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.
No.
The reason its evil is because its inherently evil. Its an evil force of (un)nature, the likes of which has no corollary in our materialistic world and philosophy.
The gods saying so isn't WHY its evil, the gods all saying so is how you can KNOW its evil.
This dilema [sic] 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.
If animate dead is evil for reasons besides "good gods say so", then why did you appeal to "good gods say so" to argue it is evil? Anyway, as I mentioned a page or so ago, a sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline, whose magic is powered through their good outsider heritage/([good]) divine influence can cast animate dead as a sorcerer spell. That is, a [good] power source can be used to fuel an [evil] spell.
Or look at oracles. The APG describes the source of their magic as follows:
Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals.
Oracles, unlike clerics, are not limited by alignment in the spells they can cast; a lawful oracle could cast Cloak of Chaos. Now consider an oracle with the Dark Tapestry mystery. The patron deities of this mystery are Lamashtu (CE), Norgorber (NE), and Zon-kuthon (LE). This oracle can cast Holy Word, which is a [good] spell. That is, an [evil] power source (or rather a conflation of three [evil] power sources) is used to power a [good] spell.
I'm sure with a little work one could more such examples.
@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.
Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?
undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal
tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.
i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.
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.No.
The reason its evil is because its inherently evil. Its an evil force of (un)nature, the likes of which has no corollary in our materialistic world and philosophy.
The gods saying so isn't WHY its evil, the gods all saying so is how you can KNOW its evil.
Okay... I think now you might be getting the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma. Specifically, if there is an [evil] beyond the arbitrary consensus of the gods, what is this system of assigning evil to some spells and good to others? Is it a system which relates to the goodness or evilness of certain acts? Or is it independent. Because it seems independent and thus not the same as a moral or ethical consideration.
I don't know what it means to say "Evil force of (un)nature, the likes of which has no corollary in our materialistic world and philosophy." Because I am not sure what part of exempts Golarion for actual philosophical considerations; even if those considerations necessarily depart from "facts" of the real world.
|
@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.
Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?
undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal
tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.
i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.
You would?
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.
EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
Undead arn't carnivores either they don't need to feed, the ones that do eat are driven to do so but don't NEED it.
A carnivore meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, caro meaning 'meat' or 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If animate dead is evil for reasons besides "good gods say so", then why did you appeal to "good gods say so" to argue it is evil? Anyway, as I mentioned a page or so ago, a sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline, whose magic is powered through their good outsider heritage/(good) divine influence can cast animate dead as a sorcerer spell. That is, a [good] power source can be used to fuel an [evil] spell.
First, if a spelling error on the internet bothers you, just fix it without calling attention to it.
Secondly, as I have explained repeatedly, The good gods stance on the matter is an excelent INDICATION that it is evil, not a rational.
Oracles, unlike clerics, are not limited by alignment in the spells they can cast; a lawful oracle could cast Cloak of Chaos. Now consider an oracle with the Dark Tapestry mystery. The patron deities of this mystery are Lamashtu (CE), Norgorber (NE), and Zon-kuthon (LE). This oracle can cast Holy Word, which is a [good] spell. That is, an [evil] power source (or rather a conflation of three [evil] power sources) is used to power a [good] spell.
I'm sure with a little work one could more such examples.
ahem...
Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs.
So if you need holy word, you ask Calden Cayden. If you need raise dead you're asking someone else.
ahem...
Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs.
So if you need holy word, you ask Calden Cayden. If you need raise dead you're asking someone else.
That doesn't address what I brought up. For most classes, oracle among them, where they get spells is separate from which deity they worship. It doesn't matter which deities they venerate, the fluff for oracles is that their magic comes from the patron deities for their mystery. Anyway, this Dark Tapestry oracle could be a LE Zon-Kuthon worshiper who hates all [good] deities (especially Shelyn). They can still cast Holy Word.
@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.
Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?
undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal
tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.
i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.
You would?
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.
EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
Undead arn't carnivores either they don't need to feed, the ones that do eat are driven to do so but don't NEED it.
if a Tiger, is neutral, then a Zombie should be as well.
|
|
if a Tiger, is neutral, then a Zombie should be as well.@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.
Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?
undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal
tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.
i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.
You would?
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.
EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
Undead arn't carnivores either they don't need to feed, the ones that do eat are driven to do so but don't NEED it.
Wrong.
They are Mindless. There only driving force is to be EVIL. Otherwise they would just stand around all day waiting for orders but they don't do that.They...
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing 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.
and are...
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... I think now you might be getting the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Get it. Got it. Solved it. Don't know why people are hung up on that speedbump.
Specifically, if there is an [evil] beyond the arbitrary consensus of the gods, what is this system of assigning evil to some spells and good to others?
When they're literally made out of the stuff of evil itself.
Its basically the same solution bigger club pointed out before: its a different kind of evil than you're used to dealing with. Arguing that it doesn't fit your philosophy is like arguing that a scientific discovery doesn't fit your philosophy: you're wrong, the universe said so.
Is it a system which relates to the goodness or evilness of certain acts? Or is it independent. Because it seems independent and thus not the same as a moral or ethical consideration.
It is independant but its inherent make up makes it problematic morally.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get it. Got it. Solved it. Don't know why people are hung up on that speedbump.
Okay... I think now you might be getting the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma.
I don't think it's solved. Even if you appeal to "stuff of [evil] itself," you've failed to actually explain how this "stuff" works in conjunction with the alignment system which bases "good" and "evil" as characteristics personality or actions. How does the "stuff of [evil] itself" work its way into the system which takes "evil" and "good" as part of a system of ethics.
I am willing to operate from the assumption that [evil] descriptor is a product of the "stuff of [evil]." It does seem to jive with the idea that the "stuff of [evil]" is a metaphysical property. However, it only solves the problem insofar as it confirms that the "stuff of [evil]" is independent of moral considerations of actions. But I am okay with this.
but a mindless creature is incapable of proper moral thought, regardless of what empowers them.
a Zombie cannot choose their own alignment, in fact, a Zombie has less moral choice than a dog.
a Dog can at least choose to turn on their master
a Zombie lacks even that.
the closest a Zombie can get, to turning on their master, is a new master Usurping control by force, which is not the same thing, but closer to using mind control
if a dog, a morally inept creature, is neutral
then a Zombie, even more Morally impaired than a dog, should also, be neutral
a driving force of evil energy, is not the same thing as making a conscious choice to be evil
the only way i can deem it appropriate for a creature to be evil, is if the creature is a free willed and and intelligent being who makes a conscious choice to be evil, given full understanding of the contrasting forces of right and wrong, and still making a choice.
a zombie or skeleton does not possess that. they have no free will, no minds, and no way to make conscious choices.
so what if Zombies, kill and eat living creatures? so do tigers.
are Tigers evil for eating meat?
if Tigers are neutral, despite being much crueler to their meal, then Zombies should also be neutral.
in my own personal opinion, for pure evil to be pure evil, the creature has to be intelligent and free willed, and has to make what they deem the most evil choice every time they are given an option.
thing is, in our own world such pure evil doesn't exist
if there can be neutral, and even good demons, let alone lawful good incubi who become paladins in search of redemption, or even good vampires whom ask permission before they drink, and instead of drinking one person dry by force, drink a single pint per day from 3 separate donors with a previously arranged contract. then Zombies should be neutral, purely because they cannot make their own decisions, only follow programmed protocol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's solved. Even if you appeal to "stuff of [evil] itself," you've failed to actually explain how this "stuff" works in conjunction with the alignment system which bases "good" and "evil" as characteristics personality or actions.Get it. Got it. Solved it. Don't know why people are hung up on that speedbump.
Okay... I think now you might be getting the crux of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Its pretty easy. Its made out of evil. Play with it and you get eviler. Its one of the oldest tropes in fantasy: its dark powers which [reverb]MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO TAMPER WITH[/reverb]
Look at the one ring. Why don't they just hand it to Gandolf and have him go uber wizard on saurons throne warmer? Because then you're just switching the dark lord sauron for the dark lord Gandalf.
The true power in the wheel of time, the dark side of the force, dark arts in harry potter, demonic pacts... the stuff is bad juju by its very nature.
How does the "stuff of [evil] itself" work its way into the system which takes "evil" and "good" as part of a system of ethics.
Usually good people stay away from it.
However, it only solves the problem insofar as it confirms that the "stuff of [evil]" is independent of moral considerations of actions. But I am okay with this.
Or just that using the stuff of evil is itself morally wrong because of what it is.
You also have the problem, as far as undead go, that left to their own devices they are beings of entropy. They will try to destroy life where ever they can find it. Such beings are never fully under your control and merely having them is putting a dingo farm next to a nursery.
|
|
A zombie unless directed is incapable of good only evil. A skeleton can wield weapons and armor they
While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor
If they lacked the ability of choice how would they choose which weapons and armor to wield? If zombies can't choose then why do they travel in packs? Instinct maybe. Perhaps it the EVIL of the SPELL that created it? Either way they still commits and spreads evil.
Not just evil actions. But actual Evil. You can wield it to power spells much the same you could with fire, you can have creatures made of the stuff like demons.
With each evil mortal soul that finds its way into the Abyss, the ranks of the demonic hordes grows—a single soul can fuel the manifestation of dozens or even hundreds of demons, with the exact nature of the sins carried by the soul guiding the shapes and roles of the newly formed fiends
Water doesn't choose to be water but its still water.
Zombies are
unthinking automatons
and may not have chosen to be evil but it's still evil.
A tiger may be cruel but they could also come to befrend a character and fight for them without being forced. They are equially capable of both good and evil ACTIONS but lack the mind to know whats good and evil and with out that intent or the "Essence" of evil then it's not evil.
Evil isn't an idea in the DND world it's just as real as the air your character needs to breath. An Evil undead is more Evil than most living creatures.
this debate is going nowhere, neither of us seems to yield, so i will propose that we agree to disagree.
i propose that too all of us in this thread.
we are all from different backgrounds and lifestyles
and we all have our own opinion on the RAW
but eternally, i refuse to accept that Zombies and Skeletons are evil, and will houserule them to be neutral in my own games. hell, in my own games, i think i will pick apart and remove alignment entirely.
instead of Detect Evil, it's Detect Hostility
instead of Protection From Evil, it's Protection from Hostility
instead of Smite Evil; it's "Smite Infadel."
|
|
this debate is going nowhere, neither of us seems to yield, so i will propose that we agree to disagree.
i propose that too all of us in this thread.
we are all from different backgrounds and lifestyles
and we all have our own opinion on the RAW
but eternally, i refuse to accept that Zombies and Skeletons are evil, and will houserule them to be neutral in my own games. hell, in my own games, i think i will pick apart and remove alignment entirely.
instead of Detect Evil, it's Detect Hostility
instead of Protection From Evil, it's Protection from Hostility
instead of Smite Evil; it's "Smite Infadel."
Fair Enough. I have lots of those myself.
We also use that houserule with the exception of Undead, Dragons and Outsiders.
this debate is going nowhere, neither of us seems to yield, so i will propose that we agree to disagree.
i propose that too all of us in this thread.
we are all from different backgrounds and lifestyles
and we all have our own opinion on the RAW
but eternally, i refuse to accept that Zombies and Skeletons are evil, and will houserule them to be neutral in my own games. hell, in my own games, i think i will pick apart and remove alignment entirely.
instead of Detect Evil, it's Detect Hostility
instead of Protection From Evil, it's Protection from Hostility
instead of Smite Evil; it's "Smite Infadel."
Fair Enough. I have lots of those myself.
We also use that houserule with the exception of Undead, Dragons and Outsiders.
with that houserule, outsiders with alignment subtypes are the only exception, but can still have personalities beyond the subtype.
Or just that using the stuff of evil is itself morally wrong because of what it is.
Except that in this case the "stuff of evil" (negative energy) is actually Neutral.
Which is the crux of the problem.
Either mindless undead should be neutral, or negative energy should be evil.
As it stands, there is no consistency.
|
|
Except that in this case the "stuff of evil" (negative energy) is actually Neutral.
Which is the crux of the problem.
Either mindless undead should be neutral, or negative energy should be evil.
As it stands, there is no consistency.
Wrong.
That's kind of like saying the demon is eating a sandwich so the sandwich must be evil.and then positive energy would have to be GOOD and then the evil priest couldn't heal themselves.
Negative energy isn't evil it drains life and in turn powers unlife. but not all undead have to be evil. even the detect evil spell says "Aligned Undead"
Well, I only read the OP. This has probably already been said many times in the hundreds of posts on this, but it could be cultural.
A foreign culture does not zombify intelligent beings, unless they are condemned criminals/evil creatures/stuff like that.
Slave trade may be legal in this nation. And any corpse of an executed creature/person can be animated and sold. The right to animate any creature may not have to go through paperwork each and every time, but may be given to certain casters, a permit to animate, under the guidelines of the laws. Animating creatures that don't fit the bill can get you in big trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now that I've read a couple posts above me, we must remember that this is fantasy. This is a magical realm where if you have green skin, you're evil, and can be murdered on sight.
And somehow, morally, this is acceptable.
If you wish to make morality a bit more realistic and subjective, you could say that a Neutral nation does evil things, but also does good things. A nation that promotes individual freedoms over anything else.
There are temples of the Sun god sitting right next to temples of evil gods. The inns serve ale, but they also sell imported blood for their vampire patrons. The blood, of course, is "always from those who have offended the law." And vampires walk the streets with demons, with humans, with halflings, but everyone has to follow the same rules. "Do as you want, but harm none." Everyone has amnesty, protection, and freedom in this nation, no matter who you are, as long as you've filed, and have at least limited citizenship.
First thoughts that come to mind are stone walls in desert cities. Airships and sandstorms. Brothels and temple prostitutes. A large army, that mostly consists of slaves (with enchantments that force cooperation) and undead.
Maybe...the only true citizens are drow. The rest are allowed to stay, but are always second hand citizens, in a way. Though outrageous racism and racial supremacy are thick in the drow, the new Emperor has been battling this for years, and have fought for a stronger diplomatic platform.
I could ramble for hours, so I'll stop here.
And now that I've read a couple posts above me, we must remember that this is fantasy. This is a magical realm where if you have green skin, you're evil, and can be murdered on sight.
Why am I automatically evil if I have green skin?
That's traditionally how fantasy role playing games have always been. The only good orc is a dead orc. I mean, heck, they straight up define things as "good" or "evil" with no real grey areas.
Now, again, that's traditional. I, having double majored in philosophy and theology, have never quite played the game that way.
That's traditionally how fantasy role playing games have always been. The only good orc is a dead orc. I mean, heck, they straight up define things as "good" or "evil" with no real grey areas.
Well, there is an alignment between good and evil and orcs don't actually have always evil so they are allowed to be other alignments. Demons are a more straight example of the current day always evil.
Whatever happened to necromancy anyway?
.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 this proves is that the developers flunked Philosophy.
Negative energy is not evil.
... how does that remotely follow?
First of all, philosophy is useless. It doesn't prove anything.
Secondly, where on earth are you getting the idea they flunked philosophy?
Third, what on earth kind of philosophy allegedly prevents making up an in fictional universe concept like the corrupting power of evil made flesh?
|
|
Harm - not evil
Circle of death - not evil
Command and Control undead - not evil
inflict/cure - not evil
Ghoul Touch - not evil
Enervate - not evil
Bestow Curse- not evil
Magic Jar - not evil
Blight - not evil
Finger of Death - not evil
Horrid Wilting - not evil
Soul Bind - not evil
Energy Drain -not evil
----
Pro. Good/cirle v. good - EVIL
Animate/Create Undead - EVIL
Summon Evil - EVIL
Contagion - EVIL
Symbol of Pain - EVIL
A persons perception of something doesn't change what it is.
Fire for instance can be seen as
- The SUN. The gift of life,
- the PHOENIX death and rebirth,
- and HELL endless torment,
Undead
- Servants to rebuild a fallen empire
- Entertainment for the masses
- an Army to fight off the invading Orc's
Regardless of your PERCEPTION of fire it will always be fire and a zombie will always be a zombie.
The same stands true for the 4 Alignments. Regardless of HOW they are used or WHY they are used they will always be what they are. When the book calls them out to be. When they don't it's up to the DM. If you disagree with that then play your way.
In the Book of Exalted Deeds you could play an Exalted Undead. Make a spell that does that using GOOD energy and not EVIL energy and go roll some dice.
Philosophy is what this conversation is all about, from the looks of it.
This is a fictional universe with a concept that some things are inherently good, some are bad.
But the reason why I've never played this way is because it's not realistic. The less you have to suspend your disbelief, the more fun you'll have with the story.
The may have not flunked philosophy, but that doesn't mean that they took the extra step to make the alignment issue easy to swallow. Even 3.5 had tons of folk crying out to how crappy the alignment system was.
|
|
What about using Necromancy in the manipulation of life and death, Healing and doing damage through life drain or something like that. As opposed to using undead minions?
NOT EVIL. unless your using EVIL to do it, or for an EVIL purpose like for the sake of causing pain. You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.
@Flashohol
Fire is energy/chemical reaction. A zombie is flesh.
Evil/Good on the other hand, only exists in the
eye of the beholder. In reality, there is no "negative energy" that seems into the universe whenever you do something "bad". Evil only exists when someone does something that is viewed by someone as evil.
Wait. Maybe you were just talking about the game mechanics of alignment, in which case, we are on full agreement.
|
|
@Flashohol
Fire is energy/chemical reaction. A zombie is flesh.
Evil/Good on the other hand, only exists in the
eye of the beholder. In reality, there is no "negative energy" that seems into the universe whenever you do something "bad". Evil only exists when someone does something that is viewed by someone as evil.Wait. Maybe you were just talking about the game mechanics of alignment, in which case, we are on full agreement.
Yup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.
So... Is it really a trick to being a good necromancer is to steal other people's undead? If creating them is evil, but commanding and owning them and even healing them isn't inherently aligned? There's a pokemon analogy here somewhere.
While it does not in any way appear in RAW, and is therefore entirely a house rule on your part
The only house rule I see here is your insistence on imposing a a utilitarian moral system on a world where good and evil are objectively existing forces. Your insistence on symmetry is also a house rule. Ignoring the [evil] descriptor is also a house rule.
House rule is not defined as the stuff people do differently than you. Find me one thing I've said that's inconsistent with the alignment system.
The good alignments are shorthand codes indicating that characters generally have some of the following characteristics: they oppose evil, respect life, defend the innocent, and sometimes make personal sacrifices to aid others. In contrast, characters with evil alignments have no qualms about killing innocents and sacrificing others as a means to achieving their own goals.
Someone that respects life does not randomly kill people, even if they get a serial killer. They do not wantonly murder innocent people even if they have a good goal in mind.
No, Killing is not itself evil. Your alleged inconsistency and the rest of your strawman falls down.
you've referenced Harry Potter and star wars, both of which follow this rule: in Harry Potter, killing is always evi
Not in the least. How many people did Luke kill?
In harry potter you can't use Avada Kedavra. Moody (the real one)killed people as an Auror. Mrs Weasley killed Bellatrix with a shot to the heart. Good people can kill but it has to be for a good reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brow Gasher is necromantic, yet it targets not a creature but a weapon. It is not evil.
But Curse Water, another necromantic spell targeting an item, is evil. Why? Negative energy? No, since Enervation is not evil. (Infusing water with negative energy is evil; infusing grandma with negative energy is not.) For that matter, Orb of the Void is not evil.
Disrupt Undead is a necromantic cantrip that uses positive energy. Affecting undead is not always evil. Even Command Undead, which makes undead your slave, is not evil.
Changing corpses is not always evil. Using Restore Corpse or Sculpt Corpse is not evil. So much for a necromantic spell being evil because it "desecrates" the bones of someone's beloved.
Animating bones need not be evil, as with Defending Bone. Or Skeleton Crew, since apparently being on a boat makes creating undead morally okay. (Good necromancers carry Folding Boats.)
Ki Leech is evil. Don't dare take someone's ki. Yet Healing Thief is not evil.
Familiar Melding is not evil: no problem possessing your intelligent buddy against its will and using its body as a puppet. But Marionette Possession, which requires a willing target, is not evil yet is blocked by Protection from Evil.
And why is Astral Projection necromantic?
|
|
You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.So... Is it really a trick to being a good necromancer is to steal other people's undead? If creating them is evil, but commanding and owning them and even healing them isn't inherently aligned? There's a pokemon analogy here somewhere.
The game didn't put an evil stamp on it so unless your doing this things to be evil, its not evil. Might not be good but its not evil.
Casting Animate Object on a corpse. NOT inherently EVIL.
Animating bones need not be evil, as with Defending Bone. Or Skeleton Crew, since apparently being on a boat makes creating undead morally okay. (Good necromancers carry Folding Boats.)
Your entire post was amazing Mordo, but this blatantly highlights the inconsistency right here.
Animate Dead = Evil
Skeleton Crew = Not Evil
I'd love to hear the justifications for THAT.
Yeah, that's a pretty big inconsistency.
My guess would be that it's an accident, but that's just a guess and not really founded in anything. That defending bone isn't evil I can buy, but having skeleton crew be not evil while animate dead is seems awfully weird.
The only difference that could possibly remotely affect it would be limited duration but that's really far-fetched.
|
Animating bones need not be evil, as with Defending Bone. Or Skeleton Crew, since apparently being on a boat makes creating undead morally okay. (Good necromancers carry Folding Boats.)Your entire post was amazing Mordo, but this blatantly highlights the inconsistency right here.
Animate Dead = Evil
Skeleton Crew = Not EvilI'd love to hear the justifications for THAT.
I think I can give you one. The hardcover books have a far wider circulation than softcovers. They appear in book stores, Wal-Marts and toy shops. As a result, hardcovers are more, let's say, restrained with some things. No references to sex of any kind and every "obviously evil from conservative p.o.v." activity such as raising the dead or summoning demons is labelled clearly as "EVIL" so to make sure no Coalition for Religious Parenthood goes on a rampage about the books promoting debauched necromantic devilry.
Pirates of the Inner Sea, on the other hand, is a peripheral softcover that reaches only gaming LGS'es. So chances that Ben the Fundamentalist Father picks it up for his 19th daughter is close to zero, and therefore softcovers have more wiggle room as to topics such as prostitution or animating dead bones being not inherently evil.
This stance was pretty much confirmed by Paizo devs in few places - hardcover books must be far more considerate of somebody throwing a fit about the game telling you that raising dead is morally ambiguous. The further the publication goes away from the Core Rulebook, the more "liberal" it gets. Ultimate Campaign had to have brothels renamed into dance halls, but Chronicles of the Righteous could have an angel lord that watches over prostitutes. Core Rulebook must have the Animate Dead spell labelled as [evil], but Pirates of the Inner Sea can haz ze Skeleton Crew without it. It's the market realities influencing game design, whether you like it or not.
Maybe it's just me, but, "It was a PR decision because after 30 years we're still afraid of the Church" kind of takes the 'bite' out of, "The rules say it must be this way."
I dont know Paizo's position but I've always seen it slightly differently. I consider the hardcovers a more universal, vanilla, 'take this and build what you like' approach whereas the softcovers are more Paizo going in the creative direction they enjoy - a more adult and edgier feel. It's easier to add gore, sex, moral ambiguity, etcetera than it is to take it out.
I'm not convinced that ties into the [evil] descriptor. I could easily see it as a left hand-right hand thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animating bones need not be evil, as with Defending Bone. Or Skeleton Crew, since apparently being on a boat makes creating undead morally okay. (Good necromancers carry Folding Boats.)Your entire post was amazing Mordo, but this blatantly highlights the inconsistency right here.
Animate Dead = Evil
Skeleton Crew = Not EvilI'd love to hear the justifications for THAT.
I think I can give you one. The hardcover books have a far wider circulation than softcovers. They appear in book stores, Wal-Marts and toy shops. As a result, hardcovers are more, let's say, restrained with some things. No references to sex of any kind and every "obviously evil from conservative p.o.v." activity such as raising the dead or summoning demons is labelled clearly as "EVIL" so to make sure no Coalition for Religious Parenthood goes on a rampage about the books promoting debauched necromantic devilry.
Pirates of the Inner Sea, on the other hand, is a peripheral softcover that reaches only gaming LGS'es. So chances that Ben the Fundamentalist Father picks it up for his 19th daughter is close to zero, and therefore softcovers have more wiggle room as to topics such as prostitution or animating dead bones being not inherently evil.
This stance was pretty much confirmed by Paizo devs in few places - hardcover books must be far more considerate of somebody throwing a fit about the game telling you that raising dead is morally ambiguous. The further the publication goes away from the Core Rulebook, the more "liberal" it gets. Ultimate Campaign had to have brothels renamed into dance halls, but Chronicles of the Righteous could have an angel lord that watches over prostitutes. Core Rulebook must have the Animate Dead...
So the true Evil is actually the Conservative. Now it all makes sense!
They've tricked us into thinking that the undead are all evil. Those fiends!
|
|
We have PC alignment, a tool used by the Player and the GM which is used mostly for RP to guide a charaters actions and motivations. Then you have Mechanical alignment, Creature subtypes, Spell Descriptors, DR/Align, and more class abilities then I can count. I don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me why something is EVIL. Just like I don't need it to tell me why druids lose spells for 24hrs after putting on metal armor and not 5min or a year. It's apart of the game we chose to play.
They rules don't say using a Mechanically Alligned effect is a hit to that alignment. But if casting an EVIL spell isn't an EVIL act then a Pally could raise a ZOMBIE horde to fight off demons and not lose status. Make a ritualistic sacrifice for the "Greater Good" and still not lose alignment.
An Erinyes could try to assend again, a Vampire might be resisting his urge to feed and kill, a Drow might turn his back on everything he was ever taught, Someone might find themselves in a state of unlife and lack the drive to kill, but these are all against the norm and the CORE of the game.
Your free to change these as you wan't and I encourage people to do so but calling the game inconsistent solves nothing and gives us nothing.
I don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me why
I'm not sure if I can back the logic that I don't have to be told 'why'. There's a type of logic where "Harming people is evil, therefore devils who serve only to harm are evil" and there is "Drinking blood is evil because we said so!" The latter is harder to digest than the first.