Why create undead is evil.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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

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.

Except that, as far as I can tell, there is no RAW saying your soul is actually used. Just that it prevents you from being raised. One interpretation is that your soul is tied to the undead body. It could simply be interfering in some other fashion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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

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.

Except that, as far as I can tell, there is no RAW saying your soul is actually used. Just that it prevents you from being raised. One interpretation is that your soul is tied to the undead body. It could simply be interfering in some other fashion.

Some people have trouble distinguishing between RAW (Rules as Written) and RAW (Rules as Wanted). They are different: RAW is what the rules actually say. RAW is what someone wants to be RAW. RAW is not RAW. When someone confuses RAW with RAW, internet arguments happen.

Maybe Alex1976 is one of the people with RAW vs RAW confusion.

Now, I acknowledge that the PAW (post as written) above is not entirely clear, due to the similarities in the appearances of the abbreviations RAW and RAW. Hopefully, you all can work out the PAI. Just don't mix up RAW with RAW, and don't mix up PAW with PAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).

I haven't decided if Create Undead is evil or not yet. I do kind of like Neutral/Mindless Skeletons and potentially having a Neutral (or even a Good?) Necromancer who has skeletons doing his bidding. Such a necromancer would have bought the corpses from the living before they died, and cared for them especially well, preserving them with dignity.

OTOH- I kind of like old school "evil" skeletons and zombies. Right now I'm leaning towards the former. I'll decide if it comes up based on the needs of my game, that that will be canon for my campaign.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Scarred Lands had content about turning one corpse into three undead. It was used in City of Tsar.

Peel off the skin, sew all openings closed after filling the skin sack with sand. ta da, one undead skin sack.

Peel the muscles off the bones, reassemble on a skeleton of wood and nails. ta da, vaguely zombiesh undead.

Take the bones, animate as upgrade skeletal undead. Leave it the brain so its the smartest of the three.

Each undead more powerful then typical of others of its kind, so making three from one corpse actually made all of them more powerful.

==Aelryinth


Maneuvermoose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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

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.

Except that, as far as I can tell, there is no RAW saying your soul is actually used. Just that it prevents you from being raised. One interpretation is that your soul is tied to the undead body. It could simply be interfering in some other fashion.

Some people have trouble distinguishing between RAW (Rules as Written) and RAW (Rules as Wanted). They are different: RAW is what the rules actually say. RAW is what someone wants to be RAW. RAW is not RAW. When someone confuses RAW with RAW, internet arguments happen.

Maybe Alex1976 is one of the people with RAW vs RAW confusion.

Now, I acknowledge that the PAW (post as written) above is not entirely clear, due to the similarities in the appearances of the abbreviations RAW and RAW. Hopefully, you all can work out the PAI. Just don't mix up RAW with RAW, and don't mix up PAW with PAW.

I'm not confused.

I'm filling in blanks that the rules don't have any mention of.

I'm extrapolating and creating new content.

If you want to say I'm WRONG about something, quote something showing it.

I use published material when available, and my own creativity as required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rational argument doesn't yield anything better than guesswork when applied to an internally inconsistent set of premises. That's the problem here - the rules are a hodgepodge collection built up by different authors over several years - there isn't a definitive answer (or there are many, depending on your viewpoint).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Rational argument doesn't yield anything better than guesswork when applied to an internally inconsistent set of premises. That's the problem here - the rules are a hodgepodge collection built up by different authors over several years - there isn't a definitive answer (or there are many, depending on your viewpoint).

But Steve, there is. I showed how, RAW, everything is consistent within the core rulebook aside from the oddity of aligned mindless undead (which is also taken care of by RAW because of a related mechanic).

Unfortunately, it's rather long because it references multiple spells, creature types, cosmology, conditions, monster descriptions, and so forth to arrive at the solution to the conundrum. People seem to dislike reading long things but I don't know a way to quote it in any shorter terms as there's a lot of rule's text to go through. It's scattered but it is there and it makes sense.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

If we say something like "This feat has a prerequisite of +7 base attack bonus," but then if we errata that later to "This feat has a prerequisite of +5 base attack bonus" folks seem to be able to understand that the +7 version was an error and that it was never intended to be and that the +5 version is the correct one, despite the fact that we did indeed print the (incorrect) +7 version first.

If we say "There are paladins of Asmodeus" and then we errata it later to "There are no paladins of Asmodeus," how is that any different than fixing an error in rules? Why do some people not give flavor error fixes the same respect they give rules error fixes?

It baffles and depresses and frustrates me.

Paizo's policy for not issuing errata unless we reprint a product combined with almost only reprinting rules-heavy products doesn't help, of course.

There is actually a very simple reason for this.

When an errata is issued for a mechanical rule, it is assumed to be for the sake of balance or perhaps an error in print. It often has no affect on the story (AKA the important part of having a narrative product) and thus can be glossed over.

When an errata is issued for fluff, it is assumed to be a retcon. And it undoes something actually significant to the setting that could have been a draw for people. Retcons are bad writing (at least what's conventionally called a ret con and not all retroactive continuity) and since a product of fiction is just as much a product of the reader's interpretation as the writer's they can be seen as another stepping in to make their personal interpretation law.

Basically, even though the people at Paizo write the stuff, their opinion on the product is of no greater value (see Death of the Author) so when they change it it's as if any other fan had forced a change.

This is why people have such sore feelings about the Prequels. They all had their own interpretations of the dark side, light side, force in general, etc. And then the movies 'clarified' them in a way the fans didn't like, and so fans not viewing that material as worthwhile.

In the same way, if Paizo says something about the Pathfinder setting that makes fans go "Cool, that makes sense." and then later arbitrarily goes "It's not that way" it should be no surprise that fans ignore it and view ignoring it as more legitimate even though it came from the source of the original work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In any case, I have decided that:

a)souls are a thing in the game
b)they go somewhere when you die
c)raising dead pulls them back to the corpse OR removes them from where they are.

SO!

If you are in heaven, and something happens back on the real world (sic!) that animates your corpse (I'm pretty sure you can have things happen after your death that prevent it, that's what wills are for!)... your soul comes screaming back from where it was... to be trapped... somewhere else... (probably in the corpse).

That, in my mind, is why creating undead is evil.

someone who has been in their 'heaven' for, I dunno, a thousand years, may have found a mate, made a family... had grandkids/great-grandkids etc...

(the outlands are limitless, btw)

So if they suddenly, after hundreds of years of being around on that plane just SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR during a family picnic....

Yeah.

Their soul got torn, maybe screaming, from where it was, to come back and animate a 1HD skeleton.

Evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, mindless undead being evil.

Well, you might find an answer from looking at the only outsiders native to the negative energy plane.

These guys are negative energy given flesh, and they hate. They hate the living. They hate the undead. They hate everything that's not themselves.

And they probably hate themselves, too.

Negative energy apparently comes with seriously negative emotions.

I don't think it's a stretch to go with a mindless undead is a husk driven by pure fury, with no capacity for reason to temper it.

Your zombie farmers are fueled by hate.

Alternative theory - negative energy is nasty stuff. Even a minimal exposure - inflict light wounds - can put a peasant in critical condition, and a negative level would kill a 1st level character outright.

In short, negative energy hurts.

Being re-animated means you are bathing someone in that stuff, constantly, and they are awake and aware the entire time.

It's like setting someone on fire and making them burn forever. And fills them with a need to ignite other people.

(Most zombies and skeletons lack the power to convert others, but that lack isn't stopping them from trying.)

And so the very act of performing such a negative energy infusion is such a colossally dickish move that the universe itself disapproves =P


Zhangar wrote:

Hmmm, mindless undead being evil.

Well, you might find an answer from looking at the only outsiders native to the negative energy plane.

These guys are negative energy given flesh, and they hate. They hate the living. They hate the undead. They hate everything that's not themselves.

And they probably hate themselves, too.

Negative energy apparently comes with seriously negative emotions.

I don't think it's a stretch to go with a mindless undead is a husk driven by pure fury, with no capacity for reason to temper it.

Your zombie farmers are fueled by hate.

Alternative theory - negative energy is nasty stuff. Even a minimal exposure - inflict light wounds - can put a peasant in critical condition, and a negative level would kill a 1st level character outright.

In short, negative energy hurts.

Being re-animated means you are bathing someone in that stuff, constantly, and they are awake and aware the entire time.

It's like setting someone on fire and making them burn forever. And fills them with a need to ignite other people.

(Most zombies and skeletons lack the power to convert others, but that lack isn't stopping them from trying.)

And so the very act of performing such a negative energy infusion is such a colossally dickish move that the universe itself disapproves =P

+1 just for the use of the word "dickish"

I agree with everything you said x1200


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).

I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.


Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

ermagerd, if I could do this I would SO play a necromancer. Undead are kewl.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.


James Jacobs wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.

Too bad you don't live near me. You would probably LOVE playing with my group. :D

The only thing I'm angry about in regards to Paizo's choices is the fact that you haven't really detailed the planes... Unless I'm a complete artard and have missed an entire book... :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

I also thought elementals had intelligence and souls...

Binding them into golems and such seems pretty rude to me, if not evil.

I wouldn't like being stripped from my home plane and forced to do some pansy wizards bidding.

Like Aahz? ;D

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.

Too bad you don't live near me. You would probably LOVE playing with my group. :D

The only thing I'm angry about in regards to Paizo's choices is the fact that you haven't really detailed the planes... Unless I'm a complete artard and have missed an entire book... :D

The Great Beyond is the main book on the planes still. We're slowly expanding the info there now and then with books like the Books of the Damned and adventures here and there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.

While some people may take it too far, it's important that you try not to take it too personally. The issue is mostly the frustration that comes from seeing things as reasonable one way and then seeing consistent action against it another.

This is the case with animate dead and create dead spells. Many of us understand the reasons for them having the [Evil] descriptor. But to us the arguments are faulty, they don't hold up to scrutiny, so they should be neutral as the default and changed to evil only if a good justification is called for.

That's all inherited from 3.5e, we're aware, but choosing not to change something is just as much as a choice as choosing to change something. So when we see something in a setting we like that doesn't make sense to us, it's only natural we want it to be changed not just in our home games but in general.

That's why many people are "I'm not against almost all undead being evil like Paizo describe, I just want a better reason for it than 'it's a holdover from 3.5e that we take a strong stance on'

The decision isn't the thing that people are upset at, it's that it's very inconsistent and they want to see changes made to make it consistent. And if they don't want it that way in their games, at least they can look at other fans using it that way and go "Yeah that makes sense."

It's the problem with Conjuration (Healing). I've yet to have a conversation with anyone who had used the default that didn't end with them going "Yeah, I'll probably make it Necromancy in my games". At some point a house rule becomes so common it indicates a problem.

And this has been a problem for a long time, but it hasn't been fixed in any way shape or form, so people get angry.


Rotolutundro wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I also thought elementals had intelligence and souls...

Binding them into golems and such seems pretty rude to me, if not evil.

I wouldn't like being stripped from my home plane and forced to do some pansy wizards bidding.

Like Aahz? ;D

Cool, so all golems are represented by this?

Problem solved.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:

It's the problem with Conjuration (Healing). I've yet to have a conversation with anyone who had used the default that didn't end with them going "Yeah, I'll probably make is Necromancy in my games". At some point a house rule becomes so common it indicates a problem.

Too bad for all of us that the designers of 3rd edition D&D thought differently... and too bad for all of us that in those super-stressful "We might not have jobs tomorrow" days after we lost the D&D license that we were super timid on not changing things for reasons of backwards compatibility.

You as a GM of Pathfinder in 2015, in other words, have a lot more freedom to make the game YOUR game than we had about ten years ago. It's a different world now, in a lot of ways.

But getting angry and posting angry only makes things worse, in that it makes fellow gamers who would like to post and talk here NOT want to post and talk here. Employees of Paizo included.

Angry posts on the forums do far more damage than good.


James Jacobs wrote:
Knitifine wrote:

It's the problem with Conjuration (Healing). I've yet to have a conversation with anyone who had used the default that didn't end with them going "Yeah, I'll probably make is Necromancy in my games". At some point a house rule becomes so common it indicates a problem.

Too bad for all of us that the designers of 3rd edition D&D thought differently... and too bad for all of us that in those super-stressful "We might not have jobs tomorrow" days after we lost the D&D license that we were super timid on not changing things for reasons of backwards compatibility.

You as a GM of Pathifnder in 2015, in other words, have a lot more freedom to make the game YOUR game than we had about ten years ago. It's a different world now, in a lot of ways.

FREEDOM!

*blue face paint and all*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rotolutundro wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I also thought elementals had intelligence and souls...

Binding them into golems and such seems pretty rude to me, if not evil.

I wouldn't like being stripped from my home plane and forced to do some pansy wizards bidding.

Like Aahz? ;D

Hey! I didn't know those were online. That's going to cost me a couple hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.

While some people may take it too far, it's important that you try not to take it too personally. The issue is mostly the frustration that comes from seeing things as reasonable one way and then seeing consistent action against it another.

This is the case with animate dead and create dead spells. Many of us understand the reasons for them having the [Evil] descriptor. But to us the arguments are faulty, they don't hold up to scrutiny, so they should be neutral as the default and changed to evil only if a good justification is called for.

That's all inherited from 3.5e, we're aware, but choosing not to change something is just as much as a choice as choosing to change something. So when we see something in a setting we like that...

And some of us have no problem with undead being evil. It's a common and perfectly good fantasy & mythological trope. Nor do I find the arguments faulty, though I don't usually try to derive moral laws from game rules.

Of course, I wouldn't have any real problems the other way either. That's also a good trope, though less common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Angry's not the right response anyhow. Paizo produce creative work - you'll like some of it and you won't like bits of it. They also go back and change some stuff if it went in different directions than they intended (like the early Dragon Graveyard stuff) or if they went in one direction and then changed their mind when they fully thought through the consequences.

Although they'd no doubt prefer to never need errata nor FAQs, Paizo have never promised that nothing will ever change (flavor-wise or rules-wise). Getting angry at them for refining their work from time to time is inappropriate. They're doing what they do and doing it as well as they can (pretty much continuously for many years).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
When I use Golarion, I do whatever I want with it and ignore written canon (sorry Paizo).
I'm pretty certain that Paizo is cool with you doing what you want. If you want to make undead creation a neutral option rather than an evil option that no one at Paizo is going to take a note to remove you from the holiday card mailing list. It is your game to do with what you will.

We're absolutely cool with it. That's kind of one of the whole points of a published campaign setting; that a GM should make it his/her own. Use the parts you like, ignore/change the parts you don't.

The only time this bothers me is when someone gets antagonistic about our choices, frankly. If you're changing something, you absolutely should change it and shouldn't be sorry, but you shouldn't lash out at us for "making you have to change it." Likewise, when folks ask me to clarify elements of the world's lore and flavor, and then get angry that I didn't somehow manage to do your work for you by designing the world the way you want it designed... that's uncool too.

But changing the setting's rules and flavor for your home game? That's one of the best parts about being a GM. Making a world your own.

All fine and dandy for an established setting. But what about the setting-neutral game mechanics sitting right next to but still separate from that setting? I mean, why exactly did the Bard get to go from "Any non-lawful" to "Any" but the Monk is still stuck at "Lawful"?

Sometimes I wish ya'll had made it clear that Pathfinder was written to be Golarion only. Star Wars Saga Edition is written for Star Wars and only for Star Wars, so the fact that there are no wormholes or transporters or stargates or mass relays makes perfect sense. A creative GM can still try to port such things into the SWSE ruleset if he wants, but the onus to make it work is entirely on him.

On the other hand, were I to make a game system meant for multiple settings (including Star Wars and Marvel, among others), and I included a rule saying that the use of lightning was evil (and for Palpatine, it is), forcing players to work around that if they want to use that same game system to make a character like Thor or Storm, how rightly reviled would my decision to include that rule in this game be?

Community Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and responses. Getting overly angry, bitter, and cynical at the forums does nobody any good—most of all for you, fellow posters. Take a step back and recharge. Roll some dice. Play your game how you want to. Have some fun—that's why we're all here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Liz and James thanks for being super cool people, it's the fact the Paizo is staffed by people I would welcome to my table anytime is what keeps me from abandoning the forums.

:-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
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.

I was re-reading some stuff after I woke back up and I found this and thought I'd chime in. The mechanic doesn't allow a Diplomacy check to end the berserk state, it requires a very hard Charisma check. The only similar sorts of Charisma checks are used when commanding charmed creatures or creatures bound with Planar Binding.

Whenever I read the mechanic, it seems far more like you're attempting to override the elemental's will with yours. The berserk mechanic says you are speaking to the golem, not the enslaved elemental. The golem is required to follow your orders so, again, it seems more like a contest of wills between the creator and the elemental for control of the golem.

Just a thought.

201 to 250 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.