The description of how an unattended creature will act in the game is not part of the rules.
Or at least not when it disagrees with what you want.
That's not what I said, but whatever I guess.
|
Personally, I don't think using robots is evil nor that material supports that idea(to be fair, not many robots in setting). Unless of course they're self-aware, but at that point your screwed anyway if Terminator and I-Robot have taught me anything.
Creating a robot is not evil.
Using a corpse to create a robot...kind of evil.
Using a corpse to create a robot that if you leave unattended will seek out and kill living creatures...pretty evil.
Using "foul magic" to do this...also evil.
All of these things being declared by the good gods as abomination...really, really evil.
And raising undead is all of these things and more. Correct or incorrect?
|
|
Slavery is bad. Undead are mindless slaves. This is one of the several reasons why making undead is evil.1. Cool, so you agree that Dominate Person is inherently evil.
2. Well then, it's a good thing not all undead are mindless, nor are you required to keep them enslaved after creating them!
Using dominate person for evil is evil.
Using dominate person to capture someone rather than kill them, not evil.
So, since there are instances where dominate person is not evil, it is not inherently evil.
Can it be evil. Yes. Is it quite often, if not generally an evil thing to do?
Yes.
Are there times when Dominating someone is kinder to them than the alternative of killing them.
Yes.
You keep going back to this well, but there is not water there.
|
|
That's not what I said, but whatever I guess.The description of how an unattended creature will act in the game is not part of the rules.
Or at least not when it disagrees with what you want.
You said it was flavor and so not part of the rules and didn't apply.
I'm showing you why that logic is flawed.
But whatever...
And raising undead is all of these things and more. Correct or incorrect?
Incorrect. An undead under you control follows your orders indefinitely. If you order a zombie to stand still and do nothing he will stand still and do nothing until you set him free or another order is given by you or someone who wrestles control from you.
I'm showing you why that logic is flawed.
But whatever...
Your putting words in my mouth and being disrespectful. You can't prove someone's logic is flawed by changing what they said, that's no longer their logic. I never said 'unless it disagrees with me'. Your intent on making a strawman out of me.
|
|
And raising undead is all of these things and more. Correct or incorrect?Incorrect. An undead under you control follows your orders indefinitely. If you order a zombie to stand still and do nothing he will stand still and do nothing until you set him free or another order is given by you or someone who wrestles control from you.
And if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
|
|
Your putting words in my mouth and being disrespectful. You can't prove someone's logic is flawed by changing what they said, that's no longer their logic. I never said 'unless it disagrees with me'. Your intent on making a strawman out of me.I'm showing you why that logic is flawed.
But whatever...
I'm sorry my using the same closing sentence toward you that you used toward me is disrespectful.
Clearly you didn't intend disrespect when you used it toward me...
if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.
|
|
It is slavery. I said mindless slavery.
Are you arguing african slaves were mindless?
You don't actually read your own posts, do you?
You think forcing a living horse to labor for you on pain of torture, starvation, and death is not slavery, but forcing a dead horse that can't feel pain to labor for you is slavery.
Which of these two is an enslaved human more like? The living horse that fears pain or starvation or the dead horse that has all the capacity to suffer of a pocket calculator?
I noticed you didn't include the quote, because there was no reference to pain or torture before.
But magically it appears in your strawman!
Torture is evil. Slavery is evil. Raising undead corpses to act as your mindless slave until they escape and feast on the living is evil.
But commanding those corpses isn't. Well, not inherently, because you could command them not to do the evil things they would do naturally because...well...they are evil.
In the same way dominating an evil person to stop them from doing evil is an application of dominate person that could be good.
But creating or summoning an evil creature into the world...evil.
|
|
Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using dominate person to capture someone rather than kill them, not evil.
No, sir. Mind-rape is always evil. Using your mind-rape for good doesn't change the fact that it is mind-rape. The fact that you can justify it in any way as not evil makes me question your morality as a human being.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using dominate person to capture someone rather than kill them, not evil.No, sir. Mind-rape is always evil. Using your mind-rape for good doesn't change the fact that it is mind-rape. The fact that you can justify it in any way as not evil makes me question your morality as a human being.
I love how you want dominate to have an evil descriptor but not animate dead.
How about you make a "Designate compulsion spells as evil because they are mind rape" thread.
See how that goes for you.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
No, its not because it doesn't work with my argument, its because it is fluff. The ecology is how something thinks and acts and suggestions on where to place them and combat tactics. However rules will override that. A mindless undead under your control follow your orders indefinitely, they don't stop when unattended. They do stop when you free them, and at that point they are npcs under your GMs control and he's free to use their ecology. The idea that undead you are controlling are free of your control when your sleeping or not watching is definitely not a rule.
Also, once again, since you decided to ignore me before, stop comparing Undead to Fiends.
Let me quote myself so you won't have to look:
Ugh, I'm getting tired of the comparison to fiends, honestly.
Undead are tied to negative energy, which is explicitly not evil.
Fiends are tied to the energy of whatever plane they come from (Abyss, Hell, etc.) all of which are explicitly evil.That's the difference.
If the devs straight up said that negative energy was evil energy and stuck the [Evil] tag on all spells that used it, we wouldn't have a discussion.
They chose not to do that. Which is why we have a discussion.
|
|
Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
A fire, when left unattended, may burn a house down and kill the people, if any, that are inside.
Fire is mindless.
Fire is not evil.
If you disagree with either of those facts, you're beyond help. But, when a fire is attended and controlled, it does whatever it's made to do (usually to heat stuff). A zombie is the same way.
Fire is a chemical (I think) reaction, not a creature that, and I quote, "...tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
Using dominate person to capture someone rather than kill them, not evil.No, sir. Mind-rape is always evil. Using your mind-rape for good doesn't change the fact that it is mind-rape. The fact that you can justify it in any way as not evil makes me question your morality as a human being.I love how you want dominate to have an evil descriptor but not animate dead.
How about you make a "Designate compulsion spells as evil because they are mind rape" thread.
See how that goes for you.
The entire school of Enchantment is far more evil than the entire school of Necromancy.
Any time you use magic to force someone to do something against their normal morals or will, it's mind-rape.
I promise you, the corpse has no objection to being raised or not. It's just a corpse after all.
Well... Did we go off topic again?
Someone needs to make that thread just to spite ciretose.
Ever feel like you just stopped being productive to let one person argue with everyone else?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fire also tends to mill about in search of flammable matter (including living creatures) to slaughter and burn, and spread, having no regard for their own safety.Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
A fire, when left unattended, may burn a house down and kill the people, if any, that are inside.
Fire is mindless.
Fire is not evil.
If you disagree with either of those facts, you're beyond help. But, when a fire is attended and controlled, it does whatever it's made to do (usually to heat stuff). A zombie is the same way.
Fire is a chemical (I think) reaction, not a creature that, and I quote, "...tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
Does that mean spraying water on it is as racist as using cleaner on mildew?
|
|
Someone needs to make that thread just to spite ciretose.Ever feel like you just stopped being productive to let one person argue with everyone else?
I think most rational people just eyerolled and put this thread on ignore and hoped it went away.
I prefer to get people to keep talking so they reveal themselves.
Does that mean spraying water on [fire] is as racist as using cleaner on mildew?
I told you to stop making light of real world social problems.
|
|
Does that mean spraying water on [fire] is as racist as using cleaner on mildew?I told you to stop making light of real world social problems.
And I (and the book) told you raising undead was evil.
I would be more bothered by the casual tossing around of "rape", or someone saying that killing orcs is racist.
But feel free to keep telling me things.
I'll keep "listening"
Someone needs to make that thread just to spite ciretose.Using dominate person to capture someone rather than kill them, not evil.No, sir. Mind-rape is always evil. Using your mind-rape for good doesn't change the fact that it is mind-rape. The fact that you can justify it in any way as not evil makes me question your morality as a human being.I love how you want dominate to have an evil descriptor but not animate dead.
How about you make a "Designate compulsion spells as evil because they are mind rape" thread.
See how that goes for you.
Done ;)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q52p?They-should-designate-compulsion-spells-a s#1
Does that mean spraying water on it is as racist as using cleaner on mildew?Fire also tends to mill about in search of flammable matter (including living creatures) to slaughter and burn, and spread, having no regard for their own safety.Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
A fire, when left unattended, may burn a house down and kill the people, if any, that are inside.
Fire is mindless.
Fire is not evil.
If you disagree with either of those facts, you're beyond help. But, when a fire is attended and controlled, it does whatever it's made to do (usually to heat stuff). A zombie is the same way.
Fire is a chemical (I think) reaction, not a creature that, and I quote, "...tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
A ridiculous assertion: Neither Fire nor Zombies are a "race."
|
|
Fire isn't 'mindless' it's not even a creature.
If I use fire to fight fire it does not become water.
If I use EVIL to fight EVIL it does not become GOOD.
Animate Dead creates evil and as such is in evil spell.
Summon Monster can summon evil and then becomes an evil spell.
If you create EVIL for any reason it's evil. You could have all the intentions of saving the world with that EVIL but it wouldn't matter.
Lets say you die and your undead minions are suddenly set loose upon the world. Will the innocent victims be any less dead because of your intentions? Not a chance.
Evil and Good are just words but in the Pathfinder and DnD settings is has essence and directly affects the world in many ways. And when a character brings more of that into the world they are committing to using evil because it's convenient for them. Which is at best a Neutral. Or because it's EVIL and so are they.
So Yes playing a good Necromancer that raises undead is impossible. But there are many non-EVIL Necro. spells that you could use instead. Like Command Undead. Not Evil.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
Creature incapable of moral action are Neutral. Undead even mindless undead that are evil are capable of moral action and are evil because of it.
|
|
Now what about making (non-mindless) undead is "creating evil"?
Other than the fact that they are evil? Nothing.
But the fact that they are evil is pretty much the only thing that matters.
When you take something and create something evil out of it, that is evil.
When that was a living creature you created something evil out of, that is even more evil.
As to creating non-mindless undead that aren't evil, we established above Ghouls are evil. What do you have in mind for your not evil sentient undead that you created using "foul magic"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The necromancer can make the argument to themselves.
It is rational
It is a reasonable conclusion
Its a realistic belief to hold.
It is however objectively wrong.
|
|
Its not a bold claim its in the book. I infact quoted it. If mindless unded were incapable of moral action they would be neutral. Why would a zombie actively seek to slaughter people if it were incapable of taking that action?
Show me a non-evil undead you CAN create. Then you could houserule that specific instance were not evil.
Your not using the essence of evil to do it. The action of the spell won't be evil the act of killing babys would regardless of what you used to do it.
|
|
A ridiculous assertion: Neither Fire nor Zombies are a "race."Does that mean spraying water on it is as racist as using cleaner on mildew?Fire also tends to mill about in search of flammable matter (including living creatures) to slaughter and burn, and spread, having no regard for their own safety.Your child isn't an undead or a robot. When I leave my TV unattended he doesn't walk off, change channels, or do whatever he wants. My toaster doesn't try to toast when I'm gone. If I had a (mindless not self aware) robot named Steve he probably wouldn't hunt down the living when I sleep. He might vacuum for eternity if I told him to vacuum until I told him to stop however.if you aren't around to control them, they are unattended.
If you are asleep, they are unattended.
My child listens to me, when I'm around. She does otherwise when she is unattended.
But apparently, by rule, if you leave a Zombie unattended it wanders off to feast on the living.
But since that doesn't work with your argument, you say it is fluff...
A fire, when left unattended, may burn a house down and kill the people, if any, that are inside.
Fire is mindless.
Fire is not evil.
If you disagree with either of those facts, you're beyond help. But, when a fire is attended and controlled, it does whatever it's made to do (usually to heat stuff). A zombie is the same way.
Fire is a chemical (I think) reaction, not a creature that, and I quote, "...tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
Which was my point...
Zombies exist to kill the living. If unattended, it is what they do.
Fire exists as a result of a chemical reaction.
Comparing Zombies to fire is like comparing a Zombie to a Baking Soda Volcano.
|
|
Let us imagine for a moment that Animate Undead loses its Evil descriptor.
The main consequence is that Clerics of Good deities can now freely cast it. I must say that it does sound very wrong compared to what we know of the Golarion setting, for example.
And if it is okay for Clerics of Good deities to animate dead bodies and create skeletons and zombies, why bar them from summoning devils or demons ?
Next on the line to lose the Evil descriptor should be Summon Monsters (Evil). Which one next for descriptor redemption ?
And if it is okay for Clerics of Good deities to animate dead bodies and create skeletons and zombies, why bar them from summoning devils or demons ?
Here thar' be Slippery slope fallacy?
|
|
but if Animals can feed on the living and be neutral, so can a mindless Zombie incapable or moral choice.the only reason mindless undead are even evil, is so a Paladin can smite them.
Is that so ? I would have thought that staying close to the VERY classic trope of evil unintelligent undead would have been a stronger factor.
if any use of Animate Dead is evil, no matter how good the intent by sheer means of the evil descriptor
then by that same logic
any use of Holy Word is good by it's sheer descriptor, even slaughtering groups of small children.
but if it is about intent, and using a good spell to kill children becomes evil, then using a spell to animate corpses to punish evil, should logically be good by intent.
i cannot stand this double standard.
It is not a double standard. It is 2 opportunities for assessing alignment.
First one is what kind of spell you cast (evil, good or neutral=no descriptor).
Second one is what you do with this spell. You can cast a good spell (good act) for evil purpose. Just as you can cast an evil spell (evil act) for good purpose. It does not make casting the spell any less good or evil, but it can change the overall result.
The means do matter in PFRPG. Not only the ends.
why is it? that one creature type incapable of moral decisions? is evil and the rest neutral? Zombies and Skeletons, being incapable of alignment, should be just as neutral as animals and constructs.
there is a lot of fictional and mythological precedent, for non-evil undead. the egyptian mummies who guard the tombs, the various vampires in a variety of romance novels whom fall in love with mortals, and even, a recent movie about a zombie who finds love and is reborn.
There are MANY MORE precedents for evil undead. Note also that being evil does not prevent you from falling in love. Even though Desna is NG, Love is not reserved for non-evil creatures.
Finally, your last point actually strengthens the zombie = evil, since apparently part of its redemption is that it is reborn (ie, no more an undead).
|
|
And if it is okay for Clerics of Good deities to animate dead bodies and create skeletons and zombies, why bar them from summoning devils or demons ?Here thar' be Slippery slope fallacy?
I do mean it. There have been many posters arguing that Animate Dead should lose the evil descriptor because you can use the undead for many good results.
Thing is, is it not possible to use the exact same argument for summoning evil outsiders ? And it would be even stronger as they disappear after the act.
So what is the difference here ?