Lost Omens & Moral Objectivism / Relativism

[keftiu]

Temperans wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.

Sangpotshi is more complicated as it's just as likely for it to be made up by the people in power to justify being in power. "I reincarnated in this position because my past life was so good that it was rewarded".

This would’ve come up in the section on it in Gods & Magic if it were true. It’s the legitimate belief system of lots of people across an entire continent within the setting - I wouldn’t call it “just made up.”

[Kasoh]

keftiu wrote:

Temperans wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.

Sangpotshi is more complicated as it's just as likely for it to be made up by the people in power to justify being in power. "I reincarnated in this position because my past life was so good that it was rewarded".

This would’ve come up in the section on it in Gods & Magic if it were true. It’s the legitimate belief system of lots of people across an entire continent within the setting - I wouldn’t call it “just made up.”

Legitimate belief system and relevant to the disposition of one's soul post life aren't necessarily the same thing. Since its a belief system that exists alongside the gods(and specifically Pharasma), it could be true. It could not be true. Adherents take it on faith, I assume, that it works the way it does. Any further readings into the afterlife in Lost Omens don't ever mention it, so...

/shrug.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Kasoh wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Temperans wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.

Sangpotshi is more complicated as it's just as likely for it to be made up by the people in power to justify being in power. "I reincarnated in this position because my past life was so good that it was rewarded".

This would’ve come up in the section on it in Gods & Magic if it were true. It’s the legitimate belief system of lots of people across an entire continent within the setting - I wouldn’t call it “just made up.”

Legitimate belief system and relevant to the disposition of one's soul post life aren't necessarily the same thing. Since its a belief system that exists alongside the gods(and specifically Pharasma), it could be true. It could not be true. Adherents take it on faith, I assume, that it works the way it does. Any further readings into the afterlife in Lost Omens don't ever mention it, so...

/shrug.

This is inaccurate. The existence and viability of reincarnation is not widely talked about in lore materials dealing with the afterlife but it is certainly mentioned. Aside from the already mentioned fact that among the many unknown vagaries of Pharasma's judgments is the option to return to life, there is also an entire family of celestials, the manasaputras, who come into existence when souls which have reincarnated a plurality of times achieve a form of enlightenment at the Positive Energy Plane.

One such manu (12 level manasaputra), the Teacher By the Tree, lives in Heaven's Shore (metropolis at the lower layer of Heaven) and counsels mortals to pursue reincarnation, to the chagrin of the local archons.

[Kasoh]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

This is inaccurate.

Fair enough.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I'll grant you the question of how reincarnation exactly squares with the rest of the afterlife as depicted is something of a question... How many mortals does that Teacher manu actually reach in heaven? Most mortal would he can talk to are already petitioners at one with heaven, will live for potentially thousands of years, and will have their essence dissolved and recycled on their death. On the other hand the Teacher is said to have lived his last reincarnation in Heaven.

Supposedly Pharasma's lake of reflection is for neutral souls who want another crack at aligning their potential with life experiences. It's unlikely this specific method of reincarnation would have many repeat customers, so however souls reincarnate on the River of Life, either it hasn't been fully disclosed, or past lore has included errors that forgot to account for reincarnation of non-Neutral souls.

... Or the existence of reincarnation is being soft retconned out, which seems unlikely given that Sangpotshi remains the dominant philosophy of Tian Xia and it would be pretty silly to declare half the world's religion objectively wrong. Slightly mistaken would be one thing.

Mind you, as I ramble, real-life reincarnation has coexisted with gods and with the dissolution and impermanence of a soul between cycles.

[Temperans]

The amount of stuff that creatures in the Golarion setting have made up is honestly vast. Just look at Rahoudon's whole thing where he fooled an entire country into believing he is a god. So yes, those leaders in that Philosophy could very well be lying about the exact mechanics.

Note that I am not saying reincarnation is impossible. But that the methods that we know of are rare, exclusive, or require very specific conditions. As far as Pharasma letting people hang out, aren't most of those people the ones to turn into Psychopomps?

Speaking off, atheists generally have three choices: Become a spirit in the astral plane, reincarnate, the graveyard of souls, or train to become a psychopomp. The wiki has no text on it, but from what I could find the more people enter it the bigger the spire becomes: So I assume that it converts atheists into material for the boneyard. Just more proof that your beliefs and alignment matters more than what others think your alignment should be.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

To clarify, the fate of atheists has been slightly retconned as of Planar Adventures. By default, souls go to the plane matching thei alignment or to the home of their faithfully worshipped deity. An atheist would need to be neutral or reject the very cycle of souls, or have another reason to be taken aside for special judgement to skip the normal afterlife. Several kinds of souls do get stuck in the Boneyard, but no longer all atheists.

[The Raven Black]

Nor are they all fed to Groetus.

Though I liked the idea that he would be grooming the atheist souls as godkillers come the End Times.

[Kasoh]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I'll grant you the question of how reincarnation exactly squares with the rest of the afterlife as depicted is something of a question... How many mortals does that Teacher manu actually reach in heaven? Most mortal would he can talk to are already petitioners at one with heaven, will live for potentially thousands of years, and will have their essence dissolved and recycled on their death. On the other hand the Teacher is said to have lived his last reincarnation in Heaven.

My first thought as to how it worked was that what they are calling reincarnation is actually the same process. Mortal>Petitioner>Outsider>Quintessence>Positive Energy Plane>Mortal again. That timeline can mess with a lot of reincarnated lives theories given its relatively long duration, but being able to connect with a past mortal life through that chain would not be the weirdest thing in Pathfinder.

[PossibleCabbage]

Temperans wrote:

As far as Pharasma letting people hang out, aren't most of those people the ones to turn into Psychopomps?

Pharasma letting people hang out pre-judgement for extremely long amounts of time is the diagetic explanation of "resurrection cast as a 10th level ritual has no time limit" so you could theoretically resurrect someone who died 10,000 years ago provided you have at some point touched part of their body and you know their name.

So Pharasma has to let someone she knows is going to get resurrected 10,000 years from now in order to do something hang out for 10,000 years. If she passes them on to judgement they can no longer get resurrected.

But if Pharasma will let Solveig the Conqueror sit around in death's waiting room since people centuries from now are going to need her for something she's willing to do, then what's the harm in letting some souls go through multiple incarnations in the same amount of time?

Of course, Pharasma no longer has perfect knowledge of future events (she claims) so she won't know who is going to get resurrected 100,000 years from now, but there's no harm in playing it safe. If you think someone might get resurrected forever from now, and they're willing to put off judgement, why not let them?

[The Raven Black]

That is actually an excellent reason for Pharasma's people to go on the hunt for the ritual and ensure it is never used ever again.

[PossibleCabbage]

The Raven Black wrote:

That is actually an excellent reason for Pharasma's people to go on the hunt for the ritual and ensure it is never used ever again.

Eh, if you cast it on someone who has already moved on to become a petitioner it just doesn't work. Pharasma holding people from judgement was mostly because she knew someone was going to cast it at some distant point in the future and it's somehow important that this works.

The lower level versions of the ritual have time limits, and the extent to which outsiders can push around very high level characters is somewhat limited.

[The Raven Black]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

That is actually an excellent reason for Pharasma's people to go on the hunt for the ritual and ensure it is never used ever again.

Eh, if you cast it on someone who has already moved on to become a petitioner it just doesn't work. Pharasma holding people from judgement was mostly because she knew someone was going to cast it at some distant point in the future and it's somehow important that this works.

The lower level versions of the ritual have time limits, and the extent to which outsiders can push around very high level characters is somewhat limited.

I was thinking of preventing people from realizing they will not be able to resurrect anyone anymore. Because Pharasma will definitely not keep all souls on hold forever just because someone could one day cast Resurrect on one of them.

[Perpdepog]

A little off-topic but I hope that we get manasaputras back as an outsider family in 2E. I always thought they were cool--by and large I really like entities whose primary motivation seems to be guiding others toward self-betterment--and they could fill a role of being goodly outsiders who know occult spells rather than divine, like a mirror to the Qlippoth.

[Claxon]

keftiu wrote:

Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.

I would say Sangpotshi is absolutely fine, as the brief description includes "This form of reincarnation might continue through many lifetimes for a soul until, finally, the soul is able to move on to its final resting place in the Great Beyond."

That implies that the soul is bound for the end eventually. Pharasma is okay with that, as long as you accept that eventually your existence must end she's fine. But if your goal is to never meet the final end, I think she'd take exception to that.

That said, I was recalling a bit of lore incorrectly. I thought it was a Psychopomp who did enforcement, but the Inevitable Murat is what I was thinking of. It doesn't explicitly call out people reincarnating within its purview, but I think it would include it.

Ultimately attempting to always reincarnate and never be judged at the boneyard is a crime to Pharasma, for the same reason that becoming undead or lich is. It interrupts the natural cycle of the soul.

I'm not sure how to square Samsarans with the cycle of souls. Perhaps they too eventually achieve a state in which they stop reincarnating. It's unclear to me. Ultimately Pharasma has a vested interest in beings being judge, going to their destination on the planes, and either becoming an outsider or eventually merging with the plane and dissolving (to be fuel for more souls). Outsiders also meet with this fate eventually, as when they are killed their energy should also return to the positive energy plane. I think Pharasma will take exception to any entity that tries to permanently avoid this fate.

[Temperans]

Claxon wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Is that true? The existence of Samsarans and the prevalence of Sangpotshi followers seems to imply reincarnation is pretty acceptable.

I'm not sure how to square Samsarans with the cycle of souls. Perhaps they too eventually achieve a state in which they stop reincarnating. It's unclear to me. Ultimately Pharasma has a vested interest in beings being judge, going to their destination on the planes, and either becoming an outsider or eventually merging with the plane and dissolving (to be fuel for more souls). Outsiders also meet with this fate eventually, as when they are killed their energy should also return to the positive energy plane. I think Pharasma will take exception to any entity that tries to permanently avoid this fate.

The only real info I found was from PFSRD there might be more in another site or an actual book. But there is states they reincarnated until they mess up so bad that they receive punishment. Or are so good that they receive their reward. Either way they reincarnate a lot and Samsarans are a very Tian Xia race compared, which matches Sangpotchi.

There is a decent possibility that at least some of the outsider mentioned created from a creature that reincarnated a lot were originally Samsarans. But only Paizo knows the truth about that. Also note to bring it back to the thread topic. Samsarans tend to be LN, which makes sense with the whole "must maintain harmony to continue reincarnating and finish all your life goals". They are lawful because that keeps them from permanently dying, they are Neutral because not maintaining balance could doom them.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Feh, I take a break for a bit and miss some fascinating discussion in one of the most interesting alignment threads in a long time.

An awful lot of problems go away, and an awful lot of roleplaying opportunities open up, if one lets go of the assumption that what any given character considers good or evil has to map on to Good or Evil the cosmic polarities, and more recently I have been tending to refer to said polarities as Celestial and Fiendish in-game to encourage that distinction; treating those as physical forces, that happen to have dominion over what becomes of the soul after death, that a lot of associated outsiders identify with, but without any other moral weight.

I think I find that easier to engage with and certainly easier to GM with because my personal experience of humanity suggests that almost all people do what they do, whether the outcome be good or evil or Good or Evil, because they regard it as worth doing; intentially malevolent "evil be thou my good" is thankfully rare, though not non-existent.

(Incidental note in the hope of heading off some quagmires this line of thought has led to before; I work in neuroscience research, and arising from that am absolutely sure that morally significant free will in the Golarion sense does not exist in reality; so I am treating it as a game construct from the get-go.)

[The Raven Black]

I think it's like the cardinal directions. You freely go wherever you wish (your actions) but wherever you end up has coordinates on the North-South (Good-Evil) axis and on the East-West (Chaos-Law) axis.

[Kasoh]

The Raven Black wrote:

I think it's like the cardinal directions. You freely go wherever you wish (your actions) but wherever you end up has coordinates on the North-South (Good-Evil) axis and on the East-West (Chaos-Law) axis.

This is a good way to think of it.

[Claxon]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

(Incidental note in the hope of heading off some quagmires this line of thought has led to before; I work in neuroscience research, and arising from that am absolutely sure that morally significant free will in the Golarion sense does not exist in reality; so I am treating it as a game construct from the get-go.)

Even if it is true, that in reality we all lack morally significant free will, I will have to rebel against your assertion as it would lead to a pointless existence of nihilism. Everything would be devoid of meaning.

We would be little more than robots crafted of flesh and blood and running on complex chemical programming, unable to truly make a choice or decision. Our conscious simply a delusion. A slave to our chemical operating system.

It is horrible thing.

[The Raven Black]

That is an interesting point. If free will is an illusion, how come the illusion is so vital to our continued sanity ? Which biological purpose does it serve ?

Getting pretty out of topic though.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Claxon wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

(Incidental note in the hope of heading off some quagmires this line of thought has led to before; I work in neuroscience research, and arising from that am absolutely sure that morally significant free will in the Golarion sense does not exist in reality; so I am treating it as a game construct from the get-go.)

Even if it is true, that in reality we all lack morally significant free will, I will have to rebel against your assertion as it would lead to a pointless existence of nihilism. Everything would be devoid of meaning.

For what it's worth, that feels to me to be skipping over a number of steps which can reasonably be debated; I do not at all accept that "not having free will in the specific sense it is used in Golarion (and in the thread of Western philosophical thought from which that derives)" necessarily equals "horrible lack of meaning".

(Also, it seems to me that "if it were true that we have no free will I would have to rebel against the assertion" is somewhat paradoxical...)

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

The Raven Black wrote:

That is an interesting point. If free will is an illusion, how come the illusion is so vital to our continued sanity ? Which biological purpose does it serve ?

Preventing us from getting depressed over our lack of control of things?

[The Raven Black]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

That is an interesting point. If free will is an illusion, how come the illusion is so vital to our continued sanity ? Which biological purpose does it serve ?

Preventing us from getting depressed over our lack of control of things?

What biological reason is there for us to get depressed over our lack of control of things ?

[Temperans]

The answer is simple. It allows people to connect with others. One of the big reasons for evil alignment in pathfinder is conciousness desisions so weird that to us humans it's considered "evil". Ex: Creatures from deep in the outer planes. The idea that people can choose also gives more value to the choices by nature of giving us more agency over the world.

* P.S. Even if with are flesh robots with complex programing (which we technically are) the system is so chaotic that we do effectively have "free choice". The reason? Chaotic motion is unpredictable without knowing all the conditions, and we are built on the interactions of chaotic molecules and particles with a chaotic environment.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

The answer is simple. It allows people to connect with others. One of the big reasons for evil alignment in pathfinder is conciousness desisions so weird that to us humans it's considered "evil". Ex: Creatures from deep in the outer planes. The idea that people can choose also gives more value to the choices by nature of giving us more agency over the world.

* P.S. Even if with are flesh robots with complex programing (which we technically are) the system is so chaotic that we do effectively have "free choice". The reason? Chaotic motion is unpredictable without knowing all the conditions, and we are built on the interactions of chaotic molecules and particles with a chaotic environment.

In the setting, Evil and Good are not moral choices made by human beings though. And weird unknowable creatures can be Good too (Desna).

[Dragonchess Player]

For better or worse (IMO, better), Pathfinder (and AD&D, which provides the basis) is premised on an objective alignment system. However, an objective alignment system does not mean simplistic or overly mechanical. As with any ethical/moral construct, the specific details of a given situation (including intent and consequences) must be weighed instead of assuming a blanket application.

As far as free will vs. predestination goes, it is my belief that we do have free will and control over our own actions. However, the effect our actions have over the rest of the world may not be tremendously impactful. If more people and/or people with more influence act in the same way, there will likely be more of an impact than a single person acting alone.

[Claxon]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

(Also, it seems to me that "if it were true that we have no free will I would have to rebel against the assertion" is somewhat paradoxical...)

Not so. The state of my biomechanical computational matrix would be sufficiently enraged at my lack of freedom and meaning that I would do everything possible to destroy those purporting it (even if that would make it no less true). From my perspective it's a simple action/reaction scenario ;)

[Kasoh]

Well, Player characters don't have free will because their actions are entirely controlled by the players. In the fiction of the setting though, their free will is pretty sacrosanct. After all, you know when a player character is not in control of their own actions, and that's when under the effects of spells or supernatural abilities.

And, it can't be a complex biochemical reaction because some creatures don't have chemicals for brains. Like magic dolls brought to life. Robots. Whatever Conrasu are. We get to play skeletons in an upcoming book and there isn't any brain matter left there.

[AceofMoxen]

I am utterly fascinated by the question "What evolutionary purpose does a belief in free will serve?" Nearly all Human cultures evolved to believe in free will, so it would seem superior. I think the ability to blame people for their "choices" must come into it. Someone who commits an anti-social act (murder or whatever) is more likely to do it again, so the ability to blame them soothes us for punishing them (more murder) and soothes us that we wouldn't do the same.

Temperans wrote:

* P.S. Even if with are flesh robots with complex programing (which we technically are) the system is so chaotic that we do effectively have "free choice". The reason? Chaotic motion is unpredictable without knowing all the conditions, and we are built on the interactions of chaotic molecules and particles with a chaotic environment.

So our choices are made of a mix of predetermined circumstances and unpredictable quantum mechanics. But we don't control quantum mechanics. So our choices come from two things we don't control. Humans might be unpredictable, but even then, we don't have free will.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

AceofMoxen wrote:

I am utterly fascinated by the question "What evolutionary purpose does a belief in free will serve?" Nearly all Human cultures evolved to believe in free will, so it would seem superior. I think the ability to blame people for their "choices" must come into it. Someone who commits an anti-social act (murder or whatever) is more likely to do it again, so the ability to blame them soothes us for punishing them (more murder) and soothes us that we wouldn't do the same.

I do not think that is actually necessary, though. Creating strong disincentives for murder or other heinous acts, in order that a rational human will deterministically react to by not committing murder or whatever, does not require free will in any part of the equation.

Also, I would query "nearly all human cultures evolved to believe in free will", or at least to the extent free will works in Golarion and in the versions of D&D preceding Pathfinder, which is ultimately coming from one specific thread of early Christianity. Just out of the bits of history and culture I am reasonably familiar with, I can cite Norse wyrd, Classical Greek moira, geasa in the original Irish mythology, and the more predestination-oriented strands of Christian thought as counterexamples, and all of the more restrictive.

[The Raven Black]

There is the idea that some things are written and cannot be avoided. It is not at all the same idea that everything is written and nothing can be avoided.

[AceofMoxen]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

AceofMoxen wrote:

I am utterly fascinated by the question "What evolutionary purpose does a belief in free will serve?" Nearly all Human cultures evolved to believe in free will, so it would seem superior. I think the ability to blame people for their "choices" must come into it. Someone who commits an anti-social act (murder or whatever) is more likely to do it again, so the ability to blame them soothes us for punishing them (more murder) and soothes us that we wouldn't do the same.

I do not think that is actually necessary, though. Creating strong disincentives for murder or other heinous acts, in order that a rational human will deterministically react to by not committing murder or whatever, does not require free will in any part of the equation.

Also, I would query "nearly all human cultures evolved to believe in free will", or at least to the extent free will works in Golarion and in the versions of D&D preceding Pathfinder, which is ultimately coming from one specific thread of early Christianity. Just out of the bits of history and culture I am reasonably familiar with, I can cite Norse wyrd, Classical Greek moira, geasa in the original Irish mythology, and the more predestination-oriented strands of Christian thought as counterexamples, and all of the more restrictive.

I don't actually disagree with your first point, and I don't have enough information to disagree with your second. But, I think many cultures believe you are judged for your actions in life. Reincarnation to a better/worse station, Norse with levels of Valhalla or Hell, Egyptian measuring your heart on a scale. How do these cultures reconcile fate and being judged for your actions?

[The Raven Black]

This reminds me of the medieval approach to forced action and the soul. When a demon controls you into doing an evil action, what matters the most for the state of your soul is how you react to what you just did. Remorse means that you are ok. Self-justification or plain not caring means you are not.

So, even if events are preordained, how you feel about them might not be, which then could be the basis for judgement.

But then, if there is no free will, there is no real judgement, since guilty and innocent are not innately different.

Now, beliefs are used to maintain social stability. So, whatever the culture, there must be something that deters human beings from acting in ways that are detrimental to society.

[Xenocrat]

Claxon wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

(Incidental note in the hope of heading off some quagmires this line of thought has led to before; I work in neuroscience research, and arising from that am absolutely sure that morally significant free will in the Golarion sense does not exist in reality; so I am treating it as a game construct from the get-go.)

Even if it is true, that in reality we all lack morally significant free will, I will have to rebel against your assertion as it would lead to a pointless existence of nihilism. Everything would be devoid of meaning.

We would be little more than robots crafted of flesh and blood and running on complex chemical programming, unable to truly make a choice or decision. Our conscious simply a delusion. A slave to our chemical operating system.

It is horrible thing.

You only think that because your particular chemical programming makes you feel like that at this moment in time under your current state and programming. That may change in the future. Or it may not. It's beyond your control or choice, in any case.

The Raven Black wrote:

That is an interesting point. If free will is an illusion, how come the illusion is so vital to our continued sanity ? Which biological purpose does it serve ?

None. It's just a harmless outgrowth sitting on top of the actual competing decision processes in your brain that are transparent and unobservable to your consciousness that thinks it's in control.

And it's not vital to "our" continued sanity. A minority of people are able to understand and acknowledge the lack of free will without suffering from that knowledge.

AceofMoxen wrote:

I am utterly fascinated by the question "What evolutionary purpose does a belief in free will serve?" Nearly all Human cultures evolved to believe in free will, so it would seem superior.

Nearly all human beings evolved to have an appendix, so having one would seem to have superior fitness benefits.

Vestigial or contingent things existing is not a sign that they are useful or necessary.

I should reread the The Ego Tunnel. I'll have to see if my decision making processes actual lead to that happening, though.

[Dragonchess Player]

As far at the evolutionary benefit of free will, my hypothesis would be that being able to react to environmental factors using more than instinct (fight or flight, etc.) increases the chance of survival in a wider range of conditions. Note that rudimentary tool use and even treatment of wounds/illness (including treating others) has been observed among "mere" animals, so it's probable that free will is less of an "all or nothing" condition than may be assumed.

[Temperans]

More complex == harder to say its programmed == more likely to think its free will.

Thinking of it in game. A PC has "free will" as far as other characters in universe are concerned. But they are honestly controlled by us the Players, which we think we have free will. But we don't know how much conciousness and subconciousness control us.

But yeah its hard to attach "free will" to alignment since it brings in too many questions about philosophy. To the point that it makes the game not fun to anyone not interested in that discussion.

[The Raven Black]

I feel we are getting too close to RL philosophy, which easily goes to RL politics. So I will not state my many questions/disagreements on RL free will ;-)

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

More complex == harder to say its programmed == more likely to think its free will.

Thinking of it in game. A PC has "free will" as far as other characters in universe are concerned. But they are honestly controlled by us the Players, which we think we have free will. But we don't know how much conciousness and subconciousness control us.

But yeah its hard to attach "free will" to alignment since it brings in too many questions about philosophy. To the point that it makes the game not fun to anyone not interested in that discussion.

Interestingly, free will in the Golarion setting was discovered/created (I assume for mortals, not for deities) by a LG god (Ihys) and was the cause of his death at the hand of his LE brother Asmodeus who despises mortal free will with all his being.

[Xenocrat]

This was just Asmodeus showing his dedication to truth, since he knows that no one, let alone the gods, and certainly not the mortals, actually has free will. He's just upset that this memetic hazard has escapted into the noosphere.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Temperans wrote:

More complex == harder to say its programmed == more likely to think its free will.

Thinking of it in game. A PC has "free will" as far as other characters in universe are concerned. But they are honestly controlled by us the Players, which we think we have free will. But we don't know how much conciousness and subconciousness control us.

But yeah its hard to attach "free will" to alignment since it brings in too many questions about philosophy. To the point that it makes the game not fun to anyone not interested in that discussion.

Interestingly, free will in the Golarion setting was discovered/created (I assume for mortals, not for deities) by a LG god (Ihys) and was the cause of his death at the hand of his LE brother Asmodeus who despises mortal free will with all his being.

Idk about that, last time I read the history of that there are at least 2 different version: The one pushed by Asmodeus and the one pushed by other deities. I bet there are probably a few more versions if you consider that the great old ones and Pharasma being alive back then.

(Remember there is one story that Asmodeus is just an angel that became a god after being exiled and taking over hell. Also, his divine skill is deception, and he has the domain of trickery.)

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Temperans wrote:

(Remember there is one story that Asmodeus is just an angel that became a god after being exiled and taking over hell. Also, his divine skill is deception, and he has the domain of trickery.)

Could have sworn he was also called the Prince of Lies or something to that effect but I just checked my sources and can't find it. Still, it stands to reason he's very fond of telling only the most personally correct version of whatever story.

That said, there are at least two versions of the story where the War in Heaven is started over Asmodeus and Ihys clashing on the question of free will. In one version of the story Asmodeus and Ihys are the original two gods, in the other they're among the original 9 gods. I think it's safe to say these myths hint at an actual event, even if the actual details of the story story are obscured by perspective and time.

[Temperans]

Tying it back to alignment, I can see the idea of wanting to subjugate the "lower creatures" that asmodeus uses to be clearly evil. For the idea of removing free will, and also for wanting to force his control on others. Do we agree on that?

If so, we could start finding some absolutes as to what are bad actions that are objectively evil.

[Claxon]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Temperans wrote:

(Remember there is one story that Asmodeus is just an angel that became a god after being exiled and taking over hell. Also, his divine skill is deception, and he has the domain of trickery.)

Could have sworn he was also called the Prince of Lies or something to that effect but I just checked my sources and can't find it. Still, it stands to reason he's very fond of telling only the most personally correct version of whatever story.

That said, there are at least two versions of the story where the War in Heaven is started over Asmodeus and Ihys clashing on the question of free will. In one version of the story Asmodeus and Ihys are the original two gods, in the other they're among the original 9 gods. I think it's safe to say these myths hint at an actual event, even if the actual details of the story story are obscured by perspective and time.

Considering we have strong evidence that points towards Pharasma being the creator of the multiverse the story of Asmodeus and Ihys being the original two deities seems like a fabrication.

However, it does still seem likely that Asmodeus killed Ihys.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

Tying it back to alignment, I can see the idea of wanting to subjugate the "lower creatures" that asmodeus uses to be clearly evil. For the idea of removing free will, and also for wanting to force his control on others. Do we agree on that?

If so, we could start finding some absolutes as to what are bad actions that are objectively evil.

Hurt innocents.

[The Raven Black]

Also anything with the Evil trait.

[Kasoh]

The Raven Black wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Tying it back to alignment, I can see the idea of wanting to subjugate the "lower creatures" that asmodeus uses to be clearly evil. For the idea of removing free will, and also for wanting to force his control on others. Do we agree on that?

If so, we could start finding some absolutes as to what are bad actions that are objectively evil.

Hurt innocents.

Hurting anyone. You don't get a pass for cruelty just because the target is evil.

This interpretation does mean that Good people commit evil acts sometimes. But an evil act does not make one Evil.

Good and Evil are often juxtaposed on the spectrum of Selfless and Selfish. To be Good is to give of yourself. To be Evil is to take.

Neutral, of course, abides.

Of course, there is where I think it gets interesting or wonky or off the rails.

How many individual actions does an aligned act encompass? When Seelah attacks a known violent bandit who refused surrender you could tally things up.

Good: Offered terms.
Neutral: Defending self from attacker
Evil: Killed the bandit.
Thus, it washes out and the whole encounter has no real impact on Seelah's status in the cosmic order.

Or are each of these acts a point in favor of one alignment or another and there's a further weight to each of these acts?

I'm more favorable to the former, because otherwise we're into some Good Place nonsense.

[Claxon]

I think part of the problem at least some people with have with your interpretation Kasoh is that killing the bandit is at worst neutral (in some people's opinions) and possibly a good act.

Hurting evil people is honestly a conceit of the how the Golarion universe is presented.

Of course, whether or not you or your group play that way is exclusively the purview of the GM (but is hopefully consistent).

However, I do agree that the "intensity" or quality of an act should have weight, and it's not simply the number of good or bad acts one does.

[Kasoh]

Claxon wrote:

I think part of the problem at least some people with have with your interpretation Kasoh is that killing the bandit is at worst neutral (in some people's opinions) and possibly a good act.

Hurting evil people is honestly a conceit of the how the Golarion universe is presented.

Of course, whether or not you or your group play that way is exclusively the purview of the GM (but is hopefully consistent).

However, I do agree that the "intensity" or quality of an act should have weight, and it's not simply the number of good or bad acts one does.

True enough. My take is that it is in fact, always evil to kill people. And being an adventurer means that occasionally, you choose to do evil things. Doing evil and being Evil aren't the same though, as a mortal's alignment is more about tendencies and consistency than absolutes. Accepting that you can be Good and do evil without losing that G is fairly important. And it allows for a variety of behavior that makes the world interesting.

[Claxon]

Kasoh wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I think part of the problem at least some people with have with your interpretation Kasoh is that killing the bandit is at worst neutral (in some people's opinions) and possibly a good act.

Hurting evil people is honestly a conceit of the how the Golarion universe is presented.

Of course, whether or not you or your group play that way is exclusively the purview of the GM (but is hopefully consistent).

However, I do agree that the "intensity" or quality of an act should have weight, and it's not simply the number of good or bad acts one does.

True enough. My take is that it is in fact, always evil to kill people. And being an adventurer means that occasionally, you choose to do evil things. Doing evil and being Evil aren't the same though, as a mortal's alignment is more about tendencies and consistency than absolutes. Accepting that you can be Good and do evil without losing that G is fairly important. And it allows for a variety of behavior that makes the world interesting.

I 100% agree that a single evil act doesn't make a person evil.

However, I think killing as an individual act without consideration for circumstances isn't always an evil act. And I think the extenuating circumstances can make it evil, good, or neutral.

However, that isn't an argument to really win or lose. Simply a different basis of morality.