| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All souls arriving at oblivion? YES!
I think my personal favorite fantasy afterlife is the human one in Lord of the Rings. After death, human souls pass out of the circles of the world onto a different existence. Where do they go? Only Eru Ilúvatar would know for certain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my personal favorite fantasy afterlife is the human one in Lord of the Rings. After death, human souls pass out of the circles of the world onto a different existence. Where do they go? Only Eru Ilúvatar would know for certain.
I like the one from Coco (partly because of the awesome city). You die, you go to a theoretically visitable afterlife alongside everyone else there. Your residence is determined by whether anyone alive still remembers you, and once no one alive does, you go to Final Death, from which no one returns.
It allows for an afterlife as something mortals can interact with, but preserves the mystery of what ultimately happens. Do people cease to exist from all perspectives once they're at Final Death? Are their souls eternally preserved (not "eternally" meaning "really large but still finite number", but meaning "infinitely infinite and never-ending")? No one alive will ever know for sure.
Plus, that cityscape was sweet!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I didn't know I'd attract this many responses. Thank you all for your input! Thank you Mr. Jacobs, for clarifying about the 'anything can happen' attitude in the cosmology, it's made me feel better, although I disagree with this:
We also wanted to avoid setting something up where some players would see death as a "free upgrade" for their character, since that's what you're essentially talking about if your PC dies, then is reborn with their memories (and thus their class levels and all other things experience grants them) in a more powerful body like an angel or a demon than a mortal body. That's not a theme we wanted to make attractive for play in Pathfinder.
I don't want my character to continue just like he was, and I resent the notion I just want to use death as a way to get more power. Once he becomes a petitioner or other type of outsider, he would forget his class levels and stuff and essentially retire from what he was before(petitioners all forgetting their memories is another sticking point I don't like). I wouldn't be playing him anymore, I just like to think he has a happy afterlife with his friends and family.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's just a personal thing. I have don't believe in any sort of afterlife in the real world, just oblivion and my body breaking down and my constituent atoms being used by other forms of matter eventually scattered to the cosmos when our star goes supernova the same way the atoms that form my body were. To me the Golarion afterlife is not much different, the quintessence forming a character's soul merges with the place best fitting them (assuming daemons or other soul destroying monsters don't impact them), eventually the Maelstrom breaks down that quintessence and collects it into a vortex of soul matter which is then kindled into a living soul in the Positive Energy Plane which continues the cycle. In either case we are the universe experiencing itself, I like that.
It's also worth noting that for as much as we talk about what happens to souls there is some debate within the setting as well. The afterlife laid out in Occult Adventures differs in some key areas form the afterlife being discussed here and one of my favorite pieces of art happens to be two characters whose names I cannot recall standing in front some charts and drawings arguing over the nature of the afterlife.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want my character to continue just like he was, and I resent the notion I just want to use death as a way to get more power.
To be clear, James said "some players" would see death as a free upgrade. He didn't say that about specifically, or even about most players. I think it is a fair thing to be concerned about.
The most evil thing that I know Pharasma doing is feeding Gorum the souls of atheists, to keep him from falling down. In what can only be described as the ultimate/longest game of Majora's Mask.
You mean Groetus?
The most evil thing that I know Pharasma doing is feeding Gorum the souls of atheists, to keep him from falling down. In what can only be described as the ultimate/longest game of Majora's Mask.
I kind of agree but kind of don't agree. Honestly, from my perspective Pharasma likely has little choice in the matter.
The other souls all have a specific ordained destination, it was agreed to by the major deities to allow the base energies of the multiverse decide where the should go via Pharasma's impartial judgement of souls (which are composed on that energy).
When a soul actively rejects participation in that cycle, this may be the only available option. Remember, even people who don't particularly venerate a deity can end up in the aligned planes. So it's not really atheism that gets you fed to Groetus, but rather it seems more like a specific rejection of the universal cycle of souls. Basically I belief you have to opt out harder than "I'm not sure what I believe in" and instead say somethign more like "I reject all of this because I think it's not fair and it makes me angry".
Unfortunately the term atheist is thrown about very loosely in terms of meaning in Pathfinder.
Honestly, if it takes feeding souls to Groetus to prevent the mass extinction of all life in an apocalypse, it may be irrelevant which souls you feed to it and whether they opted in to it or not.
Honestly, if it takes feeding souls to Groetus to prevent the mass extinction of all life in an apocalypse, it may be irrelevant which souls you feed to it and whether they opted in to it or not.
Agreed to an extent. If feeding Groetus souls is the only thing that staves off his "reclamation" of the universe then to reality it is necessary that this happens. The framework by which you decide whom is fed is the question. Though if all souls eventually meet dissolution into their constituent parts, it seems that being fed to Groetus isn't much different except the time frame at which your quintessence is broken down.
And even beyond all that, it is likely something that Pharasma and the gods can't really control, except deciding which souls go where to wait for their break down into the energy that runs the universe.
To note, it's not even all atheist souls that get Groetus'd (presumably) - we know there are other atheist souls that just vibe in the Boneyard or get quintessence'd there. It's just that the only souls that get fed to Groetus are atheists. Question is, where's that energy go?
|
Oh, I didn't know I'd attract this many responses. Thank you all for your input! Thank you Mr. Jacobs, for clarifying about the 'anything can happen' attitude in the cosmology, it's made me feel better, although I disagree with this:
I don't want my character to continue just like he was, and I resent the notion I just want to use death as a way to get more power. Once he becomes a petitioner or other type of outsider, he would forget his class levels and stuff and essentially retire from what he was before(petitioners all forgetting their memories is another sticking point I don't like). I wouldn't be playing him anymore, I just like to think he has a happy afterlife with his friends and family.
We also wanted to avoid setting something up where some players would see death as a "free upgrade" for their character, since that's what you're essentially talking about if your PC dies, then is reborn with their memories (and thus their class levels and all other things experience grants them) in a more powerful body like an angel or a demon than a mortal body. That's not a theme we wanted to make attractive for play in Pathfinder.
Do note that "death is permanent retirement home with endless party" can be considered a type of upgrade :p
Also that petitioners seem honestly pretty happy doing their thing in afterlife, they just have pretty hazy memories of exact details of their past life.
Also also(not related to post I was quoting), besides Pharasma not deciding on how metaphysics of death works, there is that Pharasma having daughter who she is grooming to be her successor is in universe THEORY :p Its not actually confirmed that she is her daughter or that she is being trained for that purpose
ALSO also also, why are people bringing up Groetus eating souls thing? That was confirmed long ago to be retconned into in universe myth that isn't actually the reality
Some people didn't read Concordance (which is I think where that's from? Or is it Planar Adventures).
Yeah realized the answer after I wrote it :'D Though to be fair, the "Pharasma's daughter" theory is also from that book sooooo didn't enter my mind that not every poster in thread has read it
Which is pity since Concordance is awesome book.
Is this a novel or rule book?
I didn't actually know where the information was from, just founds bits of it posted online and in the wikis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule book. The final one released for 1E.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah realized the answer after I wrote it :'D Though to be fair, the "Pharasma's daughter" theory is also from that book sooooo didn't enter my mind that not every poster in thread has read it
Which is pity since Concordance is awesome book.
Is this a novel or rule book?
I didn't actually know where the information was from, just founds bits of it posted online and in the wikis.
Concordance of Rival is campaign setting book. Its part of entry for psychopomp usher Atropos the Last Sister.
On side note, cool thing about that is that she is medium sized nosoi with peacock tail :p I very much like how most psychopomp ushers don't have humanoid shape as their true form
|
|
In which lore book is this explained?Planar Adventures, the River of Souls section has a great explanation of cosmology and the soul in Golarion. It's PF1, but there are no mechanics purely the lore behind the cycle as it relates to Pharasma and the rest.I have that book.
"Upon departing Pharasma's realm, a judged soul emerges onto its new home plane, its memories and personality from its days as a mortal wiped clean" - Planar Adventures, Page 66.
Only a small fraction retain anything, those are the ones that can become new celestials or fiends.
I mean, considering every petitioner ever we have met in every pathfinder adventure, that isn't completely true.
|
To note, it's not even all atheist souls that get Groetus'd (presumably) - we know there are other atheist souls that just vibe in the Boneyard or get quintessence'd there. It's just that the only souls that get fed to Groetus are atheists. Question is, where's that energy go?
I always thought Groetus, deity of the End Times, could find a much better use for atheist souls than devour them for energy. For example, groom them into becoming Godkillers for when the time is right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the Windsong Testament mentioned mean that all of the gods (including Pharisma) will die eventually as well (other than the Survivor?)
That is true (or was before Fate went kaboom) but only for the deities of the multiverse. Not for those outside it, such as the Old Ones and the Outer Gods. Which is the reason why throughout the births and deaths of the multiverses, the Watcher at the end is always Yog-Sothoth.
|
|
Additionally, she is a being so far beyond us that applying our concepts of good and evil to her is just us being arrogant.
The question of whether you should let reality come to and end or reset it is such a huge decision that I honestly don't think 21st century humans even have the language to debate it properly, let alone decide that either choice is evil or not.
Alignment in Golarion is absolute. So even if mortal understanding of the multiverse is imperfect, applying alignment to Pharasma seems just natural to me.
Not to mention that any one of us could be the next Survivor. And bring our own morality to the next multiverse
Actually, from the tale linked above, I got the notion that the current alignments defined themselves based on Pharasma's morality. With her being True Neutral because she is the center of reference from which the 8 other alignments and deities grew.
Maybe Pharasma would have been considered Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil in her original multiverse. But in the current one, she is by construction the very definition of True Neutrality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Planar Adventures details that there are two kinds of souls that end up in the graveyard of lost souls. There are failed souls, people who went through life and never actually managed to believe in anything or act in such a way that they had a discernable alignment, and there are souls that vehemently reject the whole system.
Both of those just get sent to in the Graveyard of Lost Souls in the Boneyard where at least they can be left alone in the quiet for whatever is going to happen to them.
I agree with OP that these are some pretty disappointing metaphysics and that the designers of pathfinder have overlooked ways to make the afterlife NOT be bleak, while it still being quite scary/unknown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with OP that these are some pretty disappointing metaphysics and that the designers of pathfinder have overlooked ways to make the afterlife NOT be bleak, while it still being quite scary/unknown.
Bleak depends on your outlook, and regardless it seems very intentional cosmology. It's also one of the easiest things to change for your home games since it has no association to the mechanics whatsoever.
I agree with OP that these are some pretty disappointing metaphysics and that the designers of pathfinder have overlooked ways to make the afterlife NOT be bleak, while it still being quite scary/unknown.Bleak depends on your outlook, and regardless it seems very intentional cosmology. It's also one of the easiest things to change for your home games since it has no association to the mechanics whatsoever.
'You no longer exist in any meaningful sense whatsoever' is fairly bleak. There's a lot of arm-chair philosophy going on, and that's actually what my training/education is in.
IN FACT... if self preservation/self-defense is always justified then this cosmology makes survival at any cost permissible. Undeath, sucking souls, etc is all a legitimate way to survive in an ultimate sense.
That's not self defense.
But, it is arguably. When people have been stranded even cannibalisms has been justified in the name of self preservation. In most cultures, and certainly in western ones, the right to self-preservation is pretty much the only absolute right that is acknowledged. In the real world, magical/mystical methods of extending your life don't exist... however if they ever do to any appreciable or technological degree then they will almost certainly be considered justified.
If the alternative is complete obliteration and you have the option to prevent that, the right of self preservation would suggest that whatever means minimally necessary to achieve that end are permissible. It's possible that "minimally necessary" is also very extreme - i.e.: cannibalism.
So, if the means of survival are ghastly, horrible, etc... but they are the ONLY means of survival I do not believe you can blame someone for pursuing them anymore than you can blame someone for fending for themselves in any other dangerous or extreme situation.
AND FURTHERMORE, anyone (deity, demon, angel, hero) who does not attempt to stop this process is, I would argue, objectively evil. That is to say, if there is a deity who is in charge of the "soul grinding" process, they're obviously evil. If it is a alterable metaphysical law of the universe, and someone has the ability to alter that law, then they are morally obligated to do so. This would be precisely for the same reason that murder is considered evil - because you've infringed on somethings right to survive without legitimate cause, (though your own survival WOULD be a legitimate reason).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to point out that, at least historically, necessity is not considered a valid defence against murder (including in the case of cannibalism). The 1884 case R v Dudley & Stevens set this precedent throughout the common law world. If this precedent has been overturned, I didn't find mention on short notice.
I want to point out that, at least historically, necessity is not considered a valid defence against murder (including in the case of cannibalism). The 1884 case R v Dudley & Stevens set this precedent throughout the common law world. If this precedent has been overturned, I didn't find mention on short notice.
While interesting, a court ruling is not the arbiter of moral truth. My argument can stand regardless of whether or not it appeals to social norms because that's an ancillary support.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with OP that these are some pretty disappointing metaphysics and that the designers of pathfinder have overlooked ways to make the afterlife NOT be bleak, while it still being quite scary/unknown.Bleak depends on your outlook, and regardless it seems very intentional cosmology. It's also one of the easiest things to change for your home games since it has no association to the mechanics whatsoever.'You no longer exist in any meaningful sense whatsoever' is fairly bleak. There's a lot of arm-chair philosophy going on, and that's actually what my training/education is in.
IN FACT... if self preservation/self-defense is always justified then this cosmology makes survival at any cost permissible. Undeath, sucking souls, etc is all a legitimate way to survive in an ultimate sense.
Many people believe in our real universe that death is the end, and that you cease to have any meaningful existence after it. I don't think of our reality as bleak because it. Personally, it makes me realize that at times I'm wasting the limited existence on things that shouldn't matter and that I'll probably regret one day. But I still do it. Humans are complicated. But I still don't walk around thinking "existence is so burdensome because one day I'll cease to be". Instead I think "this universe is so vast and wonderful and I'll only get to experience a tiny portion of it, I should make the most of it that I can" and then bemoan the fact that I waste time doing things that don't further that goal. But I'm never despondent. I'm never sad that my universe ends when I die because to me...that's just life.
And further, Undeath and Soul Sucking aren't self defense and don't meaningfully extend your souls existence (probably). Assuming you do become a lich for thousands of years, we don't know how long it takes a soul to dissolve. It could be hundreds of thousands of years. It's not really stated to my knowledge. But no matter what, you wont survive the end of the universe, because only 1 individual gets to do that. Unless you care to hatch a plan to somehow subvert Pharasma's plan and become the one she (unwillingly) passes the torch to be the survivor from this universe.
Many people believe in our real universe that death is the end, and that you cease to have any meaningful existence after it. I don't think of our reality as bleak because it. Personally, it makes me realize that at times I'm wasting the limited existence on things that shouldn't matter and that I'll probably regret one day. But I still do it. Humans are complicated. But I still don't walk around thinking "existence is so burdensome because one day I'll cease to be". Instead I think "this universe is so vast and wonderful and I'll only get to experience a tiny portion of it, I should make the most of it that I can" and then bemoan the fact that I waste time doing things that don't further that goal. But I'm never despondent. I'm never sad that my universe ends when I die because to me...that's just life.I agree with OP that these are some pretty disappointing metaphysics and that the designers of pathfinder have overlooked ways to make the afterlife NOT be bleak, while it still being quite scary/unknown.Bleak depends on your outlook, and regardless it seems very intentional cosmology. It's also one of the easiest things to change for your home games since it has no association to the mechanics whatsoever.'You no longer exist in any meaningful sense whatsoever' is fairly bleak. There's a lot of arm-chair philosophy going on, and that's actually what my training/education is in.
IN FACT... if self preservation/self-defense is always justified then this cosmology makes survival at any cost permissible. Undeath, sucking souls, etc is all a legitimate way to survive in an ultimate sense.
And I believe that if your existence DOES end at death, it's permissible to do literally anything minimally necessary to stave off that outcome to the extent that you're able.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cannibalism is a weird example to go to because it isn't especially by itself. If you're not killing or maiming people to get bodies it really comes down to doing so being upsetting to loved ones of the deceased. And preserving your life is generally more important than hurt feelings.
I'm not sure what you think would become justified that wouldn't have been before. Making yourself a sun orchid elixir doesn't seem problematic either way. Something like becoming a lich requires something profoundly evil like human sacrifice, and I don't think anyone is going to argue you should sacrifice a school bus full of nuns just to extend your own life. Self preservation at the cost of others is still bad, but it is in the real world as well.
And having a cosmology which creates a similar ethical framework as the real world when it comes to the sanctity of life seems like a good idea to me.
Cannibalism is a weird example to go to because it isn't especially by itself. If you're not killing or maiming people to get bodies it really comes down to doing so being upsetting to loved ones of the deceased. And preserving your life is generally more important than hurt feelings.
I'm not sure what you think would become justified that wouldn't have been before. Making yourself a sun orchid elixir doesn't seem problematic either way. Something like becoming a lich requires something profoundly evil like human sacrifice, and I don't think anyone is going to argue you should sacrifice a school bus full of nuns just to extend your own life. Self preservation at the cost of others is still bad, but it is in the real world as well.
And having a cosmology which creates a similar ethical framework as the real world when it comes to the sanctity of life seems like a good idea to me.
Hence why I say that only the minimally necessary conditions are permissible. So if you have non-lich options, take those. If the only options are 'evil' then they aren't actually evil under my framework.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I believe that if your existence DOES end at death, it's permissible to do literally anything minimally necessary to stave off that outcome to the extent that you're able.
I completely disagree. I believe that harming another for any reason (against their will) isn't permissible, even to extend your life from certain oblivion.
In fact, your description is, to me, the very definition of evil.
And I believe that if your existence DOES end at death, it's permissible to do literally anything minimally necessary to stave off that outcome to the extent that you're able.I completely disagree. I believe that harming another for any reason (against their will) isn't permissible, even to extend your life from certain oblivion.
In fact, your description is, to me, the very definition of evil.
Also, sorry to double post, but doesn't that almost completely destroy pathfinder as an RPG? Because by your definition anything other than radical passivism is impermissible - even self defense.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's only under the assumption that the murder would not be the ONLY method by which someone would be able to survive. So you've sort of twisted my argument/misrepresented it.
'Murder' is by definition not necessary so you've begged the question against me.
BUT, not withstanding that, a court ruling is not the arbiter of moral truth.
I was responding primarily to your assertion that:
if self preservation/self-defense is always justified then this cosmology makes survival at any cost permissible. Undeath, sucking souls, etc is all a legitimate way to survive in an ultimate sense.
I wanted to point out the false-equivalence that sucking out another creature's soul to sustain yourself was morally permissible on the grounds that cannibalism could be justified, when in fact your former example has more in common with murder-cannibalism. Also the possible misperception that this act is legally justified, which again on only a short search, was not shown to be the case.
Meanwhile, whether legal precedent has anything to do with morality or not, the logical extension of 'self-preservation makes any act justified so doing anything that will extend your life is permissible' when such acts include ending the lives or devouring the souls of others creates a world where it is both morally permissible to become a lich and to kill wannabe-liches on sight.
This free for all mentality is pretty much the definition of evil in the Pathfinder universe. In no way do I mean to shut down argument by flinging accusations of immorality, but 'self-preservation justifies anything' really sounds like a compelling motivation and belief of an evil character, such as the Whispering Way cultists I have been running in my game.
But that's only under the assumption that the murder would not be the ONLY method by which someone would be able to survive. So you've sort of twisted my argument/misrepresented it.
'Murder' is by definition not necessary so you've begged the question against me.
BUT, not withstanding that, a court ruling is not the arbiter of moral truth.
I was responding primarily to your assertion that:
if self preservation/self-defense is always justified then this cosmology makes survival at any cost permissible. Undeath, sucking souls, etc is all a legitimate way to survive in an ultimate sense.I wanted to point out the false-equivalence that sucking out another creature's soul to sustain yourself was morally permissible on the grounds that cannibalism could be justified, when in fact your former example has more in common with murder-cannibalism. Also the possible misperception that this act is legally justified, which again on only a short search, was not shown to be the case.
Meanwhile, whether legal precedent has anything to do with morality or not, the logical extension of 'self-preservation makes any act justified so doing anything that will extend your life is permissible' when such acts include ending the lives or devouring the souls of others creates a world where it is both morally permissible to become a lich and to kill wannabe-liches on sight.
This free for all mentality is pretty much the definition of evil in the Pathfinder universe. In no way do I mean to shut down argument by flinging accusations of immorality, but 'self-preservation justifies anything' really sounds like a compelling motivation and belief of an evil character, such as the Whispering Way cultists I have been running in my game.
I agree - it does create a 'might makes right' environment. If I opposed the cultists I would 100% sympathize with their goal - but I also have to take care of myself and therefor would oppose them.
My overall point is that IF survival is in question then it is the ONLY question, so to speak.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I believe that if your existence DOES end at death, it's permissible to do literally anything minimally necessary to stave off that outcome to the extent that you're able.I completely disagree. I believe that harming another for any reason (against their will) isn't permissible, even to extend your life from certain oblivion.
In fact, your description is, to me, the very definition of evil.
If in the pathfinder universe everything ends in annihilation without any sort of grounding, I'm not sure you can actually say anything is good or evil. It seems to promote the exact 'free for all' mentality that the designer was trying to prevent.
Nature/evolution is purely a survival game and no one feels the need to apply any ethical constraints to that.
The fact that everything ends has no appreciable impact on morality to me.
Harming others is evil, it's as simple as that.
Harming others to stave of the end of your existence is evil.
Just because everyone's existence is going to end at some time in the future is no justification to hurt others.
Our own universe is likely to end in either everything grinding to a halt which reach a thermodynamic equilibrium (everything is the same temperature) and thus nothing it the universe can do any work on anything else. Alternatively, the universe will keep expanding (at an accelerating rate) such that galaxies will stay together, but the space between galaxies will increases as well as the space between all matter and particles until the point where it all dissolves into elementary particles and radiation.
Despite the fact that our universe is most assuredly going to end, it doesn't make it any less evil if I was to turn around and kill someone else even if it allowed me to live until one of these events occurred.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm nerdsniping myself now with the character concept of a proto-lich who wants to avoid being on the wrong end of society's moral standards and so has planned to make use of the many, many creatures which heroes slay over the course of their adventure to fuel their rise to lichdom.
"An evil lich? Well, sure I may be, but I swear all these souls are 100% ethically sourced from the most reprehensible creatures. I personally asked the paladin to verify each soul before I consumed it."
And I believe that if your existence DOES end at death, it's permissible to do literally anything minimally necessary to stave off that outcome to the extent that you're able.I completely disagree. I believe that harming another for any reason (against their will) isn't permissible, even to extend your life from certain oblivion.
In fact, your description is, to me, the very definition of evil.
If in the pathfinder universe everything ends in annihilation without any sort of grounding, I'm not sure you can actually say anything is good or evil. It seems to promote the exact 'free for all' mentality that the designer was trying to prevent.
Nature/evolution is purely a survival game and no one feels the need to apply any ethical constraints to that.
The fact that everything ends has no appreciable impact on morality to me.
Harming others is evil, it's as simple as that.
Harming others to stave of the end of your existence is evil.
Just because everyone's existence is going to end at some time in the future is no justification to hurt others.
Our own universe is likely to end in either everything grinding to a halt which reach a thermodynamic equilibrium (everything is the same temperature) and thus nothing it the universe can do any work on anything else. Alternatively, the universe will keep expanding (at an accelerating rate) such that galaxies will stay together, but the space between galaxies will increases as well as the space between all matter and particles until the point where it all dissolves into elementary particles and radiation.
Despite the fact that our universe is most assuredly going to end, it doesn't make it any less evil if I was to turn around and kill someone else even if it allowed me to live until one of these events occurred.
This is probably exiting the relevance for a pathfinder forum, but if you adopt a 'total materialist/physicalist' metaphysical world view I don't think you have a way of justifying morality in any objective way to begin with - and if you don't then this entire debate becomes moot because everything is just a 'matter of taste'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm nerdsniping myself now with the character concept of a proto-lich who wants to avoid being on the wrong end of society's moral standards and so has planned to make use of the many, many creatures which heroes slay over the course of their adventure to fuel their rise to lichdom.
"An evil lich? Well, sure I may be, but I swear all these souls are 100% ethically sourced from the most reprehensible creatures. I personally asked the paladin to verify each soul before I consumed it."
To keep this relevant for the pathfinder forum, the cosmology that I run in an attempt to solve all these thorny issues is this:
- Souls are discrete and indestructible - nothing in the multiverse can actually extinguish a soul.
- When a person dies their soul/consciousness persists disembodied until it re-incarnates. While memories don't usually persist they can sometimes; Personal subjectivity is not interrupted.
- Capturing people's souls to use as a fuel source is evil because it prevents the natural cycle of rebirth.
- Because survival is NOT in question, there are limits on permissible methods of extending your life. I.e.: hurting other people to extend your current material life is not permissible. As for my earlier posts this would not qualify as "minimally necessary" or egoic.
- People might be tempted to sell their souls into bondage in exchange for earthly power
- Demons/Devils attempt to snatch up departed souls to fuel their schemes/power/etc, cementing them as being evil and inflicting suffering for its own sake, or for egoic reasons.
- Morality doesn't center on ending/preserving life per ce, but rather limiting suffering.
- Killing can be justified, but is usually evil/bad as it robs a person of their 'natural' life cycle and causes pain toward their loved ones/relatives