|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's interesting is that we now have borais, who are apparently an exception to a lot of these ideas about undead. They aren't strengthened by void energy, for one thing, but vitality energy. They also still very clearly have their souls, and those souls don't seem to be damaged, that we can tell, from living as a borai. Granted, borai do seem to give out sooner than other undead, their bodies breaking down after a couple hundred years or so.
That might be where their "cost" comes from? I haven't re-read their SF2E entry so I forget if it's the void energy in them that is expressly linked to breaking their body down.
*Rereads the Borai's entry
It seems, similar to Brook from One Piece, that the Borai's body is sustained by the vitality of their soul.Them breaking down is the body deteriorating to a point their soul can't sustain it.
The main expression of void energy in a Borai is that their blood gets infused with it, turning black and ichor-like... as well as being somewhat unsettling to the living.
...In fact, the Borai really do seem to pretty much be like Brook from One Piece (meaning my Brook build using Borai is perfect!). They live, they eat, they breathe, they sleep.
Heck, it's even noted that Borai can't really function in societies built solely for the undead, since they need the kinds of amenities that only the living would.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's one reason why I wanted to discuss this, frankly: it feels like there's a disconnect between Pathfinder and Starfinder's opinions on undeath, Starfinder treating undead as morally neutral while Pathfinder implies they're not.
While yes, the devs have stated one game's canon doesn't impact the other, I feel like this is something that could cause problems for writers of both games in the future, as they have different ideas on the fundamental metaphysics of the game world and the intended moral and ethical dynamics of their respective narratives.
I'm not sure I agree with you on that. At least, not in Second Edition Starfinder. Eox might be a planet for the undead... but it isn't really a place for the living, unless they specifically have that spot designed with living visitors in mind.
There is also their feeding on the living not just literally, but also as entertainment (Zo! Media, everybody)....And then there is the Corpse Fleet.
Also, do we have any source that "objectively" states 'this is why undead lead to the heat death of the universe'?
Yes, undeath disrupt the River of Souls... but has it been stated clearly what that does?
Basically, I'm asking, do we have something that says right out, "This is what undeath does to the Universe".
I only ask because the Book of the Dead is written by Geb, and therefore still a subjective view.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that while Geb's view IS subjective, it's a response to Pharasma's view. Since the text expects you to get the vibe that Geb's full of it, you can then extrapolate that Pharasma's reasons are correct, and Pharasma is, from what I understand, infallible (as far as Pathfinder is concerned).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did have an interesting thought on what effect undeath might have on the River of Souls, but this is entirely speculation:
It's been stated in some sources that large amounts of death occurring at once causes the River of Souls to flood.
If that's what happens when a bunch of souls are poured in, then taking them out might cause the River to slowly dry up? Which could end up effecting the ability for new lives to be born (assuming that having a soul in Pathfinder is necessary for life to be born).
Would also explain why Pharasma and her Psychopomps are also so dead set on keeping the Daemons as far away from it as possible.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one reason why I wanted to discuss this, frankly: it feels like there's a disconnect between Pathfinder and Starfinder's opinions on undeath, Starfinder treating undead as morally neutral while Pathfinder implies they're not.
While yes, the devs have stated one game's canon doesn't impact the other, I feel like this is something that could cause problems for writers of both games in the future, as they have different ideas on the fundamental metaphysics of the game world and the intended moral and ethical dynamics of their respective narratives.
** spoiler omitted **
It is possible that something can change, metaphysically or cosmologically, and that there *weren't* any 'morally neutral' forms of undeath, until, in the Starfinder era, yes, there was *now* one.
Either that specific form of undeath was special, perhaps even specifically designed in such a way as to avoid the cosmologically bad thing (much how liches or mummies pump so much magical energy into their creation process that they can exist for millenia that it slows most forms of entropic decay and get away from the sorts of hunger / degeneration faced by ghouls or vampires) *or* the entire universe has changed in such a way that the process itself is no longer hurtful to the river of souls.
So it doesn't *have* to mean that Gray Lady was wrong. Just that this is A) a specific exception that just came into existence recently or B) she was right *then*, but things are different *now.*
Admittedly, my preference, as always, is to find a reason why both things can be true. I prefer offering solutions to just pointing out problems!
And I prefer not to be part of the problem, when I can be *the entire problem!* :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, do we have any source that "objectively" states 'this is why undead lead to the heat death of the universe'?
Yes, undeath disrupt the River of Souls... but has it been stated clearly what that does?
Basically, I'm asking, do we have something that says right out, "This is what undeath does to the Universe".
I only ask because the Book of the Dead is written by Geb, and therefore still a subjective view.
The Windsong testaments' story about the three fears of Pharasma, as well IIRC as planar adventures, explain that what keeps the whole of reality regenerating so that it is not eroded to nothingness by the Maelstrom is the cycle of life and death where the souls of dead mortals are sent to the outer planes they are most attuned to so that the essence their soul carries strengthens it and thus reinforces the bulwark that the outer planes form against non-existence.
Then they are eroded by the Maelstrom (or the Void, not sure which role they play there) which sends them back to Creation's Forge where they are recycled as newborn mortals' souls, who go on to live their life, develop moral trends that align them with an outer plane, die and are judged by Pharasma...
Less souls going through the Cycle means that the whole of reality becomes more fragile and more likely to end.
Pharasma is the caretaker of this whole cycle. It is why she is dead set on keeping the souls flowing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, do we have any source that "objectively" states 'this is why undead lead to the heat death of the universe'?
Yes, undeath disrupt the River of Souls... but has it been stated clearly what that does?
Basically, I'm asking, do we have something that says right out, "This is what undeath does to the Universe".
I only ask because the Book of the Dead is written by Geb, and therefore still a subjective view.The Windsong testaments' story about the three fears of Pharasma, as well IIRC as planar adventures, explain that what keeps the whole of reality regenerating so that it is not eroded to nothingness by the Maelstrom is the cycle of life and death where the souls of dead mortals are sent to the outer planes they are most attuned to so that the essence their soul carries strengthens it and thus reinforces the bulwark that the outer planes form against non-existence.
Then they are eroded by the Maelstrom (or the Void, not sure which role they play there) which sends them back to Creation's Forge where they are recycled as newborn mortals' souls, who go on to live their life, develop moral trends that align them with an outer plane, die and are judged by Pharasma...
Less souls going through the Cycle means that the whole of reality becomes more fragile and more likely to end.
Pharasma is the caretaker of this whole cycle. It is why she is dead set on keeping the souls flowing.
If you accept this at face value, then Pharasma would seem to be "more good then the good gods." It's like Angels and demons are scrambling over crumbs and Pharasma is making sure the next meal (universe) is coming.
This story suggests that Pharasma is focused on delaying and ensuring the next universe. If the side of the Angels were to defeat Hell, the entire universe would decay, right? I hate this idea that the universe requires absolute evil to ensure tomorrow.
I'm deeply reminded of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Pharasma is willing to torture an unlimited number of people who cannot comprehend their crimes in order to maintain a system that will continue to torture people.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why Pharasma is / was True Neutral. She is neither Good nor Evil. In fact the three fears story strongly implies that the other alignments grew in their difference from her: she is the center of this reality's creation.
She does not care which outer plane grows stronger, as long as the outer planes on their whole are kept strong to protect reality through the Cycle of souls.
Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).
And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is unnecessary because Good/Holy could become strong enough to guard a greater portion of the proverbial parapet. But, Pharasma has to work with what she's got; the Maelstrom's relentless, as is the internal corruption of undead forces/Void energy.
There's an RPG precedent for True Neutral working for the greater benefit of reality. In Greyhawk, Mordenkainen and some peers recognized that the mortal, even immortal, conflicts paled in comparison to the ultimate threat of Tharizdun, that all resources would be necessary to fight him (or in practice continue to contain him by manipulating his own power so he traps himself; even combined he's still stronger). This higher awareness led to "heroes"/PCs doing some questionable deeds, arguably self-righteous evil ones! "From a certain point of view" indeed.
Difference seems to be that Holy/Unholy conflicts in Golarion don't seem to weaken the system, only keep it churning, except for those that consume souls like Daemons & undead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why Pharasma is / was True Neutral. She is neither Good nor Evil. In fact the three fears story strongly implies that the other alignments grew in their difference from her: she is the center of this reality's creation.
She does not care which outer plane grows stronger, as long as the outer planes on their whole are kept strong to protect reality through the Cycle of souls.
Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).
And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.
Though she WILL intervene to keep things in balance (presumably because interplanar wars would weaken the Cycle through the River of Souls literally becoming a battleground).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the idea behind holy and unholy is the cosmic war of "good" and "evil" which is why it replaced alignments and why Pharasma is still cosmically above it all. While some Evil spells were related to undead and negative energy, the trend was more about hurting the good physically or spiritually. So with exceptions I believe the opposite of undeath isn't holiness, only 4 Undead have a weakness to Holy/Good according to AoN. So the question of an inherent immorality to Undeath on a cosmic level seems irrelevant to me.
Her judgement is also irrelevant, she has been an impartial judge of souls for a long time and while she might give your soul a sneer for being disgusting in her eyes, your soul goes to where it is supposed to go. If you did it knowing and not caring about the destruction to the universe you probably belong in Abaddon where your existence will continue to act on harming creation. Maybe you only Talking Corpse'd to solve murder mysteries. Then Pharasma sends your soul to Heaven with a sneer.
The destruction of the universe is often brought up but never elaborated on. It seems reasonable to me that there might be some debate on how true this is and if it matters when threats like the Spawn of Rovagug exist and threaten the security of the Dead Vault and the threat to the universe that is. The fundamentals of Necroethics probably is to question this very notion. Attempting to disprove it in the theoretical or minimalizing its impact. Essentially called Pharasma (or just her church if you can really trust them when they say Pharasma is talking to them) a liar, or at best exaggerating the problem. A moral Necromancer could be quite conspiracy minded seeing Pharasma as a manipulative deity everyone just kind of took her word for that this was a problem (and wouldn't it be just like a church of grave diggers to discourage people not needing graves???)
Consider also while generally dangerous Undead are not inherently "evil". They are allowed in the Pathfinder Society which in 2e is pretty strict about not being "evil". Undead PCs have no character features which compel them to be "evil" either.
Yes, the mindless undead without control are definitely destructive, which is a weakness of this argument, and lots of Intelligent Undead aren't "good" either, but there is an argument to be made we just aren't telling the stories of good undead enough. Geb is certainly a place where it has gone wrong, but is that inevitable for an undead nation or can we point to the influence of Geb who was like Nex, evil all their own.
Its a weaker argument but I believe it is worth asking. After all even the evil dead cannot completely predatory to living. in Blood Lords at least one Blood Lord is a Quick, and a Quick PC is trying to become one.. I just don't think it is as cut and dry.
It might also be prejudicial (in game) to say just because something has to kill the living to survive it is "evil". Hyenas are obligate carnivores and we might assume the Kholo are too. Both might have a necessity to eat meat (or bone or blood etc), but the Kholo isn't a monster like a Ghoul. Why? The only difference I see is the undead have the potential to exist longer. Which could be an ecological problem if there isn't something to prey on the Undead (release the Giant Vultures and let the gods decide!), but I think undead can prey on each other so its probably self correcting.
In conclusion I think the immorality of necromancy comes from the "its icky to see grandma puppetted like that" and the destructiveness of the mindless and uncontrolled undead. The first rule of Necroethics as mentioned above is to question the power structures that enforce proscriptions on using dead bodies and souls. Asking if they don't have reasons to lie and enforce a status quo.
The second rule is to be discrete, respectful, and responsible. Don't do it where you'll make innocent people upset, don't treat a body like a toy, and for the love of the gods don't let it off the leash!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why Pharasma is / was True Neutral. She is neither Good nor Evil. In fact the three fears story strongly implies that the other alignments grew in their difference from her: she is the center of this reality's creation.
She does not care which outer plane grows stronger, as long as the outer planes on their whole are kept strong to protect reality through the Cycle of souls.
Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).
And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.
Though she WILL intervene to keep things in balance (presumably because interplanar wars would weaken the Cycle through the River of Souls literally becoming a battleground).
** spoiler omitted **
About the spoiler, I feel Pharasma just wanted to know why things did not work the way they were supposed to. As in was there a new threat to the souls / cycle?
Did she actually passed moral judgement on those who were messing with it or was it just getting rid of the interlopers so that things could go back to the usual way of working?
Alas I did not get to read it firsthand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I tend to see it, undead are neither inherently evil nor inherently good (no more than any non-fiend/celestial, anyway), but they are inherently somewhat driven to destruction, being as they have a cosmic hunger powering their soul where their life used to be. The void hungers to consume, and vital essence fuels a creature's instincts, so when you create a void-powered puppet, its base instincts are to consume and destroy, even if it doesn't have any higher reasoning skills.
For those that do have a conscious mind and/or the rest of their soul, they can choose to do nothing harmful or destructive, the same as a smoker can choose to quit and never smoke again... it wouldn't be easy, and their impulses will fight them every step of the way, but with time and support, they can get to a place where they can manage to (un)live normal (un)lives.
Or they can feed the impulses, but there's only so many ways you can feed an impulse to destroy and consume, so you'd better be a moving target or else one day you might find yourself in the remains of what used to be a bake sale absolutely demolishing a tray of scones in front of horrified onlookers--wait where was I going with this?
---
Unfortunately, I have little to say on the morality of actually creating undead. I know several of the various lore reasons why the creation of undead is always evil, and also some of the narrative reasons (a world with more than a few necroethical options starts to look very different from the kind of world you expect where the person raising the dead is normally a villain and their guilt-free sword-fodder), but I remain most curious to see how (and if) the Impossible book is going to square that with necromancy becoming a character option.
It may simply be that necromancy is evil and Necromancer PCs are just playing a lighter shade of grey when they animate the dead to save the world and that's just how it is, but it may just as well be that in the large umbrella of related magics called 'necromancy', there are lighter and darker types, and the Necromancer is employing a minimally-exploitative version (thralls after all are a much more expendable and recyclable form of undeath compared to binding the void permanently into a skeleton) so they exist in a window with Animate Dead where "this is not technically unholy, but it pisses off Pharasma and most people won't want to be your friend" and you can be a brooding hero with dark powers no problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hence why Pharasma is / was True Neutral. She is neither Good nor Evil. In fact the three fears story strongly implies that the other alignments grew in their difference from her: she is the center of this reality's creation.
She does not care which outer plane grows stronger, as long as the outer planes on their whole are kept strong to protect reality through the Cycle of souls.
Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).
And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.
Though she WILL intervene to keep things in balance (presumably because interplanar wars would weaken the Cycle through the River of Souls literally becoming a battleground).
** spoiler omitted **
About the spoiler, I feel Pharasma just wanted to know why things did not work the way they were supposed to. As in was there a new threat to the souls / cycle?
Did she actually passed moral judgement on those who were messing with it or was it just getting rid of the interlopers so that things could go back to the usual way of working?
Alas I did not get to read it firsthand.
She didn't, but the morrigna psychopomp who was assigned to the case alongside Salim certainly did, though I just sort of chalked that up to psychopomps in general having stronger emotional reactions to those kinds of affronts than Pharasma herself does.
Plus, in both Salim novels (Death's Heretic and The Redemption Engine), Salim's case briefings are the kind where "Find out what the problem is" is what's outright stated and the "and then fix it" is left implied.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the idea behind holy and unholy is the cosmic war of "good" and "evil" which is why it replaced alignments and why Pharasma is still cosmically above it all.
There's an RPG precedent for True Neutral working for the greater benefit of reality. In Greyhawk, Mordenkainen and some peers recognized that the mortal, even immortal, conflicts paled in comparison to the ultimate threat of Tharizdun, that all resources would be necessary to fight him (or in practice continue to contain him by manipulating his own power so he traps himself; even combined he's still stronger). This higher awareness led to "heroes"/PCs doing some questionable deeds, arguably self-righteous evil ones! "From a certain point of view" indeed.
I dislike the idea that "the greater good" is a TN focus. Good should be the "alignment" of any good person. I'll go back to Marvel's first secret wars, where a still-villianous Magneto was sorted with the good guys, because he fights for selfless reasons. As I commented above, It's like Angels and demons are scrambling over crumbs and Pharasma is making sure the next meal (universe) is coming.
Note also that people are not tortured by Pharasma. Each soul goes to the outer plane that fits it best according to the soul's morality (previously known as Alignment).
And people on Golarion know about Hell and the other planes. If they then decide that Lawful Evil is their way, that is on them. Not on Pharasma.
The message I'm getting is that it is impossible for the players to comprehend the mind of a god like Pharasma, but the average dude on Golarion understands the full moral picture of the universe.
Pharasma delivers sentences with either no jury, or a jury of psychopomps. She has full knowledge of what happens to souls she sends to Hell. I am reminded of Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door, in which most people agree you should lie to a known murderer about hiding his target.
I'll also bring up "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" again. Pharasma is running Omelas in my mind, but at the very least, she isn't walking away.
You could argue that Pharasma is neutral because her ends justify her means, but I've never liked the logic. We all agree that some ends justify some means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Ace, I dislike the extra layer of morality and ethics too, as if Good/Holy creatures w/ Wisdom, Intelligence, and knowledge beyond even magically augmented mortal capacity act in shortsighted, even negligent ways. I can understand how a zealousness to destroy the Unholy or enforce Good might undermine one's own goals & morality, but so should they. They are exponentially wiser than the Buddha & Marcus Aurelius, and with a greater understanding of how reality operates on top of that. Yet it's the pro-status quo TN's keeping the universe operating? Heck, Asmodeus is selfish and has enough foresight he should be helping too (or maybe sees no need yet).
Of course it's kind of troublesome how many supra-minds are Unholy, like they have no concept of game theory or a civil morality based on rational self-interest. I guess that's the problem, despite having a stat that represents rationality, most planar beings have irrational natures. But it is a combat RPG, right? So we get angels more inclined to battle than peace, to crusades rather than charity. That might tie into existential threats, and how maybe they'd love to help Pharasma with the eternity problem, but feel they need to focus on the possible armageddons first. What benefit is keeping a universe overrun by evil churning along?
I think I've talked myself in a circle there, and Holy types do fight the undead and TN types do resist fiendish incursions. Hmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it is a combat RPG, right? So we get angels more inclined to battle than peace, to crusades rather than charity.Or those are just the ones PCs are more likely to meet.
Yeah, I occasionally wonder about the breadth of Golarion society & its fantastical elements outside of PC lanes. But until in print, they don't exist; not that they need stats, a simple nod in their direction would do. Heck, I like reading about odd, non-Earth fruits, trees, sports, songs, and holidays, but how much utility does that provide other gamers? Staff has its schedule full already perhaps, but yeah, I'd enjoy it if they tossed in an extra comment here and there about "hearth angels" or "spoiled bread demons". Magic's already pervasive so I don't think it'd water down the wonder, rather increase it. And there could be monsters designed like many humanoid NPCs are, where they have a different combat level than specialty/profession level.
(Spellcheck doesn't recognize 'gamers', but does recognize 'gamer'??)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle. So her opinion on the subject isn't really about moral judgement. I think she isn't quite as worried about life extension stuff per se (though some of her psychopomps may be) simply because those frequently aren't indefinite prolonging of life so the soul energy moves along eventually, and why worry about a few centuries when there are plenty of creatures that live that long anyway? But theoretically infinite lifespans like undeath can provide goes too far, as well as things that can divert souls from their proper place (pretty sure it's canon you can sacrifice good people to Hell and the other lower planes and their souls go there, and Pharasma opposes that too), which undeath might also do given how undead creatures tend to go quite far from their living moralities. Add in undead can often create more undead and you can see the problem it poses to her Cycle. But her ethics only focus on what's good for her work; there might actually be good necromancers out there, but she probably would still want them stopped/killed (though she'd send their soul on to Heaven if that's where it belongs).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle.
100% this, I'm with you because that's my same view on Pharasma. She isn't making a "moral" judgement on undead in the traditional way other might. Pharasma knows undead are a prevision on the cycle of souls and prevents souls from getting to their final destination, which causes the system to slow and degrade bit by bit, putting the universe a little more at risk of collapse.
So her opinion on the subject isn't really about moral judgement. I think she isn't quite as worried about life extension stuff per se (though some of her psychopomps may be) simply because those frequently aren't indefinite prolonging of life so the soul energy moves along eventually, and why worry about a few centuries when there are plenty of creatures that live that long anyway? But theoretically infinite lifespans like undeath can provide goes too far, as well as things that can divert souls from their proper place (pretty sure it's canon you can sacrifice good people to Hell and the other lower planes and their souls go there, and Pharasma opposes that too), which undeath might also do given how undead creatures tend to go quite far from their living moralities. Add in undead can often create more undead and you can see the problem it poses to her Cycle. But her ethics only focus on what's good for her work; there might actually be good necromancers out there, but she probably would still want them stopped/killed (though she'd send their soul on to Heaven if that's where it belongs).
Yep, I'm on basically this same page as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle.100% this, I'm with you because that's my same view on Pharasma. She isn't making a "moral" judgement on undead in the traditional way other might. Pharasma knows undead are a prevision on the cycle of souls and prevents souls from getting to their final destination, which causes the system to slow and degrade bit by bit, putting the universe a little more at risk of collapse.
Before I discuss this, Why do you think Pharasma wants to protect the cycle of souls? For herself? For her daughter? Or for future happing by by
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I discuss this, Why do you think Pharasma wants to protect the cycle of souls? For herself? For her daughter? Or for future happing by byI honestly get the impression literally the only reason Pharasma cares at all about good vs. evil is that it gives her a sorting mechanism to get soul energy to the right places and everything else is a very minor consideration to her. Whether undeath is "wrong" morally doesn't mean much to her because she hates them for screwing with the Cycle.100% this, I'm with you because that's my same view on Pharasma. She isn't making a "moral" judgement on undead in the traditional way other might. Pharasma knows undead are a prevision on the cycle of souls and prevents souls from getting to their final destination, which causes the system to slow and degrade bit by bit, putting the universe a little more at risk of collapse.
From The Three Fears of Pharasma, it seems as if the cycle of souls is critical to the multiverse being recreated when this reality "runs down." Undeath apparently "damages" the cycle of souls; with enough damage, it may make it impossible for reality to recreate itself for the next iteration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Three Fears is beautiful writing. I note though it doesn't mention the undead or damage to the cycle. It gets the mind racing of "if there is undead then who is ultimately the survivor at then end" and referring back to the last fear, maybe she fears it will be forced to be her if no one is born, and no one dies, but existence continues at the end of it all.
All that is to say that it is thought provoking on the implications, but light on facts. Or even guarantees of its truth. Being official doesn't automatically make it true. For writing like this that doesn't really have an answer, not taking everything to be unquestionable is safest. It is certainly canon, but does that mean it is true?
Circling back to my first post, the prophecies of Pharasma are compelling, but not proven fact. It seems reasonable for scholars to question this truth, and once faith is shaken new traditions can grow. Such as necroethics and the application of undeath as a tool shunned by one goddess in a sea of gods and goddesses.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Three Fears is beautiful writing. I note though it doesn't mention the undead or damage to the cycle. It gets the mind racing of "if there is undead then who is ultimately the survivor at then end" and referring back to the last fear, maybe she fears it will be forced to be her if no one is born, and no one dies, but existence continues at the end of it all.
All that is to say that it is thought provoking on the implications, but light on facts. Or even guarantees of its truth. Being official doesn't automatically make it true. For writing like this that doesn't really have an answer, not taking everything to be unquestionable is safest. It is certainly canon, but does that mean it is true?
Circling back to my first post, the prophecies of Pharasma are compelling, but not proven fact. It seems reasonable for scholars to question this truth, and once faith is shaken new traditions can grow. Such as necroethics and the application of undeath as a tool shunned by one goddess in a sea of gods and goddesses.
I think your view of canon vs truth is quite on the spot.
Note though that Pharasma is not the only deity who dislikes undead. The fact that the goddess of undeath is evil, as are most deities of undead come to think of it, certainly does not help.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Three Fears of Pharasma doesn't directly mention the cycle of souls, but the references to births and deaths and the judging of souls passing from life to death are pretty much the core of the cycle as presented elsewhere.
Pharasma's repugnance for undeath and that undeath "damages" the cycle is also mentioned elsewhere, but the last fear ("For if she steps before herself to be judged, and leaves behind none to Survive, the cycle shall end and nothing shall wend.") seems to correlate with undeath damaging the cycle.
One last note: We will probably never get a definitive "this is exactly how the cosmology works." I believe James Jacobs mentioned in the comments of one of the Windsong Testaments that that's the entire point of the (sometimes slight, sometimes more blatant) differences between the various myths and stories published in the books or the blog.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably fair to assume that Pharasma is not a foolish sort of being.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I expect will never get at "this is all the complete facts of how the multiverse functions".
But I believe that Pharasma believes that undeath causes harm to the cycle, and potentially stops (or hastens the stopping) of the cycle of realties. I believe it is this reason that she abhors undead.
As for why she wants to protect reality and keep it existing....I don't think it's so much about her. Maybe a bit for her daughter. But more generally, she wants existence to keep existing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So When it comes to Necro Ethics I have to ask a few questions from the necromancer's point of view:
Why is an undead's need to feed different from a living creature's need to feed? Especially if they can be ethically sourced (nothing in the undead hunger sections indicates that they must feed from SAPIENT life)
A mindless undead will lash out and attack... so will wild animals.
You magically animated a gust of wind or rock, or a doll. How are you better than me magically animating bones?
You bound an elemental/angel/demonic creature/fey to your service... how are you better than me binding a mortal soul to mine?
We accept that many gods can be quite fallible. As lovable and admirable as the Accidental God is, we know he can make drunken mistakes. We recognize that Shelyn has a blind spot when it comes to Zon-Kuthon, her brother who wants only to inflict pain. Sarenrae demands truth, but we all know those who the truth would hurt. So why can we not accept that Pharasma may be mistaken in her pogrom against undeath?
None of this is to say that Undeath is never taken advantage of, or abused by those who crave power, and yes there are aspects of it that particularly appeal to those who would do so, but that does not mean that all who practice and wield these powers cruel or malevolent or predatory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you reject the idea undeath hurts the cycle of souls in some way, then you are unlikely to agree with Pharasma's view. If you agree that undeath damages souls and degrades the cycle, hastening the death of the universe and potentially damaging future births of universes...then it becomes obvious why undeath is inherently a problem, even if its not a problem for any specific (non-deity) to worry about (because you wont exist when it becomes a problem).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So When it comes to Necro Ethics I have to ask a few questions from the necromancer's point of view:
Why is an undead's need to feed different from a living creature's need to feed? Especially if they can be ethically sourced (nothing in the undead hunger sections indicates that they must feed from SAPIENT life)
A mindless undead will lash out and attack... so will wild animals.
You magically animated a gust of wind or rock, or a doll. How are you better than me magically animating bones?
You bound an elemental/angel/demonic creature/fey to your service... how are you better than me binding a mortal soul to mine?
We accept that many gods can be quite fallible. As lovable and admirable as the Accidental God is, we know he can make drunken mistakes. We recognize that Shelyn has a blind spot when it comes to Zon-Kuthon, her brother who wants only to inflict pain. Sarenrae demands truth, but we all know those who the truth would hurt. So why can we not accept that Pharasma may be mistaken in her pogrom against undeath?
None of this is to say that Undeath is never taken advantage of, or abused by those who crave power, and yes there are aspects of it that particularly appeal to those who would do so, but that does not mean that all who practice and wield these powers cruel or malevolent or predatory.
Easy. Even in our RL world, there is an immense taboo about death. Which is likely even bigger in Golarion, where undead are a lethal reality.
If someone is willing to ignore this taboo and practice necromancy, what other taboos are they willing to break ?
What prevents them from doing atrocities ?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's an interesting point... you know what else there used to be a huge taboo about?
Wolves. Wolves were a shoot on sight animal for much of human history. But we know a lot more about them now and understand how important they are for their ecosystem.
Also, because I know what the rebuttle will be to that comment, if Undead are inheriently "unnatural" why do natural undead occur (the book of the dead makes it clear that undead can form without any intent from any party, just from ambient magic)
There is a taboo about death, because death is a universal fear. it's why those who handle the dead used to be considered "unclean" and in some cultures was only done by the lowest of castes.
Also, if we want to talk about who breaks major taboos... really? There are a lot of taboos in the real world that are being broken, and for good reason: Talking about mental health, coming out as queer, asking for help.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not broken taboos is and social norms is good under some circumstances or not isn't the question or what the discussion is about.
For better or worse, it makes sense to imagine that lots of people in the setting of Golarion would view death as taboo, and would view necromancy as a signal for other potentially sinister behavior.
Don't do virtue signaling when we're talking about trying to envision what the imaginary state of mind of the potential masses of an imaginary place might be thinking.
I think it's safe to say the majority of inhabitants of Golarion view Undead and necromancy negatively.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because taboos are usually irrational (and often harmful) doesn't mean they don't drive our ethics. You've been given the objective, taboo-free view (wrong due to cycle of souls). Now others are giving you the subjective one your necromancer is most likely to face: it's wrong due to tampering with ancestors, death, and corpses. Necromancy disturbs the sacred & profane, and dead bodies come with significant health risks (even if seldom reflected in the game's mechanics).
As I mentioned early on, different Golarion cultures will have different attitudes toward necromancy. It's pretty universal among humanity (even cannibals) to have taboos & rituals re: corpses (and ultimately for a good reason even if via poor reasoning). Except there are plenty of nonhuman Ancestries that might think differently. And as for calling upon souls and spirits, most Earth cultures embraced that (and some still do) even as they feared it too. So I'd imagine Golarion has similar ones your necromancer can be from where one calls upon the dead to protect from the other dead. As for Void energy, I doubt it's treated much different than other deadly energies like electricity except by scholars.
So there's a plethora of ethics re: necromancy, with no singular answer unless its Pharasma's that it's ultimately harmful to existence. But even then, if your PC's heroic, the balance might weigh toward pro-existence judging by the enemies you thwart, especially undead ones (& daemons).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Book of the Dead did a pretty good job of why necromancy doesn't ever really get a good reputation.
It's easy to imagine what sort of things could create normalization of undead: the business incentives could make undead labor commonplace, or charitable necromancers could use undead labor to repair natural disaster damage or protect towns. Book of the Dead covers why that doesn't work: even controlled mindless undead work worse around the living and cause more accidents. Between that and undead slipping free of control and killing or injuring people, enough attempts at using undead in a pro-social way would be marred by deaths and injuries that it would never be able to turn its reputation around. The businesses would always be breaking reasonable safety laws for an advantage over their competition, not just following normal practices. The undead helping do repairs would cause accidents, or a natural undead would come along in the disaster aftermath and nobody would believe it hadn't just gotten loose from the work crew.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was a discussion about the ethics of necromancy in universe. I didn't bring up our real world first in relation to this topic or taboos first, I responded to the concept that was posed to me.
TO BE CLEAR I am not trying to imply that anyone here is anything-phobic, or that these things are the same, I'm poking holes in the logic being presented to me.
Pharasma declares it: Appeal to authority, and similar authority is frequently wrong or biased
They are dangerous: Yes, So are a lot of things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism
Taboos about Death: Appeal to tribalism, and as I pointed out taboos are not always a good thing.
Similar practices and effects are done in all forms of magic and (from an in-universe perspective) what is the difference between binding a spirit necromantically and binding a fey, fiend, or elemental? What is the difference between making a construct and a mindless undead? What is the difference between an undead's desire for flesh/blood and any living omnivore or carnivore's desire for meat?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though it might be full of logical fallacies, those are still valid reasons for the illogical masses to feel/think a certain way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's an interesting point... you know what else there used to be a huge taboo about?
Wolves. Wolves were a shoot on sight animal for much of human history. But we know a lot more about them now and understand how important they are for their ecosystem.
Very good point that, with more knowledge, things can change. Maybe that is why Starfinder's view of undead significantly differs from the Pathfinder's one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion features humans and reflects the real world, even specific cultures, so Earth is relevant. Golarion is extrapolated from Earth, so barring a book on Golarion philosophy, we kinda need to extrapolate too.
Appeal to authority's only a fallacy when one's authority is merely a social position or one's scholarly work/authority lies outside the topic, i.e. quoting Einstein outside of physics. Until Nethys and similar deities develop an evidence-based consensus that disagrees with her (or you develop a way us players can investigate Golarion metaphysics), Pharasma IS the authority based on her actually knowing.
Yes, we as players might consider she's mistaken, but in world there's no reason to suspect that. She's as objective as one can get barring James Jacobs giving a definitive answer (unlikely until it serves a narrative purpose in some adventure).
I disagree that there "are a lot of (dangerous) things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism". Undead (and the medical issues around corpses) are ubiquitous threats with emotional gravitas.
It doesn't matter that taboos are tribal or not always good when asking about ethics...which are tribal and not always good. Taboos & ethics are intertwined. There's no platonic form of ethics to unearth.
Most of the final questions should be obvious being as we're beings that operate emotionally and subjectively (even if we try otherwise). I have also pondered the question of sustenance, but I'm not sure that's where the heart of the stigma lies. Heck, on Golarion it might be that Void energy disturbs our natural Vitality energies with such pure ick that humans (et al) can't shake how immoral they feel undeath is. Again, we're talking ethics, where icky (according to scholars) is one of the key components in how we developed our morals (w/ flawed results!).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was a discussion about the ethics of necromancy in universe. I didn't bring up our real world first in relation to this topic or taboos first, I responded to the concept that was posed to me.
TO BE CLEAR I am not trying to imply that anyone here is anything-phobic, or that these things are the same, I'm poking holes in the logic being presented to me.
Pharasma declares it: Appeal to authority, and similar authority is frequently wrong or biased
They are dangerous: Yes, So are a lot of things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism
Taboos about Death: Appeal to tribalism, and as I pointed out taboos are not always a good thing.
Similar practices and effects are done in all forms of magic and (from an in-universe perspective) what is the difference between binding a spirit necromantically and binding a fey, fiend, or elemental? What is the difference between making a construct and a mindless undead? What is the difference between an undead's desire for flesh/blood and any living omnivore or carnivore's desire for meat?
I think that there are some useful distinctions to be made, and I know these are just points made to poke holes.
Citing Pharasma is actually very specifically not a case of Appeal to Authority, because she is an expert on the cycle of souls and what it takes to keep the universe running. Appeal to authority would be citing Iomedae's opinion on whether undead are bad for the universe- she may be a deity, but she's not particularly qualified to weigh in on that. Gods may be wrong and biased, but they're usually pretty solid in their areas of expertise.
Other, less stigmatized, things also being dangerous is certainly true. I do think that undead frequently represent a particular unpleasant sort of danger, one in which a person can often be made into a part of that danger (zombies, ghouls, vampires, etc.). I think other cases of that are actually treated with very similar levels of stigma- mind control, demonic possession, etc.
I think the taboos about death part was brought up as a matter of people's perception. As far as it relates to the ethics, it does lead to "raising somebody as a skeleton or zombie defaults to being a violation of their bodily autonomy, rather than being presumed okay unless they said otherwise".
As for the difference between making a construct and an undead, that's what I was mentioning before. Even a mindless undead defaults to hostility with such a strong bias that even control to the contrary doesn't entirely remove the effects of that bias. While adventurers certainly encounter plenty of hostile constructs, those are usually narratively intentionally made to guard something or are exceptions, rather than universal hostility as a default.
Undead hunger vs. a living creature's hunger- honestly, if this were the only issue, it would be pretty reasonable to chalk them up as not that different. It varies by type of undead, of course. It's something that is largely a solved problem in Starfinder, at least as far as Eox is concerned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very good point that, with more knowledge, things can change. Maybe that is why Starfinder's view of undead significantly differs from the Pathfinder's one.Wow, that's an interesting point... you know what else there used to be a huge taboo about?
Wolves. Wolves were a shoot on sight animal for much of human history. But we know a lot more about them now and understand how important they are for their ecosystem.
Poor wolf. At one time they were seen as defenders against undead, likely due to how they'd dig up corpses and be seen "fighting" with them. As often happens over time, that association eventually led to them being linked with undead as allies or incarnations* (which served the agendas of ranchers and others that wanted to be rid of them). Glad that now we recognize they're both normal and valuable.
Just shows how insidious fear can be, which ties back to necroethics; that even if known as a defender, one might become seen as a threat if linked to threatening beings so long.
*Werewolves, at least in Europe, were considered undead long, long ago. Just pitch everything into one pile of "bad juju creatures" I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, Undeath is not a stable form of existence. They are all, without exception, subject to an eternal hunger that is by its nature insatiable. It will not destroy them to ignore this hunger, but doing so will erode their minds (if they have any) until they are either destroyed or embrace it. Indulging in it also isn't great, because no matter how ethical they try to make it the more they indulge, the greater and more depraved the lengths they'll go to in order to feed this bottomless "hunger".
(This can be literal or metaphorical hunger, from a Ghoul's hunger for flesh to a Lich's hunger for knowledge.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an eternal hunger? You mean like the one in your belly? Of will there be a point at which you will never be hungry again? and are you saying that if you were under the pain of starvation, there are lines you would not cross to keep yourself alive (sane in the case of undead)?
Also, you all act like the only perspective on Golarion is that "Undead is bad". There is a whole kingdom where that's not the case, one that is a huge stable trading partner with Absolom and other countries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
an eternal hunger? You mean like the one in your belly? Of will there be a point at which you will never be hungry again? and are you saying that if you were under the pain of starvation, there are lines you would not cross to keep yourself alive (sane in the case of undead)?
Also, you all act like the only perspective on Golarion is that "Undead is bad". There is a whole kingdom where that's not the case, one that is a huge stable trading partner with Absolom and other countries.
What's your angle here?
Even if you could convince everyone in this thread that Undead are good for the multiverse, and no different from the living that still doesn't change the setting.
Our personal opinions on Undead aren't relevant to how the inhabitants of Golarion mostly feel about Undead. By and large they aren't liked. You can talk about how it doesn't make sense as much as you like, but it absolutely wont change anything.
You could absolutely have an individual character, or even a whole country like Geb, that agree with you. But that doesn't change the setting or ethical opinions of the majority of Golarion residents.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: I don't need any of you to agree to anything. I would like y'all to accept that it's a valid perspective to hold, but I can't make anyone do anything.
2: I thought this was a meta-discussion of the ethics as we saw it, informed my the known and unknown mechanics in universe. Not the ethics from the point of view of only the in-universe majority
3: Frankly I don't mean to be as confrontational as I come off, but some of these points do not make sense to me. The behaviors we bemoan about the undead are largely things that are true of any carnivorous or omnivorous creature. and we pretend that they can be both sapient/sentient and universally evil, and like we don't find that perspective grotesquely simplistic when we apply it to other peoples in the setting (or real world). Other than "It has to be this way for the plot to make sense" or "It has to be this way so we have always-evil baddies to fight" I don't get it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess when I talk about the ethics of necromancy, I'm mostly talking about it in the sense of "how ethical is making mindless undead to accomplish good that outweighs the externalities (environmental impact to universe)". Book of the Dead makes it clear that any attempted good done near living people comes with non-trivial risks.
There's also the ethics of extending someone's life through undeath, which it sounds like is more what you're discussing. That's where "sapient free will" intersects with "undead tend towards evil". It's something else Book of the Dead does a pretty good job of addressing. Void-based vital essence gives a bias towards things being made dead similar to the vitality-based bias towards things being left alive. It's something that can be overcome, but it's notable enough that it gives undead their typical alignment in a way that fantasy ancestries don't have. "That person you make into undead is probably going to be a more harmful person" isn't the only reason for it to be considered unethical, but it's not really something you can just remove as a factor of how undeath works. And I guess, personally, I'm chill having intelligent undead be a category that falls between "humanoid" and "fiend" on the sliding scale of moral flexibility.
The setting has a vested interest in undeath being a bad thing. (Nowhere to get away from powerful immortal characters is a stifling setting, lack of mortality makes a setting harder to relate to, undead in mythology and popular culture have a tendency to be evil, etc.) Its creators have taken steps to make it that way. I think it's fair to question some of those reasons, and I'm with you on disagreeing on some points, like undead hunger being inherently worse in all cases. Even then, though, there are some cases where there's a difference- ghouls do need the flesh of sapient creatures in a way that regular predators don't, and zombies prefer the meat and brains of sapient creatures over non-sapient ones. With some other undead, yes, the hunger isn't worse than a living creature's hunger. But it's easy to see how if someone is looking at a vampire (can probably find an ethical food source that doesn't even kill anything) and someone is looking at a ghoul (loses their mind in a violent rage if they don't have humanoid flesh for a week), it's easy for them to end up talking past each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appeal to authority's only a fallacy when one's authority is merely a social position or one's scholarly work/authority lies outside the topic, i.e. quoting Einstein outside of physics. Until Nethys and similar deities develop an evidence-based consensus that disagrees with her (or you develop a way us players can investigate Golarion metaphysics), Pharasma IS the authority based on her actually knowing.
Yes, we as players might consider she's mistaken, but in world there's no reason to suspect that. She's as objective as one can get barring James Jacobs giving a definitive answer (unlikely until it serves a narrative purpose in some adventure).
I disagree here for the reason that you have already explained. Why would we use Einstein as an expert of non-physics and why should was ask Pharasma about about universal truths? In Three Fears she seems to be figuring this out for herself too. She doesn't have the answers you think she does. Interestingly it seems to be Yog-Sothoth in his role as the watcher who knows but will not tell. Pharasma doesn't know how this will end and we know Prophesies are borked now anyways.
I disagree that there "are a lot of (dangerous) things in Golarion that aren't treated with near this level of stigmatism". Undead (and the medical issues around corpses) are ubiquitous threats with emotional gravitas.
Here too. You cannot call something ubiquitous when you have good PCs and NPC around that are Undead. The undead aren't even required to prey on the living as we see tombs of forgotten undead survive for centuries or even millennia. I think when we think critically about the topic we see that there is nothing inherently evil or predatory about the mindful undead. So why do we perceive them as such? Probably because those are the stories we are told, and it isn't like there isn't a power structure in place which has a vested interested in maintaining that status. You are ready to draw earth parallel and so am I. There are lots of underprivileged groups that are demonized like this IRL for the purpose of power. With the exception of the mindless undead I think there is a possibility of undead as lifeforms which are predators by nature like many other animals, beasts, and humanoids, but can make their own decisions to not act like predators and still exist without starving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Book of the Dead did a pretty good job of why necromancy doesn't ever really get a good reputation.
It's easy to imagine what sort of things could create normalization of undead: the business incentives could make undead labor commonplace, or charitable necromancers could use undead labor to repair natural disaster damage or protect towns. Book of the Dead covers why that doesn't work: even controlled mindless undead work worse around the living and cause more accidents. Between that and undead slipping free of control and killing or injuring people, enough attempts at using undead in a pro-social way would be marred by deaths and injuries that it would never be able to turn its reputation around. The businesses would always be breaking reasonable safety laws for an advantage over their competition, not just following normal practices. The undead helping do repairs would cause accidents, or a natural undead would come along in the disaster aftermath and nobody would believe it hadn't just gotten loose from the work crew.
Except this isn't true. Kaer Maga has a large mindless undead menial workforce. There are dangers, but aren't there always. Is there a significant difference between a necromancer losing control of a zombie vs a living employee just "going postal"? I don't see evidence that losing control of the dead is any more common than a living person flying into a deadly rage. At least in the former case we know who is responsible and can exact vengeance. Kaer Maga is proof it can work. In a more ordered society than Kaer Maga it might even be safer.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I love Kaer Maga, I think the implication is very strong that Sutter was damning it with faint praise. Ankar-Te is effectively an undead gated community, and it's very clear that most living Kaer Magans will stay well away from it unless they themselves have an interest in necromancy or undeath. There's actually very little information as to what Ankar-Te is like on the inside, because the only characters we experience it through are alive and not local. They don't WANT to go there, but their business compels them to, and they want to finish that business and get the heck out of Ankar-Te as fast as they can.
But, you CAN infer that the only reason Ankar-Te seems to be a spontaneously-formed and stable undead society is because life is cheap in Kaer Maga. The factions and gangs of the city uncaringly spend the lives of the poor and desperate against each other every single day, the Godsmouth Ossuary can't possibly get to all of them in that time, and so Ankar-Te is right there, happy to serve as corpse disposal for them all because that constant supply keeps their own citizenry from becoming violent.
They can only maintain their veneer of civility through being fed by a cesspit of violence and depravity, just like Geb. Ankar-Te is just more honest about it, because the cesspit is on full display outside the district.