To Justify Necromancy


Advice

701 to 750 of 801 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

The black raven wrote:
MrSin wrote:
The black raven wrote:
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 ?

Undead are not always evil. Demons and devils are. That is the difference.

EDIT: If creating Evil creatures is inherently evil (which makes sense), then creating Good creatures should be inherently Good.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:
The black raven wrote:

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 ?

Devils and Demons are outsiders--their alignment is fixed. Undead, at least under the Pathfinder rules as written, are not required to be evil.

There are rare cases of non-evil even good demons or devils. Just as there are rare cases of non-evil undead. Why the difference ?

137ben wrote:
The black raven wrote:

There are MANY MORE precedents for evil undead.

Not if you go outside of modern Western Europe.

Cute. I will be happy to tell the Japanese, the Chinese, the Romans, the medieval people that their Yurei, Gaki, Hungry Ghosts, lemures, vampyrs and nosferatu being evil undead is a modern western european affectation.

I do not know much about the native american, hawaiian or african mythologies, but I am willing to bet that they have their share of evil undead too.


The black raven wrote:
So what is the difference here ?

To be honest i'm not a big fan of the summon monster line affecting your alignment either, but there is a large difference between outsiders and undead. Outsiders have the subtype of of their alignments. Devils for instance also have Lawful, Extraplanar, and Evil subtypes no matter what the devil is. Undead have... Undead type. Devils are also always intelligent, while undead are not always intelligent. In particular, zombies and skeletons are the ones who are weird for having an alignment even though they have no mind to decide and while under the control of a spell caster really don't do anything but what the spell caster says. If it was stated undead were always evil that would make more sense, but its more of a setting thing that leaks into core.


The black raven wrote:
137ben wrote:
The black raven wrote:

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 ?

Devils and Demons are outsiders--their alignment is fixed. Undead, at least under the Pathfinder rules as written, are not required to be evil.

There are rare cases of non-evil even good demons or devils. Just as there are rare cases of non-evil undead. Why the difference ?

There aren't "rare cases" of non-evil undead, there are virtually no rules that say, or even suggest, that almost all, or even most undead are evil. As far as I can tell, you just made that up.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:

Uh, I just quoted the rule for you straight from the bestiary: intelligent creatures do not have fixed alignment unless they are outsiders. Undead are not outsiders, so they can be good.

I never disagreed with that either. What I'm saying is that there is not a spell that creates a non-evil undead that a PC can cast. In the rules.

I can see a ghost for instance not being evil. And if there was a spell that created a non-evil ghost and the spell wasn't an evil spell than it wouldn't be evil.

But Animate Dead, Created Undead, Summon Monster(Evil) and Summon Undead are all evil. And make Evil creatures. Objectively because the rules say the spell is. What you do after that could be evil or good. If you wan't it to be not evil make a new spell.

If I were a crippled old man and I used an Undead Minotaur to save a village I could be Good aligned.(Subjectively) If I used the Animate Spell to do it I would have committed an evil act to get there. (Objectively)


Since it was brought up, here's a note on weirdness of Calling spells:
Back in 3.5, outsiders 'killed' outside of their home plane were not killed, they just reformed on their home plane. But now, in PF, they are actually killed (unless they were summoned, because summoned creatures aren't actually there).
Which means now, it is possible to Call an outsider with planar binding/gate for the express purpose of killing it. Take your adventuring party somewhere far away from civilization, buff up, then Call a balor and kill it. You haven't created or used an evil creature at all, you've just moved an evil creature from one place to another. Then you've killed it. You have actually decreased the amount of evil in the universe.
Of course, there's a risk that it could somehow escape, which is why you do it far away from civilization. Preferably on your own private demiplane.
Now turn it around. The Arch devils can get together in Nessus and call demogorgon. Nine on one, they should have no trouble taking him out--action economy and all that, not to mention them being in their own lair, and him not being in his own lair.
Repeat with the other demon princes. That would given them a huge lead in the blood war.
Not to mention the fun the archdevils would have binding solars to torture and kill. There would have to be something preventing this for the world to make sense (e.g., outsiders are arbitrarily not capable of calling outsiders of a different subtype). But that still wouldn't stop mortals from calling and immediately killing demons/daemons/devils.


137Ben wrote:
.you do realize that he made no argument whatsoever, right? He just stated that he thought other people were wrong, and gave no rational, evidence, or explanation.

Animate Dead

School necromancy ----->[evil]<-----; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4

All the objective evidence, rational, and explanation you should need.

You are making a utilitarian argument in a morally objective universe. Good and evil aren't only the results of your actions, they are very real, objectively existing forces. You are taking the very essence of evil and stuffing it into a meat patty in the shape of a person in an unholy mockery of life: it doesn't matter WHAT you do with it after that point you've committed an evil act. If you use them to save school children then you've committed an evil act and a good one.

Things aren't always balanced.

a - times a - is a positive.
a + times a + is a positive
a - times a - is a negative.

A good act for good is a good act
A good act for evil is evil
And an evil act for good is still evil.

Who do you have to justify necromancy to? Its more than justifiable enough to the necromancer. If you think that your arguments are so compelling that good clerics, paladins, and the gods themselves must cede their positions well.. you're out of luck.


Flashohol wrote:
137ben wrote:

Uh, I just quoted the rule for you straight from the bestiary: intelligent creatures do not have fixed alignment unless they are outsiders. Undead are not outsiders, so they can be good.

I never disagreed with that either. What I'm saying is that there is not a spell that creates a non-evil undead that a PC can cast. In the rules.

I can see a ghost for instance not being evil. And if there was a spell that created a non-evil ghost and the spell wasn't an evil spell than it wouldn't be evil.

All non-mindless undead can be good by RAW, and nothing in the spell description of any spell (except Animate Dead, which only creates mindless undead) that says you can only create evil undead, so by RAW, Create Undead can make good undead.

Quote:

But Animate Dead, Created Undead, Summon Monster(Evil) and Summon Undead are all evil. And make Evil creatures. Objectively because the rules say the spell is. What you do after that could be evil or good. If you wan't it to be not evil make a new spell.

If I were a crippled old man and I used an Undead Minotaur to save a village I could be Good aligned.(Subjectively) If I used the Animate Spell to do it I would have committed an evil act to get there. (Objectively)

You're basically just saying it's evil because it's evil, and it makes evil creatures that are evil because they're evil.

Which is what started this thread: the rules assign create undead the [Evil] descriptor. They don't make any attempt to justify how creating a good undead is an Evil act, they just say it has the [Evil] descriptor for no reason. That is what this thread is about: trying to figure out why something was randomly assigned an alignment descriptor when there isn't any reason to give it such a descriptor rather than giving it to, say, boneshatter.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
137Ben wrote:
.you do realize that he made no argument whatsoever, right? He just stated that he thought other people were wrong, and gave no rational, evidence, or explanation.

Animate Dead

School necromancy ----->[evil]<-----; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4

All the objective evidence, rational, and explanation you should need.

You are making a utilitarian argument in a morally objective universe. Good and evil aren't only the results of your actions, they are very real, objectively existing forces. You are taking the very essence of evil and stuffing it into a meat patty in the shape of a person in an unholy mockery of life: it doesn't matter WHAT you do with it after that point you've committed an evil act. If you use them to save school children then you've committed an evil act and a good one.

Things aren't always balanced.

a - times a - is a positive.
a + times a + is a positive
a - times a - is a negative.

A good act for good is a good act
A good act for evil is evil
And an evil act for good is still evil.

Who do you have to justify necromancy to? Its more than justifiable enough to the necromancer. If you think that your arguments are so compelling that good clerics, paladins, and the gods themselves must cede their positions well.. you're out of luck.

Oh, so you aren't actually interested in examining the rational behind the rules, you just want to mechanically look at the rule and treat it as a divine message.

Well, if you care so much about RAW Cannot Be Wrong And You Should Obsess Over RAW Just Because, then RAW doesn't actually say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act--it is just a house rule. And once you've opened the door to house rules, people get to discuss whether your house rule is a good rule or not, or whether it makes sense. But if you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and yell at people who try to make the rules make sense then you shouldn't be assuming [Evil] spells are evil, since it technically isn't RAW and you've rejected trying to interpret the rules rationally.
And, on that note, if you've rejected rationally interpreting the rules, and don't want to try to see how/if they make sense, then you aren't really taking part in this discussion, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Things aren't always balanced.

a - times a - is a positive.
a + times a + is a positive
a - times a - is a negative.

Um... that's not true. I assume you meant positive times negative.

Anyway, if you are going to appeal to properties of multiplication on ordered rings as an analogy, then you would have to also conclude that performing an evil act for the sake of evil is in fact good.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

a - times a - is a positive.

a + times a + is a positive
a - times a - is a negative.

A good act for good is a good act
A good act for evil is evil
And an evil act for good is still evil.

I'm not sure if actual math should apply to theories about morality, table top or no. In particular multiplication when addition is probably a better measure.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
The black raven wrote:
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?

Actually isn't that exactly what you have argued for in several threads now?

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:
The black raven wrote:

There are MANY MORE precedents for evil undead.

Not if you go outside of modern Western Europe.

Undead, not spirits.


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
The black raven wrote:
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?
Actually isn't that exactly what you have argued for in several threads now?

No, it actually isn't.


137ben wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
The black raven wrote:
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?
Actually isn't that exactly what you have argued for in several threads now?
No, it actually isn't.

Ditto.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:


All non-mindless undead can be good by RAW, and nothing in the spell description of any spell (except Animate Dead, which only creates mindless undead) that says you can only create evil undead, so by RAW, Create Undead can make good undead.

Yes. You 'could' have an undead that is good. The bestiary doesn't. And I don't see where you can change the undeads alignment in the rules. That is up to the DM.

Show me a good undead. Not an undead that 'could' be good.

137ben wrote:

You're basically just saying it's evil because it's evil, and it makes evil creatures that are evil because they're evil.

Which is what started this thread: the rules assign create undead the [Evil] descriptor. They don't make any attempt to justify how creating a good undead is an Evil act, they just say it has the [Evil] descriptor for no reason. That is what this thread is about: trying to figure out why something was randomly assigned an alignment descriptor when there isn't any reason to give it such a descriptor rather than giving it to, say, boneshatter.

Yes. Exactly I am. Objectively.

Objective Morality wrote:
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2."

Good and Evil are sometimes Objective in Pathfinder. There are literally rules for it. If you don't want to follow them then feel free.


ciretose wrote:


The "mind control" isn't "The" issue any more than arguing rape is evil because it involves sex, and sex is sin.

If the mind control isn't the issue, stop mentioning it. If you have to constantly mention irrelevant stuff, your argument is weak.

Also, the spell that scrapes the flesh from bones is not evil despite it always "defiling" a corpse. Not that you have defined what is "defiling" a corpse and not. Is cremation evil because it's defiling? Is what is defiling cultural? Is it defiling regardless of what type of corpse it is?

Is it defiling a chicken corpse to eat the flesh?

Using "defiling" as an argument is weak at best, to the point where it's irrelevant.

So, if we remove that, what you are saying is basically:

changed quotation wrote:
There are zero scenarios where infusing a corspe with evil magic is not evil.

And I can agree with that. It's also a circular argument. Which is okay in an arbitrarily defined fantasy world, but it should be recognized as such. Animate dead is evil because it's evil because it's evil. Not because it defiles a corpse because loads of stuff does that without being evil. Not because it mind controls stuff because loads of stuff does that without being evil. Not because it animates stuff because come on that by itself is in no way evil.

The reason why it's evil to animate a zombie cow to fight off invading goblins is because the magic itself is evil. It is evil because the book states it is. Trying to justify it with all these talk about enslavement (which is not necessarily evil, again dominate person), "defiling" corpses (which is not necessarily evil, eating the cow isn't) or that it's "unnatural" (see wiki link) is not only unnecessary, it's also futile. Heck, I agree with your stance that it's evil and even I realize this discussion isn't going anywhere.


137ben wrote:
Oh, so you aren't actually interested in examining the rational behind the rules, you just want to mechanically look at the rule and treat it as a divine message.

You are mockingly ascribing to me a position I did not take. Knock it off. First of all its ludicrous to think that justifying a point one way precludes you from justifying it other ways. Secondly even a cursory examination of what I said demonstrates that I'm not limiting the discussion to strict raw.

You are taking the very essence of evil and stuffing it into a meat patty in the shape of a person in an unholy mockery of life: it doesn't matter WHAT you do with it after that point you've committed an evil act. If you use them to save school children then you've committed an evil act and a good one. <---- here, since you missed it the first time. This is the in universe rational for the rule.

An out of game consideration is the fight between good and evil. Land dispossessed orcs, good drow, and kobold baby orphans can blur the line between the two when some stories, players, and dm's occasionally want clear black and white lines between good and evil. Sometimes thats what the story is about, and sometimes bob just finished a double shift at a crummy job and wants sir brightblade to be able to SMASH THINGS with his admantite +5 holy greatsword without any risk of falling for taking out casper the friendly ghost.

Quote:
Well, if you care so much about RAW Cannot Be Wrong And You Should Obsess Over RAW Just Because, then RAW doesn't actually say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act--it is just a house rule.

It is not. It says so right in the magic chapter

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment , and so on.

And from a developer, pointing out the blatantly obvious

According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.

Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...

If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

How else is an [evil] spell supposed to affect your alignment, which the magic chapter says outright it does?

Its not by "sheer force of will" its by definition.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

How else is an [evil] spell supposed to affect your alignment, which the magic chapter says outright it does?

Its not by "sheer force of will" its by definition.

No, the magic chapter does not say that the spell descriptors affect alignment. It says:

CRB wrote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

It is true that the [evil] descriptor interacts with alignment (that is, "good" clerics can't cast [evil] spells), but it does not say that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, or causes someone to change alignment solely for casting the [evil] spell.

It's not by definition, but rather by an assumption about what the [evil] and [good] descriptors mean.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

How else is an [evil] spell supposed to affect your alignment, which the magic chapter says outright it does?

Its not by "sheer force of will" its by definition.

No, the magic chapter does not say that the spell descriptors affect alignment. It says:

CRB wrote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

It is true that the [evil] descriptor interacts with alignment (that is, "good" clerics can't cast [evil] spells), but it does not say that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, or causes someone to change alignment solely for casting the [evil] spell.

It's not by definition, but rather by an assumption about what the [evil] and [good] descriptors mean.

The evil spell interacts with your alignment: if you are a neutral wizard it interacts with your alignment. How else would it do that except making you more evilly aligned?

Its not an assumption its a conclusion based on whats there. A conclusion backed up by the person who wrote the freaking thing

The definition of assumption is NOT "whatever i disagree with". I mean seriously, it says evil right on it. Its like tryinig to figure out how you got lung cancer after smoking CancerStix© brand cigarettes.


Magic Butterfly wrote:
Planescape's Dustmen had a really neat take on this. Basically they had people sign a contract by which they were paid money in life so that the Dustmen could animate their Corpses as mindless undead labourers in death. Nothing inherently evil according to that setting (Dusties were N I believe). The people were fully aware of what they were condensing to and were fairly compensated, and presumably the money improves their lives. Certainly not something objectionable to a lawful character like a paladin.

I second this.. if you compensate the living person for their body rights after death... or work with the gm for a "ritual" you could perform over the body to "purify/make amends" so you could use the undead in the war against evil/ whatever.. I don't think a party could really object much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, first off, when it comes to the rules, no arguing will bring Ashiel's statements above SKR's because SKR decides on the rules, Ashiel doesn't.

Secondly, that is not the only source of it being evil. One of the other books (that I don't have, but I think it was Faiths of Golarion?) stated explicitly than in pathfinder RPG, casting an evil spell is a minor act of evil. NOT that in Golarion it's an evil act, but in Pathfinder RPG itself.

So we have a core book description that says alignment descriptors interact with alignment, a developer further detailing that as it being an aligned action, and a book detailing the same thing.

There's no way we're going to have a "casting evil spells is not evil" thing here that will lead to anything. If we just had the core rulebook and nothing else it might be debatable but with the additions it's crystal clear, and no arguing by rules lawyers will make it any different.

What we _can_ have meaningful discussions about would be stuff like "is it good that it is that way?", "what consequences would house ruling it away have?", "exactly how evil should it be considered", "how can one integrate a character that repeatedly and consistently performs minor acts of evil into a good/neutral party with potentially very strong-willed good characters (the OP's actual question)" and so on.


Grollub wrote:
Magic Butterfly wrote:
Planescape's Dustmen had a really neat take on this. Basically they had people sign a contract by which they were paid money in life so that the Dustmen could animate their Corpses as mindless undead labourers in death. Nothing inherently evil according to that setting (Dusties were N I believe). The people were fully aware of what they were condensing to and were fairly compensated, and presumably the money improves their lives. Certainly not something objectionable to a lawful character like a paladin.
I second this.. if you compensate the living person for their body rights after death... or work with the gm for a "ritual" you could perform over the body to "purify/make amends" so you could use the undead in the war against evil/ whatever.. I don't think a party could really object much.

I would like to note a few things on this:

1. While the faction as a whole rated as neutral, that does not mean all the faction members where neutral.
2. A character or group can repeatedly do evil actions and still be neutral, if it's compensated by doing other good actions - the dustmen did after all take care of everyone's dead, free of charge.
3. In the Planescape: Torment game (minor spoiler alert), which was generally well-recieved by Planescape fans so it's not some very off thingy, there is actually a plot/sidequest relating to a person who contracts away their body due to being poor but afterwards feels very very bad about the choice. The dustman responsible for the contract, while not having a large EVIL sign over their head, clearly feels more likely to end up in Hell than in Mechanus (does LN deads even go to mechanus?).

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

a - times a - is a positive.

a + times a + is a positive
a - times a - is a negative.

A good act for good is a good act
A good act for evil is evil
And an evil act for good is still evil.

I'm not sure if actual math should apply to theories about morality, table top or no. In particular multiplication when addition is probably a better measure.

Just your gut. No one elses, just yours....Truthiness for the...

Liberty's Edge

Ilja wrote:
ciretose wrote:


The "mind control" isn't "The" issue any more than arguing rape is evil because it involves sex, and sex is sin.

If the mind control isn't the issue, stop mentioning it. If you have to constantly mention irrelevant stuff, your argument is weak.

Also, the spell that scrapes the flesh from bones is not evil despite it always "defiling" a corpse. Not that you have defined what is "defiling" a corpse and not. Is cremation evil because it's defiling? Is what is defiling cultural? Is it defiling regardless of what type of corpse it is?

Is it defiling a chicken corpse to eat the flesh?

Using "defiling" as an argument is weak at best, to the point where it's irrelevant.

So, if we remove that, what you are saying is basically:

changed quotation wrote:
There are zero scenarios where infusing a corspe with evil magic is not evil.

And I can agree with that. It's also a circular argument. Which is okay in an arbitrarily defined fantasy world, but it should be recognized as such. Animate dead is evil because it's evil because it's evil. Not because it defiles a corpse because loads of stuff does that without being evil. Not because it mind controls stuff because loads of stuff does that without being evil. Not because it animates stuff because come on that by itself is in no way evil.

The reason why it's evil to animate a zombie cow to fight off invading goblins is because the magic itself is evil. It is evil because the book states it is. Trying to justify it with all these talk about enslavement (which is not necessarily evil, again dominate person), "defiling" corpses (which is not necessarily evil, eating the cow isn't) or that it's "unnatural" (see wiki link) is not only unnecessary, it's also futile. Heck, I agree with your stance that it's evil and even I realize this discussion isn't going anywhere.

It isn't the entire issue. It is part of the issue. You aren't restoring someone to life. You are stealing someones body to make an undead abomination that is under your control.

Would it still be evil if it weren't your slave. Yes. Is it more evil because it is.

Yes.

The reason why you did something evil doesn't change the fact that you did something evil.

The point about slavery comes from the fact that someone said slavery is evil. Enslaving someones undead body would then be evil.

Is that the only thing that is evil about it.

No.

The vast number of things that are evil about it is why it is an evil spell rather than a spell that can be used for evil.

Liberty's Edge

Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.


BigNorseWolf, Grollub, and Ilja,

RAW, the spell descriptors "have no game effect by themselves." They do things like determine metamagic application or what alignments restrict certain divine casters. But it does not state within the rules that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act anymore then casting a [cold] spell or a [acid] spell is a cold or acid act.

Now, I don't really buy the argument that just because SKR is an employee of Paizo, that suddenly anything he says is RAW. Just because he argues for something, his association with Paizo doesn't automatically impart some divine force of will which overrides RAW.

Further, the rules being presented here are a product of multiple writers and game developers. To suggest that the words of one man are to override whatever consensus emerges in the development process that creates RAW suggests that there is not an actual consensus process at all.

Ilja specifically,

If the book is titled "Faiths of Golarion"? How is that a source for determining how the core rules work? Because it sounds like it is Golarion specific (which is part of the discussion here, so is somewhat apropos).

I really don't understand what you arguing in your fourth paragraph. But I agree with you in the last paragraph. It seems that these are all excellent places to discuss variable Core Rules interpretations and house rules.

In the latter case, our home rule set includes changes to how alignment is done. First, all intelligent characters (even outsiders) can have variable alignment. Second, anything with an Int less than three has a neutral alignment. Also, for related reasons, classes no longer suffer from alignment restrictions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Liberty's Edge

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Who is using the double standard. I specifically pointed out how it is GM decision if the Deity will allow Holy Word to work if using it violates the code of conduct required by her god, which would presumable be Good if the character is good.

You can't use holy word to do evil, if the deity does not allow it (divine power is granted) and you can't use it to kill anything that is good.

If I wrote it I probably would have made it only work on evil, but I can see why they added neutral, since neutral is capable of doing evil.

It does not work on good.

Liberty's Edge

Annabel wrote:

BigNorseWolf, Grollub, and Ilja,

RAW, the spell descriptors "have no game effect by themselves." They do things like determine metamagic application or what alignments restrict certain divine casters. But it does not state within the rules that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act anymore then casting a [cold] spell or a [acid] spell is a cold or acid act.

Now, I don't really buy the argument that just because SKR is an employee of Paizo, that suddenly anything he says is RAW. Just because he argues for something, his association with Paizo doesn't automatically impart some divine force of will which overrides RAW.

He literally writes the rules. He literally wrote the book on the Gods.

Literally, he is the one who wrote it. When you quote Rule as Written, much of the written is him writing it. If you say you think it means something, and he, as the person writing it, says you misunderstood, you are wrong.

Every. Single. Time.

Not some employee. The person who has written pretty much everything about the Gods of Golarion since the beginning.

If you don't care what the people who wrote the rules tell you the rules mean, I'm not sure what there is to discuss about the rules.

You don't like them. But there is nothing you've said so far that makes me think your position is in any way better than the people I have paid a good deal of money over the last few years.

They are saying undead abominations are evil and making them is evil.

Which you know, makes a lot more sense than what you seem to be selling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
Now, I don't really buy the argument that just because SKR is an employee of Paizo, that suddenly anything he says is RAW. Just because he argues for something, his association with Paizo doesn't automatically impart some divine force of will which overrides RAW.

1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.

2) Most players have managed to understand that fact. Its not like undead are evil is some crazy lunatic fringe interpretation its what the majority of people reading the rules have come up with

3) RAW and how you interpret it are not the same thing.

4) EVERY good god prevents their followers from casting this spell. ALL of them. Why is that? Torag and Cayden Cailean may disagree over the role of a centralized government but they along with every other good deity keep their clerics from casting this spell. Why?

Liberty's Edge

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Casting an Evil spell is Evil.

(And do you really have no other choice other than Animating a Corpse? You could just as easily summoned a creature to do it. Or used Command Undead a creature that was already undead.)

What you do after is up to you. Could be Evil could be Good. You might even save the world.

But CASTING the spell. Is evil. Someone turned into an undead can not be brought back to life w/o 7th circle magic and only then after you destroy the undead. It's that EVIL.


ciretose wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Who is using the double standard. I specifically pointed out how it is GM decision if the Deity will allow Holy Word to work if using it violates the code of conduct required by her god, which would presumable be Good if the character is good.

You can't use holy word to do evil, if the deity does not allow it (divine power is granted) and you can't use it to kill anything that is good.

If I wrote it I probably would have made it only work on evil, but I can see why they added neutral, since neutral is capable of doing evil.

It does not work on good.

using the Deities to stop Holy Word is no different from using DM Fiat to stop something from happening.

who roleplays the Deities but the dungeon master themselves?

in fact, it might be written that a deity can strip a clerics power, but that is merely the DM intervening

that can't happen with a godless concept cleric, whom answers to no Deity. which is more RAW than the DM playing god and stripping the cleric's powers.

the moment you have to include Divine Interference, is the moment you admit it's possible and that it disgusts you that it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

First problem with that argument is you're lumping the acts together and trying to treat them as a whole. They are not. They are two individual discreet acts.

Secondly, good and evil do not work on the same rules because they're not the same thing. By definition they're opposites, so expecting them to operate the same way is absurd. Evil requires EITHER evil means or evil intent. Good requires both good means AND good intent: one without the other is insufficient. If you blow your lid and behead a random person walking down the street you've just commited an evil act even if you just happen to get a serial killer.

Good is much much harder, and that's a feature, not a bug.


Flashohol wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Annabel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...And from a developer, pointing out the...
If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Casting an Evil spell is Evil.

(And do you really have no other choice other than Animating a Corpse? You could just as easily summoned a creature to do it. Or used Command Undead a creature that was already undead.)

What you do after is up to you. Could be Evil could be Good. You might even save the world.

But CASTING the spell. Is evil. Someone turned into an undead can...

depends on Party Makeup. there might be plenty of strong corpses to animate for this purpose, but you may not be able to produce enough sufficiently powerful summons

lets say you are a level 7 wizard with access to both conjuration, and necromancy, you could summon a creature, but it may not have enough strength to lift the bus, but may be able to animate a group of Ogres they slew as Zombies to save the trapped children.

Liberty's Edge

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


using the Deities to stop Holy Word is no different from using DM Fiat to stop something from happening.

who roleplays the Deities but the dungeon master themselves?

in fact, it might be written that a deity can strip a clerics power, but that is merely the DM intervening

that can't happen with a godless concept cleric, whom answers to no Deity. which is more RAW than the DM playing god and stripping the cleric's powers.

the moment you have to include Divine Interference, is the moment you admit it's possible and that it disgusts you that it is.

Or preventing someone who is not good from casting a good spell. Just like you can't be good and raise undead.

Or is that not something you can do as a GM?

If you are trying to use holy word to commit an evil act, you aren't good. So you can't can't cast it any more than a good character can raise dead.

Or am I missing something?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Annabel wrote:
Now, I don't really buy the argument that just because SKR is an employee of Paizo, that suddenly anything he says is RAW. Just because he argues for something, his association with Paizo doesn't automatically impart some divine force of will which overrides RAW.

1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.

2) Most players have managed to understand that fact. Its not like undead are evil is some crazy lunatic fringe interpretation its what the majority of people reading the rules have come up with

3) RAW and how you interpret it are not the same thing.

4) EVERY good god prevents their followers from casting this spell. ALL of them. Why is that? Torag and Cayden Cailean may disagree over the role of a centralized government but they along with every other good deity keep their clerics from casting this spell. Why?

1. No. You can't point to a place in the text where it says that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. In fact, this is quite obvious, from both a search of Core Rules and from the inherent contradiction between the concept of [evil] and evil (Umbriere Moonwhisper has pointed out this above).

2. Yes, I recognize that many people thing it's "reasonable" to interpret the descriptor of Animate Dead as instructions that casting Animate Dead is an evil act. But the inherent contradictions that produces in regards to other alignment spells is why that interpretation is being disputed.

3. Yes, I agree. They're different. That's why the subject of this thread has mostly been the interpretation of the fluff/non-rules content. The fact it that no where in chapter 9 of the CRB does it say an [evil] spell is and evil act.

4. Yes, it has been discussed that every "Good" god has this rule. What of it? I mean, we're edging in on to Euthyphro dilemma. It is important to recognize that Neutral gods can impart the ability to cast Animate Dead, so it seems that it could be a neutral act when done by such cleric/deity teams. Maybe the "Good" gods are just prejudiced against the unliving?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

First problem with that argument is you're lumping the acts together and trying to treat them as a whole. They are not. They are two individual discreet acts.

Secondly, good and evil do not work on the same rules because they're not the same thing. By definition they're opposites, so expecting them to operate the same way is absurd. Evil requires EITHER evil means or evil intent. Good requires both good means AND good intent: one without the other is insufficient. If you blow your lid and behead a random person walking down the street you've just commited an evil act even if you just happen to get a serial killer.

Good is much much harder, and that's a feature, not a bug.

Double Standard

if good and evil don't follow the same set of Universal Rules, then there would be next to no good characters because evil is far easier than good.

it's either the action itself

or the intent

if they both don't follow the same Universal rules, what are they doing being mentioned as opposites on the same Axis, the point of Opposites on an Axis, is they follow the same General rule, but serve as 2 extreme opposite paths based upon whether you follow or ignore that rule.

if in your world, it is easier to be evil than good, why the hell do you have good aligned anything in your game? they would eventually have slipped to evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbiriere moonwhisperer wrote:

Double Standard

if good and evil don't follow the same set of Universal Rules, then there would be next to no good characters because evil is far easier than good.

Of COURSE its a double standard. Evil is cheating. Its EVIL.

Quote:
if in your world, it is easier to be evil than good, why the hell do you have good aligned anything in your game?

Good is doing what you ought to do.

Why people ought to do that is self explanatory.

Quote:
they would eventually have slipped to evil.

This is nonsensical. Just because its hard doesn't mean no one does it. I mean getting to new jersey is easy, getting to the moon is hard, so no ones ever been there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Evil requires EITHER evil means or evil intent. Good requires both good means AND good intent: one without the other is insufficient.

Whence does this asymmetry come? Sure, there is no a priori reason that good and evil must behave the same, but neither is an a priori reason they must be different. What in the nature of good is different to require this difference?

Is this same asymmetry seen in law/chaos? Does a chaotic act require both chaotic means and chaotic intent while a lawful act requires lawful means or lawful intent?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.

Yeah, it actually could. A simple "spells with X tag are X act" would go a long way.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.
Yeah, it actually could. A simple "spells with X tag are X act" would go a long way.

Do we need that with acid spells to know they have acid?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
1. No. You can't point to a place in the text where it says that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. In fact, this is quite obvious, from both a search of Core Rules and from the inherent contradiction between the concept of [evil] and evil (Umbriere Moonwhisper has pointed out this above)

You're going to berate people for not going with the"obvious" while arguing that an evil spell isn't evil.

2. Yes, I recognize that many people thing it's "reasonable" to interpret the descriptor of Animate Dead as instructions that casting Animate Dead is an evil act. But the inherent contradictions that produces in regards to other alignment spells is why that interpretation is being disputed.

There are no inherent contradictions in doing this.

3. Yes, I agree. They're different. That's why the subject of this thread has mostly been the interpretation of the fluff/non-rules content. The fact it that no where in chapter 9 of the CRB does it say an [evil] spell is and evil act.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You are misinterpreting it. You want to read it that way, there's no way to fix that.

4. Yes, it has been discussed that every "Good" god has this rule. What of it? I mean, we're edging in on to Euthyphro dilemma. It is important to recognize that Neutral gods can impart the ability to cast Animate Dead, so it seems that it could be a neutral act when done by such cleric/deity teams. Maybe the "Good" gods are just prejudiced against the unliving?

This dilema is solvable. The gods all say so because IT IS EVIL. The gods aren't making it so, they're just a handy way for us to point out the obvious.

Good gods do not uniformly banhammer neutral acts.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Umbiriere moonwhisperer wrote:

Double Standard

if good and evil don't follow the same set of Universal Rules, then there would be next to no good characters because evil is far easier than good.

Of COURSE its a double standard. Evil is cheating. Its EVIL.

Cheating only applies on the personal level, it doesn't apply on the cosmic level.

there is no way a cosmic force beyond form can logically cheat,

an individual good or evil person can cheat, but the cosmic force of evil itself, is incapable of such decisions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.
Yeah, it actually could. A simple "spells with X tag are X act" would go a long way.
Do we need that with acid spells to know they have acid?

Are we trying to say that casting an acid spell makes you more acidic?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
1) [evil] is evil cannot be a rule any more plainly written.
Yeah, it actually could. A simple "spells with X tag are X act" would go a long way.
Do we need that with acid spells to know they have acid?
Are we trying to say that casting an acid spell makes you more acidic?

We are saying that if you aren't supposed to use acid, this spell has acid.

Liberty's Edge

@Umbriere Moonwhisper

And when you die or someone takes control of your undead and they seek out and kill everything they can find? That's the risk you take and thats ONE reason why it's evil.

Let them fall and Solid Fog or Summon 1d4+1 Horses, Air/Earth/Water Elementals, Giant Ant's all get the job done.

There will always be equal or better option than Animate Dead. And if there isn't you had to sink resources to have Animate Dead available.

If you need to save the world with EVIL it is still EVIL first, then you saved the world, second. If your a Pally you still lose status.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Annabel wrote:
1. No. You can't point to a place in the text where it says that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. In fact, this is quite obvious, from both a search of Core Rules and from the inherent contradiction between the concept of [evil] and evil (Umbriere Moonwhisper has pointed out this above)
You're going to berate people for not going with the"obvious" while arguing that an evil spell isn't evil.

I mean to say, that the fact that the rules aren't written "Casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act," is obvious. It's obvious because it isn't written anywhere in the CRB, or any other Core material that I've seen.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Annabel wrote:
2. Yes, I recognize that many people thing it's "reasonable" to interpret the descriptor of Animate Dead as instructions that casting Animate Dead is an evil act. But the inherent contradictions that produces in regards to other alignment spells is why that interpretation is being disputed.
There are no inherent contradictions in doing this.

The contradiction between [good] spells for evil is a good act, and [evil] spells for good is an evil act. I recognize that you've suggested an asymmetry above, but I just don't think that the asymmetry is self-evident.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Annabel wrote:
3. Yes, I agree. They're different. That's why the subject of this thread has mostly been the interpretation of the fluff/non-rules content. The fact it that no where in chapter 9 of the CRB does it say an [evil] spell is and evil act.
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You are misinterpreting it. You want to read it that way, there's no way to fix that.

Earlier, Bigger Club suggested that a reasonable interpretation to reconcile the innate [evil] descriptor and judging some acts as evil or good is to conceptualize the two things differently. On Golarion there is a metaphysical [evil] that is separate from moral evil. [Evil] is built into the rules for clerics and gods, while evil is a concept relating to actions and morality, independent from the metaphysical [evil]. I think that this explanation is reasonable, and suggests that we ought to conflate the two different terms.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Annabel wrote:
4. Yes, it has been discussed that every "Good" god has this rule. What of it? I mean, we're edging in on to Euthyphro dilemma. It is important to recognize that Neutral gods can impart the ability to cast Animate Dead, so it seems that it could be a neutral act when done by such cleric/deity teams. Maybe the "Good" gods are just prejudiced against the unliving?

This dilema is solvable. The gods all say so because IT IS EVIL. The gods aren't making it so, they're just a handy way for us to point out the obvious.

Good gods do not uniformly banhammer neutral acts.

Okay. If the only reason it's [evil] is because all gods say it's evil (through some sort of cosmic consensus project), then the spells aren't inherently evil, but rather a product of some cosmic tyranny forced on the material plane by Pharasma and her cronies.

All along it was the wicked tyrant Pharasma who's for eons marginalized upstanding and moral Undead of the material plane. Perhaps it's time for an Outer Revolt? A throwing off of the Chain of Graves?

Sounds like a fun mythic campaign.

701 to 750 of 801 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / To Justify Necromancy All Messageboards