|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I don't really understand well diagetically is evil. Like I get why someone might want to resort to banditry or why Asmodeus does what he does, but a lot of what's between is unclear to me.
Like other than "I can't access certain character options without being evil" I don't really understand why people would want to play evil characters, since those are people who will eventually be powerful enough to do basically anything they want. So why would they still want bad things? Like the level 1 character who will do anything for money makes sense, but when they're level 16 and wearing like 15,000 GP worth of gear I don't know why they would continue to act that way.
At its heart, Evil is not caring about the plight of innocent people.
This will not change just because you get more power and more wealth. In fact the fear of losing these could get you even deeper in evil ways. As could the joy of abusing your newfound power.
Good is hard. Evil, not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This conversation really just underscores to me that Alignment makes more sense for planar beings than mortals, who are nuanced and contradictory creatures. I am unfamiliar with the Moorecock a lot of the early alignment stuff pulls from, but my impression is that they were originally much more cosmic forces than individual beliefs.
I think this goes doubly for Law and Chaos - it’s so strange to me to weld together “how does your character feel on a libertarian-statist spectrum” and “there are creatures devoted to the mechanistic operation of the universe at war with those who want to turn the world into primordial craziness” as one coherent concept. Questions like “Can someone Chaotic have a personal code of conduct?” and “How should someone Lawful Good interact with unjust (but legally legitimate) laws?” really shine a light on how imperfectly this fits anything resembling real people.
It just feels weird to me that there’s a metaphysical weight to if you believe in taxes or not, y’know?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the alignment system both relevant and thought-provoking. Not the least because it encourage players and GMs to think about what the alignments mean to them. And it provides a springboard when creating your PC, similar to the 20 questions system. And it gives an easy shorthand for how any given NPC is likely to act.
Good vs Evil, in my view, deals with how you act towards innocent people. It is pretty easy to use IRL.
Law vs Chaos, again in my view, is how you react to being told what to do, especially by tradition. TBH I find it pretty easy to use even on the boards. How people react to the system, to tradition, to the good old ways, to the concept of honor. Do they tend to trust the higher-ups or to mistrust them ?
Finally, alignment is never a straight-jacket unless people deliberately use it that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, alignment having metaphysical weight is a choice of the setting, a legacy referring highly popular fictions at that time and giving a framework to the Good vs Evil battle that so many works of fiction and adventure are about.
I totally agree that we could do with a different metaphysic completely detached from the alignment system of characters. But it would need a lot of work to design and implement and would still be criticized just as much by those who do not like it or agree with it.
Suspension of disbelief is required at some point so that PCs can go on adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within the game setting morality only works if it is absolute and not relative, because of how it impacts characters and their ability to gain or lose powers. Going with moral relativism simply doesn't work because it will be inconsistent between (in world) groups. And when you have an almighty judge moving soul energy into planes of existence that match their alignment, people going to the same place should behave similarly.
Now, what actions fall into each category are going to be defined by the GM (and maybe the players too) at each individual table. Because we're all humans and we exist in a word with relative morality because there isn't one almighty judge (that we can prove) moving souls around.
So let's say a character spent their entire 1-20 career being as greedy and mercenary as possible, betraying anybody and everybody when it suits them, and having no lines they will not cross if the pay is good enough, so as to acquire maximal wealth and thereby maximal power.
But at that point they realize "I can't really get more powerful, and money isn't really useful to me anymore since I already bought everything" and they spend the remainder of their lives doing philanthropy, because people at least like you when you do that.
Is this person good or evil?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But at that point they realize "I can't really get more powerful, and money isn't really useful to me anymore since I already bought everything"
At that point, it seems like the perfect time to start a space race with any other NPCs who have roughly equivalent wealth to a 20th-level PC. Bonus, you have so much wealth, you can divert 0.1% of it to charitable causes and still be seen a philanthropist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Put another way: you don't have to look further than reality to see that being amongst the wealthiest people in history doesn't magically grant empathy. Money just becomes points.
So let's say a character spent their entire 1-20 career being as greedy and mercenary as possible, betraying anybody and everybody when it suits them, and having no lines they will not cross if the pay is good enough, so as to acquire maximal wealth and thereby maximal power.
But at that point they realize "I can't really get more powerful, and money isn't really useful to me anymore since I already bought everything" and they spend the remainder of their lives doing philanthropy, because people at least like you when you do that.
Is this person good or evil?
I think that's literally
Only with a different class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put another way: you don't have to look further than reality to see that being amongst the wealthiest people in history doesn't magically grant empathy. Money just becomes points.
Sure, but in reality being incredibly rich and powerful doesn't let you jump over buildings or suplex dragons. On Golarion you have power at level 20 completely unrelated to how much money you have (take untrained improvisation with one of your general feats and you're better at *everything* that almost everybody).
So from this perspective, "getting the high score by having the most money" is not that valuable. Like when you're a level 20 wizard who can literally cast Wish a couple of times every day, including "wishing for a big pile of diamonds", then "having the most money" is sort of extra meaningless.
Note, I'm not saying that every max level evil greedy mercenary is going to say "okay, I did it, not I don't need to keep doing it" but if one does because "keeping hurting people to get even more doesn't make sense to me any more" that's reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Money is just a metaphor for "power" here. In our world, most-money is as near absolute power as individuals can get so they use money as a measure of their status and power.
In a world with immortal wizard kings, that measure becomes "repeat annihilation of an entire region because who else is going to challenge me anymore." Seems reasonable you could work backwards from there and meet "does evil to feed self/family" in the middle for any given level. The scale of the motivation is the only thing that changes in that regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's say a character spent their entire 1-20 career being as greedy and mercenary as possible, betraying anybody and everybody when it suits them, and having no lines they will not cross if the pay is good enough, so as to acquire maximal wealth and thereby maximal power.
But at that point they realize "I can't really get more powerful, and money isn't really useful to me anymore since I already bought everything" and they spend the remainder of their lives doing philanthropy, because people at least like you when you do that.
Is this person good or evil?
If their motivation for doing good is selfish (to be liked) then at best they might make it to neutral. At worst the remain evil. Under no circumstances do they make it to good (unless their motivation is to help others for the sake of helping others).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Sorshen, at least, it's not just "I want to be liked", it's the realization that ultimately being evil got her nowhere but stuck in a box for 10,000 years. All her horrible acts meant nothing in the end, so maybe being a better person is probably a good idea?
I like Sorshen.
I do kinda only enjoy alignment as it intersects with the planes and religions; for my players in my games I take a page out of Dungeon World alignments and have them write a sentence/blurb about what that alignment means to them (for instance a sample DW "evil fighter" alignment is "Destroy that which I do not understand") just for convenience, and then let good and evil damage hit neutral for full and only make the same alignment immune (and once Foundry makes radiant/shadow damage easier to do, i'll probably swap to that variant rule).
With Sorshen, at least, it's not just "I want to be liked", it's the realization that ultimately being evil got her nowhere but stuck in a box for 10,000 years. All her horrible acts meant nothing in the end, so maybe being a better person is probably a good idea?
For particularly long-lived beings, "Okay, I will try the other thing since this doesn't seem to be working" seems to be a valid reason for turning away from evil. Like Alderpash sat alone in Baphomet's labyrinth long enough that he's willing to consider seeking redemption, and he's a Lich.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pithy answer is, "I don't think PCs qualify as truly good beings in the first place," but I've already gone for pithy, lately, and I think it's worth taking pains to be clear on a few points.
You've already clarified that you're not trying to say that trauma makes you evil, but I think the inverse point bears similar disclaimer: evil cannot be explained by trauma alone. Of course, you only said that evil behaviours are often trauma-related, but it seems worth belabouring with an additional caveat, before this statement gets taken out of context and proportion.
Furthermore, while I definitely agree with you on the point that many evil creatures act in such a way because of the ways they have suffered, we should not downplay the fact that these creatures are evil because they have chosen to re-inflict that suffering out on the world that made them hurt, carrying on the cycle. Redeemer Champions exist because sometimes a creature which was evil only needed to be shown an alternative, and Sarenrae espouses the virtues of redemption, but that does not mean that all, or even a majority of evil creatures are inherently worthy of such.
Especially being as this is a fantasy RPG, where sometimes evil creatures are inclined toward evil out of an ideological preference for selfishness and causing suffering, including evil cultists who actively worship deleterious gods, I suspect that evil caused by trauma is rather less common than it is in real life. I would be happy to apply it to any case of "This humanoid species is supposed to be evil, why are they allowed to be good?" that may be encountered in the wild, but it would be remiss of us to see trauma as a justification for the harm inflicted upon others, especially knowing the nature of cycles.
I hope I don't come off as putting words in your mouth--I don't mean to suggest that any of these are arguments that you would have made. Rather, they are arguments that exist in the wild and have a habit of cropping up unbidden with the topic of trauma and the nature of evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Sorshen, at least, it's not just "I want to be liked", it's the realization that ultimately being evil got her nowhere but stuck in a box for 10,000 years. All her horrible acts meant nothing in the end, so maybe being a better person is probably a good idea?
Yeah, all the non-CE wizards who survived Earthfall and were active and happy those 10,000 years really showed the error of her ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shorshen is statted with an Int and Wis over 7, and so should be able to understand why this single data point is perhaps a poor reason to make a conclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this does raise the question of why a being who has achieved cosmic power, who is also very wise and intelligent, would continue to behave in evil ways barring "these are the only ways to maintain this power."
Like you can say "evil is not necessarily reasonable" but when you're talking about like "Intelligence and Wisdom scores above 20" this person is probably able to see different ways of doing things if they wanted to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this does raise the question of why a being who has achieved cosmic power, who is also very wise and intelligent, would continue to behave in evil ways barring "these are the only ways to maintain this power."
Like you can say "evil is not necessarily reasonable" but when you're talking about like "Intelligence and Wisdom scores above 20" this person is probably able to see different ways of doing things if they wanted to.
We actually don't have to wonder very hard. In Sorshen's words, the power of the runes and sin magic was highly addictive and it took a while to get off that high. The others were less temperate from the sounds of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this does raise the question of why a being who has achieved cosmic power, who is also very wise and intelligent, would continue to behave in evil ways barring "these are the only ways to maintain this power."
Good and evil are simply aesthetic/taste preferences mixed in with diffeent problem solving strategies that thrive in different circumstances. Some people like hurting people, some people like helping them, some times doing one is more advantageous to your wellbeing and genetic fitness than the other, so both preferences survive. And pretending to be one while taking no action on it is a particularly popular strategy these days.
Well, this does raise the question of why a being who has achieved cosmic power, who is also very wise and intelligent, would continue to behave in evil ways barring "these are the only ways to maintain this power."
Like you can say "evil is not necessarily reasonable" but when you're talking about like "Intelligence and Wisdom scores above 20" this person is probably able to see different ways of doing things if they wanted to.
A pair of equally intelligent and wise characters one who is Good and one who is Evil will handle tasks differently, because that is what it means to be Good and Evil.
Why don't all wise Evil people realize its bad and try to become Good? If there's nothing in it for the Evil character, why consider it? The Afterlife on Golarion does not offer rewards for virtue. It sorts based on alignment and dedication to various cosmic powers. So if you're CE, its not a punishment to go the Abyss, because "Jokes on you, I'm into that."
Now, the process of becoming a petitioner also strips away a lot of person's personal power, so the Abyss is quite dangerous to newly minted demonic larva--The people who realize that--like the Areelu Vorleshs, the Barzillai Thrunes, or the Tar-Baphons of the world--seek shortcuts to power post mortality.
Basically, the benefit of changing alignment to Good has to be higher than the cost--and how a person makes that calculus is dependent on their goals and personality more so than any cosmic morality tracker.
This is a super important part of the afterlife in Golarion. After death, there is no "you" left, not really. Your soul turns into a petitioner that typically only remembers parts of it's previous existence and retains aspects of the previous personality. But it's not meaningfully you (at least how I would commonly expect someone to define their being).
The afterlife isn't a reward or punishment for 99% of being. A very few may retain most/all their personality and memories, and an even smaller number might be moved directly into being an outsider after death and not go through the normal process of waiting and judgement. But this is not a common event, and requires the intervention of a deity.
In short, death is really the end for the self.
Mortals only exist as the playthings, game pieces, and score keeping of the gods. Reject the game, come to team daemon.
Mortals only exist as the playthings, game pieces, and score keeping of the gods. Reject the game, come to team daemon.
As bad as things may seem, I prefer existence to non-existance.
You just have to figure out how to stave off real death.
So more like team Baphon, less Team Daemon.
|
|
Or you just live your life to the fullest, enjoy being who you truly are, knowing that your afterlife will be more of the same, even without your mortal memories, and that, in time, your soul will come back to mortal life and start the game anew.That's certainly an enlightened perspective, but equally appealing to Good and Evil.
Good is more difficult than Neutral, and Evil doesn't necessarily require effort (but some folks try really hard at getting their capital E.) And the cosmos doesn't really reward one behavior over the other, so I suppose there's solace to be had in that people who are Good in Golarion are good because they want to be.
I actually have a difficult time imagining someone choosing to be good when there's no external incentive structure to it. At least Cleric and Paladins get super powers in exchange.
The choice is emotional far more than rational IMO.
There's actually no choice, just the illusion of one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the question of why to do good in the absence of reward is a potentially very deep philosophical question.
Or you just live your life to the fullest, enjoy being who you truly are, knowing that your afterlife will be more of the same, even without your mortal memories, and that, in time, your soul will come back to mortal life and start the game anew.
Your soul wont really come back and start anew. Petitioners sent to the planes either become high level outsiders or slowly merge with the plane. My understanding is sometime after merging with the plane the petitioner/soul effectively dissolves over time returning their energy to the positive energy plane.
When a soul is spun out again, it is not your soul. It is a new soul.
Understanding that your existence is finite (if potentially very long) is important to this discussion IMO. It promotes the idea that you can somehow beat the system and the death is only temporary. But no, everyone faces complete dissolution of the self.
As for reincarnation, I believe Pharasma has entities that track down individuals that have reincarnated and been around "too long" to force them to a final death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.
My perspective is more "why do evil when the rewards for doing so are no different from the rewards for doing good". It's sort of like in Bioshock (the first one), the rewards for murdering the creepy little children are not actually any better than the rewards for not killing them, so why would you? What's the point of even considering at as an option?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure it's canon that Pharasma sends people back to the river of souls (thus being reincarnated) if that's what they really want. She understands that these souls are eventually going to want to leave that cycle and will then go to reinforce the outer planes. It's just that it doesn't matter to Pharasma whether this takes 30 years or 30,000,000 years. It's just important that the scales are *eventually* balanced, or as close to it as she can manage.
I mean, she definitely lets people who refuse to be judged hang out in the graveyard of lost souls forever, since that's as close to "giving them what they want" as she can manage.
It's just that people who aren't from cultures where reincarnation is part of their metaphysical framework tend not to believe deep down that "reincarnation" is what they want. Pharasma clearly has a sense of "you died, but you're not done". I mean, she sometimes holds souls for tens of thousands of years before judging them for reasons only she really understands.