| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd still regard killing as an inherently evil act—though it's neutral when the alternative is letting someone else get hurt. That's why a paladin can't just go around killing anyone who pings as evil. An evil person can still grow and change, and therefore still has positive potential. But that comes down to personal perspective.
** spoiler omitted **
Except for stories where redemption is the point, Evil creatures usually only grow to be more dangerous and change their methods to be more effective. In my experience, defeat means friendship stories are the exception.
Then again that's also personal perspective. :P
Real simple to me anyways. your taking away their choice. who are you to decide if that person should go on to a good after life. Choice is very important in a morality scale. taking it away seems wrong to me.
The idea that you get into Heaven only if you do not sin leads inexorably to the next question: What parents in their right minds wouldn't kill their toddlers to make sure the kids get into Heaven? Sure, it means eternal damnation for them, but isn't it worth it?
It is a direct consequence of the Fluffy Cloud Heaven idea.
I think the Catholics have a work around for that sissyl. Its been awhile since I've studied religion but I remember thinking of that myself. I think if their not old enough their soul kind of go backs to sender and waits for another chance. Don't quote me on that!!!
I personally prefer the Buddhism if I had to choose.
|
The idea that you get into Heaven only if you do not sin leads inexorably to the next question: What parents in their right minds wouldn't kill their toddlers to make sure the kids get into Heaven? Sure, it means eternal damnation for them, but isn't it worth it?
It is a direct consequence of the Fluffy Cloud Heaven idea.
That was the sort of logic used in the Inquisition. Torture a Jew or Moslem until they repented and accepted Jesus, and then quickly kill them so that they couldn't slide back into heathenry, saving their souls in the process.
Best not to go down that rabbit hole, even in a game.
Some souls (those with higher levels or more accomplishments in life) being 'better' somehow or 'worth more' may offend our modern sense of egalitarianism, but would be one way to, in a game, discourage that sort of nonsense. A baby who died innocent would be worth less to Heaven than one who grew up to be a midwife or an apothecary or, best of all, a paladin or cleric of some goodly faith, so agents of Heaven would spread the message that all lives are special opportunities to make more great heroes and saints, and that they don't want a bunch of baby souls that got picked early and had no time to ripen on the vine.
I'm fairly certain there are rules to that effect, with some (higher level) souls being 'worth more' to Night Hags and such, so it would be easy to just add the 'flavor text' part of it (good religions instruct against baby-killing-to-save-souls explicitly) oneself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a basic idea that always works in our table to avoid long debates.
Not every npc in the world have to know that and/or believe what the priests say.
There is a will to live on in every sentient beeing. And by killing them you also cut all the ties that people had in the world (normally family and friends).
Having a better afterlife granted to good people is a mind "balm" that helps the dying person and the people left behind.
That's it. Not more "but what ifs" and heavy thoughts on the matter or look for rabbit holes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
I guess it could have been laid out more clearly, but it's depressing that a game company has to explain that getting consent is good an not getting consent is evil.
Paizo should totally steal this for the next edition of the Core Rulebook.
Catholics (but I think other Christians also) actually say that only God decides who lives, who dies, and when. Each soul born is prescribed a "military" period on Earth to test its mettle and fight evil. No one can retire if God doesn't allow it (by sending a disease, a natural catastrophe, etc.).
Which also means that no matter how much you suffer for your disease, you CAN'T die without committing a sin... you must endure because God sent that suffering to you. :(
Hmm never been a big fan of the predestination (and your probably right I don't think your telling us wrong) If God already has everything planned then free will doesn't exist. I guess that might be a bit off topic.
At least in pathfinder their is multiple deities so you can kind of blame evil acts on the evil ones and good acts on the good ones etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warning: Depressing real life dilemma inside
** spoiler omitted **Stuff like that is far more interesting to probe IMO, as the positions to choose from are clearly not ideal. In the situation presented in the op, the ideal solution is "Lol I get to slaughter this guy with no consequences"; which is just a "having your cake and eating it too" solution.
No, you knock the kid out or just wound the kid then send him to an orphanage later.
As a consummate Chaotic Good guy, I would say that the biggest evil about murdering someone is taking away their choice. You take away all the person's choice, shunting them off the mortal coil.
And, you know, killing someone is generally frowned on in and of itself.
Which also means that no matter how much you suffer for your disease, you CAN'T die without committing a sin... you must endure because God sent that suffering to you. :(
Almost right. God is the author of life, ergo every life created is sacred, from natural conception to natural death.
God doesn't mind medicines to ease the pain of our last days, but it is not our prerogative to take life. It is not death which is against God's will - but killing.
To the OP, not to the shades of gray, which I find tiresome.
You are denying the good person the opportunity to do more good works, denying him greater glory in the afterlife. This, additionally, as has been stated better than I could, deprives the world of these good deeds.
Personally, I'd still regard killing as an inherently evil act—though it's neutral when the alternative is letting someone else get hurt. That's why a paladin can't just go around killing anyone who pings as evil. An evil person can still grow and change, and therefore still has positive potential. But that comes down to personal perspective.
** spoiler omitted **
Except for stories where redemption is the point, Evil creatures usually only grow to be more dangerous and change their methods to be more effective. In my experience, defeat means friendship stories are the exception.
Then again that's also personal perspective. :P
I feel like this is an overly genre-based argument, though. Let's be real—Pathfinder and Golarion are very, very "killing is the best solution"-centric. It's the only way an adventurer who's just killed fifty goblins gets to sleep at night. :P
I don't generally follow Pathfinder's morality when I run and play in games. We kill in self-defense, not because, "This guy is evil, and shall forever remain so, because Evil People are Evil and Good People are Good."
This issue is why Capital E Evil and it's serious champions are all about stealing/destroying souls. That's the way to actually reduce the overall amount of good in the multiverse.
There's no greater victory for Evil than to kill a powerful agent of Good, trap their soul before it can get to the afterlife, and then reforge it in Phlegathon as a demon.
^Wrong Evil Outer Plane for making Demons . . . unless Belial has really gone rogue . . . .
^Wrong Evil Outer Plane for making Demons . . . unless Belial has really gone rogue . . . .
...didn't actually click the link, didja?
^I did -- even did it again, just to make sure it didn't mutate. It says Devils, not Demons.
Ah, I see.
Yeah, Phlegathon is where Devils come from.
I have no idea where Daemons and Demons come from in the Golarion cosmology. I'm guessing it's something similar. Insert soul, output monster.
True, but on the other hand, the hard calls generally come up because a GM is trying to be more clever than they actually are or are deliberately being a jerk.I generally agree, but I have seen some takes on what people think are absolutes on these very boards when an issue seemed incredibly fuzzy.
It's easy to make the easy calls. The hard calls are a lot more subjective and to the extent involves a PC's action, the PC's judgment should be respected.
Actually you can find people being jerks on either side of the table. There are easily as many murderhobo players as there are "Entrapment GMs". Trying to justify either as a right and proper action is a violation of the Wheaton Rule in and of itself.
Philosophers haven't found an adequate response the the Problem of Evil for thousands of years. It may never be solved.
The abyss!
By 'come from' I meant 'the specific place where more demons and daemons are created'
Sorry for not being clear.
Because there is so much growth and development a soul can do while it's alive that it can't do when it's dead.
The abyss!By 'come from' I meant 'the specific place where more demons and daemons are created'
Sorry for not being clear.
"The Abyss" is pretty much as specific as it gets in the lore.
those doomed souls who descend into the Abyss manifest as squirming larvae... Larvae can manifest anywhere in the Abyss, but do so most often along the uppermost rims of the Outer Rifts, where their squirming undulations send them tumbling into the depths to scatter among any number of realms below. Left to their own devices, larvae eventually transform into full-fledged demons after a variable eternity spent crawling amid the gutters and filth, eating what the Abyss offers ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they don't want to go to heaven yet, then there are some issues...
Lord, grant me Heaven and a blessed afterlife, but not yet.
When you enslave or imprison someone, you take away their agency, their ability to make decisions for themselves.
Death is a permanent loss of agency
Even in countries where the government uses legal means to imprison or kill you, it's still considered wrong if individuals take that power upon themselves to imprison or kill other individuals.
Imposing loss of agency, against someone's will is not a good act, no matter if it's done to a good person or not.
The afterlives of the Outer Planes are afterlives for the soul. When you kill someone, you are removing/destroying the person themself even though their soul goes to an afterlife.
Imposing loss of agency, against someone's will is not a good act, no matter if it's done to a good person or not.
Nice to see a chaotic good perspective on this...
Death is a permanent loss of agency
Not if there's an afterlife where you still get to do stuff. What kind of heaven is it if you get no agency?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Death is a permanent loss of agencyNot if there's an afterlife where you still get to do stuff. What kind of heaven is it if you get no agency?
Yeah, but the afterlife in AD&D/Pathfinder doesn't contain the people that lived their lives on the mortal plane. It contains souls that have no memory of their previous lives. Class levels? Gone. Family ties? Gone. Hopes and dreams and fears? Gone.
It's not like they are going to a better place to be reunited with their families. They are just going to become a horde of faceless nameless 1 HD petitioners that may or may not eventually become an angel, a more or less slavish follower of good.
'Going to heaven' is annihilation plus slavery. Not a nice thing to wish on anyone. Going to hell isn't any better, obviously, annihilation plus torture plus slavery is even worse.
Petitioners are no more the people who died than a zombie made from their corpse would be. It's just something done with the leftovers after you've died. What necromancers do to corpses, the outer planes do to souls, recycle them for their own agendas.
What you did in life, whether you were good, evil, chaotic or lawful, just determines who gets to drink your milkshake.
But it's still gonna get drank.
In that case set I think ill go with Buddhism reincarnation sounds better. or maybe shoot for Valhalla... I guess its kind of hard to shoot for both drastically different expectations... decisions. Remind me whats the Egyptian way heart as light as a feather and all that right?
So, don't buy into the total loss of identity in all of the afterlifes
Whoever came up with that dark bit of nastiness isn't really worth listening to anyway.
Abaddon specifically has the River Styx which erases the memories of any who cannot pay the Ferryman, so the anhillation is only for the poor and dispossessed. Suitably evil.
The Maelstrom and reasonably Elyseum and the Abyss will cause any soul to be changed as everything there is continuously changing, but, really, the souls going there are going to be suited for change.
There is no good reason to assume that any other plane doesn't allow the retention of an identity that was suited for going there.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no good reason to assume that any other plane doesn't allow the retention of an identity that was suited for going there.
Too bad, that's what Pathfinder does.
Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife. A petitioner who dies is gone forever—its “life force” has either returned to the Positive Energy Plane or, in some cases, provided the energy to trigger the creation of another outsider. Petitioners who please a deity or another powerful outsider can be granted rewards—the most common such reward manifests as a transformation into a different outsider, such as an archon, azata, demon, or devil, depending upon the petitioner’s alignment. In rare cases, a creature can retain its personality from life all the way through its existence as a petitioner and into its third “life” as an outsider, although such events are rare indeed.
Ah, so there basically isn't an afterlife in the Pathfinder universe. Your personality ceases to exist, even if your soul energy is recycled as a new being with some vague resemblance to you.
This solves the original ethics problem, and explains why people are pretty casual about endangering their souls through worshipping evil deities.
|
|
Ah, so there basically isn't an afterlife in the Pathfinder universe. Your personality ceases to exist, even if your soul energy is recycled as a new being with some vague resemblance to you.
This solves the original ethics problem, and explains why people are pretty casual about endangering their souls through worshipping evil deities.
Yeah, the soul is kind of like a parasite that lives inside of your body, 'ripening' as you go through life, and only blossoms when you die, to immediately be snatched off by some outsiders and used in their ongoing and eternal wars with each other.
It's like the material plane is an arms factory, and we are all just growth pods for their weapons.
In that case set I think ill go with Buddhism reincarnation sounds better. or maybe shoot for Valhalla... I guess its kind of hard to shoot for both drastically different expectations... decisions. Remind me whats the Egyptian way heart as light as a feather and all that right?
Samsarans have a decent gig, coming back and trying again, but even they don't often remember much of their previous existences. Androids are the opposite, one body, an endless host of souls wandering through it, so almost all androids are squatting in a body that's had a bunch of previous tenants, who may or may not have left their marks on the body, or left behind fun surprises for the new tenants (like a rap sheet of horrible crimes a mile long, all attached to 'their' face!).
Valhalla's an interesting concept. Fight every day until one person is left standing, mass heal/resurrect, party, next day, do it all again, until the enemy comes and you get to use centuries worth of experience fighting and dying in the final battle. What sort of crazy powerful warriors would these be? Even if they still had bodies no stronger or tougher than their mortal bodies, Valhalla has to have the D&D/PF equivalent of hundreds, if not *thousands* of 20th level epic/mythic barbarians, who stopped getting 'experience points' decades or centuries ago, because *they had them all*...
I'd love to see an einherjar concept explored in the Marvel universe, for instance. Their version of Asgard is crawling with thousands of meaningless 'gods' of nothing-in-particular, that pretty much exist to be fodder or background people in scenes of Thor and the Warriors Three partying (or fighting), but I feel like they've missed out on some fun stuff available in Norse mythology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Follow the reverse golden rule to be good and know what is good.
"Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
You want to live and don't want to be killed, so you know killing is wrong. Therefore, don't kill others.
There is no good reason to assume that any other plane doesn't allow the retention of an identity that was suited for going there.Too bad, that's what Pathfinder does.
Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife. A petitioner who dies is gone forever—its “life force” has either returned to the Positive Energy Plane or, in some cases, provided the energy to trigger the creation of another outsider. Petitioners who please a deity or another powerful outsider can be granted rewards—the most common such reward manifests as a transformation into a different outsider, such as an archon, azata, demon, or devil, depending upon the petitioner’s alignment. In rare cases, a creature can retain its personality from life all the way through its existence as a petitioner and into its third “life” as an outsider, although such events are rare indeed.
Actually, the petitioner seems to retain its personality, and even in many cases, its actual appearance from life, usually "losing" it when it accepts the great changes in becoming a full Outsider, or, less happily, when it becomes a meal. Barring Petitioner death, nothing states that every little bit of personality is lost, though it does imply that aspects extraneous to its new life do go away. I guess this confusion happens when you base an overarching cosmology on a bestiary entry. Wargamewise, with death being, by definition, losing, you don't want to define death as just another change.
Your table, your call, your preference. It isn't "Too Bad" at my table.
The River of Souls article in Mummy's Mask 6 makes it clear that losing the vast majority of your memories is the usual thing for petitioners. And few become outsiders, most eventually merge with the plane, either by choice, direction of the local authorities, or dead quintessence being absorbed after being killed.
Hell's Rebels has a whole artifact that is dedicated to allowing those who use it and die in close proximity to retain their memories (and class levels) as a petitioner, it's definitely not the norm, and only an evil deity is developing and sharing this capability in violation of the natural order.