| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Regardless this is a big issue they have to address, honestly if they didn't want to make Pharasmins into genocidal zelouts they shouldn't have given any wriggle room on Undead or made any sort of peace with them.
You can see my frustrations now -_-
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid that I follow Pathfinder more for the mechanics than the setting, so please do correct me if I'm wrong about some of this. But this is my impression of how this is going, since this is ultimately becoming less about Eox in particular and more about the morality of undeath and the undead in general.
In Pathfinder, negative energy is not inherently evil, but it is antithetical to life, and deliberately opening a link to the plane in the particular way reanimation does is thusly evil because of the consequences it may have on life in the material plane. The zombie apocalypse has metaphysical significance beyond the numerous shambling brain-eaters such a scenario entails. Thus, undeath is evil. I'm not sure whether the undead are thus automatically evil in terms of their behavior, but independent of their personal alignment, the nature of their existence links them to evil by default.
Thus, undeath itself being evil is something of an absolute in Pathfinder's system. The undead themselves being evil is... without having delved deeply into Pathfinder's lore, I would say no more absolute than Fiends being evil, at the most. And while I won't swear it's possible in Pathfinder, I believe the idea of redeeming a devil has enough staying power in fiction that it could be expected as a real, if remote, possibility.
In Starfinder, by contrast, there is simply not much established yet. The undead exist. Undeath is still a thing. Mindless undead are probably still evil by default, because necromancers doing terrible things with zombies is a usable plot point whether it's in space or not. You can grandfather Pathfinder's ruleset into this, yes. And from what has been written in the text thus far, in the absolute alignment sense, nothing has been changed. From what has been written so far, Pathfinder is not contradicted, and Eox has legal standing but much shakier moral standing. Which is nothing new, I understand, since I believe there were one or two undead nations on Golarion.
But from a more meta perspective, Pathfinder and Starfinder have different creative directors, and Sutter - the one who is relevant to this product - has been explicit about his interest in moving away from Pathfinder's take on the undead. So while there is room for argument now, as demonstrated, I hope it is done with the understanding that more information is very likely to be released, and that the rhetorical landscape is going to change accordingly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.
Also, the original juju oracle (still technically canon, even after the new one that happens to have all the same named abilities that do different things) allowed for non-evil undead creation. (It was prohibited from Organized Play; the new one is permitted.)
Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
you missed the "pure evil" part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you missed the "pure evil" part.Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Not really. Just existing isn't a crime.
Also, the original juju oracle (still technically canon, even after the new one that happens to have all the same named abilities that do different things) allowed for non-evil undead creation. (It was prohibited from Organized Play; the new one is permitted.)
I wouldn't call that a lot when compared to all the actually Evil Undead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Just existing isn't a crime.you missed the "pure evil" part.Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Dood, we're talking about Fiends, not even Undead. They are literally made of pure Evil.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
It's an interesting distinction. I have had Lawful Good characters (Paladins even) treat with a Devil they could have chosen (by all rights) to decide was 'Evil, so it must die' - simply because the devil in question was being polite. In the player's mind this creature probably deserved to be killed because of 'its very existence' but they couldn't bring themselves to do it. Perhaps a tiny part of their conscience prevented them from doing something that was so knee-jerk murdery. Naturally it devolved into murdery, but it started out very civil.
Kaer Maga has a publicly acknowledged district of necromancers. This is in the same city that boasts the Godsmouth Ossuary watched over by a fair sized contingent of Pharasmin devout. And yet, the priests haven't stormed Ankar-Te and put it to the torch. I don't see Eox being a Pact member as much different. If Pathfinder Tales can be taken as canon, even Pharasma's own Psychopomps made a choice not to molest the vile undead in Ankar-Te. Was it because even Pharasma could endure their sins as long as they were being orderly about it? Was there some other deal being made behind the scenes? Who knows...
Sometimes characters in stories have complicated reasons for things, and the alignment system doesn't really account well for that. Luckily having a thinking human being running the game instead of a computer makes it usable.
Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
It's an interesting distinction. I have had Lawful Good characters (Paladins even) treat with a Devil they could have chosen (by all rights) to decide was 'Evil, so it must die' - simply because the devil in question was being polite. In the player's mind this creature probably deserved to be killed because of 'its very existence' but they couldn't bring themselves to do it. Perhaps a tiny part of their conscience prevented them from doing something that was so knee-jerk murdery. Naturally it devolved into murdery, but it started out very civil.
Kaer Maga has a publicly acknowledged district of necromancers. This is in the same city that boasts the Godsmouth Ossuary watched over by a fair sized contingent of Pharasmin devout. And yet, the priests haven't stormed Ankar-Te and put it to the torch. I don't see Eox being a Pact member as much different. If Pathfinder Tales can be taken as canon, even Pharasma's own Psychopomps made a choice not to molest the vile undead in Ankar-Te. Was it because even Pharasma could endure their sins as long as they were being orderly about it? Was there some other deal being made behind the scenes? Who knows...
Sometimes characters in stories have complicated reasons for things, and the alignment system doesn't really account well for that. Luckily having a thinking human being running the game instead of a computer makes it usable.
The Necromancers in Kaer Maga are allowed to exist to my knowledge because they help the Pharasmins hunt down and destroy intelligent Undead, and the non-intelligent undead are heavily monitored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And because they probably don't want to start a street war with necromancers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call that a lot when compared to all the actually Evil Undead.Also, the original juju oracle (still technically canon, even after the new one that happens to have all the same named abilities that do different things) allowed for non-evil undead creation. (It was prohibited from Organized Play; the new one is permitted.)
But they do exist.
But they do exist.I wouldn't call that a lot when compared to all the actually Evil Undead.Also, the original juju oracle (still technically canon, even after the new one that happens to have all the same named abilities that do different things) allowed for non-evil undead creation. (It was prohibited from Organized Play; the new one is permitted.)
Yes, exceptions exist. I've never claimed otherwise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the killing of the innocent that is defined to be an evil act. And undead or evil outsiders are not innocent. An argument could even be made (though I'm not sure I believe it) than any creature of evil alignment is not innocent, so can be killed without it being an evil act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, no one sees the idea of killing a sentient being because of traits that it is assumed to have as inherently problematic?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, no one sees the idea of killing a sentient being because of traits that it is assumed to have as inherently problematic?
Not so much "assumed" as "known" so, no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there still much of an Urgathoan presence on Eox?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find the idea of "you are made a certain way and that makes it okay to kill you" to be an uncomfortable idea. A lot of... parallels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, no one sees the idea of killing a sentient being because of traits that it is assumed to have as inherently problematic?
I do...I'm just over trying to debate the irrationality of moral absolutes, especially as they pertain to the undead. =P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find the idea of "you are made a certain way and that makes it okay to kill you" to be an uncomfortable idea. A lot of... parallels.
We're not talking about people. We're talking about monsters. Fiends.
They are literally made of Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's better for everyone if we take a utilitarian approach. Instead of destroying evil, just refine it into an efficient, renewable source of clean energy.
Surely more good can come of that than simply wiping out all evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problems is that as presented in Starfinder they are less of an evil monolith than they were in Pathfinder.
As to whether or not killing evil (sub-type) outsiders is okay just because they're evil outsiders...I think you should consider the redeemed Succubus from Wrath of the Righteous.
No, it's not common for evil outsiders to stop being evil...but to kill them all on sight for being devils or fiends is still genocide. To me it doesn't matter that they're probably evil, you should seek some kind of confirmation before you kill them.
Of course, maybe it's just the modern system of justice that makes me think we should be innocent until proven guilty and going into a futuristic setting makes me think such should apply. Instead of the roughly medieval laws and morality of the Pathfinder setting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problems is that as presented in Starfinder they are less of an evil monolith than they were in Pathfinder.
As to whether or not killing evil (sub-type) outsiders is okay just because they're evil outsiders...I think you should consider the redeemed Succubus from Wrath of the Righteous.
No, it's not common for evil outsiders to stop being evil...but to kill them all on sight for being devils or fiends is still genocide. To me it doesn't matter that they're probably evil, you should seek some kind of confirmation before you kill them.
Of course, maybe it's just the modern system of justice that makes me think we should be innocent until proven guilty and going into a futuristic setting makes me think such should apply. Instead of the roughly medieval laws and morality of the Pathfinder setting.
So, one example of one succubus from the infinite hordes of demons of the infinite layers of the Abyss (who, mind you, didn't so much choose to redeem herself, more along the lines of a god made it happened) mean that we should give every balor we encounter the benefit of the doubt? That is like sticking your hand into fire elementals to see if it will freeze your hand solid. I mean yeah, it is an infinite universe where everything is possible, but some things far more possible than others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you need to loosen up your undead are always evil stance.
It's a huge galaxy, that needs a more liberal viewpoint of others.
Don't judge entities by the amount of flesh on their face. :-)
You might need to strengthen yours.
In over half a decade of Pathfinder products, there's only ever been ONE type of undead that wasn't evil by default (the prana ghost), and only a handful of ghost NPCs who also weren't evil.
Granted Starfinder is a different game with a different creative team, but I wouldn't expect the undead normal to fall too far from its Pathfinder tree. In either case, we likely won't find out until the Pact Worlds book next year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me, kind of accusatory for a contributor don't you think.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of this has changed since Pathfinder. Killing all undead regardless of circumstances has always been an extremely morally problematic choice.
Yes, most undead are Evil, but not all, and killing people solely because they're Evil is pretty clearly deeply and profoundly morally wrong. Many undead, even Evil ones, do little to warrant death. I mean, most ghouls eat corpses...that's hardly an offense warranting execution.
The thing is, Pharasma is Neutral, not Good. She has a number of beliefs/practices that are not exactly the nicest choices ever. She hates undead not because they are Evil, but because they are messing with her system. They're a bookkeeping error. Her hatred of them and demand that they be destroyed is one of her most Evil traits.
As for Devils and Demons, trying to redeem them is much more difficult than doing the same to the undead, and frankly rarely worth the trouble. Still, they are thinking beings and killing them on sight when you don't know of any crimes they've committed is likely morally wrong. That situation rarely comes up given their usual habits, though.
None of this has changed in Starfinder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In over half a decade of Pathfinder products, there's only ever been ONE type of undead that wasn't evil by default (the prana ghost), and only a handful of ghost NPCs who also weren't evil.
This isn't true. There's a LN vampire in Kaer Maga. He's a pretty chill guy. And a LN mummy in Dragon's Demand.
It's rare, but it does happen.
The logic tends to be that becoming undead (except in the case of ghosts) almost universally makes you Evil (hence the situation in the spoiler) due to your new impulses and instincts...but you can then, with effort/discipline restrain those instincts and rise back to Neutral or even, theoretically, Good.
This is all very explicit with vampires (as detailed in Blood of the Night), and there's plenty of evidence it works more or less the same for other intelligent undead.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me, kind of accusatory for a contributor don't you think.
Nothing about that was accusatory. He legit just said the opposite of what you did. You told a poster that you think they need to loosen up their view on evil undead; he said that he thinks you may need to strengthen yours.
If he's being accusatory (and he's not) then so are you.
And him being a contributor has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. He's just as welcome to voice his opinion as you are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dood, we're talking about Fiends, not even Undead. They are literally made of pure Evil.Not really. Just existing isn't a crime.you missed the "pure evil" part.Killing any sentient creature merely because they exist is pretty sociopathic, yeah.Killing beings of pure Evil for existing is wrong. Okay then.Yes. Killing them for being Feinds is wrong. Killing them for doing evil things or because they are trying to kill you is justifiable.Feinds are sentient creatures too. Is it wrong to go after them?
Nothing shown in Dead Suns contradicts Undead being Evil monsters.
Actually, they aren't: most fiends are a combination of a mortal soul and pure evil. Some are other extra-planar beings that have been corrupted by pure evil (Divs, fallen angels, et cetera). Only the Qlippoths appear to be pure evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so I realize this thread is no longer talking about this, but I just wanted throw my 2 cents in on the original question...
In my mind, when faced with the inevitable destruction of their world, but before the undeath solution was decided on; I would imagine Pharasma would have a huge up swing in worship by everyone trying to prepare for the end. Assuming the cataclysm didn't explode overnight this would have lead to huge cathedrals and centers for worship being built to her on Eox very quickly. Later, peer-preassure and general self preservation urges would lead a large number of these people to accept undeath.
Now that these enormous cathedrals are a constant reminder of the betrayal of their faith, this would lead to a guilt ridden, but still rather large body of worshipers. I like to imagine a heavy "forgive us for we have sinned" culture of self flagellating undead monks in their massive gothic cathedrals, begging Pharasma for her mercy for their weakness. This also makes one hell of a fun story hook that I hope to explore soon :D
That is quite lovely! I'm stealing this, even if it doesn't turn out to be true in some future canon.
It rings especially nicely as we have had a devout Pharasman (well, technically he's a devout whatever-god-is-listening-at-the-time, but Pharasma is important to him) struggling against the Ghoul corruption in our Strange Aeons game, so it would be quite clear to the group how such a thing would come about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find the idea of "you are made a certain way and that makes it okay to kill you" to be an uncomfortable idea. A lot of... parallels.
That's fair.
It's the killing of the innocent that is defined to be an evil act. And undead or evil outsiders are not innocent. An argument could even be made (though I'm not sure I believe it) than any creature of evil alignment is not innocent, so can be killed without it being an evil act.
Are they not, though?
Problem three (+ a lot more) - check out all the creatures that make spawn from unwilling victims
All of these point to a trend: the ability to take a thing and turn it into another thing regardless of any wrongdoing on the original thing's part (and while still ostensibly sort of being that original thing).
That points to the possibility of innocents, even in otherwise seemingly non-innocent things.
=========================
Now, to seemingly reverse what I was just talking about, let's actually take a look at fiend,
lower planes, outsider, evil, evil, and evil.
Most relevant are outsider and evil.
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.
The lower planes are, by definition, evil of essence. Creatures native to those plane ("of their essence") are, thus, literally made out of evil. They are functionally evil, and, by nature, are evil.
Let's compare this to a completely fictional creature that totally doesn't exist.
We'll call it the naz-kuy'deaux. This diminutive (totally fictional) creature is made of pure evil. Its race is split into two forms: the male and the female. The male is evil and all, but, really, is more or less cool - he goes around eating flowers and pollen and stuff. The female of the species is pretty brutal though. It goes around and quietly and super-stealthily stabs creatures, drinking their blood, and spreading disease as a matter of course.
Their one redeeming factor is that they are small and easily crushed by opposed violence... but they breed. They breed more than bunnies. Mass hordes of their hideous larvae squirm into existence in the fetid, diseased, drowned locations of the worlds that host them, where they devour local plant life until they mature into either blood sucking horrors or a different kind of plant eater.
As a result of these destructive actions, the naz-kuy'deaux directly kill off about 1/7,000th of the sentient population of each planet they plague every single year - this makes them the single most deadly predator to have ever existed in history. They are remorseless, completely incapable of reasoning, and will continue to feed and spread disease unless eradicated entirely. Fortunately, naz-kuy'deauxs are super totally and purely only fictional and definitely entirely not-real!
But let's just be clear, the naz-kuy'deaux are not only super evil, but just doing what they have to in order to survive. There's nothing wrong with just trying to survive. You know?
Would we really want to eradicate them just because of what they are?
But... let's look at the evil subtype.
Evil Subtype
This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.
That's a very curious entry. A very curious entry.
"Most" - that's a... huh. Clearly they can change alignment. That's... that's interesting. That indicates that even creatures with an inherent alignment, fundamentally awful, have the ability to become not-that-alignment.
That puts things like the naz-kuy'deaux into question, you know?
That said, I'm not actually against crusades into the abyss to smite 'em all.
I mean, if we presuppose a creature literally made of radioactivity that had to murder 1-3 children ages 5-12 in order to sustain itself, we would be reasonably certain to find it entirely justifiable to eliminate said race of creatures from the world (and probably turn their corpses into power, while we're at it).
And that's the thing. Would we be unjustified? They are merely doing what they need to in order to live. ... but so are we.
And, fundamentally, [evil] creatures do the same to the soul as those radioactive creatures do to the body, and the ruin everything.
Some might be non-evil, but, being [evil], but fundamentally, it's not a bad thing to entirely eliminate them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a political perspective the Pact Worlds are interested in living and prospering in cooperation with their allies. Even if we accept that undead are always and inevitably evil, the correct response from the Pact Worlds' leadership should be a shrug. There's no constituency in this world that's terribly worried about sacrificing their lives to bring some useful badguys to judgment in the next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In over half a decade of Pathfinder products, there's only ever been ONE type of undead that wasn't evil by default (the prana ghost), and only a handful of ghost NPCs who also weren't evil.
This isn't true. My post above contains links to several others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you need to loosen up your undead are always evil stance.
It's a huge galaxy, that needs a more liberal viewpoint of others.
Don't judge entities by the amount of flesh on their face. :-)
You might need to strengthen yours.
In over half a decade of Pathfinder products, there's only ever been ONE type of undead that wasn't evil by default (the prana ghost), and only a handful of ghost NPCs who also weren't evil.
** spoiler omitted **
Granted Starfinder is a different game with a different creative team, but I wouldn't expect the undead normal to fall too far from its Pathfinder tree. In either case, we likely won't find out until the Pact Worlds book next year.
It's the killing of the innocent that is defined to be an evil act. And undead or evil outsiders are not innocent. An argument could even be made (though I'm not sure I believe it) than any creature of evil alignment is not innocent, so can be killed without it being an evil act.
to bring light on this one.
I would say yes undead are by nature evil. YOU do not willingly turn your self into a undead with out doing something evil. like the bone sages of eox they turned into lich's to save their own skin the act of said turning. is a evil act.
Undead are by nature evil (EXP vampire- drinks blood of people to survive) the actions of such things are evil but flipping it on its head here and this is why i play a pharasmin and love my GM for creating such deli ma's
A ghost who was a warrior by nature trying to solve a crisis before passing is not necessarily evil the ghost is evil and should be killed by difination it has lived its life it should move on. ONE COULD SAY yes kill it and force it or you could help it move along.
there are exceptions to every situation.
its our job to look into it and i dont think just looking at the undead and killing them would be right. Of corse we are talking about EOX
if i remember correctly THEY Destoryed there own planet in a sence that it now rains acid and forced them to take this turn on there own.
are all undead evil.....BY difination yes. will i as a player go smacking the vampire that needs my help to save some one else then willing die after. No i wont its doing something greater and has stated a case here.
it is perspective here .....Eox is evil and needs a church of pharamia there as a token of good faith they will stay in line. pharasma there is not going to attack due to the fact it would properly cause a war.
and i want to see all of this unfold in future books on how it came to be the most :D
Actually, several people have willingly turned themselves into undead (notably ghosts) without being evil...
Actually, several people have willingly turned themselves into undead (notably ghosts) without being evil...
oh im not saying that its not always evil you can be a lich and be a good guy but the quesiton is why is eox a undead planet have a pharasma place of worship there.
the eox them self are evil. not all undead are evil just the eox in the post in quesiton should be counted as evil .... they fired a weapon as a show of strangth and it back fired on them and to save there own skin in a magical bunker. they turned into lich's and id say its safe to say the same bonesages of today are the same from when that happend to destory their planet.
also a note on the ghost bit. the act of doing so is evil you are cheating death at that point.
something pharasma's teachings are a sin
now as people state there are many interpretations of the RAW here.
the way i took it and played toon's was "you live, you breed, you die" kinda stright forward. will people get brought back; Yes. it happens its part of the spider web of choice's
you dont go to pharasma and are told to go to the abyass you made choices that got you there but when you dont even show up there's a problem.
Urgathoa is a prime example
she gets judge rejects it come's back as selfish means
undead at its core is a selfish act to escape the natural order of life.
BUT NO not all undead are evil many cases here state this above
but eox are evil the acts that they did are evil and thus it is justifiable that a church that would keep em in check would be a small price i feel
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, You Only Die Twice. Fun adventure to play as long as you aren't with an undead-hating cleric.
I should have been more specific. The purpose of the magic item was to have the PCs appear/detect as undead so that they would not draw attention in Geb.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
also a note on the ghost bit. the act of doing so is evil you are cheating death at that point.
That's not evil.
something pharasma's teachings are a sin
Pharasma isn't good, so things she calls "sins" aren't necessarily automatically evil (even if she defines them as "sins").
you dont go to pharasma and are told to go to the abyass you made choices that got you there but when you dont even show up there's a problem.
Man, don't you hate it when people choose to get kidnapped and sacrificed on obsidian alters against their will to be immediately condemned to a lower plane?
Urgathoa is a prime example
she gets judge rejects it come's back as selfish meansundead at its core is a selfish act to escape the natural order of life.
Though it's suuuuuuuper troperific for fantesy (hence accurate in PF), I'm personally quite leery of the science-ific trope-worthiness of this concept.
Urgathoa surly is evil, but we've canonically got people who aren't who go through a similar process.
It's kind of like the Starstone Norgorber was the first who did it, and that guy's awful, but we have two other canonical examples of people who aren't. Just because the first one to discover the path was a nightmare doesn't make the path evil.
There's a difference between correlation, causation, and inherent traits.
but eox are evil the acts that they did are evil and thus it is justifiable that a church that would keep em in check would be a small price i feel
It's possible.
But picture this: 15 years ago, a dude is a complete monster. He kills, murders, does the whole song and dance of super evil, gains great power as a wizard over time, unlocks vast secrets, and then, ten years later, he repents (has a helmet of opposite alignment put on his head, or someone finally super-succeeds at a Diplomacy check, or his long-lost family's prayers are finally answered and he has a change of heart, or something). He turns around and uses his newfound righteousness plus super-power to begin to destroy much of the evil he once did. So yadda-yadda evil castle razed to the ground, wicked experiments undone, captives freed and healed, corrupted earth purified, evil fiends re-contained (and then destroyed-cum-turned into clean energy), mindless undead tamed and turned into infinite labor-cum-computer system-or-something, and so on. Turns the world (or at least his part of it) into a veritable living utopia of goodness and holy what'sits. He then sets about doing the same for everyone else in the universe. Does he deserve to die because he used to be evil, and would his death be justified, considering he has a much longer potential life doing good to the universe at large?
Let's look at another picture: 50,000 years ago (or whatever), a dude is a complete monster. Not necessarily by choice, but when your planet is about to blow up, and you only know one way to save the lives (sort of) of every man, woman, and child on it, you do what you can. Survival sucks, bad things happen, etc. But then one day he has an epiphany, and turns his existence around, and begins changing, much like the dude above. What's changed?
I'm not saying that the Eoxians are all sunshine and rainbows, and I'm certainly not saying their good. But civilization kind of needs them to live right now and not devolve into eternal warfare of forever doom. It's an interesting situation.
.... they fired a weapon as a show of strangth and it back fired on them and to save there own skin in a magical bunker. they turned into lich's and id say its safe to say the same bonesages of today are the same from when that happend to destory their planet.
Is that for sure confirmed canon? There were several theories (of which that was the most common) last I'd read.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is plenty of not evil undead in the Fallout series.
It's a modern world, time to get with the times I say.
Bone sages have kugilblitz-like drives made from spheres of annihilation?! DAGGUM THAT IS SO COOL.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... they fired a weapon as a show of strangth and it back fired on them and to save there own skin in a magical bunker. they turned into lich's and id say its safe to say the same bonesages of today are the same from when that happend to destory their planet.Is that for sure confirmed canon? There were several theories (of which that was the most common) last I'd read.
It's in the CRB, but flavored as 'according to popular legend.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I pulled the trigger! But, they had it coming.
They thought they were our equal! The nerve!! We sure showed them!
but eox are evil the acts that they did are evil and thus it is justifiable that a church that would keep em in check would be a small price i feel
It's possible.
But picture this: 15 years ago, a dude is a complete monster. He kills, murders, does the whole song and dance of super evil, gains great power as a wizard over time, unlocks vast secrets, and then, ten years later, he repents (has a helmet of opposite alignment put on his head, or someone finally super-succeeds at a Diplomacy check, or his long-lost family's prayers are finally answered and he has a change of heart, or something). He turns around and uses his newfound righteousness plus super-power to begin to destroy much of the evil he once did. So yadda-yadda evil castle razed to the ground, wicked experiments undone, captives freed and healed, corrupted earth purified, evil fiends re-contained (and then destroyed-cum-turned into clean energy), mindless undead tamed and turned into infinite labor-cum-computer system-or-something, and so on. Turns the world (or at least his part of it) into a veritable living utopia of goodness and holy what'sits. He then sets about doing the same for everyone else in the universe. Does he deserve to die because he used to be evil, and would his death be justified, considering he has a much longer potential life doing good to the universe at large?Let's look at another picture: 50,000 years ago (or whatever), a dude is a complete monster. Not necessarily by choice, but when your planet is about to blow up, and you only know one way to save the lives (sort of) of every man, woman, and child on it, you do what you can. Survival sucks, bad things happen, etc. But then one day he has an epiphany, and turns his existence around, and begins changing, much like the dude above. What's changed?
I'm not saying that the Eoxians are all sunshine and rainbows, and I'm certainly not saying their good. But civilization kind of needs them to live right now and not devolve into eternal warfare of forever doom. It's an interesting situation..
This is the point here The first part is the guy is still evil he is undead if he really wanted to atone he could remove being undead its in his grasp why still be undead when he is doing good in the world. he should go back to being mortal.
Also slavry of mindless undead i would still count as evil. you dont desecrate a body like that even if the soul does not need it back
point number 2 the 50000 year thing
you could still say that the same undead who have been living there are the same from before that started the whole thing. if you truly want to atone remove your undeath the act of being one no mater how much good you do is still cheating and not completing the cycle.
in the end if your going to turn your self undead the act of doing so is never a pretty process. BE It a ghost who was murdered and never got rest.
the ghost didit do anything wrong no but at the same time a ghost kinda i would say fighting agist the natral order you should help it move on as soon as poissable and
2nd turning your self into a lich, and turning into a vampire or ghoul can be evil
the state of undeath is evil and thats the point behind it..
you have a planet that is full of undead people who if they really wanted to could stop being undead i mean its in there reach im pretty sure some bone sages on there got the power to do so. but being undead has all kinds of perks and theres the problem. its selfish and shouldint be used no mater what kind of problem to use as a escape