plus, everyone gets drunk every now and again...right!????
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you can take the initial offer, become a Cleric and become an ex-Cleric if you do not behave as your deity mandates. Thus if lichhood is contrary to your deity's will, instant ex-Cleric
In Pathfinder, can't you switch deities as a cleric if you wish?
Hence, you could switch up your allegiance to another deity if you so desired, and retain much of your Clerical power.
Here, in this life...well...I don't know. Since we are talking about Lich's on a PF board, and with no other real rules to decide how spellcasting works...I'd say the PF method would probably still be the default method to decide how such things would operate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that in order to make a proper decision on becoming a Lich, you really have to look at what specifically you are getting.
Darkvision 60ft - nice.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) - not sure about this one, you'd be immune to fear, but also to anger, being inspired, probably a lot of other feelings/emotions. Mixed feelings.
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning - nice.
Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores(Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects - very nice, you never feel the need to sleep.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures - not regenerating over time would be odd, but spells take care of that.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless) - nice
Proficient all simple weapons - nice
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep - hard to get used to, but nice
Lich:
The process involves the extraction of the spellcaster’s life-force and its imprisonment in a specially prepared phylactery—the spellcaster gives up life, but in trapping life he also traps his death, and as long as his phylactery remains intact he can continue on in his research and work without fear of the passage of time - sounds like that would probably hurt, but for immortality? pain-shmain!
A lich has a +5 natural armor bonus - nice
A lich gains channel resistance +4, DR 15/bludgeoning and magic, and immunity to cold and electricity - very nice
Rejuvenation - the real reason to do this(minus the spells)
Touch Attack drains and paralyzes victims - could come in handy if would-be heroes decide to try and put you down.
Fear Aura Frightens the weak and shakes the strong - terrible if we couldn't turn it off, but huzzah we can!
Alignment: any evil - It'd be a pretty hard decision if this wasn't hand-waved away.
Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +2. - very, very nice
+8 racial bonus on Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth checks - very nice
Craft Wonderous Item:
depends on how easy it is for you to find the ingredients you need, but if you can find essentially whatever, this would be incredible. The sheer number of options is staggering and if you decide to share and help the world, you could solve most of the worlds current problems and really improve peoples quality of life.
11th-level spellcasting(assuming you pick one class):
Wizard, cleric, or druid - amazing, really
any other full-casting class - pretty good, but no 6th level spells is lame
The upsides of becoming a lich in this case are huge and the downsides are pretty manageable with the use of spells. I'd have to say yes to this mystery man offering lichdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy is given a deal by the Devil to live forever. Of coarse he takes it. Near the end of the episode the guy kills someone and ends up in jail; LIFE with no possibility of parole. The Devil shows up as the man sulks in his cell as he ponders eternity in the cell. The Devil takes the guys soul.
So anyone who takes Tea Cup's bargain should be careful about killing someone even with a ton of spells. You will have a bunch of gunslingers (cops) on your butt and at some point you WILL find yourself in Jail for the LOOOONG Haul.
-----
For the thread, I would take the deal. I would play D&D forever and rejoice that I don't have Epilepsy anymore. I would finally learn to GM and I would make sure that that Eternity's children would learn to play a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, old game. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion said it best.
Thank you. Your my hero. I hate it when atheists throw bricks at me just because I am Religious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I seem to be the offender, my intent wasn't to "throw bricks", catch someone in a gotcha moment, or slander/libel any religion or individual. I was attempting, in my imprecise way, of posing questions I would be asking myself when presented with new evidence of fantastic and just revealed new forces which would seem to challenge the current scientific understanding of the universe. This would be huge.
But regardless of intent, I have given offense, making people feel attacked and unwelcome in our shared Paizo community. I sincerely apologize for it. (If this is insufficient, please PM me directly, as I'm withdrawing from the thread.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy is given a deal by the Devil to live forever. Of coarse he takes it. Near the end of the episode the guy kills someone and ends up in jail; LIFE with no possibility of parole. The Devil shows up as the man sulks in his cell as he ponders eternity in the cell. The Devil takes the guys soul.
So anyone who takes Tea Cup's bargain should be careful about killing someone even with a ton of spells. You will have a bunch of gunslingers (cops) on your butt and at some point you WILL find yourself in Jail for the LOOOONG Haul.
"Haha, we have (somehow) managed to catch you and strip you of anything you can use to cast your black magic to escape! What now, abomination?" the detective asks.
"I kill myself as soon as your back is turned and reappear in a secret location." thinks the Lich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This also begs the question of how you got caught to begin with. You kill someone in the US, you Teleport to a country with no extradition, and you wait until the statute of limitations runs out, if they even figure out it was you to start with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy is given a deal by the Devil to live forever. Of coarse he takes it. Near the end of the episode the guy kills someone and ends up in jail; LIFE with no possibility of parole. The Devil shows up as the man sulks in his cell as he ponders eternity in the cell. The Devil takes the guys soul.
So anyone who takes Tea Cup's bargain should be careful about killing someone even with a ton of spells. You will have a bunch of gunslingers (cops) on your butt and at some point you WILL find yourself in Jail for the LOOOONG Haul.
... meh. I'm an 11th level caster. I'll either destroy the prison on my way out, or just make a new life. Or I'll call an angel from heaven to be my character witness. Or I'll raise the jerk I killed from the dead. Or I'll devour the government whole.
The (un?)fortunate side of our penal system is that being in jail might be inconvenient, but being an immortal in our jails is not that bad. Heck, with the right skills, it might not be bad at all.
For the thread, I would take the deal. I would play D&D forever and rejoice that I don't have Epilepsy anymore. I would finally learn to GM and I would make sure that that Eternity's children would learn to play a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, old game. :D
DUDE~! YES~!
Since I seem to be the offender, my intent wasn't to "throw bricks", catch someone in a gotcha moment, or slander/libel any religion or individual. I was attempting, in my imprecise way, of posing questions I would be asking myself when presented with new evidence of fantastic and just revealed new forces which would seem to challenge the current scientific understanding of the universe. This would be huge.
I agree it would be huge - but when faced with solid proof, then I'd have solid proof.
Going back to an earlier argument, if, I don't know, say, a cleric of Vishnu started doing his thing all of a sudden, then yes, by definition, I'd have to rethink things.
(I'd probably go back to older scriptures that are more commonly ignored or taken as figurative descriptions of mortal rulers today which can be taken to imply the existence of multiple gods.)
... buuuuuu~uuuuuut that doesn't actually invalidate my faith. Because faith and reason aren't related (though you can reason through your faith).
To go with the hypothetical of "What if I got cleric, and that's part of the deal." as an automatic corollary (and, to be clear, stepping beyond the OP's situation), then you've got a pretty interesting situation on your hands.
In this case, despite still being completely alien to the current expected bulk of most faiths, it still fits much more easily within the expected paradigm of what you've got going on.
An offer of, "Here, become a lich and you must be an 11th level cleric." seems, to me, more suspicious than, "Here, become a lich, and you may get 11th level spellcasting of any kind you decide."
... buuuu~uuuut, again, that's not really inherently suspicious. It just happens to align with my world-view in that, "Ahah! It's explicitly limited to 'divine' magic! That could be because it comes from a surprise source~!" could be an easier take away, more than, "The magic really doesn't matter, it's a means to an end (i.e. you have it because that's what's necessary to become a lich)." could lead to the conclusion that it's sinister.
Of course, the whole thing could be sinister - but I'm accepting (as part of the initial premise) that the lich-giver could, for certainty, "prove" the offer was sincere to me (as per the OP) - that I was convinced it wasn't a devil's bargain, and that it would work.
With that in mind, as I have my current set of beliefs, but only modified to now include the possibility of lichdom, and due to that concept I've got a host of presumptions and understandings unique to me () which indicate to me that an offer of, "Choose your own." is less suspicious than, "It has to be way <X> (which has specific connotations and/or implications to your explicit belief system)."
Buu~uut, again, that's yet to get to the actual situation.
If I was granted the deal, I'd still accept it, presuming I was convinced I knew what the parameters were.
If it, thereafter, turned out to be a literal or figurative Devil's bargain... I'd be in a quandary, and be forced to contemplate the best way to overcome said bargain, or get back into the right with God.
If, on the other hand, there was somehow objective proof that either Nietzsche was right (or at least that there either was no god, God, or otherwise), or that my divine "power" was granted by a different god, or that a god other than mine was the god...
... well, again, either I keep my faith in spite of the evidence, or I alter to accept the evidence as the genuine thing. I'd like to think that I'd find a rational and reasonable way to do the former, but it's very likely I'd fall into the trap of the latter. "Proof" is powerful and seductive stuff. :)
But regardless of intent, I have given offense, making people feel attacked and unwelcome in our shared Paizo community. I sincerely apologize for it. (If this is insufficient, please PM me directly, as I'm withdrawing from the thread.)
I'd rather you not. I think everyone has at some moment or another. It's what happens with people, and one of the greatest issues you'll have to overcome as a lich. Regularly. :)
** spoiler omitted **...
Am I the only only one that can't read my "Ew, lich!" spoiler tag? I click "show" and nothing happens - it gets highlighted, as if I clicked it, but it doesn't say "hide" and I don't get to see anything.
I would not take the deal. Humanity is not something to just be thrown away, no matter what's on offer. Nor do I have confidence that I could make the world better by (magical) force. Mind controlling people is deeply repugnant to me, but I could also see how it might be a temptation to use such spells on particularly problematic people. I don't think that I would like the person that I would become. And I do believe in an afterlife, so there's that.
One of my longest hesitations for accepting was based on whether or not I was sacrificing my afterlife for the physical variant of immortality. In the end, I, at least, am convinced that I am not.
Mind-control isn't even remotely required for altering the world for the positive - simply making a trap that generates create water at will, and all of a sudden no one in the world lacks clean water. Another trap that generates prestidigitation and all of a sudden, a drastic drop in disease and infections, just from minor cleaning. These things are not expensive (comparatively) and they're the kind of things you can do with the Craft Wondrous Item feat (which you get by default - else you can't be a lich).
That's the source of what I can do. The same game-breaking power a crafter mage has in-game is exactly what will revolutionize the world. I'm not arrogant - even with 11th level casting, I'm not going to alter everything. What sold me, was that I'm an immortal 11th level caster with the ability to create magic items. Because that will completely change everything.
That said, using mind-control on terrible people is only one way of handling the situation. Others include things like destructive magic (not my favorite), completely ignoring them (and establishing systems through your world-altering shenanigans that they are, in fact, ignored), and simply the self-buff-plus-diplomancy (i.e. a skill check).
At 11th level, I'd have more comparative ranks than anyone else in the world today. I've got a pretty solid chance. :D
That said, I can understand if you don't want it. To each their own!
BTW, why would becoming a lich with spellcasting ability be proof that there is an afterlife ?
Because you've placed your "soul" in a box. The existence of a "soul" is implicit evidence of an afterlife.
That said, if you've got 11th level casting, one plane shift later, and suddenly you've got objective proof of an afterlife.
Obviously, one does not have to accept the preconception of a soul - the phylactery might just be a thing that rebuilds you with memories intact, maybe through a quantum state alteration or something - but I'm just running by the concept of "lich" as it's found with the explicit exceptions given in the OP. Similarly, one doesn't have to accept the concept of other planes, but that's not part of the original proposal, and, certainly, a lich's arsenal presupposes alternate planes of existence.
Even with a soul and other planes, that doesn't automatically mean there's an afterlife... but it's implicit that there is something a-physical about the universe at large, which implies souls, spirits, and afterlife.
(Also outsiders. Unless their entire ecology is changed, as well - or, again, you ban half or more of the conjuration school - you've got implicit, if not ironclad proof of an afterlife; and even if you do those things, you've got other evidences, such as, you know, the fact that you're actually a functioning lich.)
EDIT: ninja'd by thejeff
@tacticslion None of this is definite proof that people have souls that go somewhere after death. It could be your own mind tricking you ;-)
As I said: it's less definitive, and more implicit.
However, by the time I vanish in front of others and literally go to Heaven (or elsewhere...) and meet whomever it is that I meet there, I've got fairly solid proof - at least as much proof as I could possibly have. If my only recourse is to go, "Well what if it's all a trick of my mind." I might as well cease to believe in the reality of everything - in questioning my own senses to that degree, I either am or will be crazy.
It's objective in that not only can I go, but I can take others, leave them, make alterations, and keep a souvanier on my way out. Beyond that, nothing is objective - as part of a subjective being, what we accept as objective proof is only objective in the sense that our multiple sets of sensory data all happen to seem to concur. If we presuppose that our own sensory set is just entirely wrong, we have to reject everything - nothing makes sense anymore, and reality isn't.
And sure, it's a valid response to becoming a lich in general in our world, buuu~uuut, at some point you're going to have to accept what your senses tell you or shut down and don't do anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. A guy is given a deal by the Devil to live forever. Of coarse he takes it. Near the end of the episode the guy kills someone and ends up in jail; LIFE with no possibility of parole. The Devil shows up as the man sulks in his cell as he ponders eternity in the cell. The Devil takes the guys soul.
So anyone who takes Tea Cup's bargain should be careful about killing someone even with a ton of spells. You will have a bunch of gunslingers (cops) on your butt and at some point you WILL find yourself in Jail for the LOOOONG Haul.
"Haha, we have (somehow) managed to catch you and strip you of anything you can use to cast your black magic to escape! What now, abomination?" the detective asks.
"I kill myself as soon as your back is turned and reappear in a secret location." thinks the Lich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------This also begs the question of how you got caught to begin with. You kill someone in the US, you Teleport to a country with no extradition, and you wait until the statute of limitations runs out, if they even figure out it was you to start with.
On second thought on this, going the Kingpin route could be fun. As far as the mere mortals are concerned, you're f!&&ing invincible with DR 15/Bludgeoning and that thing literally only you have.
Rule by fear, build a network, and get someone to smuggle you your components and spellbook. Then bust out and rule your criminal empire.
Of course, this assumes killing a man was your "start of darkness".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[u]No.[/u]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion said it best.
Thank you. Your my hero. I hate it when atheists throw bricks at me just because I am Religious.
Disregarding the misunderstandings inherent in the "belief in science is still belief", there is no need to throw bricks. We atheists get our share of bricks too, I am sure you are aware. But to answer your concern: As an atheist, I understand that my existence ends with death. And I am okay with that.
Disregarding the misunderstandings inherent in the "belief in science is still belief", there is no need to throw bricks. We atheists get our share of bricks too, I am sure you are aware. But to answer your concern: As an atheist, I understand that my existence ends with death. And I am okay with that.Tacticslion said it best.
Thank you. Your my hero. I hate it when atheists throw bricks at me just because I am Religious.
Out of curiosity what bricks get thrown at atheists? From my experience the secular world we live in is very friendly to atheists... You probably DO get bricks. It might help me to understand what they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disregarding the misunderstandings inherent in the "belief in science is still belief", there is no need to throw bricks. We atheists get our share of bricks too, I am sure you are aware. But to answer your concern: As an atheist, I understand that my existence ends with death. And I am okay with that.Tacticslion said it best.
Thank you. Your my hero. I hate it when atheists throw bricks at me just because I am Religious.Out of curiosity what bricks get thrown at atheists? From my experience the secular world we live in is very friendly to atheists... You probably DO get bricks. It might help me to understand what they are.
Anecdotally, people say our morals are either nonexistent or have no anchor (and hence no meaning or permanence). Slightly more subtly, if America is losing its moral fiber by becoming less overtly religious, which is a common thread in some political circles, that's a sideways method of saying the same thing.
Anecdotes about organized prayer being discouraged in schools have a counterpoint of students being singled out as "different" if they choose not to participate (not a problem for confident adults such as ourselves, but a big deal in high school). I suspect it's a blind spot for the people writing it, but because my stance on what's right and wrong doesn't come from an external authority figure, my firmly held moral beliefs aren't protected by religious liberty laws like theirs are (see Hobby Lobby and Obamacare, although I disagree on multiple levels there). And while I suspect it wouldn't be enforced, there are still states with laws on the books requiring belief in a higher power to hold office.
Finally, studies make me nervous that if I tell acquaintances about my lack of religious beliefs it may put them off. Many have flawed methodology, but I believe there's a significant nugget of truth there. (You can find other examples of studies with simple Google searches)
I haven't personally suffered anything worse than offhand remarks not really meant toward me in my real life. There's a lot of hate on the internet directed toward (and admittedly from) atheists, though. I realize the whackos are the ones most likely to make an impression and write off random barbs that way. There are people with significant followings who make some of these "points" about atheists, though, and that bothers me.
And yes, the same applies to prominent atheists making hateful comments about the religious. I ignore them and apologize for them. Fortunately for me, since there's no organization, they don't hold any position of authority nor do I owe them allegiance.
In a more oblique sense atheists (though to a lesser extent just non-Christians) have a MUCH harder time running for public office at least in the US (not sure about elsewhere) because we/they don't espouse True 'Murican Values. Even in states where it's not a law.
This lends credence to the "people don't trust atheists" thing.
Many, many religious people say "atheist" like they say "toxic, rotting carcass of an unwholesome slug". We hear much about how "christian, muslim, jew, we are all friends". The fact of the matter is, there are billions of people out there who consider me dangerous, subhuman or evil because I am an atheist. And not only that, they actively fight to enforce religious behaviour. Being religious is protected up the wazoo, being an atheist means you don't have any form of protection. In schools, there is "education" dedicated to teaching religious feelings. In the military, you get things like "there will be a communal prayer, and we can't force you to participate, but you BETTER do it". In court proceedings, in official situations, in elections and so on, if it gets out that you are an atheist, your credibility is shot. If an atheist tries to make a case publicly against religious laws and practices, he gets called arrogant - by people who consider me to not have human value because I do not believe in God.
Bricks, yeah.
Hmmm... fascinating.
Christians are taught to do one thing when faced with harmful or aberrant behaving groups. We are taught NOT to associate with them. We are taught to self segregate ourselves away from the danger. To "Turtle Up" to use a gaming term. This is very different than other groups response to those who are different. They tend to attack the group that is different. This fits with what I am hearing here from thejeff, Sundakan, and some of what Berinor said. It means an atheist isn't going to be invited to church socials or get voted for in rural areas. It also means they won't attack the atheist just for being an atheist. It also explains why this isn't an issue in more populated areas since the excluded party probably has a ton of like minded people they can hang out with instead.
Keep in mind Christians are a very fractured group as well and we certainly don't speak with one mind. But we do have a way of leaving our extremists all alone to fail on their own.
As for prayer in school, I feel your pain. I live in the Midwest and one school some of my nieces attend started REQUIRING all students to recite Muslim prayers each morning... It created a storm of angry parents many of whom are now pulling their children out of that school. The schools response as far as I understand it is: "We need to be inclusive of other religions. So ONLY Muslim prayers will be said."
As for prayer in school, I feel your pain. I live in the Midwest and one school some of my nieces attend started REQUIRING all students to recite Muslim prayers each morning... It created a storm of angry parents many of whom are now pulling their children out of that school. The schools response as far as I understand it is: "We need to be inclusive of other religions. So ONLY Muslim prayers will be said."
Unless this is a private religious school, I find that highly unlikely. Care to share the name of the school?
This is the kind of thing that would be top news among some of the anti-religion groups I follow, and I haven't heard a peep.
I don't know it. The story came from my twin nieces, who were pulled from that school. I am not sure why my brother would have pulled them out of there if it wasn't true. As for not in the news? It may be that nobody ran to the media with the story. I will ask which school next time I see them.
Yeah it may be just my church... but it seems broader to me especially in modern times. Ancient times were very different.
|
I can speak from my experiences in modern times. I am also from the midwest and raised Christian. The "turtling up" happened only it was a way to bolster the faith in a way of "if you aint like us, then you are lost like them!!!!!" There was a strict intolerance to diversity because it was seen as a threat. I watched as the church went from a very healthy membership to a rapidly declining one. As the declining continued, so increased the intolerant behavior as a last grasp at scaring folks into membership. At this point, they turtle because they have lost their influence on the community and have almost no power anymore. Anecdotal for sure, however, you certainly don't have to go back to the inquisition to see examples of Christians attacking groups for being different.
Going further into my anecdotal experience, (take as you will), I think my above example is happening on a large scale in the western world. While many Christians will certainly feel discriminated or oppressed, I think it is a good thing in the long run. By reducing the power of their numbers, Christians will now be forced to rely on the strength of their faith instead. I think that will do much to drive out extreme views of the Christian faith, which I believe we are already seeing happening. YMMV.
Aranna: I am sure it wasn't intentional, but as I understand your post, atheists would be a "harmful and aberrant behaving group". Personally, I have never seen that. The people I know who are atheists, which would perhaps be best explained as anti-religion (but certainly not anti-faith, what each person believes in is their choice), are generally wise, well-educated, empathic people with a very strong sense of morals and principles. Naturally, much of their morals are similar to christian values - but they believe religious organizations with political power are a serious problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna: I am sure it wasn't intentional, but as I understand your post, atheists would be a "harmful and aberrant behaving group". Personally, I have never seen that. The people I know who are atheists, which would perhaps be best explained as anti-religion (but certainly not anti-faith, what each person believes in is their choice), are generally wise, well-educated, empathic people with a very strong sense of morals and principles. Naturally, much of their morals are similar to christian values - but they believe religious organizations with political power are a serious problem.
I agree with this from personal experience, but if most of my experience with atheists were the folks who make a stink about it on the internet, I'd expect us to be, at best, demeaning toward people of faith. People who deride religion as being related to a "made-up sky fairy" to paraphrase what I have seen wouldn't be expected to play nice at church mixers. Just another example of the worst elements being the ones that are memorable or noticeable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this from personal experience, but if most of my experience with atheists were the folks who make a stink about it on the internet, I'd expect us to be, at best, demeaning toward people of faith. People who deride religion as being related to a "made-up sky fairy" to paraphrase what I have seen wouldn't be expected to play nice at church mixers. Just another example of the worst elements being the ones that are memorable or noticeable.
There are obnoxious members of all groups, that's a given. As far as militant atheists, a lot of their aggressive style comes from frustration.
You can only tell people that words from an ancient selectively edited book don't constitute proof so many times before copping an attitude.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this from personal experience, but if most of my experience with atheists were the folks who make a stink about it on the internet, I'd expect us to be, at best, demeaning toward people of faith. People who deride religion as being related to a "made-up sky fairy" to paraphrase what I have seen wouldn't be expected to play nice at church mixers. Just another example of the worst elements being the ones that are memorable or noticeable.There are obnoxious members of all groups, that's a given. As far as militant atheists, a lot of their aggressive style comes from frustration.
You can only tell people that words from an ancient selectively edited book don't constitute proof so many times before copping an attitude.
True, but we should be careful about whether it's telling one person ten times or ten people one time. And just because it's from frustration doesn't mean it isn't harmful to their purpose. When someone says (or implies) their experience with atheists is negative and I care to correct that, I should understand where that experience comes from.