I think you regain sanity if you read it the other way around.
Evil things do not make you evil.
Evil things are done by evil people.
Well, then there's the question. Let's say there's a non-evil person who would really like to keep living well beyond their natural lifespan, and they consider lichdom. If their route to lichdom involves "murdering the bulk of several nearby tribes of goblins" is that really dramatically more of an evil act than when groups of adventurers murder the bulk of several nearby tribes of goblins for fun/loot/xp/plot?
It seems like "murder the goblins to get the money you're promised by local authorities as well as all the loot you can carry out of there" and "murder the goblins for eternal life" is a difference of degree, not of kind. I mean, is living forever itself inherently evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pathfinder, through its connection to d&d and perhaps hearkening back to its tolkein roots, has a weird relationship with the determinism vs. free will debate. It likely results from two of the key forces within tabletop games of this nature- the battle simulation and the story telling.
For the battle simulation, the problem connects to a rather simple and observable fact- outside of what the players personally use, almost everything is made for 'enemies'. The players need to be able to readily tell what are 'enemies' that they can safely fight adn destroy without thinking about it too much. Ergo, you get 'evil races', such as orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc, that are treated as automatic enemies, and that is justified in ways... that can get uncomfortable (for example, they are often 'devolved' forms of greater races, or hit on miscegenation themes by mating with 'more civilized' races). Because it often reflects the view of real life people that wanted to make other races into simple enemies they could kill or exploit.
However, while there is a need for 'enemies' that often require those justifications, this is also a game based on stories of 'heroes'- stories often developed in an emergent manner unique to table top games (you are not just playing through a prewritten story made by a game developer- you and your GM are creating and shaping the story as it goes to suit everyone's desires). So, since overcoming stereotypes and racism is a common trope for heroes... that complicates things. Thus there is also a dialogue of free will that allows one to escape from the constraints of their 'evil race' (ie- DRIZZT). Pathfinder has also shown various postcolonial narratives in its works to support this idea- lizardfolk are not automatically evil savages, but simply live a different lifestyle and have to deal with human imperialism- showing more perspectives. There is both the idea that the 'savage' is fighting against racist views and even if they come from a 'savage' race, the individual can overcome that influence to become exceptional (and thus a 'hero').
Another theme often found in 'enemies' is the theme of corruption and decay. This can be seen in infernal taint by demon magics, conversions to undead, and random mutations born of magical experimentation. This is often convenient, since there are less parallels with real life- it is easy to think of them as inhuman and kill on sight. It also provide a dire narrative seen in such works that evil is a growing infestation that cannot be cured and 'good is losing' (because otherwise, why are 4-6 people fighting 1000's of enemies in a short period of time- you need overflowing evil to justify parties facing enemies).
...but at the same time, the same 'hero themes' are at play, and you want the 'heroes' to be able to overcome this evil influence, even when it has taken root and made them something other than human.
I think you regain sanity if you read it the other way around.
Evil things do not make you evil.
Evil things are done by evil people.
Well, then there's the question. Let's say there's a non-evil person who would really like to keep living well beyond their natural lifespan, and they consider lichdom. If their route to lichdom involves "murdering the bulk of several nearby tribes of goblins" is that really dramatically more of an evil act than when groups of adventurers murder the bulk of several nearby tribes of goblins for fun/loot/xp/plot?
It seems like "murder the goblins to get the money you're promised by local authorities as well as all the loot you can carry out of there" and "murder the goblins for eternal life" is a difference of degree, not of kind. I mean, is living forever itself inherently evil?
Here's how it works story wise. Every would-be lich has to discover it's own path. Invariably that path will involve the sacrifice of many beings... beings that can't be dismissed as monsters. Living beyond your lifespan is one of the most vain and selfish desires that one can have.. and generally the only folks who obtain that goal are ones willing to cross some nasty lines. Magic has it's price... and there are no trivial dodges to it.
PF isn't 3.5. There are built in flavor differences, including undead being evil by default, barring unique exceptions. And in Pathfinder pathways to lichdom do have one thing in common... an act, ritual, whatever that involves a major evil act... frequently of mass murder.
Whatever WOTC intended is fairly irrelevant, as this is not, and never has been, their game.
("Built-in" and "flavor" are not really concepts you can hard-wire. Golarion may make some assumptions (and PF is tied closer to Golarion than 3.5 to it's campaign worlds - the better for Golarion, indeed - but it's not really any more hard-coded than D&D was. But mmoving on:)
Nope, just checked - PF SRD Lich also has no alignment mechanical constraints for becoming a Lich, either - and it doesn't even mention in the flavour text about any "unspeakable acts" or anything, only that the path is very dangerous.
Now, it does say "Any Evil" in the template description (which I assume means "change to Evil" (3.5 explicitly said about change in it's templates, I'm going to assume the PF SRD means that too (since it doesn't say on Vampire). But that's literally only mechanical facet. (So an act of Evil to become a Lich is implied, but not explicitly stated.)
So, if you are playing in a game where the DM is going to allow a Lich (and use non-Evil Undead), there's no mechanical reason why the alignment change couldn't be wavered (especially since PF implies that each ritual is different).
Plenty of wiggle-room for them as inclined, I think.
(But let me be clear - as a DM, I would strongly discourage a PC gaining any templates like Lich et al unless everyone is having it (or for that matter any system where that would be possible). In fact, I have a Rolemaster/Spacemater pary that is entirely composed of Liches. And the rulign was, "yes, the Aotrs has livings, incorporeals and all sorts of Undead in their ranks - but you're all going to be Liches (and either humans, elf or orc) for the sake of keeping the playign field level.")
Everyone should consider lichdom. Should you grubmeals lack the quantity in treasure and/or mortal souls one must pay to various dark gods, outsiders and phylactery contractors (purchasing a phylactery? in this economy?), I know some other wonderful methods to undeath for you to consider.
Bloody or burning? I only have so much onyx, you know, so you need to make a choice.
Once again. The economy.
|
Oh Alazni. You used to be so hot. Though it's true, many people could lose a few pounds.
Anyway - have we had Ghouls of Leng? A rare few can have nonevil alignments, those ones tend to only be interested in acquiring magical knowledge though. Even the evil ones can be negotiated with. Downside is they are from Leng and if you find yourself there, they are likely to be the best chance of allies in town.