Why create undead is evil.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Ashiel wrote:

As I pointed out in the rules breakdown, animate dead turns corpses (an object) into mindless undead. The creature in question - their soul - is not turned into an undead creature. You can still raise the creature (the soul) that still exists assuming having an existing body is not an issue.

The creature still exists in a non-undead form. Their soul, which can still exist in many forms, is not undead. They have not been turned into the undead. The vessel that was their body prior to their death has been made into a soulless undead creature.

I broke this down, clearly, before.

You broke it down and made exactly that argument, but ignored the clear rules text that said you couldn't do it. Reincarnate, for example specifically says: "A creature that has been turned into an undead creature ... can't be returned to life by this spell." Not "has been turned into a non-mindless undead".

Or were you arguing that's how it should work, not how the RAW currently is?

Oh wait. You're claiming that animate dead doesn't actually turn the "creature" into undead, just its corpse? But that the create undead spells do? And that is RAW, clearly intended and spelled out in the various resurrection spells? That's a pretty tortured reading of the text.

I take it that would mean that you could Raise someone whose corpse had been animated and then the zombie had been destroyed? As long as the body was sufficiently intact. He still hasn't been turned into an undead creature, so that clause doesn't apply.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer for golems going back to the original legend of the golem as a Jewish thing similar to creating a new life form...you are actually giving a spirit that has no body a home, and binding it to a body that normally it would be unable to inhabit.

Because of the difference in perspectives between mortal and immortal creatures, what we call 'slavery' it calls 'chosen duty to its creator' and the concept of 'free will' doesn't exist for it, like for most outsiders. Too, endless years of service don't bother it in the slightest, just like most immortal creatures.

Going berserk is a result of the pure spirit not fitting the body precisely, and imperfections and contradictions accumulate in the golem's mind until it goes berserk and starts lashing out until such contradictions are resolved...generally by its creator speaking persuasively to it, like a parent to a child, whereupon it calms down and goes back to being faithful once more.

Given the way that golems are talked down out of their 'berserk' status, I don't think the relationship with most golems and their creators is adversarial...which it certainly WOULD be if it were enslavement.

So, I must disagree with JJ and Ashiel...creating a golem is NOT necessarily evil, and until we know the exact relationship of the spirit to the creator, whether or not the binding process is voluntary or involuntary, we won't know the truth of the matter.

But the simple, persuasive manner you talk a golem out of being uncontrolled leads me to believe it does NOT have to be a hostile relationship in the slightest.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turning into undead or being slain by death effects prevents reincarnation or raise dead.

Most death effects are not evil though. See slay living or circle of death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also like the thematic possibilities of Buffyverse style undead.

The person's old body and memories, but a malevolent spirit from Hell/Abyss/Abaddon animates it as undead.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voadam wrote:

Turning into undead or being slain by death effects prevents reincarnation or raise dead.

Most death effects are not evil though. See slay living or circle of death.

Correct. Just like using negative channel energy is not evil, nor is positive channel energy, healing, or raising the dead Good.

==Aelryinth


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

As I pointed out in the rules breakdown, animate dead turns corpses (an object) into mindless undead. The creature in question - their soul - is not turned into an undead creature. You can still raise the creature (the soul) that still exists assuming having an existing body is not an issue.

The creature still exists in a non-undead form. Their soul, which can still exist in many forms, is not undead. They have not been turned into the undead. The vessel that was their body prior to their death has been made into a soulless undead creature.

I broke this down, clearly, before.

You broke it down and made exactly that argument, but ignored the clear rules text that said you couldn't do it. Reincarnate, for example specifically says: "A creature that has been turned into an undead creature ... can't be returned to life by this spell." Not "has been turned into a non-mindless undead".

Or were you arguing that's how it should work, not how the RAW currently is?

Oh wait. You're claiming that animate dead doesn't actually turn the "creature" into undead, just its corpse? But that the create undead spells do? And that is RAW, clearly intended and spelled out in the various resurrection spells? That's a pretty tortured reading of the text.

I take it that would mean that you could Raise someone whose corpse had been animated and then the zombie had been destroyed? As long as the body was sufficiently intact. He still hasn't been turned into an undead creature, so that clause doesn't apply.

For your reincarnation scenario, what about the situation where a person has been reincarnated (which gives them a new body as per the spell). Can a person then animate dead on the old body?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do hope they're be a revised necromancy section in a future Unearthed Arcana/Unchained style book that removed the evil descriptor from the mindless undead creation spells, deathwatch and changes positive energy spells to the necromancy school, along with notes on what class abilities will need to be modified to make the healing thing not screw with everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Assuming, of course, that you can make any of those past the first one without the effect utterly failing, because the undead soul is already in use.

Although there IS precedent for making 3 undead out of one corpse, its 3 very specific kinds of undead.

==Aelryinth


As I'm not at all wed to the soul actually providing the intelligence, I don't really have a problem with any of that. Nor with Reincarnating/True Resurrecting the person, then having someone else turning the unused corpse into an undead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I can find, there's nothing anywhere is the rules which would prevent making multiple intelligent undead from the same corpse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent) which is then Awakened (now it's intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

Don't forget to use their eyes to make Isitoq.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:


Don't forget to use their eyes to make Isitoq.

Nice! I managed to get the edit in before the one hour edit gate slammed shut.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kando wrote:

When i as a mage use/can use mindcontrol on one villian to kill the others the people maybe will not like me for it but at least they will not instantly kill me or am i forced to be "evil".

When i as a necromancer make the corpse of a dead villian move just long enough to finish the fight. I am an ultimate evil person. And need to be killed on sight.
There are more neutral variants of this but i am choosing this example to show you where there is the big problem with flat out saying undead/moving corpses=evil.

There's a difference between "Is an evil act" and "Makes you the ultimate evil person who needs to be killed on sight."

Yes, it's evil to do so. No, doing so once doesn't make an otherwise good person evil. Yes, circumstances and intent matter, but if you're going to rely heavily on evil means, you'll eventually be evil. But still probably not "kill on sight". Even paladins don't have to kill every thing evil on sight.

And mindcontroling a person is not an "evil act"? Or throwing a fireball in someones face? Seriously....

No amount of handwaved explanations will change that for me. Not in a world where there is magic and mages can create there own dimensions or stop time itself.

I dont know what groups you play in or what types of paladins you adventure with, but mostly because of this evil discriptore, even when the gm has/would houserule this away, even when i am totaly a nice guy, i will burn at the stake as soon as i even make a finger move.

And move objects comes way to late to play a necromancer type.

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.
As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

As I pointed out in the rules breakdown, animate dead turns corpses (an object) into mindless undead. The creature in question - their soul - is not turned into an undead creature. You can still raise the creature (the soul) that still exists assuming having an existing body is not an issue.

The creature still exists in a non-undead form. Their soul, which can still exist in many forms, is not undead. They have not been turned into the undead. The vessel that was their body prior to their death has been made into a soulless undead creature.

I broke this down, clearly, before.

You broke it down and made exactly that argument, but ignored the clear rules text that said you couldn't do it. Reincarnate, for example specifically says: "A creature that has been turned into an undead creature ... can't be returned to life by this spell." Not "has been turned into a non-mindless undead".

Or were you arguing that's how it should work, not how the RAW currently is?

Oh wait. You're claiming that animate dead doesn't actually turn the "creature" into undead, just its corpse? But that the create undead spells do? And that is RAW, clearly intended and spelled out in the various resurrection spells? That's a pretty tortured reading of the text.

I take it that would mean that you could Raise someone whose corpse had been animated and then the zombie had been destroyed? As long as the body was sufficiently intact. He still hasn't been turned into an undead creature, so that clause doesn't apply.

For your reincarnation scenario, what about the situation where a person has been reincarnated (which gives them a new body as per the spell). Can a person then animate dead on the old body?

Absolutely. Animate dead targets a corpse and turns a corpse into a mindless, soulless, undead. The wording here is important. A corpse is an object that animate turns into a creature without a soul.

Animate Dead wrote:
This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands.

A corpse is an object. The creature (the soul) is elsewhere. The only time you a binding a soul with animate dead is when you animate a dead outsider (outsiders do not have a dual nature unless they have the native subtype) in which case you are turning a dead soul into another dead thing.

The original creature is elsewhere without a physical body. The creature has not been turned into an undead creature its corpse was.

Now create undead targets a corpse as well, but it notes that it infuses the corpse with negative energy and creates one of several specific types of undead. The specific types of undead it creates are undead with souls, at least one of which explicitly notes that the soul of the original creature is bound into it as an undead creature (mummies) while being heavily implied by the others. It actually turns the creatures body AND soul into an undead creature which prevents its soul from being available for resurrection (because its soul is currently in the undead body).

It's kind of the same reason you cannot take multiple samples from a recent corpse and use reincarnate to make spiritual clones of a dead person. Even if you have the sample of the deceased person, if they've already been revived there is no soul to raise so further reincarnate or resurrection spells fail.

Similarly, you could cast animate dead on a dead wizard's corpse whose soul has jumped to their clone elsewhere because again, animate dead turns soulless objects (corpses) into soulless undead (skeletons and zombies).

You could arguably cast create undead on a corpse without an available soul but then the question is whose soul are you grabbing? That could be some fun cosmological discussion for later.


Kando wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kando wrote:

When i as a mage use/can use mindcontrol on one villian to kill the others the people maybe will not like me for it but at least they will not instantly kill me or am i forced to be "evil".

When i as a necromancer make the corpse of a dead villian move just long enough to finish the fight. I am an ultimate evil person. And need to be killed on sight.
There are more neutral variants of this but i am choosing this example to show you where there is the big problem with flat out saying undead/moving corpses=evil.

There's a difference between "Is an evil act" and "Makes you the ultimate evil person who needs to be killed on sight."

Yes, it's evil to do so. No, doing so once doesn't make an otherwise good person evil. Yes, circumstances and intent matter, but if you're going to rely heavily on evil means, you'll eventually be evil. But still probably not "kill on sight". Even paladins don't have to kill every thing evil on sight.

And mindcontroling a person is not an "evil act"? Or throwing a fireball in someones face? Seriously....

No amount of handwaved explanations will change that for me. Not in a world where there is magic and mages can create there own dimensions or stop time itself.

I dont know what groups you play in or what types of paladins you adventure with, but mostly because of this evil discriptore, even when the gm has/would houserule this away, even when i am totaly a nice guy, i will burn at the stake as soon as i even make a finger move.

And move objects comes way to late to play a necromancer type.

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.
As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.

House rule it then. And no, fireballing someone isn't evil, in and of itself. Anymore than stabbing them with a sword is. Or Smiting them. Nor even mindcontrol. Again, under the proper circumstances.

Animating dead is evil, by the rules of the game. In and of itself it's an evil thing. Not because of what you're using the undead to do, but just because it's an evil thing.

Still, if I was running, you wouldn't be burned at the stake and a PC paladin who tried to attack you for it would be warned that he would fall. Though he could certainly be suspicious and untrusting of you. In the long run, if you created enough undead you would shift to evil and he'd have problems adventuring with you.
At least if I was playing with RAW undead rules and didn't change things up for that game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kando wrote:

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.

As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons I think Paizo's "there is no other option" stance is bad. It does cause arguments and discord between groups. I've seen it countless times myself. It can create bitter feelings between players or GMs because it implies that there is a right and wrong way, when this absolutism really just needs to die.

Even Jacobs points out that the whole reason for the absolutism is so that they can break the rules and make it seem special, but it'd be a lot better for everyone involved if it was just made clear that there is the possibility for anomalies. It'd save a lot of gamers a lot of unnecessary grief.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
House rule it then. And no, fireballing someone isn't evil, in and of itself. Anymore than stabbing them with a sword is. Or Smiting them. Nor even mindcontrol. Again, under the proper circumstances.

All of those things are evil by Pathfinder. Each is hurting, oppressing, or killing. Those are evil. But the GM has to weigh how good vs evil something you are doing is because in the same casting of fireball to hurt, oppress, or kill, you may also be acting altruistically, with concern for others, and protecting innocent life.

Quote:
Animating dead is evil, by the rules of the game. In and of itself it's an evil thing. Not because of what you're using the undead to do, but just because it's an evil thing.

Aside from the logical inconsistencies with alignment, the things you listed above are also evil by alignment, but can be used in good ways and be considered heroic. Goose and gander here.

Quote:

Still, if I was running, you wouldn't be burned at the stake and a PC paladin who tried to attack you for it would be warned that he would fall. Though he could certainly be suspicious and untrusting of you. In the long run, if you created enough undead you would shift to evil and he'd have problems adventuring with you.

At least if I was playing with RAW undead rules and didn't change things up for that game.

RAW, as long as he was being more consistently good than not, he would end up being good even if he was a necromancer. His mindless undead would also become neutral after a while because the alignment rules dictate that they do.

The Paladin would, if RAW was followed, probably be very surprised because one day he would wake up and the necromancer's undead were no longer pinging on his detect spells and the necromancer doesn't ever ping except when he's casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor.


Ashiel wrote:
Kando wrote:

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.

As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons I think Paizo's "there is no other option" stance is bad. It does cause arguments and discord between groups. I've seen it countless times myself. It can create bitter feelings between players or GMs because it implies that there is a right and wrong way, when this absolutism really just needs to die.

Even Jacobs points out that the whole reason for the absolutism is so that they can break the rules and make it seem special, but it'd be a lot better for everyone involved if it was just made clear that there is the possibility for anomalies. It'd save a lot of gamers a lot of unnecessary grief.

Of course rule anomalies only make sense when there is a baseline understanding of the rules.

Going back to OP, if his group wants to play with the fluff that undead creation traps the soul in some meaningful way that's fine, there is even a fairly solid mechanical basis for that fluff since if you use someones corpse to create an undead before they get revived then they cannot be revived until that undead is destroyed, even if wish or true resurrection is used.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kando wrote:

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.

As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons I think Paizo's "there is no other option" stance is bad. It does cause arguments and discord between groups. I've seen it countless times myself. It can create bitter feelings between players or GMs because it implies that there is a right and wrong way, when this absolutism really just needs to die.

Even Jacobs points out that the whole reason for the absolutism is so that they can break the rules and make it seem special, but it'd be a lot better for everyone involved if it was just made clear that there is the possibility for anomalies. It'd save a lot of gamers a lot of unnecessary grief.

We don't have a "there's no other option." As I said in my previous post... we've had plenty of non-evil undead. Anyway... not sure how much more help I can be here... gonna go watch a movie. About an evil undead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kando wrote:

One of my first groups broke up because of this, now i am not even trying anymore. I just have to deal with that.

As Stupid and illogical as i think it is.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons I think Paizo's "there is no other option" stance is bad. It does cause arguments and discord between groups. I've seen it countless times myself. It can create bitter feelings between players or GMs because it implies that there is a right and wrong way, when this absolutism really just needs to die.

Even Jacobs points out that the whole reason for the absolutism is so that they can break the rules and make it seem special, but it'd be a lot better for everyone involved if it was just made clear that there is the possibility for anomalies. It'd save a lot of gamers a lot of unnecessary grief.

We don't have a "there's no other option." As I said in my previous post... we've had plenty of non-evil undead. Anyway... not sure how much more help I can be here... gonna go watch a movie. About an evil undead.

I meant the overwhelmingly large slant towards undeath equating to evil, the removal of options like the juju oracle (which originally explained how their undead were aligned and it was because they were calling like-minded lesser spirits into the animated vessels), and stuff like that.

I'm well aware that options exist for undead to be not-evil (the alignment rules themselves are the #1 definitive solution) but it's unclear enough to the general populace that these types of discussions keep getting rehashed.

Also, what movie? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
Going back to OP, if his group wants to play with the fluff that undead creation traps the soul in some meaningful way that's fine, there is even a fairly solid mechanical basis for that fluff since if you use someones corpse to create an undead before they get revived then they cannot be revived until that undead is destroyed, even if wish or true resurrection is used.

DO YOU EVEN!?

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My head-canon is that while positive and negative energy are not inherently Good/Evil, they are naturally attracted to Good and Evil respectively (and repelled by the opposite).
This is why Good clerics channel positive energy and spontaneously cast cure spells--their goodly aura makes positive energy come easily (and the opposite is the case for Evil clerics).

Negative energy doesn't naturally animate corpses, in the same way that water doesn't flow up hill. You need to do something to get he negative energy to "stick" to the corpse, and the easy way to do that is to make the corpse evil--in essence, to desecrate it. Hence, animate dead and similar spells are evil. (Also note that sanctifying corpses prevents them from rising as undead)

This also goes some way toward explaining naturally occurring undead--most often they form from deceased Evil people (murderers, etc) or from people who were victims of some Evil (violence, betrayal, etc). These occurrences concentrate negative energy in the area, allowing the corpse or spirit to "soak" that energy up and manifest as an undead.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
House rule it then. And no, fireballing someone isn't evil, in and of itself. Anymore than stabbing them with a sword is. Or Smiting them. Nor even mindcontrol. Again, under the proper circumstances.

All of those things are evil by Pathfinder. Each is hurting, oppressing, or killing. Those are evil. But the GM has to weigh how good vs evil something you are doing is because in the same casting of fireball to hurt, oppress, or kill, you may also be acting altruistically, with concern for others, and protecting innocent life.

Quote:
Animating dead is evil, by the rules of the game. In and of itself it's an evil thing. Not because of what you're using the undead to do, but just because it's an evil thing.

Aside from the logical inconsistencies with alignment, the things you listed above are also evil by alignment, but can be used in good ways and be considered heroic. Goose and gander here.

Quote:

Still, if I was running, you wouldn't be burned at the stake and a PC paladin who tried to attack you for it would be warned that he would fall. Though he could certainly be suspicious and untrusting of you. In the long run, if you created enough undead you would shift to evil and he'd have problems adventuring with you.

At least if I was playing with RAW undead rules and didn't change things up for that game.

RAW, as long as he was being more consistently good than not, he would end up being good even if he was a necromancer. His mindless undead would also become neutral after a while because the alignment rules dictate that they do.

The Paladin would, if RAW was followed, probably be very surprised because one day he would wake up and the necromancer's undead were no longer pinging on his detect spells and the necromancer doesn't ever ping except when he's casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor.

According to your particular idiosyncratic interpretation of the alignment rules and contrary to the plain text of the undead writeups yes.

Since I'd be running this hypothetical game, I'd be using my understanding of the rules, not yours.


Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
Going back to OP, if his group wants to play with the fluff that undead creation traps the soul in some meaningful way that's fine, there is even a fairly solid mechanical basis for that fluff since if you use someones corpse to create an undead before they get revived then they cannot be revived until that undead is destroyed, even if wish or true resurrection is used.
DO YOU EVEN!?

We've read it. We disagree. The rules are clear. By far the most straightforward interpretation is that animating someone's corpse as a zombie is "turning them into an undead creature" and thus prevents raising. You can try FAQing it, if you really want an answer.


Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
Going back to OP, if his group wants to play with the fluff that undead creation traps the soul in some meaningful way that's fine, there is even a fairly solid mechanical basis for that fluff since if you use someones corpse to create an undead before they get revived then they cannot be revived until that undead is destroyed, even if wish or true resurrection is used.
DO YOU EVEN!?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/raise-dead wrote:

You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than 1 day per caster level. In addition, the subject's soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.

Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it takes 2 points of Constitution drain instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can't be raised). A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised. A spellcasting creature that doesn't prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell.

A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current HD. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature's equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.

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. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resurrection wrote:


This spell functions like raise dead, except that you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature.

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. The subject of the spell gains one permanent negative level when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it takes 2 points of Constitution drain instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can't be resurrected).

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.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/true-resurrection wrote:

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased's time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no negative levels (or loss of* Constitution points) and all of the prepared spells possessed by the creature when it died.

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.

Even true resurrection can't restore to life a creature who has died of old age.

RAW has all sorts of confusing and nonsensical fall outs, but trying to restore life to a dead character who has been turned into a zombie or a shadow or some other undead is really very very clear, it doesn't work until you destroy their undead form. If a DM wants to fiat it differently, that's cool, if the DM wants to explain it away with some fluff about trapping the soul, that's cool too, but going into extended contortions trying to explain how the rules are not the rules is just confusing waste of time.

If you were playing in a game, killed the BBEG, then made him into your skeleton hand servant, how would you react to seeing him resurrected? I know I'd be annoyed and confused since even the explicit and clear rules aren't being followed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
RAW has all sorts of confusing and nonsensical fall outs, but trying to restore life to a dead character who has been turned into a zombie or a shadow or some other undead is really very very clear, it doesn't work until you destroy their undead form. If a DM wants to fiat it differently, that's cool, if the DM wants to explain it away with some fluff about trapping the soul, that's cool too, but going into extended contortions trying to explain how the rules are not the rules is just confusing waste of time.

Let me help you. A breakdown of how it works, pieced together from a lot of different rules.

Quote:
If you were playing in a game, killed the BBEG, then made him into your skeleton hand servant, how would you react to seeing him resurrected? I know I'd be annoyed and confused since even the explicit and clear rules aren't being followed.

I wouldn't because I didn't make the badguy into my skeleton servant. I made his corpse into my former servant. The creature type rules clearly state that non-outsiders have a dual nature. When they die, the creature as a soul passes into the afterlife. This is confirmed by the Dead creature condition that says the character's soul leaves the body.

Animate dead does not turn a creature into a an undead. It turns an object (a corpse) into an undead creature. It explicitly lacks the soul of the original creature and house ruling that it traps the soul require you to house rule other effects in the game like magic jar that explicitly note that it does not.

There are spells that do turn dead people into undead creatures: create undead and create greater undead explicitly bind the souls of the dead into undead creatures and are confirmed by Magic Jar and the creature type rules to create undead who are souls.

What You're Missing
Where you're getting tripped up is where the spells say you cannot raise/resurrect characters who have been turned into the undead. This is true. You cannot resurrect a character that has been turned into an undead creature, such as a mummy, because they are currently an undead creature. You must destroy them to raise them. You also cannot raise and undead creature that has been slain, it must come back alive and with soul.

What you're missing is the creature. According to the Environment chapter, the creature (now a soul) ventures into one of the transitive planes, either the Astral Plane on its way to one of the various outer planes to its final resting place, or the Ethereal Plane as a ghost that clings to the material plane still.

If we're talking about the Golarion cosmology as described by the Gamemastery Guide, then characters pass through Purgatory where Aeons reside before being judged (presumably by Pharasma in the boneyard?) and sent to their final destinations such as Heaven, Hell, Nirvanna, etc. In any case, it is factual that the creature is not the corpse that they left behind when they died.

What you are getting tripped up on is you're mistaking the car for the driver. The creature is the driver, the car is the mode of transportation. When the car crashes, animate car recycles the car but the dude goes on. But create car recycles the car and then straps the dude back in it and the dude cannot be in two cars at one time.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

PATHFINDER NOT STUPID: It's Just Scattered Everywhere
As a recap, none of the rules I've mentioned conflict with one-another and make 100% logical sense with no contradictions. I've cited the following materials that all, when combined, point to the exact same conclusion.

1. Creature Types
2. Spell Descriptions
3. Creature Conditions
4. Cosmological Descriptions
5. Alignment Rules
6. Creature Descriptions

All of these things, found in the core rules, all point to certain facts. You cannot raise a creature that has been turned into an undead creature and you cannot raise undead creatures. Animate dead does not create an undead creature from a dead creature, it creates it from a byproduct of a dead creature. Create undead creates undead creature from dead creatures with a byproduct of a dead creature. It's all about the creature - the soul.

It can be confusing but it is pretty strait-forward when you lay it all out. The rules do not conflict in this regard. They are quite clear and I'd dare say elegant and rational.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Put another way, when Urgathoa was in line at the DMV Boneyard and getting annoyed, she was not a corpse, she was a soul. But she was Urgathoa. She presumably had a body which was back on the material plane. The body was not Urgathoa. Urgathoa was in fact in line at the DMV Boneyard. Urgathoa then decided, "Screw this, I'll just walk leave" and then went back to the material plane and became an undead creature.

And that's why you cannot drink until you're 21.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On another note, everyone talks about how disturbing it would have to be to destroy undead made out of the bodies of people you once knew but...

Honestly, what's more crazy that having to destroy undead made out of your own body? That fast zombie looks an awful lot like that dude you see in the mirror when you're shaving. (O_O)

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Also, what movie? :)

If it ain't Evil Dead, I'm going to be disappointed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
I guess that's lost on me. I am serious, and don't see why those two sentences are incompatible.

Okay, let's take another look at your second sentence:

DM Blake wrote:
As to the question of why, we've had at least one dev take a stab at answering it - trapping and tormenting souls.

Right away, your explanation (or rather, James Jacobs' explanation that you refer to) makes very strong assumptions about the process of what happens to souls of the deceased. The post James Jacobs made that you refer to makes even more such assumptions.

This explanation is not consistent with how a great many real-world religions view death and souls.
This explanation is not consistent with the established rules for death in many mainstream works of fiction.

You mention undead alignment tendencies coming from 3.0 and 3.5, but the explanation in your second sentence is not consistent with the fate of deceased given in several published 3.0 and 3.5 campaign settings.

This explanation is not even consistent with the fate of deceased souls in numerous campaign settings explicitly published for the Pathfinder RPG.

The explanation given by you and James Jacobs is, fundamentally, an explanation which depends heavily on key facts about a campaign world, the nature of religion(s) in the campaign world, and how death, souls, and afterlife work in your campaign world.

In it of itself, there is nothing wrong with a highly campaign-dependent explanation like the one you give. You should, however, acknowledge it as such. You need to make so many assumptions about the world for your explanation to hold any water that it is unlikely to make sense to people not playing in your personal world of fantasy.

Your explanation is also inconsistent with the descriptions of other spells in the Core Rulebook, making it even less likely to be meaningful outside of your world. If you want an explanation as to the contradictions between your/James Jacobs' explanation and the rest of the Core Rulebook, reread Ashiel's posts on this thread. It's only tangentially related to what I am saying, and Ashiel explains it better than I could.

So now that that framework has been established, let's take another look at your first sentence:

DM Blake wrote:
In other words, the standard for alignments created in this game apply to the whole game, everywhere, all cities, all countries, all worlds, all planes. Everywhere.

If you still aren't hearing the gears of cognitive dissonance grinding in your head, I don't think I can help you.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Also, what movie? :)

The Ring.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

None of them. The soul left the body upon the character's death. All the others are dark negative energy and/or dark spirits that have been placed into the remains through Necromancy.

---

All the bits about characters not being able to be brought back to life so long as any 'remains' (either physical or spiritual) have had the Undead-ness beaten out of them... well, they tie to this nicely.

What Doomed Hero listed is simply a very EFFECTIVE method of preventing various forms of Resurrection. Oh, you think someone might want to rez that guy? Let's make not one, but FIVE Undead out of the remains.
Have fun getting THAT guy back. I'm sure some enterprising BBEG might take it upon him/her/it-self to do such a particularly heinous thing to an important NPC (or even character!).
In fact, this might be great fun, as instead of the item-based 'plot coupon' style, the DM can have it be based around killing specific Undead all made from the same guy, in order for the someone to bring him back...

---

EDIT: Woo, hey, chalk up another one for 'why animating Undead is Evil'... it prevents bringing people back to life with good, holy magics. Or just back to life PERIOD in a multiverse where such is a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Also, what movie? :)

The Ring.

My sister and I really enjoyed that movie. The sequel was a little disappointing and really felt like it (the sequel) could have just been resolved by giving her a hug. :P


Aelryinth wrote:

I prefer for golems going back to the original legend of the golem as a Jewish thing similar to creating a new life form...you are actually giving a spirit that has no body a home, and binding it to a body that normally it would be unable to inhabit.

Because of the difference in perspectives between mortal and immortal creatures, what we call 'slavery' it calls 'chosen duty to its creator' and the concept of 'free will' doesn't exist for it, like for most outsiders. Too, endless years of service don't bother it in the slightest, just like most immortal creatures.

Going berserk is a result of the pure spirit not fitting the body precisely, and imperfections and contradictions accumulate in the golem's mind until it goes berserk and starts lashing out until such contradictions are resolved...generally by its creator speaking persuasively to it, like a parent to a child, whereupon it calms down and goes back to being faithful once more.

Given the way that golems are talked down out of their 'berserk' status, I don't think the relationship with most golems and their creators is adversarial...which it certainly WOULD be if it were enslavement.

So, I must disagree with JJ and Ashiel...creating a golem is NOT necessarily evil, and until we know the exact relationship of the spirit to the creator, whether or not the binding process is voluntary or involuntary, we won't know the truth of the matter.

But the simple, persuasive manner you talk a golem out of being uncontrolled leads me to believe it does NOT have to be a hostile relationship in the slightest.

==Aelryinth

Compelling argument, and I could see using it that way, but to me the word 'bound' really is the kicker.

Also, going berserk because the body isn't quite a good fit? That doesn't jive well with me...

Don't forget, these spirits are simply the animating force, they have NO control UNTIL berserk status applies...

That's why golems are mindless.

Would you sign up to be just the engine for a giant robot? Providing power but having no control over it's actions?

Watching passively as it performed whatever commands someone else gave it?

No thanks. I can't imagine ANY sentient being signing up for that.

Hrm.

I think I'm going to give berserking golems the ability to speak, and an intelligence score. That might be cool.

"Kill me! Free me from this hell, hurry! I'm weak against (insert weakness here)".

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Would you sign up to be just the engine for a giant robot? Providing power but having no control over it's actions?

Watching passively as it performed whatever commands someone else gave it?

No thanks. I can't imagine ANY sentient being signing up for that.

You're not an elemental. You're not the spirit and life force of a chunk of rock.

I'd imagine they have a very different attitude.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who says you are passive? They are given orders and fulfill them to the best of their limited intellectual abilities.

Going berserk is the result of too many orders starting conflicts in their mind and it doesn't know which ones to fulfill anymore. It's a glitch.

Being 'bound' means 'being tied to'. Or it could be a bodiless, drifting thing with no purpose or thought for the rest of eternity. Being bound means it actually has ITS OWN BODY. Woot!

If it used the term 'imprisoned', then you'd have a point. I think you're interpreting 'bound' too harshly.

As for flesh golems...remember those used to be the bodies of other living creatures. Maybe the echoes of those creatures' life experiences are bouncing around inside the shells and aggravating the easy following of commands...we don't know. We only know they are lesser golems made from inferior materials and so more liable to go out of control. It's noteworthy that golems made out of stone and iron don't have that problem.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Who says you are passive? They are given orders and fulfill them to the best of their limited intellectual abilities.

Going berserk is the result of too many orders starting conflicts in their mind and it doesn't know which ones to fulfill anymore. It's a glitch.

Being 'bound' means 'being tied to'. Or it could be a bodiless, drifting thing with no purpose or thought for the rest of eternity. Being bound means it actually has ITS OWN BODY. Woot!

If it used the term 'imprisoned', then you'd have a point. I think you're interpreting 'bound' too harshly.

As for flesh golems...remember those used to be the bodies of other living creatures. Maybe the echoes of those creatures' life experiences are bouncing around inside the shells and aggravating the easy following of commands...we don't know. We only know they are lesser golems made from inferior materials and so more liable to go out of control. It's noteworthy that golems made out of stone and iron don't have that problem.

==Aelryinth

We agree to disagree on this topic. I understand your point of view, but I will stick with my interpretation. Mainly out of habit.

You have given me something to think about, and for that I am grateful.

Perhaps the creation of a Golem takes a spirit trapped in a limbo-like existence, and allows it to experience the physical world for the first time.

Not understanding how reality works, it occasionally freaks out and lashes out.

Until it's creator talks it down.

Hm.

In any case, major derail of the original thread.

Creating undead is evil because you literally trap the soul of the original person.

If you create undead on a 500 year old corpse, you are literally ripping someones soul from (potentially) their 'heaven' and forcing them back to the mortal world to simply animate, not even CONTROL an undead monster.

Seems pretty obvious to me, why are we debating this? :D

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Because necromancers want to be able to make undead armies willy-nilly and not be 'bad people' for doing so.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Because necromancers want to be able to make undead armies willy-nilly and not be 'bad people' for doing so.

==Aelryinth

I'm one of those.

I love playing necromancers, but I don't want to be... EVIL evil...

Just spooky, weird, and someone who has a bone fetish.

I once got to play a necromancer who would only animate things that agreed to it ahead of time, so he always started combat by trying to talk to the monsters.

Dragons are really anal about that sort of thing.

Humanoids, not so much.

Ogres just don't care.

Sovereign Court

alexd1976 wrote:
I once got to play a necromancer who would only animate things that agreed to it ahead of time, so he always started combat by trying to talk to the monsters.

Wasn't there an Eberron faction that did that back in 3.5? They had much tougher undead troopers - CR 2-4ish (pretty good in Eberron - where 12 is called out as being the highest level virtually anyone gets to - once you hit 6-7 you started to become a local celebrity etc) - but I seem to remember something about them agreeing to it before death. Like - their family got a stipend or something.

*shrug* Maybe that was just our campaign's version of that faction.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I once got to play a necromancer who would only animate things that agreed to it ahead of time, so he always started combat by trying to talk to the monsters.

Wasn't there an Eberron faction that did that back in 3.5? They had much tougher undead troopers - CR 2-4ish (pretty good in Eberron - where 12 is called out as being the highest level virtually anyone gets to - once you hit 6-7 you started to become a local celebrity etc) - but I seem to remember something about them agreeing to it before death. Like - their family got a stipend or something.

*shrug* Maybe that was just our campaign's version of that faction.

No idea, we have done custom settings since... well... forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

Don't forget to chop off the hand for an int 2 creation.

In 3.5's Complete Minions from Bastion Press you could also use the skin for a skinwraith.


Voadam wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

Don't forget to chop off the hand for an int 2 creation.

In 3.5's Complete Minions from Bastion Press you could also use the skin for a skinwraith.

Can we be friends?

That's just demented, and I love it.

I honestly didn't realize that raise dead etc didn't work if the corpse had been animated.

It's silly.

My group does a lot of planar/after death stuff, so when someone died, you could literally just plane shift and go visit them.

This new realization that the persons soul could potentially get ripped from their final resting place and forced back into their mortal remains is jarring to me.

I always thought the negative energy from the negative energy plane was the animating force...

I mean, especially with the unintelligent ones.

Any trace memories of the original meat body I chalked up to the meat body having been what originally stored it all...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Voadam wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

Don't forget to chop off the hand for an int 2 creation.

In 3.5's Complete Minions from Bastion Press you could also use the skin for a skinwraith.

Can we be friends?

That's just demented, and I love it.

I honestly didn't realize that raise dead etc didn't work if the corpse had been animated.

It's silly.

My group does a lot of planar/after death stuff, so when someone died, you could literally just plane shift and go visit them.

This new realization that the persons soul could potentially get ripped from their final resting place and forced back into their mortal remains is jarring to me.

I always thought the negative energy from the negative energy plane was the animating force...

I mean, especially with the unintelligent ones.

Any trace memories of the original meat body I chalked up to the meat body having been what originally stored it all...

It's not actually RAW as far as I can tell that the soul is "ripped from their final resting place and forced back". Other than in a few special cases, where the soul actually sticks around in the first place - some mummies for example.

All we really know is that being turned into undead interferes with being raised.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except in the case of animate dead for the already presented reasons.


thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Voadam wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Alright, lets get brainstormy-

With a little prep-work, a truly creative necromancer could use a haunt to kill a very evil person. Then they could de-bone it and cut off it its head.

Because it was an evil creature killed by a haunt it would become a Geist. (intelligent)

The bones could be used to make a Skeletal Champion. (intelligent)

With a casting of Restore Corpse on the pile of meat and it's ready to become a Zombie Lord. (intelligent)

Just for good measure, the head becomes a Beheaded (unintelligent)

Then, the eyes are used to make a pair of Isitoq (Intelligent)

Which one has the soul?

Don't forget to chop off the hand for an int 2 creation.

In 3.5's Complete Minions from Bastion Press you could also use the skin for a skinwraith.

Can we be friends?

That's just demented, and I love it.

I honestly didn't realize that raise dead etc didn't work if the corpse had been animated.

It's silly.

My group does a lot of planar/after death stuff, so when someone died, you could literally just plane shift and go visit them.

This new realization that the persons soul could potentially get ripped from their final resting place and forced back into their mortal remains is jarring to me.

I always thought the negative energy from the negative energy plane was the animating force...

I mean, especially with the unintelligent ones.

Any trace memories of the original meat body I chalked up to the meat body having been what originally stored it all...

It's not actually RAW as far as I can tell that the soul is "ripped from their final resting place and forced back". Other than in a few special cases, where the soul actually sticks around in the...

Well it actually is.

I mean, if you have been dead for 500 years, and then your corpse is animated...

What happened during that 500 years?

Yeah, animating dead is damn evil.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
Yeah, animating dead is damn evil.

Technically - if the person in question was lawful evil in life, it might be un-damned evil. :P

(Leads to all sorts of questions about the souls which have become devils etc. in the intervening time.)


Ashiel wrote:
Except in the case of animate dead for the already presented reasons.

In your opinion. Disputed by some, for already presented reasons.

151 to 200 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why create undead is evil. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.