Haladir |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magical school of necromancy is not inherently evil.
Whether or not animating corpses as undead creatures is evil depends on the game-rules of your campaign world. In canon Golarion, animating corpses through necromancy is an inherently evil act.
In my version of Golarion (i.e. in my home game), the dark magic used to animate a corpse uses Evil energies from the Lower Planes. The act also messes with the normal Order of Things, which makes Pharasma unhappy. I also say that creating undead pulls a fragment of a living soul and binds it to the undead. In the case of mindless undead, this doesn't prevent the soul from being judged and sent to its destination in the Great Beyond, but does diminish that soul in some way. This also means that unintelligent undead hate and envy the living in an instinctual way, and will seek to destroy life when not controlled by magic. Creation of sentient undead corrupts the soul of the creature, retaining it in the ghoul/mummy/vampire/etc, turning it evil (usually).
The other thing about animating the dead: it's desecration of a corpse. Would you want a necromancer to make the bones of your dead husband, mother, or child dance like a puppet? The dead should be respected, and animating them to do your bidding is anything but respectful.
I happen to like the "undead are almost always evil" concept. However, if you want to use a different metaphysical backdrop in your campaign world, go for it!
Voadam |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is moral evil and there is supernatural force [evil]. All undead creation spells tap into supernatural [evil] and animate dead bodies with [evil] power. Animate object can work on dead bodies without using supernatural [evil] and make shambling servitors that are not evil aligned. I see skeletons and zombies as evil because I view them as wandering around and attacking living creatures as a default if not under command. If they were neutral like in 3.0 or AD&D they would just stand there if uncommanded.
I am very in line with the PFS ruling, the spells are [evil] but the morality of using it depends on the circumstances. Similar to using an unholy sword.
Tequila Sunrise |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
Hi, Divinitus! You're absolutely right that there's no philosophical reason that raising the dead is automatically Evil; it's just one of those legacies that's been inherited from 3e D&D. A lot of DMs either invent a good reason for undead and undead creation to be Evil, or rule this legacy away.
(The smarmy reactions you're getting are because this is a perennial hot-button topic that invariably ends in flame-wars.)
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".
Yep, this is one of the things that TSR got 100% right.
TriOmegaZero |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ wrote:All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.pres man wrote:There's a difference?deusvult wrote:Up until Pathfinder, the Cure series of spells were Necromantic.Perhaps you mean up to 3rd edition?
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Scythia |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pres man wrote:My hovercraft is full of eels.TOZ wrote:All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.pres man wrote:There's a difference?deusvult wrote:Up until Pathfinder, the Cure series of spells were Necromantic.Perhaps you mean up to 3rd edition?
My spoon is too big.
LazarX |
Up until Pathfinder, the Cure series of spells were Necromantic. Necromancy is the magic of life and death, afterall.
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".
Actually, the change was in 3.X.
Blakmane |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go all the way back to the original AD+D Monster manual and look up ghosts, skeletons, and other such, and you'll find Alignment:Evil on the lot.
You should probably go back and look up the original AD+D monster manuals before you go off on a rant about it. Unintelligent undead and some intelligent dead such as revenants are neutral in both 1e and 2e.
Bruunwald |
I simply disagree with the game designers. As for the undead being evil, that's impossible, based on the principle that they're mindless. It's impossible to have an alignment if you don't think.
Yeah... Okay.
I think you probably understand that evil in the game is generally a force acting upon the world. Thus, artifacts, items, undead, and other mindless things can be evil, without regard to INTENT, which is usually the qualifier of evil for real human beings.
Acting cute and pretending you don't know that won't help you win your case, since it's been a given in the game since about... oh, say... 1974. Specific alignments of creatures may have changed over the years, but evil has always been a... thing on some level... not just a decision. But a force.
Now, if you don't WANT to play that way, that's fine. You're going to find yourself doing a lot of rewriting and revisioning. You might want to prepare a fully-edited PDF for your fellow players to study, since treating Evil as a non-force in the game world will affect a lot of rules. But it can be done. With work. With lots and lots of work.
But that's you choice, and you needn't dabble in trolling to make it. Just do it.
As to the question itself, if I choose to take it seriously, I think a lot of fun could be had playing a non-evil character dabbling in evil things and finding himself corrupted by it. It's an old trope, but a good one. I prefer to keep necromancy evil for my own games because then I don't have to do all that revisioning. And it's gross. And it's unnatural. But mostly, because when you create undead you are enslaving something. Whether it be a soul, spirit, body, whatever. You are enslaving helpless remains and possibly binding somebody's soul. That's pretty wicked.
Nilart |
Necromancy is not inherently evil. Spells with the [evil] descriptor are inherently evil. Will casting spells with this descriptor cause a change in alignment?
Not if they are used with prudence.
I am not a writer for pathfinder so everything from here on out is just my opinions.
With your example, Raise Undead, the spell is evil because you are bringing evil creatures into existence. Now, you may be doing this for the "right reasons". Good for you. But what if something goes awry and you loose control of them? Can you guarantee your own safety - that you will not fall unconscious, have to summon some different type and therefore loose control of some zombies, etc.?
And that is why I say it is evil. You could very easily be knowingly releasing an evil creature into the world, no matter what your original intentions are. Will this cause an alignment shift? Not done once or twice but if it becomes "habit"... it's up to the DM but I would venture there is a chance.
P.S. I Agree with all the above posts that say to play it however you/your DM see fit.
Oceanshieldwolf |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy Bruunwald. I'm not seeing any trolling here, proto or otherwise.
And I disagree with you too, flavourwise and mechanically. But each campaign to their own...
And seeing as Marc linked his White Necromancer, I'll just link my alignment-open Ossuarite Druid Archetype...
Oceanshieldwolf |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you can find the Ossuarite content HERE at d20PFSRD...
wraithstrike |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the spell may be marked as /evil/ by its descriptor, but I also disagree with it. Also, who cares if it is /evil/?
Well the GM may care, and depending on the setting and your class the deity may care. The nation you are in may care, and throw you in jail even if you have sound arguments that the law is wrong. So the answer to your question depends on various factors.
DM Under The Bridge |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grey necromancers feature in my dnd games. Neutrals, neutral goods and lawful neutrals that use necromancy and animate dead selflessly to help others, the community and to give invaders and monsters something to chew on that isn't going to complain and scream about it.
I view necromancy as a bit evil, but it more has an evil potential when combined with megalomania and no respect for live (that is, in the di** necromancer). Bringing forth the undead is generally not good for the realm, and the goodly religions chuck a fit, but you can use it for good and to help others.
RDM42 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Hama. Nice and simply put. I appreciate it.
However...
Nature recognises no evil, people do. Or to put it as Temple Grandin put it - "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be." ;)
However, d&d nature DOES recognize evil. You can detect it and everything. And undead aren't 'part of the natural order' anyhow.
Spook205 |
My take on it? Well, its what I use for my own setting. Good ole stuff based on the 'black necromancy' description from the Complete Book of Necromancers.
Basically, they're 'black necromancy' when...
1.) Has to cause undue pain or injury. (Basically the same argument used in the Geneva convention regarding how it’s alright to blow someone up, but making weapons specifically to blind them are out.) This is the most contentious category, obviously.
2.)Traffics in negative energy. Since in mainline pathfinder negative energy is literally the dark plane of horror, annihilation and fire ants, and seems to have its own malignant sapience, well...
3.)Interferes with the process of a soul. So trap the soul's actually kind on this.
4.) Creates sentient or dangerous undead. 2e and 3e's neutral undead stand out from stuff like say a ghoul or a bodak.
5.) Spells with the death effect (ties in with 3) as they make it harder for a being to be raised. I think this kind of ties in with 3.
6.) Has the evil descriptor. Natch.
Since most of the white necromantic spells got snitched by conjuration, a white necromancer or grey one, is left with little in the way of kosher necromancy.
These categorizations though means your evil necromantic spells would be..
1-level:
Chill Touch- Rationale: Utilizes negative energy
2- level:
Blindness/Deafness-Causes undue pain or injury. (rule 1. Remember as an example bullets are kosher in modern warfare, blinding gas isn't.)
Ghoul Touch- Utilizes Negative Energy
3-level:
Vampiric Touch – Maybe a rule 2 violator? I dunno.
4-level
Animate Dead – Creates Undead/Has Evil Descriptor.
Contagion – Undue harm/evil descritpr
Enervation – Utilizes negative energy to damage the spirit of a foe.
5-level:
Magic Jar - Interference with transfer of souls.
Blight – Causes undue pain or injury.
Symbol of Pain – Causes undue pain or injury. All it /does/ is cause pain.
Waves of Fatigue – Utilizes negative energy
6-level:
Circle of Death – Negative Energy, Evil Descriptor, Death effect.
Create Undead – Creates Sentient Undead, Evil Descriptor
Eyebite – Causes undue pain.
7-level:
Finger of Death: Death effect.
Waves of Exhaustion - Negative energy
8-level:
Create greater undead - Rule 4.
Horrid Wilting – Causes undue pain.
Symbol of Death – Death effect.
9-level:
Energy Drain – Utilizes negative energy.
Soul Bind – Interferes with transfer of a soul.
Wail of the Banshee – Death effect.
pres man |
There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
Spook205 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.
Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.
pres man |
pres man wrote:There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.
Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.
True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.
Spook205 |
Spook205 wrote:True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.pres man wrote:There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.
Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.
I think the issue is that their mindlessness really represents their total and complete self-absorption to the point where they have no consciousness of their surroundings.
We're getting off topic though. O_O
thejeff |
Spook205 wrote:True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.pres man wrote:There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.
Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.
Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.
Spook205 |
pres man wrote:Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.Spook205 wrote:True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.pres man wrote:There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I'd be with you on skeletons and zombies.
Lemures are where they are and are what they are because they're LE. They're like the lawful evil grist in the lawful evil mill. They're literally formed from the malignancy of a spoiled soul.
Having to suss out the rationale for things is intrinsically a 'house rule.'
In the "game as written," they're Lawful Evil.
The entire crux of this discussion is for whether certain elements of the necromantic sherbert are evil or not. At the core of this, this isn't a RAW discussion. RAW has no place in discussions on alignment.
If we bring RAW into this, it turns into a sort of bizarre sola scriptura argument where people break out a certain line of text somewhere, and other people break out a line of text somewhere else.
I prefer to look at this from what the actual intentions behind the thing are. Think of it as the 'tradition' approach.
Lemures are /fiends/. Low level, barely existant themes. They are the purest meat of the LE grist mill, the flooded consciousnesses of countless sinners refined down into an oily mass of maleficience.
Undead similarly it seems are supposed to be barely constrained horrors. 2e took the automaton approach to skeletons and zombies as they had no will, but pathfinder seems to suggest that skeletons and zombies if they slip their master's leashes begin to direct their mindless malignant will towards harming people.
If your skeleton falls out of your control and stands there for all eternity until he rots. Thats one thing. If he drops out of your control and wanders off to seek the living well...
And the intent of the designers seems to be that the undead, even the mindless ones, hate the living. Chalk it up to the malignancy of the negative plane.
Luthorne |
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy? Certainly. There are plenty of necromancy spells that aren't evil. Brow gasher, clone, death ward, enervation, fear, ray of exhaustion...
Is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? Certainly not in vanilla Pathfinder, though I don't know why you're mentioning that in conjunction with necromancy, since raise dead and resurrection got swapped over to conjuration. Mind you, I totally support ignoring third edition's swap over to conjuration and putting all the healing spells back in necromancy...
Oh, and naturally, no magic is evil unless casting the spell requires an inherently evil act. Of course, sometimes the inherently evil act is casting the spell itself. Since we're discussing 'inherent evil' in the first place...
Personally, I think it is strongly implied that creating an undead involves something iffy about their soul. I'm just going to quote a few spells here.
A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be returned to life by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be raised.
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be resurrected.
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can't resurrect constructs or undead creatures.
So, you cannot restore an undead creature back to life, even via use of a 9th-level spell, without at least destroying them first. A spell that's on the same level as miracle or wish. Some of these spells don't even require that you have a body to reincarnate. So, if an undead creature is only a body, and the soul is not being hindered in some way...what's preventing the reincarnation or true resurrection? Of course, I suppose you could make arguments that an undead creature somehow interferes with some sort of hypothetical 'signal' or somesuch, but that sounds pretty iffy all on its own.
Now, the actual entries of the undead that animate dead creates:
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. 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.
Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
It is pretty much stated that the state of a skeleton or zombie is inherently foul, that the magic used is foul, that when unattended, they tend to murder things, and skeletons even have an 'evil cunning' despite being mindless. And zombies it even specifies being 'forced' into unlife...
Of course, you can easily make your own custom settings where this is more or less explicit or even make it so that it is in fact a neutral act, or happily toss all alignment out the window and just make it a matter of custom, social conventions, or legality (such as societies where necromancy is allowed, but only on family members, or only by licensed necromancers, or even only by the clergy of a particular religion or spirituality). For what it's worth, though, I also think the creation of a golem is an evil act as well by default in Pathfinder...
pres man |
Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.
I'm not sure what "game as written" you are referring to, but I will assume PF. In that case might I point out:
Alignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
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.
RDM42 |
thejeff wrote:Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.I'm not sure what "game as written" you are referring to, but I will assume PF. In that case might I point out:
PRD wrote:Alignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
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.
"specific out ranks the general." They have an alignment listed specifically.
DM Under The Bridge |
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy? Certainly. There are plenty of necromancy spells that aren't evil. Brow gasher, clone, death ward, enervation, fear, ray of exhaustion...
Is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? Certainly not in vanilla Pathfinder, though I don't know why you're mentioning that in conjunction with necromancy, since raise dead and resurrection got swapped over to conjuration. Mind you, I totally support ignoring third edition's swap over to conjuration and putting all the healing spells back in necromancy...
Oh, and naturally, no magic is evil unless casting the spell requires an inherently evil act. Of course, sometimes the inherently evil act is casting the spell itself. Since we're discussing 'inherent evil' in the first place...
Personally, I think it is strongly implied that creating an undead involves something iffy about their soul. I'm just going to quote a few spells here.
Reincarnation wrote:A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be returned to life by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated.Raise Dead wrote:A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be raised.Resurrection wrote:You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be resurrected.True Resurrection wrote:You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can't resurrect constructs or undead creatures.So, you cannot restore an undead creature back to life, even via...
A necromancer that only uses enervation and ray of exhaustion. His alignment is "meh".
Tacticslion |
Ways of returning the dead to life
Your early arguments are exceedingly solid, and one could certainly take the tack that you did, however, I wanted to point out something, if I may: the fact that all of them except the most powerful magic (the same level as wish or miracle) required the corpse (or at least a part of it).
If the corpse has been infused with negative energy, it logically doesn't have the "emptiness" necessary to be filled with positive energy and hence revived.
And here's a very interesting situation.
Presume a caster creates an arbitrarily large number of clone[i]s
The first one he makes, he leaves intact (so he can be raised from the dead).
The rest of them, he animates via [i]animate dead, or create undead (or greater ~) or something.
Or, perhaps, uses six of them to make a flesh golem (faceless or otherwise) or carrion (stand-in or otherwise). ((He can get six to twelve of those puppies by mix-and-matching the same corpses...))
The question, of course, is then "what happens"?
I'd say he goes into his first clone body... but there's no exception given for the state of said body (the spell simply noting that "it rots"), so would all of them activate at the same time ala Manshoon of Forgotten Realms fame? So what happens to the undead? Especially if they're mindless undead? The golems?
The RAW is very peculiar about this. RAW skeletons and zombies would be mindless. RAW his spirit inhabits his body. RAW a ghoul has no connection to its former life. RAW his spirit inhabits his body. RAW the golem is an automaton made of six parts... all of which he inhabits, per RAW.
Mostly I mention this for two reasons: one, RAW must be considered, and it must be the foremost basis by which we go. To do otherwise means we're simply ignoring the game rules (which is fine, but for this discussion); two, RAW will only take you so far.
It's an interesting series of questions.
Luthorne |
My personal opinion when it comes to the clone spell is that such attempts would not work because these all require a corpse - a dead body - and a clone was never alive in the first place, and thus does not qualify as being a corpse, but rather (as the spell itself states), "a soulless bit of inert flesh". Much like - for example - attempting to use animate dead on a sculpture transformed via stone to flesh into a piece of meat in the same shape (which I also think would not work).
However, if you wanted to go that route, I would also note that a flesh golem, as a golem, is a mindless entity powered by an enslaved spirit and controlled by magic, as - to some extent - are the skeletons, zombies, etc. As such, while their spirit might inhabit their body, there is nothing in particular which says they would usurp control of said body...a rather dismal fate indeed. Particularly if their spirit is shredded to allow it to inhabit each particular piece. Of course, my personal interpretation is that it isn't possible for the scenario to arise in the first place, but.
(of course, I also note that unique situations like this can be fascinating for storytelling, but that isn't really what we're discussing, is it?)
To address the initial point, it it certainly possible that the body being currently inhabited by necromantic energies is what is preventing the resurrection or reincarnation in the first place, though the very fact that doing so cuts off the creature from ever being raised save through the most powerful of spells even after said undead has been destroyed, and I did address this (saying that perhaps it interfered with a signal, though disrupting the spell in the first place is viable), but I would also argue that taking this tack also implies that rather than being a neutral event, you are to a certain extent performing some degree of supernatural contamination, which could be viewed as a sign of evil in and of its own right...
Ultimately, though, I am primarily attempting to argue that there is in fact enough evidence that it should not be automatically assumed - as written - that necromancy is automatically a neutral act that merely creates an automaton which should be viewed as being no more evil than creating a non-golem construct which does not require other evil acts to create (such as the Mirror Men of Irrisen, off the top of my head). It is, of course, not certain, as other explanations can be evolved to fit the needs; but then again, so can explanations be evolved for the reverse, and such is the domain of DMs and house rulings and setting information in all its multitude of fascinating possibilities.
Creating a true automaton from the bodies of others would - in my opinion - be the purview of animate objects made permanent, or of creating an animated object via Craft Construct, using the remains of others to have your 'skeletons' or 'zombies' without the disadvantage of performing what could be argued to be an evil act (amusingly enough). After all, they are certainly objects now, and no one has ever claimed that casting animate object is, as written, an evil act, unlike animate dead...
Tacticslion |
To address the initial point, it it certainly possible that the body being currently inhabited by necromantic energies is what is preventing the resurrection or reincarnation in the first place, though the very fact that doing so cuts off the creature from ever being raised save through the most powerful of spells even after said undead has been destroyed, and I did address this (saying that perhaps it interfered with a signal, though disrupting the spell in the first place is viable), but I would also argue that taking this tack also implies that rather than being a neutral event, you are to a certain extent performing some degree of supernatural contamination, which could be viewed as a sign of evil in and of its own right...
This is incorrect though, depending on what you mean by "most powerful of the spells".
A 7th level spell does exactly what you said the other spells can't do.
Here's the order:
- 4th (or 5th) level spell calls upon natural energies to take a piece of flesh and naturally regenerate it into a (semi-random) vessel built out of said flesh; if the flesh is inhabited by unnatural negative energy, the flesh can't be built off of.
- 5th level spell represents the first access to "normal" magic to raise the dead; requires body, and cannot raise the body if it's been filled with negative energy. This actually fits with a most "basic" form of something - if anything goes wrong, it's still wrong. It's noted as "Coming back from the dead is an ordeal" and "missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life" - this doesn't sound like an easy, thorough, or very powerful spell ("powerful" being relative to the condition of being "dead").
- 7th level spell (two spell levels higher; the same region where things stop going wrong with lower-level spells*; the same region where you gain the power to create demiplanes, regenerate severed limbs, or eradicate a person from existence while leaving their gear**) allows you to take a portion, even from a corpse that has once been infused with negative energy, and return it to full vigor (with a single negative level, though that could well be from the death, rather than the spell itself). It's worth noting that this also allows restoration from death-effects (the lower two do not). Additionally, the "date" range is ten times the death-time of the lower-level spell. You're dealing with a different tier of power altogether.
- 9th level spells just don't care. They work. Voila. Enjoy.
You seem to be skipping directly from 5th level to 9th level in your assessment. You're going to get a skewed view when you do that.
I submit that it does call upon [evil] cosmic power. Sure thing. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense for it to do so.
The logic of lemures holds automatically - it's a compressed bit of lawful evil. It may not have the sentience to follow through with moral actions (and that's fine), but it's made of ethical and moral thought and decisions. Thus, it could easily be read either way.
The logic of undead does not - it's simply a corpse animated by negative energy instead of positive.
The problem is that undead are seen as "bad" for a number of reasons that just don't hold up.
"Because they're mobile, but not alive"... which is a weird thing to get stuck on. The planet is mobile, but not alive. The sun is very mobile, but not alive. The galaxy is extremely mobile, but not alive. Our atoms are super-duper mobile, but definitely not alive.
Or perhaps it's because "they kill things to continue"... except that doesn't hold either. Living things kill living things things to continue. Plants, animals, fungus, bacteria, you name it. And beyond that, many don't kill things to continue. They don't even inherently hate the living - some liches are called out as becoming evil, not because of the rite to become a lich (it notes that there are non-evil liches), but because they are bored, lonely, and grow detached from the world because nobody spends time with them. Like a living person.
Perhaps it's because "they're dangerous"... except may I introduce you to... PCs?
"They prevent reincarnate and raise dead from working" doesn't fall under the "it's evil" argument either, because so do [death] spells; reincarnate (a lower-level spell) actually proves itself a bit of an outlier, though, because it can bring back those who've died from old age and can rebuild bodies two-to-three levels earlier than any other spell (albeit a bit more randomly) - even the most powerful magic (true resurrection) can't bring back those who've died from old age.
Speaking of, animated dead has all the same "evil" properties as... old age. Only old age is much, much worse.
The various assertions holding undead to evil are... weird, at best. I'll definitely accept it as a setting, buuuuuuuuut, the core mechanic is odd. It mostly seems to boil down to "eeeeeeeewwwww~!" and... meh. I'd rather have solid reasons.
Some have been posited here, and that's great... it doesn't match Core fluff, but it's great for their own worlds.
And that's what I mean - the RAW doesn't really support its conclusions in any viable way. So either ditch it (and allow the undead-kind of necromancy to be non-evil), or make up a reason to force it to be evil with understandable elements to it (in which case you're leaving RAW behind as well).
Incidentally, corpse.
But going by what you think: cool. So I make a few dozen clones (sequentially), commit suicide after each one, and keep waking up, and then animate my previously-inhabited bodies! Woo~! I'm clearly a new me (got a new body and everything) so I'll animate the stuff and build the stuff after I'm back from the dead! W00t! It's a win. :)
* See the comparison between teleport and greater teleport, scrying and greater scrying, and lesser- or restoration v. greater restoration and so on.
** Which also, neatly enough, prevents the 7th-level spell from raising you from the dead...
Luthorne |
Yes, I do think 7th level spells are some of the most powerful spells. Creating demiplanes and whatnot. I tend to mentally divide spells into first through third (relatively accessible), fourth through sixth (powerful), seventh through ninth (astounding power). Sorry that wasn't clear.
...not really sure why you linked that 'corpse' link, since they all say a dead or deceased body, usually human. Which was what I said? I did double-check a dictionary before posting that in the first place.
And honestly, there's tons of odd bits in the core mechanics. I'm sure we could easily assemble a huge list without any effort (like, why are druids proficient with scimitars? I'm willing to accept scythes and sickles have a history as instruments of harvest which can play into the whole balance aspect, but scimitars are cavalry weapons! And why is acid an energy? Why are spells that make people trust you a 'charm' effect, but spells that make people think almost anything else a 'compulsion' effect? And...nevermind, this is already too long). Animate dead being evil is just one of many.
As I've said, you could certainly make the argument that you do, but. The facts are that undead are evil, that the spell has the evil descriptor, and that creating undead directly interferes with restoring life to the dead. My opinion is that all these facts imply that there are solid reasons that link all these together which are not explicitly stated...possibly simply to give some degree of freedom to DMs to decide which (if any) are true for their own settings, or to decide that none of them are, and that animating the dead via animate dead is no more evil than animate objects. But that's not the core assumption.
I would also argue that a part of someone's body would not necessarily need to be a part of the person that was animated; after all, you don't need a complete body for some forms of resurrection. Yet even if this body part is (presumably?) not directly tainted by undeath, due to not having been a part of the undead creature, the fact that the undead creature exists prevents even a ninth level spell from working until it has been destroyed. That said, you can argue this is a niche scenario, even for those that are explicitly just an undead hand, head, or eyeball, and may not be generally applicable.
It is of course true that negative energy is not in and of itself evil. Nor are things that kill people (though I would argue that undead do not actually need to kill things to continue, but the same is true of constructs who may well kill plenty of things, so it isn't really that important a distinction). Nor, obviously, are dangerous things. All that you say is true. Yet...even mindless undead are, via the core rules, evil. It seems to be rather a default, a few non-evil undead exist, yet ironically, only those who can choose to not be evil, while living things cannot be evil (or good, or chaotic, or lawful) without the mental capacity to choose to be.
At this point, you really only have two routes. You can either just accept that they are indeed evil, and evolve any number of reasons for why they are evil. Or you can say that you don't like the concept, and change animate dead and undead accordingly, or perhaps even jettison alignment altogether. If you're sticking to the rules as written, the latter option is not open to you, and you must accept that for whatever unknowable, cosmic reasons, creating undead is a really bad thing to do. Not very satisfying, I know. But...that's pretty much the way it stands.
Mind you, I think some of the possibly reasons for it being evil can be downright fascinating. Maybe it rends the veil between the realm of the living and the dead, causing more undead to spontaneously arise with every animate dead spell? Perhaps casting it increases the level of negative energies in the material plane slightly, making creatures more prone to death or even shortening lifespans a tiny amount with every casting? In such a setting, it could be that current day mortals were once unaging, until attempts to bring those back who had died due to accident or murder resulted in the slow erosion of immortality itself... What if it does capture the souls of the dead and use them to power the resulting undead, the soul itself trapped and suffering eternally in its unnatural state, slowly going mad? What if we change it so that negative energy is in fact evil, and a tiny aspect of it stares out of the eyes of every undead, just waiting to be free to kill and kill and kill? What if injecting necromantic energies into the world with every casting is slowly poisoning the planet itself, Final Fantasy VII style? Or perhaps while negative energy itself is not evil, there was a barrier erected between the material plane and the negative energy plane by the gods (or some other cosmic force?) to prevent the death energies from sweeping over the material plane and scouring it of all life, and every ongoing entity powered by negative energy slowly erodes the barrier? And that's just half a dozen off the top of my head...I'm sure there's plenty of other interesting possibilities.
Of course, a world where it's not evil is fine too. Opens things up to cultural standards, where it may be considered evil (but not Evil) by some cultures, and others have it as a respected part of their society, leading to interesting conflict! Mmm, anyone ever read Timothy Zahn's Conquerer's trilogy? ...I should stop rambling now, though.
Tacticslion |
That's what I mean though: you're either going beyond the rules... or you're going beyond the rules. In which case you've got weird contradictory elements.
RE: me linking "corpse" - it was a strengthening of my "alternate-direction" clone+animation concept. In other words, the clones had lived, and then had died. Hence, they were corpses. Hence they could be animated/turned into golems, bypassing the "the clone isn't a corpse" clause you used from the "create clones, then animate them". The point is, once you've inhabited a body and stopped, you've got a corpse.
The only difference is that you've added a few more hoops to go through.
Again, this entirely negates any real semblance of "a creature can't live if they've been turned into an undead" problem. There is nothing in the rules to handle that. You must go beyond them to explain things in that case... which is the point. The rules are too one-sided and contradictory to explain things.
I straight up admit that RAW they're noted as "always evil" (which, incidentally, is incorrect - "always evil" is explicitly "(almost) always evil"... which is weeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrd), but then brings no reasoning behind it at all.
"They always hate the living."
"Why?"
"They just do."
"Are the sentient moral agents?"
"Yes."
"So they have the ability to choose their own alignments."
"No, they're always evil."
"So they are bound to fundamental Evil to be created, like lemures."
"No, they are not. They are just evil."
... and that's the problem. If there is a reason for them to be evil, none is given within the RAW. That means you must leave RAW to find an explanation, and that means you get to pick and choose which parts of RAW apply.
I've always stated that individual GMs can and should make things that make sense. In general, as well, it's a good thing to hold true to the rules.
But then again, there are non-evil undead (deathweb, others*), there are examples of even inherently-aligned outsiders going against their alignment in-canon, and other things that undermine the 'sacred' status of 'always-alignment' elements.
I was going to make more arguments, but... I started this post when yours was only two hours old. I'm about to go to sleep by this point instead. ADD is a harsh, harsh mistress. Sorry. XD
* I was going to look up and link more examples, but sleep soon instead.
pres man |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"specific out ranks the general." They have an alignment listed specifically.
Your argument is circular.
==================================================
If someone is interested in having that necro feel without all the moral issues, might I suggest animate object + permanency, I mean a dead body is an object.
Usual Suspect |
I've found this debate to be interesting, if ultimately useless. What makes spells that create undead evil? Pharasma does. If you are using the Golarion deities as written, that's it. Pharasma decides where the souls of all people go when they die and she hates the undead; and considers their creation to be a foul act. It does not matter what cultural beliefs anybody on Golarion have. When they die, Pharasma judges them based on her standard and assigns their soul to an outer plane for all eternity.
That said, if you're not using Golarion or the Golarion pantheon of deities you can generate whatever standards for the various alignments you want.
To us in the modern real world the definitions of Good and Evil are either social constructs or defined by religious beliefs. In a fantasy world where there are verifiable deities that grant magical powers and directly influence world events in a way that is undeniable, those deities define what acts are good and what acts are evil. Any spell with an in game alignment designation has been defined to have that alignment designation by the gods. Adjust as necessary for your home games, and accept in Society games as is written.
thejeff |
Perhaps, but I think it's bigger than that. Undead being evil is a Core Rules thing, not a Golarion specific thing. (Obviously, you can house rule it).
Alignments appear to be a feature of the rules. They are detectable and manipulateable. I don't think there's any evidence they're a creation of the gods. That doesn't really make much sense in world anyway - Did the various gods get together and decide "You're Evil and I'm Good"? In most real-world religions, even historical polytheistic ones, there's a creator or ruler god who sets those rules, even if he doesn't always follow them. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in PF.
Also, do they renegotiate these definitions from time to time? Like when new gods appear or old ones die or change drastically? Or was it all set back in the dim depths of the past, by some previous set of gods, many of whom might not be around anymore?
Set |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found this debate to be interesting, if ultimately useless. What makes spells that create undead evil? Pharasma does.
A non-good goddess, who indeed thinks the whole idea of moral good is kind of quaint, is powerful enough to arbitrarily determine what is or is not evil that the actual *good* gods kind of have to suck it up and take her word for it.
Meanwhile, the world is *teeming* with creatures sustained and nourished by positive energy, a non-good, non-evil energy source from another dimension entirely (therefore being, by it's very nature, *unnatural*), all of which have to destroy and devour other living creatures to fuel their own unnatural existences on the material plane, which, even if they eat other living creatures 24/7, eventually are aged and withered and burned out by this dimension, as if their existence is *so unnatural* that the world is tearing them apart day by day.
And it also has some undead creatures, sustained and nourished by negative energy, a completely different colored extra-dimensional energy that is *equally* 'unnatural' to the material plane of Golarion, and equally non-moral, neither good nor evil. Undead, unlike living creatures don't always *have* to devour other living creatures to fuel their continued existence, as negative energy appears to be *more natural* to the material world than positive energy, able to sustain itself for centuries, or even millennia, without killing or eating anything. (Some do choose to devour living creatures, which, since they often don't *have to*, makes them eviler than a human or shark or fungus, that *has to* sustain itself on the deaths of other living things, and some undead, in a manner similar to trolls and goblins, on the living side, are filled with an endless unquenchable hunger to do so, but if that doesn't make the goblins and trolls 'unnatural,' then it shouldn't make the ghoul 'unnatural' either.)
But ultimately, it's a tautology. Some things are evil because they are described in-game as mechanically evil. There is no why, only a pool of Nietzchean madness awaits attempting to apply logic to this choice.
Pharasma isn't good. Not even a little bit. She shouldn't get to decide what is evil, based on Urgathoa once having flipped her the bird.
She's not lawful, either, so Urgathoa 'breaking her law' by stepping out of line wasn't even a chaotic act, it was just cheeky.
The game has always had a strange relationship with alignment.
Dwarves and Gnomes, traditionally 'good' races, have race hatred as traits. They loathe some other species with such ravening intensity that they drill every single one of their children in specific tactics to more effectively kill them. Orcs and Gnolls and Hobgoblins, traditionally 'evil' races? Really aren't that into genocide. They might have some flavor text like 'hobgoblins hate elves,' but they don't care enough to actually wake their children up at zero dark thirty and practice killing elves. It's a weak tea sort of 'hate' compared to the race-hate of the good races, which comes with mechanical benefits!
LazarX |
Dwarves and Gnomes, traditionally 'good' races, have race hatred as traits. They loathe some other species with such ravening intensity that they drill every single one of their children in specific tactics to more effectively kill them. Orcs and Gnolls and Hobgoblins, traditionally 'evil' races? Really aren't that into genocide. They might have some flavor text like 'hobgoblins hate elves,' but they don't care enough to actually wake their children up at zero dark thirty and practice killing elves. It's a weak tea sort of 'hate' compared to the race-hate of the good races, which comes with mechanical benefits!
Actually it's because Hobgoblins hate everything... including other tribes of hobgoblins. They can't afford to specialise, so they remain general purpose haters.
LazarX |
A non-good goddess, who indeed thinks the whole idea of moral good is kind of quaint, is powerful enough to arbitrarily determine what is or is not evil that the actual *good* gods kind of have to suck it up and take her word for it.
Actually, I don't think it's her choice. Gods don't create alignment, they are bound by it, it may be that alignment is one of the forces that creates gods.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert |
I think this is incredibly subjective if you aren't using a published setting that explains these issues. I personally think raising undead should be a very bad thing because flavor, so I added in a logical reason for it to be bad since I don't use alignment and don't have a bunch of gods dictating morality. It is bad because I decided the flesh, blood, or organs of a human sacrificial victim is a necessary spell component for raising undead in my setting. It is a flavorful and logical explanation for why it would be a very bad thing to do. I also reclassified healing magic as Necromancy, because Necromancy is simply the magic of life and death. Raising undead is very bad, yes, but there are more benign forms of Necromancy, and healing is one of those.
In Golarion, it's bad because good and evil are tangible forces with actual definitions, rather than subjective social constructs. No real reason aside from it being evil is really necessary when evil itself has actual power in the world.
DM Under The Bridge |
Usual Suspect wrote:I've found this debate to be interesting, if ultimately useless. What makes spells that create undead evil? Pharasma does.A non-good goddess, who indeed thinks the whole idea of moral good is kind of quaint, is powerful enough to arbitrarily determine what is or is not evil that the actual *good* gods kind of have to suck it up and take her word for it.
Meanwhile, the world is *teeming* with creatures sustained and nourished by positive energy, a non-good, non-evil energy source from another dimension entirely (therefore being, by it's very nature, *unnatural*), all of which have to destroy and devour other living creatures to fuel their own unnatural existences on the material plane, which, even if they eat other living creatures 24/7, eventually are aged and withered and burned out by this dimension, as if their existence is *so unnatural* that the world is tearing them apart day by day.
And it also has some undead creatures, sustained and nourished by negative energy, a completely different colored extra-dimensional energy that is *equally* 'unnatural' to the material plane of Golarion, and equally non-moral, neither good nor evil. Undead, unlike living creatures don't always *have* to devour other living creatures to fuel their continued existence, as negative energy appears to be *more natural* to the material world than positive energy, able to sustain itself for centuries, or even millennia, without killing or eating anything. (Some do choose to devour living creatures, which, since they often don't *have to*, makes them eviler than a human or shark or fungus, that *has to* sustain itself on the deaths of other living things, and some undead, in a manner similar to trolls and goblins, on the living side, are filled with an endless unquenchable hunger to do so, but if that doesn't make the goblins and trolls 'unnatural,' then it shouldn't make the ghoul 'unnatural' either.)
But ultimately, it's a tautology. Some things are evil because they are described...
Well said Set. If the good prepare for genocide and if genocide is a part of their being and even their mechanics, is genocide good? It certainly can't be evil to harbour such thoughts or to engage in such deed or their preparation, or they wouldn't be able to be good.