This post's authors have general content warnings that might apply to the current post.
View Flat HTML
View Metadata
Search Post
On The Gods and their Alignments
Posted 2010-11-20/03:02 in category: explanations
Golarion has been aware of magic for longer than we have surviving written records. We have also been aware of the existence of many planes: sets of places that it's impossible to go between without magic. Golarion and Earth are both on the Prime Material plane, the plane of ordinary matter where mortals are born, live, and die. There are also the elemental planes of Earth, Water, Air, Fire, Positive Energy, and Negative Energy, inhabited by beings of those elements. There are the Ethereal, Astral, and Shadow planes, which are too weird for this post but might get their own at some point. And there are the outer planes.
The outer planes are shaped by two pairs of opposing forces: Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos. There's an Outer Plane for each of Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. Each outer plane is populated by outsiders, beings who fully embody the plane's alignment. Some of them are naturally occurring and appear out of nowhere, and others started out as living people, were sent to that plane when they died, and gradually transformed to be more like the plane they were on.
When a mortal being capable of making moral choices dies, they are judged by representatives of Pharasma, the creator of the universe, and sent to the afterlife corresponding to the effects they had on the world in life. This is a pretty okay system as far as Good and Neutral people are concerned, but it's a terrible system for Evil people because the Evil afterlives are very very bad. I'm not going to get into detail on this. The good afterlives are working hard at making sure as few people go to the Evil afterlives as possible.
The most powerful outsiders on the outer planes are the gods. Gods are tremendously powerful, but there are many of them of all alignments working in opposition to each other, so rather than exhaust themselves striving against each other, they agree among themselves to limit their interventions on the Material. On Golarion, these interventions consist mostly of empowering clerics and paladins [. . .]
I think it’s pretty unlikely for thousands of people to hear someone talking to them if that person doesn’t actually exist! If there were three people who’d ever heard the voice of God, sure, that could be a hallucination. If it were common for thousands of people to have all heard the same person talking to them, even at different times, you’d expect that thousands of people would have heard the voice of Eidolon, or Marcus Firth, or President Gillen, but a quick Google is only turning up a handful who claim to have heard anything like that.
Thousands of people have claimed to have their penises stolen.
If I went to the doctor, and the doctor told me “sure, you say your chest is hurting, but some people in Africa thought they were having a medical problem when they weren’t, so you probably aren’t having a medical problem either”, they would be a pretty bad doctor!
Everyone with endometriosis: lol join the club
Okay, the things you said about Good and Evil make sense to me, but I’m trying to understand Law vs. Chaos, and I’m really struggling to understand why anyone would be Lawful! I know you said in your post that your goddess Iomedae is Lawful Good, but you could still be Neutral Good (unless D&D got that wrong?), and that seems better in basically every way.
Disclaimer here that I’m pretty confused about the actual distinction here — I’m using your posts, a D&D website I found on Google, and the plain English meaning of the word Lawful, so some of this might be wrong. (From a bit of searching, it sounds like even the D&D players don’t agree among themselves what Lawfulness means!) I assume not all of these ideas are accurate descriptions of Lawfulness, but under basically any of them, it would be better to be Neutral or Chaotic.
Lawfulness as Following the Law
Despite the fact that the word D&D uses is “Lawful”, which one might expect to have something to do with following the law, I’m kind of unclear on the extent to which it actually does! With that being said: obviously there are some laws that are important to follow (for example, you should not generally murder people, assault people, steal without a good reason, and so on). But all the laws that are important to follow seem like they would be covered under being Good — it’s not like a Good person is going to commit murder!
Throughout human history, many countries have had Evil laws. You were reading about Hitler earlier, and when he was in charge of a country, he decided that his country would round up and execute Jewish people, disabled people, and various other groups, and made most ways of helping the people he was trying to kill illegal. In Hitler’s country, it was legal to execute millions of innocent people, and illegal to try to save them. I think much more highly of the people who tried to help those people anyway than the people who helped Hitler execute them! Back when slavery was legal in the US, some people were part of the “Underground Railroad”, a network of people that secretly helped slaves escape to freedom, and once again I think much better of the people who helped slaves escape to freedom than the people who turned them in to be returned to their masters.
In the modern day, countries generally aren’t doing things quite that extreme, but many countries still have Evil laws — in Russia, capes who don’t sign on with the government can be executed, even if they aren’t villains, and even on a smaller scale, some cities in America have tried to make it illegal to feed the homeless (although thankfully it’s generally hard for them to actually get convictions, because almost everyone agrees that those laws are wrong). Every country has some bad laws, and Good people should break those laws if they have to.
Lawfulness as Telling The Truth
This one seems even more clear-cut than the last case. It’s often good to tell the truth, but that doesn’t mean people should tell the truth all the time. Obviously, if the Nazis (the followers of Hitler) ask you whether you are hiding Jewish people in your attic, because they want to take those people away and kill them, you should not tell them that you are, even if you have to lie. (To be clear, this is just an example — the original Nazis were defeated many decades ago, and even “neo-Nazis” (modern people who think Hitler had the right idea) don’t generally have the power to pass laws.) But even in daily life, there are many cases where minor lies are fine — if one of my kids asks me if I like their drawing, and I think their drawing is bad, it would be terrible parenting to tell them that their drawing sucks!
Lawfulness as Keeping Your Word
Once again, there are some promises that are actually important to keep. I’d be pretty upset if my husband broke our wedding vows and cheated on me, or even just if I were counting on him to pick me up from the airport in the middle of the night and he didn’t show up.
But not every promise ought to be kept. One of the things we’ve been trying to emphasize with our oldest is the difference between “good promises” (like promising a friend you’ll help them out) and “bad promises” (like promising to keep it secret when an adult is hurting you, or when a friend is breaking the rules). And even when a promise was fine at first, it might not stay fine — by the time my parents got divorced, I’d been hoping for more than a year that they would split up so that they would stop fighting all the time. I don’t really care that they were technically breaking their promise to stay together until “death do us part.”
Lawfulness as Respecting Authority
Honestly, my first reaction here was a knee-jerk “…but you shouldn’t respect authority just for being authority.” I don’t actually think that’s entirely true (I want my kids to listen to me, I want them to listen to their teachers, I think people should evacuate if the government issues an evacuation order, and so on), but authorities being bad isn’t some kind of rare exception, it’s the norm. If “authority” looks like a police officer planting drugs on people to meet quotas, or a politician taking bribes from lobbyists to work against the interests of the people, then people shouldn’t respect it. Even authorities that do deserve respect can still just be wrong — my daughter’s class had a substitute teacher earlier this year who got upset at a kid for not sitting in his chair, even though he had a disability accommodation that let him have an alternative chair.
Lawfulness as Following Tradition
Like many of the explanations I found for Lawfulness, this one is good in some circumstances and bad in others. Sometimes “following tradition” means raising your children to give to charity, just like your family has done for as long as you can remember, and I’m all in favor of that. Sometimes “following tradition” means cooking a turkey for Thanksgiving, or putting up a Christmas tree, and I think those things are usually good — but if someone has a reason not to follow them (say, they’re a vegetarian, or they convert to a religion that doesn’t celebrate Christmas), I don’t think they should feel obligated to. Sometimes “following tradition” means breaking and binding little girl’s feet on purpose to live up to your society’s beauty standards, and I don’t think anyone should do that!
Lawfulness as Being Judgy
The D&D website I was looking at says Lawful characters are supposed to “judge those who fall short of their duties”. Honestly, if that were the only thing I’d heard about it, it might sound okay — I’m all in favor of judging deadbeats who don’t pay child support! But in the context of everything else, it makes me worried that instead what it would mean is “judging people who criticize the police” or “judging people who don’t practice footbinding”, and that would be bad.
Lawfulness as Being Trustworthy
The problem with this is… trustworthy to whom? If a villain promises they’ll never betray the villains they’re working with, but realizes that actually it is bad to rob people and turns themself in to the PRT, are they being trustworthy (because they’re following the law and respecting the government’s authority) or untrustworthy (because they broke their promise and betrayed people who were counting on them)? If a patient tells their therapist they’re planning a mass shooting, and the therapist calls the police, are they being trustworthy (because they’re following the law and trying to protect people) or untrustworthy (because the patient only admitted to what they were planning because they trusted the therapist not to tell), and does it make a difference whether the patient knew that the therapist was obligated to report crimes or thought that therapeutic confidentiality was absolute? It sounds to me like if you’re a decent person, and you’re trying to decide whether you can trust someone, it’s a lot more important to know whether they’re Good or Evil than to know whether they’re Lawful or Chaotic.
Non-Good Alignments
Some of what I said above only applies to Good people, or at least Okay people (I know that’s not a real term, but it sounds like some Neutral people are still real pieces of work). But not all of it! Lawful Neutral people sound like they’d be annoying and judgy, and Chaotic Neutral people sound like they’d be basically chill (although some of them might be annoyingly flaky). Even for Evil people, all the options for Evil sound bad, and I don’t think I could pick one out as worse — it’s bad to be a murderer (Chaotic Evil), but it’s also bad to be a fascist (Lawful Evil), and whether Lawful or Chaotic Evil is better or worse seems like it would depend a lot on the details of the specific individuals and not very much on the mere fact of being Lawful or Chaotic.
So… why not just be Neutral Good? It sounds like that’s where most people would end up, if they’re just trying to do the right thing and not adding in extra constraints that make them worse at following their consciences.
This one seems even more clear-cut than the last case. It’s often good to tell the truth, but that doesn’t mean people should tell the truth all the time. Obviously, if the Nazis (the followers of Hitler) ask you whether you are hiding Jewish people in your attic, because they want to take those people away and kill them, you should not tell them that you are, even if you have to lie. (To be clear, this is just an example — the original Nazis were defeated many decades ago, and even “neo-Nazis” (modern people who think Hitler had the right idea) don’t generally have the power to pass laws.) But even in daily life, there are many cases where minor lies are fine — if one of my kids asks me if I like their drawing, and I think their drawing is bad, it would be terrible parenting to tell them that their drawing sucks!
This is a tangent but lying to kids is Bad, Actually.
I would also be polite to an adult who asked me what I thought of their poorly-made art, unless I thought they were going to try to rope me into buying it! It’s not about my kids being kids, it’s about basic politeness, just like how I wouldn’t tell a friend if I hated their new haircut.
there exist ways of determining what is true other than "is it what people around me think"
Pfft, a heretic oddball mutant nerd psycho freethinker.
(That word? Not usually a compliment.)
you’d expect that thousands of people would have heard the voice of Eidolon, or Marcus Firth, or President Gillen, but a quick Google is only turning up a handful who claim to have heard anything like that.
Thousands of people have heard the voice of Eidolon! He said to deny hearing him until the stars align.
Why no, I'm not one of them, I'm not crazy enough to defy Eidolon.
Thousands of people have claimed to have their penises stolen.
Now that's a much better miracle! You can't really prove that you're hearing the voice of God, but it's easy to prove you have no penis and (if you're prudent) that you did have one yesterday.
Alright, I'm convinced - we should all worship, uh... which deity is empowering the penis-stealing witches again?
The D&D website I was looking at says Lawful characters are supposed to “judge those who fall short of their duties”. Honestly, if that were the only thing I’d heard about it, it might sound okay — I’m all in favor of judging deadbeats who don’t pay child support! But in the context of everything else, it makes me worried that instead what it would mean is “judging people who criticize the police” or “judging people who don’t practice footbinding”, and that would be bad.
So uh. How do I put this. If people judge stuff you don't like, that sounds okay, you're all in favour? But if the judgy people disagree with you, that would be bad, actually? You do realize - ok you probably don't realize, but saying 'and that would be bad' is a meme for a reason you know?
So, uh, there's a reason we have laws and traditions and authorities and all that crap. It's because people who think they're "good" always disagree about what being "good" actually means. And then they generally try to murder righteously, judgily condemn each other over it. Unless those pesky 'law and order' institutions you don't like, like the police probably, stop them first.
Salvation is through Christ alone, absolutely,
Ding, ding, you’ve got it!
for humans afflicted by original sin. Scripture says nothing about literal aliens, or about humans existing on other planets. Put another way: do you think Samora is descended from Adam and Eve? How do you imagine their descendants getting to Golarion? It's possible, but it's definitely not the only possibility.
And then you said a bunch of words to confuse the issue! Even if all that nonsense wasn’t untrue, she’s leading people on this planet astray, that is about as Evil as you can get!
@LittleRedWagon the only Law you should really worry about is God’s Law. I’ve got bad news and good news. Bad news: you’ve almost certainly broken it before. Good news: you can turn to Jesus for forgiveness!
So, uh, there's a reason we have laws and traditions and authorities and all that crap. It's because people who think they're "good" always disagree about what being "good" actually means. And then they generally try to
murderrighteously, judgily condemn each other over it. Unless those pesky 'law and order' institutions you don't like, like the police probably, stop them first.
This should really go without saying, but obviously murder is wrong! There are always some exceptions (see, for example, the Nazis), but the vast majority of people have never murdered someone and would not murder someone, especially over an ordinary political disagreement. I certainly know plenty of families who are more traditional than we are in ways that I’m not sure are in the best interests of the kids, and others who are breaking from tradition in ways my family certainly wouldn’t, but it would be completely inappropriate for me to go down the street with a gun to enforce this opinion on their parents — that’s not Lawfulness, that’s just basic decency (or Goodness, if you prefer), and even people who disagree on quite a bit can usually agree on that much. And, yes, if someone did try to shoot up my neighbor’s house down the street, the police should arrest them. The police certainly have some problems, but I’m wholeheartedly in favor of arresting murderers.
Meanwhile, if you look to authority and tradition as your only guidance on morality, that’s not enough on its own to prevent you from seriously harming others — there are absolutely people who have committed violent crimes in order to enforce their idea of traditional morality!
@LittleRedWagon the only Law you should really worry about is God’s Law. I’ve got bad news and good news. Bad news: you’ve almost certainly broken it before. Good news: you can turn to Jesus for forgiveness!
We go to a UCC church. Our old church was ELCA, but we switched churches after the move. But I’m going to be honest, if Samora started giving sermons in our neighborhood on Sundays, I’d be pretty tempted to visit — I was never too fussy about theology, as long as the church was in line with our family’s values!
We go to a UCC church. Our old church was ELCA, but we switched churches after the move. But I’m going to be honest, if Samora started giving sermons in our neighborhood on Sundays, I’d be pretty tempted to visit — I was never too fussy about theology, as long as the church was in line with our family’s values!
What are your families values? Are they compatible with penis theft?
I’ve got bad news and good news. Bad news: you’ve almost certainly broken it before. Good news: you can turn to Jesus for forgiveness!
That reads just like something I might say!
The scary thing about religious people is that they mean it.
I'm fine, I still have the same amount of penises that I had yesterday.
I'm glad you stopped with the theft, but to get forgiveness from Jesus you really ought to return the ones you have already.
I'm glad you stopped with the theft, but to get forgiveness from Jesus you really ought to return the ones you have already.
I think She's actually happier without it.
This should really go without saying, but obviously murder is wrong! There are always some exceptions,
I feel this quote does not require any additional comment.
I was never too fussy about theology
I’m not really religious myself. What really matters is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A lot of the details we can sort out when we get to heaven, so I try not to be too hard on people that ignore the plain reading of the Bible about the smaller stuff. But one key piece of TRUTH beyond any of man’s theology must not be ignored, diluted, or modified for any reason: Salvation is by faith, through Jesus Christ alone!
Samora’s message is contrary to that so must be firmly rejected by all true believers in Jesus Christ!
Salvation is by faith, through Jesus Christ alone!
As well as by deeds. Christ spends a lot of the Gospels telling people what to do and not to do. Charity and almsgiving, mutual help and love, and of course evangelism - these are deeds, not merely articles of faith.
If you believe in salvation through faith alone, as long as you're not in a monestary spending all your time meditating on your faith, good deeds are still a good idea to occupy the rest of your time!
Samora’s message is contrary to that so must be firmly rejected by all true believers in Jesus Christ!
Samora has not said that we, here on Earth, can be saved outside of Jesus Christ; certainly not with any proof like she has collected for her own people. She has said various things about aliens of whom Christ did not speak. Please do not create unnecessary antagonism between us, or close any doors of friendship unnecessarily.
So it’s like I said earlier — there’s nothing that could convince you that you’re wrong, because even if every single believer on the planet simultaneously got a message from God, you would still assume that it was a mass hallucination, or an unusually well-targeted cape power, or some kind of absurd conspiracy spanning every denomination.
I think the relevant consideration here is "to determine of something is really proof of god, we need to know what god actually is". Things like "truth of Christianity" (as aspiring_christian put it) are a conflation of "there exists an entity that does things", "the entity is truly divine", and "the entity's morality is truly good".
If you don't think that the entity's morality is truly good, whether circumstantially or by definition, you get bulletbiter's "figure out how to kill him". If you don't think it is "truly divine", we get the whole "god/pharasma is a cape" thing. And many would say "if god is a Cape (here used figuratively) it's not really god" or "if god is not truly good and moral and loving, it's not really god", but then we are back to "ok, but what really is god?".
How do we logically define that, so we can see facts that confirm or deny that? We can't. Almost by definition. That's why Ignosticism is the only correct understanding of god's existence (maybe not the only correct religion, necessarily, as "religion" can mean a lot of things).
Agreed with SemiEducator about Ignosticism. Although in practice people already get confused by me identifying Agnostic (“so you’re an Atheist”, “so you’re afraid of committing”, “so you just don’t want to admit God is real”) so I don’t even try to identify as Ignostic most of the time.
Trying to think of other implications of Samora besides all the religious-quasi-religious ones… could the existence of other planes explain where the energy/mass for a lot (maybe even all?) of cape powers comes from? Scientists occasionally try to leverage tinker/thinker powers to make sense of other powers but this is controversial at best in the scientific community, and not without justification. TLDR; replicable/testable scientific theories are usually not derivable from tinker tech or thinker ideas, and what few successful attempts their have been are only impractical demonstrations not scalable to useful technologies (ie mundane physics experiments have supported Haywire’s model, but the approach used by the most successful experiment needs like, the entire energy output of the planet (which has some potential problems) to create an alternate reality breach of a size usable for EM spectrum information transformation.). But Samora’s powers might be different than other cape powers, maybe more replicable (I would love to become a wizard irl!) and/or more consistent? Or maybe her planet knows stuff we don’t (like a beginner wizard textbook has the insights to figure out a practical scale mundane nontinker implementation of Haywire’s work)? I’m pretty excited by the possibilities! Like if she can send/scry/spell not actually in the books her home planet to get this info! (Also Dragon might be literally the best tinker to have on this, her speciality is wildly speculated to be some mix of “scaled up production” and “reverse engineering”.)