|
Their souls, that part of us that makes us human, is gone. That little voice in their head that tells them that killing is not okay is gone.Except, intelligent undead in pathfinder have souls - so this assertion is based on a false premise.
Text from magic jar:
(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)
Yes and no. That's flavor text first of all. It is therefore subject to be ignored or changed by any GM. Canonically in Golarion (at least as I understand it / roleplay it) is that ALL undead have souls. The soul is bound to the body as in it can't be judged by Pharasma, but it's kind of like (this analogy is my own) it's wrapped in chains and gagged at best (sentient undead) and it's in a coma at worst (non-sentient undead)
Now, when I say this I should say I do have an NPC in my games (when I do my own adventures, she's not in any APs I do any more than the Queen of Cheliax is in APs outside of Crimson Throne) that is a 'good' vampire. But, she's like I said above in my edited post. She's a 'serial killer'. She was a 'serial killer' for many years, and she always will be. She's good now by action and intelligent thought of what she remembers from life and based on others... but she doesn't really think there is anything wrong with killing a baby and drinking it's blood. She knows it's wrong intellectually, but not because she's got a conscience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, take this as an example. One of my new favorite movies is All Cheerleaders Die. (Trailer here Warning... it's a horror movie trailer so may be NSFW, and as the school mascot is a bloodhound, they call the football players dogs and the cheerleaders... female dogs) In this movie the cheerleaders are kinda your stereotypical cheerleaders, which means they aren't paladins, but they aren't really evil either. Then they get killed. A witch brings them back to life and they are kind of vampire-zombies (they don't have sunlight issues but need to drink blood) They kill the witch's neighbor and on of them is like "Look at what we just did to Lena's neighbor..." and the way she says it isn't that she horrified, it's just surprise is all. Then the other cheerleader is like "I feel frickin' fantastic!" and she runs out the door. Then they go to school and start killing the football players.
That I think kind of illustrates it well. They're dead. Their souls, that part of us that makes us human, is gone. That little voice in their head that tells them that killing is not okay is gone.
That's why overall it makes sense for a general rule that undead are evil. They are soulless monsters that prey on the living.
That's a great specific version (and they also remind of succubi, too), but the thing is: it doesn't automatically follow. In other words, it's a great suggestion for how to make things work out, but it's not an automatic presupposition of all such systems (or even the one we currently have).
See, in Golarion, I could see that this is exactly what happens.
But that's not what undead are by default.
I mean, how does that relate to a ghost, for example? They are nothing but soul, and can't, then, relate to your suggestion.
What about haunts? Or ectoplasmic creatures? Same thing.
What about shadows? Though they come from the shadow plane, that doesn't automatically follow that they'd be evil. (And if they were really out to get the world... we'd be dead.)
Ghouls (who, though they are diseased, explicitly only eat the already-dead; freshness is no factor) are a perfect example of this: they don't need to kill anyone.
The Red Jester and (if you want more official) Deathweb, both of which fall into the "totally corporeal, but not evil" category.
Even the Yuki-onna wasn't evil back in 3.5 - it is only now in PF that it has mysteriously become so (in fact, to my recollection, it was CN).
It's strange and dissonant, is all, to demand that undeath automatically equals evil, when otherwise they are themselves.
|
|
Well, take this as an example. One of my new favorite movies is All Cheerleaders Die. (Trailer here Warning... it's a horror movie trailer so may be NSFW, and as the school mascot is a bloodhound, they call the football players dogs and the cheerleaders... female dogs) In this movie the cheerleaders are kinda your stereotypical cheerleaders, which means they aren't paladins, but they aren't really evil either. Then they get killed. A witch brings them back to life and they are kind of vampire-zombies (they don't have sunlight issues but need to drink blood) They kill the witch's neighbor and on of them is like "Look at what we just did to Lena's neighbor..." and the way she says it isn't that she horrified, it's just surprise is all. Then the other cheerleader is like "I feel frickin' fantastic!" and she runs out the door. Then they go to school and start killing the football players.
That I think kind of illustrates it well. They're dead. Their souls, that part of us that makes us human, is gone. That little voice in their head that tells them that killing is not okay is gone.
That's why overall it makes sense for a general rule that undead are evil. They are soulless monsters that prey on the living.
That's a great specific version (and they also remind of succubi, too), but the thing is: it doesn't automatically follow. In other words, it's a great suggestion for how to make things work out, but it's not an automatic presupposition of all such systems (or even the one we currently have).
See, in Golarion, I could see that this is exactly what happens.
But that's not what undead are by default.
I mean, how...
Okay, but now you are trying to remove the setting from the system and that's never been what D&D was. D&D has always had a campaign setting (at least as far back as 2nd edition... not sure if 1st did, as I never played it). It's called Greyhawk. When they later made other campaign settings, that changed things lore wise and that might make some rules changes on alignments, sure. Like for example, the Baelnorns, or Good Liches, are from Forgotten Realms. They do NOT exist in Greyhawk unless the GM puts them there. But, you will never read a Greyhawk novel that has a baelnorn in it. That is why the core D&D books say undead are evil without exception.
Now, in Pathfinder's case you have two things you must take into account.
1. Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 at it's core. If they specifically changed something they did, but many things that didn't need changing in a basic rules sense were cut and pasted.
This is the case with the whole undead and souls thing. IT's pretty much cut and pasted directly from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 and therefore that means it's cut and pasted from Greyhawk.
2. Paizo's Campaign Setting is Golarion.
This is where you have the lore than changes the core rules in minor ways. Just like where Forgotten Realms breaks the core D&D idea that "all Liches are evil without exception" with the baelnorns, Golarion breaks the "only sentient undead have souls" idea with how creating undead rips the soul from The Boneyard (or in the case of a ghost/wraith/etc, the soul outright refuses to go to The Boneyard which makes Pharasma just as mad.)
So, the base reason why as a general rule undead must be evil is clear from the books like Classic Monsters, Undead Revisited, Blood of the Night, etc. They also explain that there are exceptions in Golarion, but they are very rare.
As for the rare undead that aren't evil, they don't prey on the living. Vampires do. Even ghouls do since while they don't HAVE to have fresh meat, they as designed have no qualms about killing you then eating you.
While the Player's Handbook was (ostensibly) Greyhawk, D&D 3.5 had several "setting-neutral" books that "world lore" which failed to fit into Greyhawk lore.
Also, there have been non-evil undead published within Golarion canon, and a method of creating them published within an AP.
EDIT:
Golarion breaks the "only sentient undead have souls" idea with how creating undead rips the soul from The Boneyard (or in the case of a ghost/wraith/etc, the soul outright refuses to go to The Boneyard which makes Pharasma just as mad.)
This is actually noted as untrue by Mr. Jacobs, as I recall. Instead, I think he said that it caused discomfort or something? It's been a while - I might look it up, later, as I may be misremembering.
Of course, even if it is true, that brings up a whole host of issues.
Of course, if the "only sentient undead have souls" is negated and "it's due to lack of soul that something has a lack of conscience" is the argument, than "any undead can have an alignment" is the only conclusion to take.
Is something sentient? Than it has moral ability. (This is true even for inherently aligned creatures.)
Is something non-sentient? If "yes"
- A) Is it created from compressed alignment stuff? Carry on: it has an alignment
- B) If not, it has no basis for moral judgments, and thus has no alignment.
There are also several elements of Core that disagree with Golarion canon. As a notable example, Core allows clerics of ideals, while Golarion does not. So Core does not equal the same thing as Golarion, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC when the core book says X is evil it is giving you the general alignment, not 100% of creature X has this alignment. This is done in case the GM wants to do something out of the ordinary.
In Golarion, not including GM Fiat or a specific creature written in Golarion lore, creatures tend to have alignment X unless other called out as being different from others of their kind.
Yeah Golarion is the offical setting, but the books that are not setting(Golarion) books are setting neutral, and Golarion does not make the core rules. As an example Paladins in Golarion must worship a deity, but in the core rules they do not. Basically the Golarion setting can have its own rules that don't have to match up with the core rules. They do have some of the Golarion deities so the groups can have something to use, but the also keep most of them away from the core rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost are a non evil undead type. With gauntlets of ghost touch your pretty much set
With so many ways to achieve immortality now, why would a good creature choose undead?
With so many ways to achieve immortality now, why would a good creature choose undead?
Why would an evil creature?
Fact is, undeath is actually much easier (and earlier) to come by and has several mechanical benefits. Is it creepy? Yeah, to most people. 'Cause, corpses, amirite?! But being undead isn't inherently being evil.
EDIT:
Ghost are a non evil undead type. With gauntlets of ghost touch your pretty much set
Isn't ghost really hard to get, though? I mean, the only two ways I can think of are 1) by accident/GM fiat, 2) by making a deal with a very specific kind of pit fiend duke (who would then release you, per the contract).
But it's a pretty awesome idea...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With so many ways to achieve immortality now, why would a good creature choose undead?
While I still haven't seen the movie, this question does remind me of one hilarious review of Dracula Untold:
The premise of Dracula Untold is “What if Dracula was just a really good dad, you guys?” and that is more than enough premise for me. I am a very simple woman, and always have been, ever since I was a very simple child.
Questionable use of Vlad the Impaler as any example of anything non-evil aside, there is room for "in times of desperate need" plots + "heroic willpower" characters.
Eric Draven for example stands out as a good example of a non-evil revenant-type and oh God I am upset about that remake again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a third level Gnome Necromancy. He wants to become vampire/ undead, but I don't want to play him as Evil. How do I do that?
Become a sentient undead and decide to be a good guy. It's that simple. Well, and make sure your GM is cool with monstrous races and whatever you plan to become.
I'm personally fond of ghouls/ghasts with civilized ghoulishness, however I wrote an alternative vampire template that's friendlier for PCs and NPCs of all levels which makes PC vampires easier to handle.
With so many ways to achieve immortality now, why would a good creature choose undead?While I still haven't seen the movie, this question does remind me of one hilarious review of Dracula Untold:
The premise of Dracula Untold is “What if Dracula was just a really good dad, you guys?” and that is more than enough premise for me. I am a very simple woman, and always have been, ever since I was a very simple child.Questionable use of Vlad the Impaler as any example of anything non-evil aside, there is room for "in times of desperate need" plots + "heroic willpower" characters.
Eric Draven for example stands out as a good example of a non-evil revenant-type
and oh God I am upset about that remake again.
I was just disappointed that when they showed all the impaled guys, they weren't impaled through the anus. Get it together, Hollywood!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vampires who kill their prey in Pathfinder are incredibly evil, mostly because it's wholly unnecessary.
Wanna know why you don't hear about all those people killed by neutral and good vampires? It's not because they don't exist, it's because they didn't kill anyone. >_>
1d4 con damage comes back in at most 4 days of natural healing. A vampire can feed on a human once per week and the human never have any serious harm come to them. The same vampire could feed on a different human every night and achieve the same result.
It's even less morally reprehensible than satyrs (who will use their pipes on you and then butt**** you and your children).
I have a third level Gnome Necromancy. He wants to become vampire/ undead, but I don't want to play him as Evil. How do I do that?Become a sentient undead and decide to be a good guy. It's that simple. Well, and make sure your GM is cool with monstrous races and whatever you plan to become.
I'm personally fond of ghouls/ghasts with civilized ghoulishness, however I wrote an alternative vampire template that's friendlier for PCs and NPCs of all levels which makes PC vampires easier to handle.
You've referenced this reworked vampire template a few times now. Have you posted it up before somewhere?
Way of the wicked has 5 feats to turn players into a vampire, as for the blood maybe he can collect the blood of his fallen foes or create a spell(if allowed) that creates magical blood(tastes awful but it does the job). Next create a magic item that uses this spell to create a font of ever flowing blood( if Dm allows custom magic items).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoever said undead can't be on the side of good clearly never told this guy about it!
|
|
Then she's not good no matter how many old ladies she may help across the street. Lack of empathy is a hallmark of evil.Their souls, that part of us that makes us human, is gone. That little voice in their head that tells them that killing is not okay is gone.Except, intelligent undead in pathfinder have souls - so this assertion is based on a false premise.
Text from magic jar:
(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)
Yes and no. That's flavor text first of all. It is therefore subject to be ignored or changed by any GM. Canonically in Golarion (at least as I understand it / roleplay it) is that ALL undead have souls. The soul is bound to the body as in it can't be judged by Pharasma, but it's kind of like (this analogy is my own) it's wrapped in chains and gagged at best (sentient undead) and it's in a coma at worst (non-sentient undead)
Now, when I say this I should say I do have an NPC in my games (when I do my own adventures, she's not in any APs I do any more than the Queen of Cheliax is in APs outside of Crimson Throne) that is a 'good' vampire. But, she's like I said above in my edited post. She's a 'serial killer'. She was a 'serial killer' for many years, and she always will be. She's good now by action and intelligent thought of what she remembers from life and based on others... but she doesn't really think there is anything wrong with killing a baby and drinking it's blood. She knows it's wrong intellectually, but not because she's got a conscience.
Maybe. But by the rules of Dungeons and Dragons helping old ladies across the street is a good act. No matter why you are doing it, you are doing it. By the RAW you are going to have an alignment shift.
I mean, I agree with you but now you are setting up for the "I hate alignment" crowd to come talk to us. :D
|
|
So in a novel by Dacre Stoker (Bram Stoker's great grandnephew), it's revealed that Dracula was actually a Good Guy all along, and the people he apparently killed in the original novel actually died for other reasons. The reason he came to England was to kill a vampirized Jack the Ripper (who is actually Countess Elizabeth Báthory in the novel).
Bathory is Jack the Ripper??? OMG I have to read this novel just to hear that theory!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and no. That's flavor text first of all. It is therefore subject to be ignored or changed by any GM.
Actually, that's rules text. It is describing what monsters magic jar will generally work on. It is very vague rules text, but it has direct applicability to the game.
You can houserule it away easily (and should, to match your setting), but it doesn't stop the fact that the pathfinder 'neutral' assumption has souls for intelligent undead.
Canonically in Golarion (at least as I understand it / roleplay it) is that ALL undead have souls. The soul is bound to the body as in it can't be judged by Pharasma, but it's kind of like (this analogy is my own) it's wrapped in chains and gagged at best (sentient undead) and it's in a coma at worst (non-sentient undead)
I'm failing to see the relevance of your previous post at this point. If you agree golarion has souled undead (as does the neutral pathfinder setting as shown above), why make a huge post about how undead are evil because they have no souls? You can't make an argument for why something is the way it is using a houserule you don't even follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vampires who kill their prey in Pathfinder are incredibly evil, mostly because it's wholly unnecessary.
Wanna know why you don't hear about all those people killed by neutral and good vampires? It's not because they don't exist, it's because they didn't kill anyone. >_>
1d4 con damage comes back in at most 4 days of natural healing. A vampire can feed on a human once per week and the human never have any serious harm come to them. The same vampire could feed on a different human every night and achieve the same result.
It's even less morally reprehensible than satyrs (who will use their pipes on you and then butt**** you and your children).
Or be a real pal, and put that boosted Charisma to use: carry a wand of Lesser Restoration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've referenced this reworked vampire template a few times now. Have you posted it up before somewhere?I have a third level Gnome Necromancy. He wants to become vampire/ undead, but I don't want to play him as Evil. How do I do that?Become a sentient undead and decide to be a good guy. It's that simple. Well, and make sure your GM is cool with monstrous races and whatever you plan to become.
I'm personally fond of ghouls/ghasts with civilized ghoulishness, however I wrote an alternative vampire template that's friendlier for PCs and NPCs of all levels which makes PC vampires easier to handle.
Nope, but I'll dig it up after I wake up today (about to hit the sack).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or be a real pal, and put that boosted Charisma to use: carry a wand of Lesser Restoration.Vampires who kill their prey in Pathfinder are incredibly evil, mostly because it's wholly unnecessary.
Wanna know why you don't hear about all those people killed by neutral and good vampires? It's not because they don't exist, it's because they didn't kill anyone. >_>
1d4 con damage comes back in at most 4 days of natural healing. A vampire can feed on a human once per week and the human never have any serious harm come to them. The same vampire could feed on a different human every night and achieve the same result.
It's even less morally reprehensible than satyrs (who will use their pipes on you and then butt**** you and your children).
One of the PCs using my revised vampire template (a tiefling vampire specifically) has been feeding on one of the other PCs regularly. Said PC has the psionic equivalent of lesser restoration so she (the non-vampire) takes one for her teammate each day or so during their downtime or traveling. During an adventure, the vampire usually has a buffet line trying to kill her party so it's less needed in those cases.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, compassionate feeding is easy.
There's even a 2nd level cleric, sorc/wiz, and witch spell "Transmute Wine to Blood."
In my campaign, vampires often hire a small entourage of personal assistants whose duties include feeding the vampire. Really a vampire only needs one or two such attendants depending on whether they can cast Lesser Restoration, but a large entourage can be a status symbol.
Of course, that can feel a bit exploitative to truly principled undead. One of the PCs was a dhampir whose nosferatu father is one of the best healers in the setting. He has sworn an oath to wander the earth, healing any who need it, exactly as long as mortals are willing to sustain his work with their own blood. And because he doesn't want to exploit the ill and their loved ones, he only accepts blood from those with no immediate personal need for healing. He... manages.
The dhampir PC in question was recently turned into a vampire himself. I made a powered-down "new vampire" rule which is not all that polished but works well enough in our high-powered game:
Weaknesses: You have the same aversion towards garlic, mirrors, and holy symbols that a vampire does, though you receive a +2 bonus on your Will save to overcome this revulsion. You require an invitation to enter a private dwelling. When exposed to direct sunlight or immersed in running water, you take d6 damage per round. This damage cannot be reduced by any means. As a coup-de-grace, an opponent can drive a wooden stake through your heart. If you are not killed outright by the coup-de-grace, you are still rendered completely immobile by the stake, and cannot heal by any means until it is removed.
Other Abilities: Blood Drain (as described in the Vampire template), Darkvision 60ft, Slam (d4). Your Slam attack does not cause energy drain.
Nosferatu: Gain also low-light vision and scent, and Claw (d6) instead of slam.
Every time you gain a level, you may select a vampire ability from the list below. More powerful abilities are available at higher levels:
Basic Powers (level 5-10):
Both – Spider Climb, Cold or Electricity Resist 10, +2 Nat AC (up to +6/+8), Channel Resistance +4, skill bonus or feat as described in the Vampire template.
Moroi – Children of the Night
Nosferatu – Telepathy, Sonic Resist 10
Advanced Powers (level 11-15):
Both – Full undead type (with full weaknesses + shadowless), Fast healing 1, Charming Gaze (Charm Person)
Moroi – Lesser Gaseous Form (1 round/level), Lesser Energy Drain, DR 10 (magic and silver)
Nosferatu – Lesser Telekinesis (3/day), Lesser Swarm Form (1 round/level), DR 5 (wood and piercing)
Highest Powers (level 16+):
Both – Fast healing 5, Dominate
Moroi – Energy Drain, Gaseous Form
Nosferatu – Swarm Form, Telekinesis
Note that Penumbral Cloaks (with a constant Protective Penumbra effect) are standard-issue to vampires in the campaign, so the sunlight weakness isn't a constant issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is if the DM would allow the OP to become a non-evil undead.
So far the Blood of the Night book has given good vampires as a possible option, so there's that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Undead Revisited, you can use a Contingency combined with Create Undead to self resurrect as a Skeleton Champion or as a Juju Zombie. Depending on GM, you might be able to swing templates onto the created undead.
How you go about dying is up to you.
It might temporarily skew your paper - alignment, but that has almost no bearing on anything but item use and trigger happy paladins. And a particularly trigger happy paladin might smite an undead just on principle, without checking alignment.
Combination overdose of unseen servant and unguent of timelessness. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Undead type by itself is extremely powerful after all. Slap the Undead type on a player character and call it a Vampire. Even without the additional benefits/weaknesses of the actual template (or anything you'd expect for a Vampire), it will still be vastly more powerful than before.
As someone who has extensive experience GMing for and playing as undead characters, their overall power is greatly exaggerated as many of their flaws are often overlooked.
Undead characters have the following disadvantages based on type.
* No Constitution / no negative HP threshold. Being undead is very frightening at low levels because you lack the negative HP buffer that most PCs have. If you're not some sort of regenerating undead, you very likely won't make it to 4th level.
* Can't be raised. Combined with the above, undead have a lot more reason to fear dying. Even at low levels, most parties can chip in to raise a character. You're expected to be able to find someone to raise you in any large city and it'll cost a little over 6000 gp for the raise dead + restoration. Undead characters need resurrection (which can often remove the fun aspect of their character - their undeath).
* Undead Type. The undead type itself is a pretty big weakness for most PCs because undead are immune to staple buffs that PCs use. Undead cannot benefit from morale/mind-affecting effects like heroism, Inspire Courage, etc, which are staple spells. They are also immune to things like Enlarge Person / Reduce Person. Further, the type comes with its own basket full of really awful weaknesses. There are many anti-undead effects in the game (command undead, halt undead, hide from undead, disrupting weapon, etc) and most are worse than the effects of those that target their living counterparts (halt undead doesn't provide a save each round like hold person/monster). Further, there is virtually no way to protect yourself against these spells save for spell immunity. Many neutral and/or evil clerics may also be able to command you on a bad save. You also happen to be a member of the largest creature type in the game. While encountering enemies with +1 elf-bane weapons probably doesn't happen much, +1 undead-bane or disruption weapons are so practical as for it to be commonplace.
If you happen to be a barbarian, being undead nerfs you superbad because your Rage bonuses are morale bonuses which you cannot benefit from anymore. While a number of rage powers will still function, your primary class feature just got destroyed (superstition doesn't even work anymore).
This isn't to say that undead don't have advantages. Their greatest advantage is their blanket immunity to non-object-affecting Fortitude-targeting effects as it prevents them from getting turned into a lawn ornament with things like flesh to stone and can immunize them to a few other irksome effects. The majority of their immunities mean the most at low levels where such effects are harder to come by (at higher levels, long term immunity to poison is trivial, mind blank lasts 24 hours, death ward is an every-encounter buff, etc).
This creates a humorous paradigm in which their immunities are super awesome at low levels when undead have to fear the almighty HP-damage, while at high levels when they're less likely to get gibbed quickly due to HP damage but their immunities also don't make them stand out much either next to normal races, while you have a plethora of special weaknesses unique to your type.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like my vampire template sans a shorthand note version is on my other PC (which currently refuses to boot up and I haven't had time to work on it) so I'm probably going to have to re-write the alternative vampire template I was using for my vampire vitalist (it'll take about an hour so I'll try to do it when I get home from work).
In the meantime I thought I'd share another simple mod-race that we used to represent another undead PC of mine, Anera ("Ani"), a failed lich. We dubbed it a "lichling" but "false lich" would work too. It's a modified version of the bloody skeleton template that is treated as a race itself.
Lichling
* Undead Type
* No Constitution, +2 Int, +2 Cha
* Darkvision 60 ft.
* 2 Claw attacks (1d4)
* +2 natural armor
* Fast Healing (1 per 2 HD, minimum 1)
* Channel Resistance +4
* Deathless (Su) A lichling is destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points, but it returns to unlife 1 hour later at 1 hit point, allowing its fast healing thereafter to resume healing it. A lichling can be permanently destroyed if it is destroyed by positive energy, if it is reduced to 0 hit points in the area of a bless or hallow spell, or if its remains are sprinkled with a vial of holy water.
For those who care, here is a link to the journal of her apprentice who attempted to transform her into a lich because of his devotion. The process failed because he was much too low a level to be trying to do it, which resulted in her rebirth as a 1st level lichling. Her mind was wiped in the process which lead to her adventuring to find out more about her past which she can't remember (she was actually quite evil before she became undead but after her life experiences were wiped away she took a different route).
|
|
Yes and no. That's flavor text first of all. It is therefore subject to be ignored or changed by any GM.
Actually, that's rules text. It is describing what monsters magic jar will generally work on. It is very vague rules text, but it has direct applicability to the game.
You can houserule it away easily (and should, to match your setting), but it doesn't stop the fact that the pathfinder 'neutral' assumption has souls for intelligent undead.
Canonically in Golarion (at least as I understand it / roleplay it) is that ALL undead have souls. The soul is bound to the body as in it can't be judged by Pharasma, but it's kind of like (this analogy is my own) it's wrapped in chains and gagged at best (sentient undead) and it's in a coma at worst (non-sentient undead)I'm failing to see the relevance of your previous post at this point. If you agree golarion has souled undead (as does the neutral pathfinder setting as shown above), why make a huge post about how undead are evil because they have no souls? You can't make an argument for why something is the way it is using a houserule you don't even follow.
Because it's not that the soul is there and active, it's that the soul is bound to the body and blocked from the afterlife. Doesn't mean that Create Undead and Raise Dead are the same spell. They aren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so... my take of it.
trying to exist as an undead or help undead, by the powers that be, is simply an evil act. because of this, just trying to not "die" as an undead is an evil act. this overshadows all their goodness, and no matter how hard they try, detect alignment will always say they're evil, and they will always be a smite target and be effected by spells as if they were evil.
it's kind of like how infernal healing works.
The only thing worse than a necro-thread is the datechecker calling out all the necro-threads. Thank you, date-checker man. You are making everyone's lives 'better' through obsessive detail-oriented behavior.
And the only thing worse than the guy calling out the necro-thread? The guy calling out that guy.
|
|
If only one thing is worse than thread necromancy, then how can something else be even worse than that thing? One of your two sentences must be a lie:PThe only thing worse than a necro-thread is the datechecker calling out all the necro-threads. Thank you, date-checker man. You are making everyone's lives 'better' through obsessive detail-oriented behavior.
And the only thing worse than the guy calling out the necro-thread? The guy calling out that guy.
The only thing worse than the guy who calls out that guy is the guy who calls out flawed logic.
:)