It *doesn't* happen in my group, which is why I am so evangelical in this forum and why I want alignment to be better in PF2.Everyone who is explaining here how undead alignments work is missing my point that I think it needs to be said in core rulebook, not a forum post or really obscure source <_<Rather than missing, I think it's more that we're demonstrating it. It does need to be stated up-front to avoid the debates.
We get them in my group a decent amount.
Sounds like it won’t have much impact on you. Why evangelise?
EDIT: it occurs to me that may read as sarcastic or snippy. It wasn’t intended that way, it was a genuine question. If alignment doesn’t cause issues/debates at your table, why are you so keen to see it changed?
That's an excellent question. I do it because I want the minimum number of house rules in my game. I'm going to house rule anyway, probably, but house rules get worse the longer they get. You simply cannot provide 20 pages of house rules to new players and not expect them to roll their eyes. Accordingly, I am hoping Paizo finally (and I'm talking about from the start with TSR) simply says alignment is either intent (which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the player) or taint (I call it "echo") so I can leave that part out of my house rules. I think this is a hard sell because there are Paizo DMs who rule differently on alignment, but I'm still trying.
Same goes for lots of other things that I'm going on about. Now is the time. I'm what what's-her-name in Pretty Woman said was "a sure thing" with respect to buying the core rules for 2e, but I still want it to push it in the direction I prefer, which will require some players convert (hopefully because I make good points, not just because I'm noisy).
|
Huh yeah, you are right this is good demonstration of why this is an issue.
Anyway, yeah, as said, undead creation isn't evil because of desecration of death, otherwise all forms of hunting would be considered evil :P And there are methods of creating non evil undead in 1e, all methods that avoid using negative energy aren't considered to be evil, so in other words, corpse puppeting isn't evil itself.
(which is why its confusing that negative energy turns undead into evil even though its specifically stated that negative energy isn't inherently evil. Even though evil clerics can channel only negative energy and all native creatures to negative energy plane are evil. At least positive energy plane inhabitants are neutral I guess)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just reared the sidebar in Classic Horrors Revisited, which is I think the first place I saw mention of why mindless undead are evil. The jist there was that they were an inherently unnatural perversion of the cycle of life an death. It was also written as an in-setting explanation so not necessarily the exact out of game reasoning.
I do think I've seen other mentions that the soul is being hijacked to be the animating force (can't recall where though). Which would be an explanation for the evil, and the difference between a construct made from a corpse and mindless undead. Most of the arguments against mindless undead being evil seems to be viewing them as the same as constructs. But clearly there is a difference.
But yeah, the reasoning needs to be stated in the core book, regardless what they decide. I suspect one reason they didn't before was that this was potentially a setting specific thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then the culture is evil. Evil is not a subjective thing in Pathfinder and other games with an alignment system, it is an objective individually existent force based on cosmic nature. Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them.As far as I'm concerned, creating mindless undead is a form of desecrating a corpse. Bodies should be laid to rest in the way considered proper by the deceased's religion, not forced to stagger about and obey commands from a wizard. Desecrating a corpse is an evil act, regardless of that corpse's actions in life. It has been considered a grave misdeed in every culture in human history, so why wouldn't that hold true in a fantasy world? Yes, I can see a very few specific instances in which it may be considered tolerable to raise a zombie or skeleton (using them to fight off a greater threat, using them to train people to fight undead), but even then it would be considered an act of desperation or absolute necessity, not a normal every day occurrence.And what if the culture is pro-undead?
This argument is not logically sound. If that were the case, lighting striking a little baby would be evil, and not simply a force of nature. Alignment is only applicable if a creature takes the action with the intention of causing harm (to what degree is necessary to qualify as Evil I leave as an open question for now, but let's just say killing an innocent baby qualifies); it is inapplicable if the creature doing the harm is incapable of sapient thought, such as a boa constrictor. Ipso facto, it is subjective.
Attempting to make the objective-subjective distinction will result in you tying yourself up in logical knots in any version of D&D, even though I have seen the argument made with every version of D&D and Pathfinder. The problem is the RAW are not logically sound, which leads to unsound defense of them, inconsistent application, and discontent.
Alignment is only applicable if a creature takes the action with the intention of causing harm (to what degree is necessary to qualify as Evil I leave as an open question for now, but let's just say killing an innocent baby qualifies); it is inapplicable if the creature doing the harm is incapable of sapient thought, such as a boa constrictor. Ipso facto, it is subjective.
In the real world, you may well be correct (I certainly agree with you that intent matters, though I disagree on its subjectivity).
In pathfinder, however it is a fact that mindless undead can be objectively evil (as can non-sentient objects like altars or daggers).
Alignment is only applicable if a creature takes the action with the intention of causing harm (to what degree is necessary to qualify as Evil I leave as an open question for now, but let's just say killing an innocent baby qualifies); it is inapplicable if the creature doing the harm is incapable of sapient thought, such as a boa constrictor. Ipso facto, it is subjective.In the real world, you may well be correct (I certainly agree with you that intent matters, though I disagree on its subjectivity).
In pathfinder, however it is a fact that mindless undead can be objectively evil (as can non-sentient objects like altars or daggers).
I completely agree, but that doesn't change the fact that an act is not evil unless it is done with evil intent. In order to address the strangeness of evil objects, I include the concept of, what I believe in prior iterations of D&D was referred to as taint. I call it "echo" because, you know, taint. I also have creatures that are not capable of free will, but are still evil for the same reason.
For example, and here I'm deviating from core, of course, I require all goblins to be evil because they are what I call "avatic" evil creatures; they do not actually have souls and are acting out the evil rather like an automaton, but seemingly sapient (no free will). Souls in the afterlife can change alignment, but not their avatars. I had a whole campaign thread around an avatar that got quirky after many years, but because the minor godling that put the avatar on the prime material lost contact, he couldn't reabsorb or "reset" the avatar. It's kind of the equivalent of a good person with a mental illness. So this LG avatar (from the echo) was doing obviously bad things. Know Alignment was actually a detriment here. (Sometimes DMs are evil, too.) No, I don't expect anything like this to make it into core, but that is how I handle the echo of alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is akin to MTG's Color Pie, a categorization of personalities and principles rather than a 1:1 value judgement. It exists because putting the label of "chaotic evil" on something carries instantly recognizable assumptions both the GM and players identify. Same way people in MTG can predict what a card does in MTG based on its color.
In Pathfinder One, lot of spells were evil out of different kind of necessity. If you wanted an evil wizard, there was father fast NPC creation method by just putting all major evil spells on said wizard. The other side of the egg and chicken debate, the spells are evil because they are used by evil mages, which is why they are evil because evil mages use them which makes them evil because, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is only applicable if a creature takes the action with the intention of causing harm (to what degree is necessary to qualify as Evil I leave as an open question for now, but let's just say killing an innocent baby qualifies); it is inapplicable if the creature doing the harm is incapable of sapient thought, such as a boa constrictor. Ipso facto, it is subjective.In the real world, you may well be correct (I certainly agree with you that intent matters, though I disagree on its subjectivity).
In pathfinder, however it is a fact that mindless undead can be objectively evil (as can non-sentient objects like altars or daggers).
I completely agree, but that doesn't change the fact that an act is not evil unless it is done with evil intent. In order to address the strangeness of evil objects, I include the concept of, what I believe in prior iterations of D&D was referred to as taint. I call it "echo" because, you know, taint. I also have creatures that are not capable of free will, but are still evil for the same reason.
For example, and here I'm deviating from core, of course, I require all goblins to be evil because they are what I call "avatic" evil creatures; they do not actually have souls and are acting out the evil rather like an automaton, but seemingly sapient (no free will). Souls in the afterlife can change alignment, but not their avatars. I had a whole campaign thread around an avatar that got quirky after many years, but because the minor godling that put the avatar on the prime material lost contact, he couldn't reabsorb or "reset" the avatar. It's kind of the equivalent of a good person with a mental illness. So this LG avatar (from the echo) was doing obviously bad things. Know Alignment was actually a detriment here. (Sometimes DMs are evil, too.) No, I don't expect anything like this to make it into core, but that is how I handle the echo of alignment.
My point is that when someone is defending how they think evil works in the game world, bringing in real world moral viewpoints is fraught.
MidsouthGuy gave one perspective on the morality of actions in the PF world. It’s fallacious to declare that incorrect on the basis that real world morality requires intent. PF morality clearly doesn’t, so their position isn’t inherently contradictory, nor necessarily unsound.
Any rebuttal needs to rely on morality as it is in the game world (and as you’ve demonstrated, the particular objective reality operating in any given game world is solely dependant on which one the DM chose to include).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game morality requires intent. A lightning bolt striking down an innocent person is not evil in PF, nor is their accidental death by natural causes an evil act. The same is true if a lion, in PF, kills and eats an innocent person. Stating that the act of eating an innocent being is objectively evil is fallacious, whether in game or in real life. The fact that it is clearly fallacious in real life is simply an implication that it should also be fallacious in game, but no such parallel needs to be made because, in-game, it is still fallacious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game morality requires intent. A lightning bolt striking down an innocent person is not evil in PF, nor is their accidental death by natural causes an evil act. The same is true if a lion, in PF, kills and eats an innocent person. Stating that the act of eating an innocent being is objectively evil is fallacious, whether in game or in real life. The fact that it is clearly fallacious in real life is simply an implication that it should also be fallacious in game, but no such parallel needs to be made because, in-game, it is still fallacious.
There isn’t any rules text supporting that. The fact skeletons are mindless and evil is something which requires explanation. One interpretation is your concept of “echo” but that isn’t the only one (and you concede it isn’t from the rules). It could be that evil is an objective, metaphysical force as MidsouthGuy put forth.
It’s possible some events-without-intent are evil in a similar way that some beings-without-minds are.
It depends on which objective morality holds in the DM’s world. In yours, intent is required but perhaps not in MidsouthGuy’s. Arguments based on real world morality won’t resolve the issue.
I always just assumed that it was a combination of 2 things in the Pathfinder Universe.
1. Pharasma REALLY hates the undead. They’re a constant reminder of the slap in the face Urgathoa gave her, and are a perversion or her systems of life, death, and afterlife. Animating undead DOES trap a part of the soul. Even mindless undead.
2. Pharasma decides where you go when you die. And she’s True Nuetral. Not Nuetral Good . . .
So yes, you saved the village. But unless you destroy those undead afterwards to set things right, Pharasma is probably going to be mad. Heck, she’s mad that you did it in the first place, but you should at least clean up your mess.
In game morality requires intent. A lightning bolt striking down an innocent person is not evil in PF, nor is their accidental death by natural causes an evil act. The same is true if a lion, in PF, kills and eats an innocent person. Stating that the act of eating an innocent being is objectively evil is fallacious, whether in game or in real life. The fact that it is clearly fallacious in real life is simply an implication that it should also be fallacious in game, but no such parallel needs to be made because, in-game, it is still fallacious.There isn’t any rules text supporting that. The fact skeletons are mindless and evil is something which requires explanation. One interpretation is your concept of “echo” but that isn’t the only one (and you concede it isn’t from the rules). It could be that evil is an objective, metaphysical force as MidsouthGuy put forth.
It’s possible some events-without-intent are evil in a similar way that some beings-without-minds are.
It depends on which objective morality holds in the DM’s world. In yours, intent is required but perhaps not in MidsouthGuy’s. Arguments based on real world morality won’t resolve the issue.
I believe you are getting distracted from my main point in favor of a straw man. That there are other rules about evil objects is irrelevant. (And, incidentally, my use of "echo" is perfectly consistent with the rules because the rules say there are some things that are simply evil; I have only added a logic to that in-game fact.) This is the quote I said was false: "Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them."
What action is it that is Evil? I just picked a really obvious one: Killing an innocent person. Is it evil if a lighting bolt does it? A boa constrictor? A lion? The rules say nothing about a lion committing an evil act if they take down an antelope and there is nothing about taking down a human either. If "certain actions are Evil" then why is it not evil when a lion does it? If you cannot say a lion is committing the quintessential evil act, under the rules, then the statement is fallacious, under the rules. In fact, the rules DEMAND my interpretation, which is why it is fallacious to say "killing is evil because the multiverse itself reacts negatively to it." It does not. No rule suggests it does.
The rules also provide no events-without-intent that are evil. That is just something you made up. Is it possible? Sure. With a house rule. A rule that some things a lion does are evil is something I have never seen written or in a house rule. At least my echo is consistent with the RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is trying to conflate evil acts ("I'm going to murder this person and take his money even though I was taught that this was wrong, because I like money.") and Evil as a kind of substance ("This is the Chalice of Vile Darkness; anyone who touches it must make a Will save or be afflicted with a murderous hatred of all life.") into a single concept.
The former requires intent. The latter does not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "certain actions are Evil" then why is it not evil when a lion does it?
Killing innocent people is not Evil, though it's evil when done with intent.
Creating undead is Evil, even if a lion does it.
If "certain actions are Evil" then why is it not evil when a lion does it?Killing innocent people is not Evil, though it's evil when done with intent.
Creating undead is Evil, even if a lion does it.
The problem with this seemingly true statement is it can be interpreted in two ways. Creating undead is evil because the creation of undead is evil. However, is the act of creating undead evil? A lion is incapable of forming the intent and therefore the act of creating the undead is not evil.
Specifically, a lion creating undead is not possible unless some other agent made it possible, maybe by rigging a pressure plate to trigger a create undead spell, which the lion steps on. The lion cannot form the intent to create undead, so the lion is not implicated by the fact the creation of undead is evil. Indeed, the act of creating undead is not evil; it is the creation of the undead that is evil. The only way the act is evil is if the lion forms the intent, which it cannot as a natural non-sapient creature, under the RAW. Because a lion cannot become evil, it doesn't matter if the lion steps on that pressure plate a million times, only stopping to slake its thirst on the blood of an innocent boy and sate its hunger on the flesh of an innocent girl, and does nothing else for its entire life. It cannot commit an evil act, so it will not become evil.
I believe you are getting distracted from my main point in favor of a straw man.In game morality requires intent. A lightning bolt striking down an innocent person is not evil in PF, nor is their accidental death by natural causes an evil act. The same is true if a lion, in PF, kills and eats an innocent person. Stating that the act of eating an innocent being is objectively evil is fallacious, whether in game or in real life. The fact that it is clearly fallacious in real life is simply an implication that it should also be fallacious in game, but no such parallel needs to be made because, in-game, it is still fallacious.There isn’t any rules text supporting that. The fact skeletons are mindless and evil is something which requires explanation. One interpretation is your concept of “echo” but that isn’t the only one (and you concede it isn’t from the rules). It could be that evil is an objective, metaphysical force as MidsouthGuy put forth.
It’s possible some events-without-intent are evil in a similar way that some beings-without-minds are.
It depends on which objective morality holds in the DM’s world. In yours, intent is required but perhaps not in MidsouthGuy’s. Arguments based on real world morality won’t resolve the issue.
Nah. I thought you might find that instructive.
Objects can have a moral character in PF but don’t in the real world.
Therefore, acts-without-intent may have a moral character in PF, even if they don’t in the real world.
I don’t see what straw man you think I’m constructing, but that was illustrative of the issue that comes from relying on real world moral intuitions. I wasn’t attributing any position to you (beyond the ones you’ve explicitly stated).
That there are other rules about evil objects is irrelevant. (And, incidentally, my use of "echo" is perfectly consistent with the rules because the rules say there are some things that are simply evil; I have only added a logic to that in-game fact.)
Perfectly consistent with the rules in the CRB, yes. Similarly a morality based on an objective, metaphysical force could also be consistent.
There are a plethora of possible instantiations of the objective morality in PF. That’s kind of implicit in your position that it’s too vague, isn’t it?
This is the quote I said was false: "Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them."
What action is it that is Evil? I just picked a really obvious one: Killing an innocent person. Is it evil if a lighting bolt does it? A boa constrictor? A lion? The rules say nothing about a lion committing an evil act if they take down an antelope and there is nothing about taking down a human either. If "certain actions are Evil" then why is it not evil when a lion does it? If you cannot say a lion is committing the quintessential evil act, under the rules, then the statement is fallacious, under the rules. In fact, the rules DEMAND my interpretation, which is why it is fallacious to say "killing is evil because the multiverse itself reacts negatively to it." It does not. No rule suggests it does.
You’re holding the alternate view to a higher standard than your own. You defended “echo” on the grounds it was consistent with the rules, now reject an alternate account in the grounds it isn’t actively supported.
All that’s required is that MidsouthGuy (or anyone else) produce a system which doesn’t violate the rules. They don’t have to find a passage which insists on their view - just as your semantics is valid, despite “echo” not appearing anywhere in the alignment chapter.
In a world with this hypothetical “force” of evil, the DM doesn’t need to explain “why” a lion killing a child is not evil but a mindless skeleton doing so is. The morality of an act is a brute fact about the world (not in reality, but in this particular account of D&D’s moral system).
It doesn’t violate any of the rules because the rules are so vague - alignment is a crude, inaccurate model of reality. There’s many, many systems which fit. The choice of which system you prefer (“echo”, “force” or anything else) is basically aesthetic.
Note that by RAW, alignment is entirely within the purview if the DM, based on their interpretation of the rules.
The CRB even calls out alignment as different from all other stats on a character sheet as it is solely controlled by the DM.
Given such broad strokes, there are stacks of possible answers to any given alignment “debate”.
I didn't say the alternative isn't actively supported. I said it was false under the RAW and illogical, whether in-game or out. I don't know how I could be clearer. I'm not trying to be cruel or anything. 1+1 simply does not equal 3.
Let's appeal to authority. (See what I did there?) "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." What does this mean? The definition of behavior is "manner of acting." The tiger is therefore incapable of morally right (good) or wrong (evil) acts. Ipso facto, "Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them" is false on its face. All you have to do to see that is say "Certain actions taken by a lion, which cannot be Good or Evil acts by definition, are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them."
Don't get me wrong. I hate everything about how alignment is described as "solely in the province of the DM" or whatever. I think that is utter crap and it should be shifted back to the sole province of the player because they are the one who gets to choose their intent. All the DM should do is define what it means to be good or evil so the player can choose the alignment most appealing. That doesn't change the fact that the position you are defending is inconsistent with the rules. Plus, I'm a big fan of house rules. If he wants his game to be like that (assuming it is a he), more power to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Side note...
The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/sceaduinar/
Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.
[...]
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/jyoti/
[...]
From the Sceaduinar description you linked:
"They believe their positive energy counterparts, the jyoti, long ago stole their ability to create, breaking the parallel between the two energy planes and forcing these void-dwellers into an unwanted role of pure destruction."They're not "evil because negative energy", they're "evil because the jyoti (you know, the neutral guys) broke them".
Depending on how you read it, the Negative Energy Plane itself is either broken along with them, or it's still neutral, with its created outsiders the only evil part of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say the alternative isn't actively supported. I said it was false under the RAW and illogical, whether in-game or out.
It really isn’t, but never mind.
To demonstrate its falsehood, you need to try to phrase a counterexample from within their morality-as-cosmic-force game, not from within reality (or yours, where you’ve predetermined that acts without intent are necessarily amoral).
The thing is, moral questions are hard. There is no obvious answer to pretty much any question you might ask. Somewhere, there is a moral philosopher who can persuade you that what you think is true is actually nonsensical. Because alignment is so permissive (and inherently determined by DM fiat) pretty much any of those mutually exclusive moral codes will fit (barring the truly nihilistic “there’s no such thing as morality” positions, I guess).
At their heart, alignment arguments are statements of aesthetic preference and little more (unless someone is actually internally inconsistent).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say the alternative isn't actively supported. I said it was false under the RAW and illogical, whether in-game or out.It really isn’t, but never mind.
To demonstrate its falsehood, you need to try to phrase a counterexample from within their morality-as-cosmic-force game, not from within reality (or yours, where you’ve predetermined that acts without intent are necessarily amoral).
The thing is, moral questions are hard. There is no obvious answer to pretty much any question you might ask. Somewhere, there is a moral philosopher who can persuade you that what you think is true is actually nonsensical. Because alignment is so permissive (and inherently determined by DM fiat) pretty much any of those mutually exclusive moral codes will fit (barring the truly nihilistic “there’s no such thing as morality” positions, I guess).
At their heart, alignment arguments are statements of aesthetic preference and little more (unless someone is actually internally inconsistent).
OK.
The morality-as-cosmic-force game rules state: "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." What does this mean? The definition of behavior is "manner of acting." The tiger is therefore incapable of morally right (good) or wrong (evil) acts. Ipso facto, "Certain actions are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them" is false on its face. All you have to do to see that is say "Certain actions taken by a lion, which cannot be Good or Evil acts by definition, are Evil because the Multiverse itself reacts negatively to them."
I'm repeating myself, though, so let's find something we agree on elsewhere. I generally find your contributions to the forums interesting, even if I disagree with you on this point.
The reason it bugs me, though, is you appear to be a relatively reasonable person. If I can't get a relatively reasonable person to see the lack of logic in the interpretation of the rules, which is a direct result of poorly written rules on alignment that go out of their way to say "this is just a general guideline, blah, blah, blah," then I have no hope for PF2 being any better. What they should do is say "Good means you intend to do X. DMs cannot tell players their intentions, so they cannot change a PC's alignment without the player's consent. The DM is perfectly within his or her rights to declare a PC insane, due to an inability to distinguish right from wrong, despite the best of intentions, however." Then go straight into the social contract between DM and player, which is alignment-agnostic.
Well thanks. :)
I enjoy exploring lots of perspectives - that does occasionally lead me to be somewhat obstreperous or devils advocatey though, so apologies if it was irritating.
FWIW, I think your biggest stumbling block is likely to be the desire to keep or even increase the role of DM as adjudicator. My sense is that such is to become more significant, not less in PF2.
I don’t think you need to worry about persuasiveness. I doubt they’ll be making any decisions based on “forum members reaching consensus”. I certainly hope not!
Your position is well argued, so I’m sure it will factor in to any consideration they give to alignment.
To declare my hand further. I like alignment, but if it were to be as prescriptive as you suggest, I’d rather they not include it.
I like playing with alignment the way we do it. I don’t want to have some player begin arguing with the DM based on what Jason Buhlman thinks is an evil act.
I would like to see something in Core about why creating undead is evil, if only for cosmological purposes. And I do think it is evil, regardless of intent. I don't think intent is the end all, be all with morality. People can do evil things with good intentions (though the action has to be inherently evil, like murder or raising undead). Their actions were still evil. People can do good things with evil intentions. Their actions were still evil (despite the outcome).
On a side note, desecrating people's bodies can be considered evil in its own right, although I'd say this is more about cultural norms than morality. But who gets to say when something crosses from culture into morality? Even in Pathfinder, alignment can be a fluid concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view it occuring at least primarily because the in-universe judge of alignment has a conflict of interest. This in and of itself is fine, but refusing to acknowledge it and not having some other deity handle undead cases is not.
Who would even handle the other cases in matters related to undead though? Most is the other Good Aligned Dieties such as Sarenrae and Iomadae also view undeath with scorn. The only core 20 dieties in the setting who’d be willing to defend the use of undead are already Evil. I’m just saying that hiring Satan as your lawyer doesn’t exactly make you look innocent.
The entire problem is that undead were never meant to exist in-universe. They only appeared once Urgathoa escaped the Boneyard (and consequently brought disease to the material plane) and broke a part of reality to do so. Their entire existence is a loophole to the natural laws of the universe and how it was meant to function. In a sense, it is “cheating”. At least, to Pharasma it is.
So yes, you can win by cheating. You can even have the purest of intentions with why you needed to win. But the judge is watching. And she isn’t amused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Side note...The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/sceaduinar/
Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.
[...]
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/jyoti/
[...]
From the Sceaduinar description you linked:
"They believe their positive energy counterparts, the jyoti, long ago stole their ability to create, breaking the parallel between the two energy planes and forcing these void-dwellers into an unwanted role of pure destruction."They're not "evil because negative energy", they're "evil because the jyoti (you know, the neutral guys) broke them".
Depending on how you read it, the Negative Energy Plane itself is either broken along with them, or it's still neutral, with its created outsiders the only evil part of it.
No, they think the Jyoti broke them, this is never actually confirmed. What you have is a being made completely of Neutral Energy that is actually Evil. And unlike Nightshades who, while made from Neutral Energies from the Shadow and Negative Energy Plane, are evil because of fiendish energies mixing in their creation, there is no actual reason listed why Sceaduinar are born Evil from Neutral energies.
I view it occuring at least primarily because the in-universe judge of alignment has a conflict of interest. This in and of itself is fine, but refusing to acknowledge it and not having some other deity handle undead cases is not.Who would even handle the other cases in matters related to undead though? Most is the other Good Aligned Dieties such as Sarenrae and Iomadae also view undeath with scorn. The only core 20 dieties in the setting who’d be willing to defend the use of undead are already Evil. I’m just saying that hiring Satan as your lawyer doesn’t exactly make you look innocent.
The entire problem is that undead were never meant to exist in-universe. They only appeared once Urgathoa escaped the Boneyard (and consequently brought disease to the material plane) and broke a part of reality to do so. Their entire existence is a loophole to the natural laws of the universe and how it was meant to function. In a sense, it is “cheating”. At least, to Pharasma it is.
So yes, you can win by cheating. You can even have the purest of intentions with why you needed to win. But the judge is watching. And she isn’t amused.
Pharasma's dislike of Undead is well noted, but here's the thing.
Why is animate dead, which does nothing to a soul at all and doesn't interfere with their judging and/or placement [Evil];
But raise dead, resurrection and true resurrection; spells that actually mess with the souls Pharasma has already judged (or will judge) by letting them ignore the cycle and come back to the Material Plane, not [Evil]?
I mean, if we're going about the natural laws of the universe, then spitting in Pharasma's judgement by bringing someone back is way worse than just making a skeleton. If anything, making a skeleton is helping Pharasma since it prevents souls she's already judged to be brought back to life.
|
If a soul has been judged it can't be brought back outside of GM allowance and a carefully worded Wish/Miracle, if it's been judged it's been turned into an Outsider, it's not still waiting around somewhere as a soul.
As for anti-resurrection helping Pharasma? Not actually the case since she's also the Goddess of Fate.
|
|
If I remember from JJ ask thread, Pharasma can see the fate, that is completely separate thing from prophecies being broken. But fate can be changed(because of prophecies being broken) so uh, bit unclear what that means. Like, can she seem when mortal is going to change their face, can she see all possible fates or will her sight just get updated whenever someone changes their fate?
The argument against raising mindless undead as an Evil act thus far seems to me to compose mostly of "raising undead isn't Evil because I don't like the alignment system and don't want it to have anything to do with anything I do ever." So if that's your issue with it, why waste time with arguing philosophy and just say you don't think spells should be aligned?
|
why wouldn't creating undead (even mindless ones like Skeletons and Zombies) be evil? I mean the entire genre and trope of raising the dead is a thing of horror movies and nightmares. I can't think of a single book where doing this without some sort of artifact made for "saving the world" (like the Horn in the Wheel of Time series or the Ghosts that Aragorn got on his side in Lord of the Rings) was considered anything but evil.
All this modern day morality and intent conversation is strictly incorrect. When you have spells that are labeled as [evil], then simply the casting of such a spell is an evil act. Its where the idea of morality intent forks from reality and into the fantasy genre. Some things are inherently evil, no matter the intent.
|
|
If I remember from JJ ask thread, Pharasma can see the fate, that is completely separate thing from prophecies being broken. But fate can be changed(because of prophecies being broken) so uh, bit unclear what that means. Like, can she seem when mortal is going to change their face, can she see all possible fates or will her sight just get updated whenever someone changes their fate?
There's a bunch of strands of Fate and Pharasma can see them all, it's why she doesn't go around purging undead on mass herself, they're annoyances, annoyances she really, really hates, but annoyances in the grand scheme of the aeons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a soul has been judged it can't be brought back outside of GM allowance and a carefully worded Wish/Miracle, if it's been judged it's been turned into an Outsider, it's not still waiting around somewhere as a soul.
As for anti-resurrection helping Pharasma? Not actually the case since she's also the Goddess of Fate.
No, if it's been Judged, it's passed from the Boneyard to whatever plane it shall reside in and become a Petitioner. Who are Outsiders, but they can be brought back to life.
It takes time for the Petitioner to transition into the kind of Outsider (Angel/Devil/Demon/etc) that cannot be resurrected. In that time, if you bring the Petitioner back to life, you've told Pharasma to go suck a lemon.
I mean, imagine Dave. Dave died. He's in the queue in the Boneyard.
Soul Dave: "Man, this sucks baloney, I wanna be with my wife and kids..."
Dave is judged. He was actually an ok guy, so he gets to go to Nirvana.
Petitioner Dave: "Well, this place isn't so bad. But I really wish I could be with my wife and kids....I was going to teach Timmy to ride a horse..."
Bobby the Cleric of Abadar is paid by Dave's family to resurrect the guy. He does so.
Petitioner Dave: "Oh heck yeah I'm going back! I never wanted to be here in the first place, woohoo!"
And off he goes.
How is that any different than what Urgathoa did when she told Pharasma to go suck a lemon? I mean, the only real difference is that Urgathoa had no help from Bobby the Cleric and she came back as an undead creature....because.
As for her stance as Goddess of Fate, that means jack all. Since Aroden's death Fate is an ever changing thing. She doesn't know what's going to happen, which means she doesn't know when the great good army of Skellingtontown might save Golarion, or whatever.
Saying "Resurrection is ok because /Fate" isn't any more valid than syaing "Animate Dead is ok because /Fate".
|
|
If a soul has been judged it can't be brought back outside of GM allowance and a carefully worded Wish/Miracle, if it's been judged it's been turned into an Outsider, it's not still waiting around somewhere as a soul.
As for anti-resurrection helping Pharasma? Not actually the case since she's also the Goddess of Fate.
No, if it's been Judged, it's passed from the Boneyard to whatever plane it shall reside in and become a Petitioner. Who are Outsiders, but they can be brought back to life.
It takes time for the Petitioner to transition into the kind of Outsider (Angel/Devil/Demon/etc) that cannot be resurrected. In that time, if you bring the Petitioner back to life, you've told Pharasma to go suck a lemon.
I mean, imagine Dave. Dave died. He's in the queue in the Boneyard.
Soul Dave: "Man, this sucks baloney, I wanna be with my wife and kids..."
Dave is judged. He was actually an ok guy, so he gets to go to Nirvana.
Petitioner Dave: "Well, this place isn't so bad. But I really wish I could be with my wife and kids....I was going to teach Timmy to ride a horse..."
Bobby the Cleric of Abadar is paid by Dave's family to resurrect the guy. He does so.
Petitioner Dave: "Oh heck yeah I'm going back! I never wanted to be here in the first place, woohoo!"
And off he goes.
How is that any different than what Urgathoa did when she told Pharasma to go suck a lemon? I mean, the only real difference is that Urgathoa had no help from Bobby the Cleric and she came back as an undead creature....because.
As for her stance as Goddess of Fate, that means jack all. Since Aroden's death Fate is an ever changing thing. She doesn't know what's going to happen, which means she doesn't know when the great good army of Skellingtontown might save Golarion, or whatever.
Saying "Resurrection is ok because /Fate" isn't any more valid than syaing "Animate Dead is ok because /Fate".
Where is is stated that you can resurrect Petitioners?
Urgathoa (and Zyphus) became Undead Deities, they didn't resurrect.
Actually it's been explicitly stated by Jame Jacobs that Pharasma does know what's going to happen and can see all the divergent path of Fate.
|
|
Yep.As for anti-resurrection helping Pharasma? Not actually the case since she's also the Goddess of Fate.But couldn't it have been your fate to become a lich/zombie/mummy?
That and isn't fate/destiny/prophecy supposed to be borked ever since the Aroden thing happened?Prophecy and only prohecy is borked on just Golarion (works just fine on Abbaddon).
You can throw up your setting dressing of messing with the cycle of life (even though rezzing and reincarnation especially spit in the face of that),It actually doesn't.
messing with minute bits of soul stuff (but Trap the Soul is fine)
Trap the soul doesn't corrupt the process like Undeath does, Pharasma is probably annoyed since said soul is in the afterlife equivalent of dealing with unnecessary paperwork and redtape, but it doesn't actually damage the soul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is is stated that you can resurrect Petitioners?
Urgathoa (and Zyphus) became Undead Deities, they didn't resurrect.
Actually it's been explicitly stated by Jame Jacobs that Pharasma does know what's going to happen and can see all the divergent path of Fate.
In the Petitioner description:
"Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife. "
Also if Pharasma knows what's going to happen, then the strands of fate are set. Therefore, Urgathoa and Zyphus achieving godhood was decreed and they are as natural as Pharasma herself, which implies Pharasma is in the wrong.
If Fate is a set thing (and having infinite strands still means it's set and unchanging, all strands are equally valid), and you have Undead happening, then Undead are fine and ordained by Fate. Ergo they are not intrinsically Evil by going against Fate or whatever.
If you want to use that sort of logic, question becomes "So why bone/carrion/flesh/blood golems are neutral instead of evil?"
(and out of those ones, you need to be evil only for purpose of creating flesh golems, though few other of them do require animate dead)
Those inconsistencies are known by Paizo. Hopefully they can take advantage of PF2 and the stronger focus on Golarion to tighten that up.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she can see all the divergent paths of fate and knows which is going to happen then isn't the whole "there is no destiny" thing sort of entirely contradicted?No, Destiny works just fine. Prophecy doesn't work.That's a pretty worthless distinction.
"Oh, there's no prophecy that you'll slay the dragon and save the princess, you're free to do whatever!"
"Neat!"
"That said, you are destined to slay the dragon and save the princess so better start setting that in motion..."
I mean, it's pretty tropetastic for fate gods and semantics to go hand in hand to make things work but come on, they're the same thing.
It works fine if Pharasma is the only one who knows what your destiny is.
Prophecy being broken only means that you can't discern your destiny. That doesn't mean you don't have one.