Are Undead Always Evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer Paladin wrote:


Quote:
Technically there are undead that aren't intrinsically linked to the undead plane but they aren't called that term.
Only creature's like that I've heard of are deathless and those don't exist in Pathfinder.

The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.

Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.

Silver Crusade

Necromancer Paladin wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.
Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.

Yeah, Phantoms aren't any more Undead than Angels or Demons or Psychopomps.


Necromancer Paladin wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.
Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.

Its a description of a ghost. Don't use the rules to be pedantic.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But they are not undead.

Silver Crusade

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Necromancer Paladin wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.
Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.
Its a description of a ghost. Don't use the rules to be pedantic.

I know all about pedantism, I hate pedantism.

I don't think you know what that word means.


Rysky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Necromancer Paladin wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
The description of a phantom implies that either they are undead who just sort of shrugged that aspect off or they kind of escaped the natural process by which most ghosties become undead.
Phantoms aren't undead who aren't linked to the plane of negative energy at all, they are outsiders who have a link to the negative energy and ethereal planes. The description of phantoms isn't vague, it has them as souls that haven't become undead yet and are fighting to avoid being dragged into the negative energy plane which would turn them into undead.
Its a description of a ghost. Don't use the rules to be pedantic.

I know all about pedantism, I hate pedantism.

I don't think you know what that word means.

Yeah it means being overly with the exact wording which you are especially in a game where they fudge the wording of fluff for mechanical reasons.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
Its a description of a ghost.

That's like saying a description of iron ore is a description of a sword....

Quote:
Don't use the rules to be pedantic.

I wasn't using the rules to be pedantic.... I just was correcting the assumption that phantoms are undead, which is a position of fluff and rules... Phantoms and ghosts are very different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shea Hoarfoot wrote:
Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......

They are NE, actually... and hungry.

Haunts are listed as N, though based on their descriptions (hate filled eyes?) I cannot understand why.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
taks wrote:
Shea Hoarfoot wrote:
Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......
They are NE, actually... and hungry.

Exactly! They are NE! Not Evil!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Skeptical Gnome wrote:
I would say that mindless undead are neither good nor evil.

The rules however, say different. DM's however can home rule whatever they wish and mandate every lich becomes a neutral good rotting flower child if that what spades their garden.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Skeptical Gnome wrote:
I would say that mindless undead are neither good nor evil.
The rules however, say different. DM's however can home rule whatever they wish and mandate every lich becomes a neutral good rotting flower child if that what spades their garden.

It's worth noting though that in the original 1977 Monster Manual, Skeletons and Zombies were listed as Neutral, most likely specifically because of the idea that a mindless creature cannot be good or evil.

Since then, for game mechanical reasons (e.g. "smite evil") they were changed to be evil, and the narrative justification for this was that "the process of their creation was evil, so that makes them evil", but that really makes me wonder what, in particular, is more evil about turning one corpse into a (NE) zombie than sewing together a bunch of corpses to make a (N) flesh golem. Not to mention, the question about whether things that create undead that lack the "evil" tag (e.g. the Occultist's "Necromantic Servant" focus power) still cause the undead in question to be Evil, even though it exclusively does what you tell it to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Skeptical Gnome wrote:
I would say that mindless undead are neither good nor evil.
The rules however, say different. DM's however can home rule whatever they wish and mandate every lich becomes a neutral good rotting flower child if that what spades their garden.

It's worth noting though that in the original 1977 Monster Manual, Skeletons and Zombies were listed as Neutral, most likely specifically because of the idea that a mindless creature cannot be good or evil.

Since then, for game mechanical reasons (e.g. "smite evil") they were changed to be evil, and the narrative justification for this was that "the process of their creation was evil, so that makes them evil", but that really makes me wonder what, in particular, is more evil about turning one corpse into a (NE) zombie than sewing together a bunch of corpses to make a (N) flesh golem. Not to mention, the question about whether things that create undead that lack the "evil" tag (e.g. the Occultist's "Necromantic Servant" focus power) still cause the undead in question to be Evil, even though it exclusively does what you tell it to.

Especially since a flesh golem still requires animate dead


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:


Especially since a flesh golem still requires animate dead

And involves torturing an elemental.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't JJ say they were always evil?


lemeres wrote:

No, obviously all undead are misunderstood chaotic good rangers wielding two scimitars who are trying to fight against the schemes of their more evil kin (of which there are none since they are all chaotic good rangers).

...ok, now that that joke is out of the way: Ghosts are the usual way if you want non -evil undead (although that doesn't stop them from being crazy and powerful). Most other forms of undead carry unavoidable evil though. There might be exceptions, but they re exceedingly rare and for story purposes they should remain that way (else you get a bunch of drizzt'es).

Generally, either go with ghosts or try for maybe an amicable LE undead (ie- make them on par with the local cleric of Asmodeus... more than willing to make a deal; they can honestly be more fun than just trying to make something 'redeemed' or whatever).

Sidenote: could a caster ghost magic jar their own, unintelligent undead body? That could be worth a laugh.

You hit on why neutral and good undead can be a problem. We would get loads of neutral and good undead, and undeath would become an easy way to circumvent age requirements. Most people don't want to die. If they could become undead without going evil, many will. Then you end up with armies of undead paladins and such, which changes the tone of the setting a lot.

PS on ghosts, ghosts come back with a specific purpose and disappear when that purpose is complete. They are more plot devices than characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been watching American Horror Story, and let me tell you, one thing i learned is, circumventing death is not something good people do.

Also, knives hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Didn't JJ say they were always evil?

He said they are always evil, except for ghosts and rare unique individuals if it tells a good enough narrative but generally he thinks that undead should always be evil because he prefers that narrative. But it is important to note that JJ does not have influence over the RPG-line, JJ's views only apply to Golarion and sometimes his views conflict with the rules of the default game (another example would be clerics working different to Golarion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
You hit on why neutral and good undead can be a problem. We would get loads of neutral and good undead, and undeath would become an easy way to circumvent age requirements. Most people don't want to die. If they could become undead without going evil, many will. Then you end up with armies of undead paladins and such, which changes the tone of the setting a lot.

Age requirements?

What about just the advantages of undead? I am sure that paladin wants to use their high CHA stat for health and completely save the points from con. The fighter wants immunity to most mental stuff. The wizard wants immunity to just about any fort save. No need to sleep, no growing tired.

Sure, you heal off of negative energy rather than positive energy... but that is only a problem if you have a mixed party. A fully undead party doesn't have to worry about that.

Saethori wrote:
taks wrote:
Shea Hoarfoot wrote:
Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......
They are NE, actually... and hungry.
Exactly! They are NE! Not Evil!

Yes. CG rangers with two scimitars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
You hit on why neutral and good undead can be a problem. We would get loads of neutral and good undead, and undeath would become an easy way to circumvent age requirements. Most people don't want to die. If they could become undead without going evil, many will. Then you end up with armies of undead paladins and such, which changes the tone of the setting a lot.

Age requirements?

What about just the advantages of undead? I am sure that paladin wants to use their high CHA stat for health and completely save the points from con. The fighter wants immunity to most mental stuff. The wizard wants immunity to just about any fort save. No need to sleep, no growing tired.

Sure, you heal off of negative energy rather than positive energy... but that is only a problem if you have a mixed party. A fully undead party doesn't have to worry about that.

Saethori wrote:
taks wrote:
Shea Hoarfoot wrote:
Zombies are. Not evil ... Just Hungry.......
They are NE, actually... and hungry.
Exactly! They are NE! Not Evil!
Yes. CG rangers with two scimitars.

You get to circumvent the maximum age requirement(death). In addition to the metagame stuff(charisma becomes a god stat), people get to avoid death. Plenty of good and neutral people don't want to die of old age.

Necromancy stops being this sinister force thats banned in most nations, and becomes a routine procedure people choose if they aren't ready for the afterlife yet.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Yes. CG rangers with two scimitars.

Sighs, my apologies if this breaks a rule but... shut the hell up about CG rangers with two scimitars!

Wanting to discuss the possibility and consideration of non evil undead does not Drizzt make, so please stop repeating yourself or whoever else's keeps on posting this.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forgive my annoyance, it just that I have seen that posted at least five times in this thread and I felt the situation being discussed was different. More, simply because there was a time where some or many players likes creating characters similar to or the clone of Drizzt does not mean that having non-evil undead is a bad thing. Heck, I would even argue that good drow is not a bad.

The issue many seem to have is that such was seen as too common by some or all such characters all seemed to have the same personality. The concept of non-evil undead is not I feel applicable in this situation, especially since such an idea with more likely be that of NPCs not PCs since playing an undead requires templates and consideration of balance.


PossibleCabbage wrote:


It's worth noting though that in the original 1977 Monster Manual, Skeletons and Zombies were listed as Neutral, most likely specifically because of the idea that a mindless creature cannot be good or evil.

I don't see that that makes any sense. A sword with the holy enchantment radiates good. It has no sentience, even if that sword is a Holy Avenger. A potion of infernal healing will radiate as evil.

There is absolutely no problem with Evil having mindless minions, because evil is something that things can simply fall into, as opposed to the active effort required for Good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

Forgive my annoyance, it just that I have seen that posted at least five times in this thread and I felt the situation being discussed was different. More, simply because there was a time where some more many players likes creating characters similar to or the clone of Drizzt does not mean that having non-evil undead is a bad thing. Heck, I would even argue that good drow is not a bad.

The issue many seem to have is that such was seen as too common by some or all such characters all seemed to have the same personality. The concept of non-evil undead is not I feel applicable in this situation, especially since such an idea with more likely be that of NPCs not PCs since playing an undead requires templates and consideration of balance.

While I latch onto the concept with a bit of glee (because it is funny; I realize it is a stupid joke, and don't post about it independantly, but as a footnote around other comments and contributions to the topic), it resonated with me since I have seen similar thematic problems in other media, especially in genres that include undead.

What I am referencing is the shift in many vampire movies (And other monster themed media, but it is most appearant in vampire movies) of moving the vampire from a horror that cannot cannot be allowed in this world... to the teen hearthrob. This is the shift from Noseferatu and Bela Lugosi's Dracula, which set them as horror that could only ape human behavior because they were truly lacking, to later works like Lost Boys, Queen of the Damned, and Interview with a Vampire, which romanticized vampires but still largely presented the liftstyle as one of rejection, violence, and internal strife both in groups adn with oneself... which eventually devolved into..... the plague that is TWILIGHT (and I do call it a plague; IE- look at the movie Warm Bodies for how this has effected the zombie genre), where it is just a term tacked onto the attractive male or female lead.

I view this as a more immediate problem than the Drizzt one. Drizzt is nice for a joke, but it takes a lot more to develop into a serious problem. But the sparkling vampire plague is already upon us. It involves the gentrification of the symbolic significance of the creature used when they are turned into 'pained sufferers cursed with this form' that are not sufficiently compelled to dark 'cravings' that you can safely say it would be better to terminate them for their own sake and the sake of others. When they can just 'be chill with being a vampire' while drinking tomato soup, it is harder to keep the concept walled in around the 'monster' concept.

So I can appreciate taking a hardline stance that most undead are evil, and thus outside of the reach of the typical player in most campaigns. It allows you to maintain a certain tone within the work, and helps to preserve the mystique of the 'dark arts of necromancy' and undeath without it just being....SPARKLES.

There are of course a lot of good things that can come from changing the tone and approach of a monster (I mean, I highly enjoy the postcolonial perspective of Paizo's lizardfolk entry), but it comes down to two primary questions: How does this affect world building, and how do you justify this creature getting into a fight with the party? (since most of the monsters are there to fight with the party, and carry themes of an 'enemy' that the party is supposed to reject).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough, though at the same time what is important is not allowing such concepts to be common in the setting and to built it in a way that could make sense. Pathfinder does have a Goddess of Redemption, as such the consideration that there might be a handful of redeemed undead, evil monsters, devils, and demons is something I feel would be appropriate for the setting.

Simply limit or ban such options from players unless such is felt appropriate for the campaign and one finds a way of balancing things. The important thing to simply keep in mind is that the exceptions to the rules are simply that, the exceptions and thus shouldn't be all over the place. That is my two cents.

Horror, madness, good vs evil, redemption, proving that you are not like your race or kind. They can all be powerful themes if used well and in a way that invests the players or audience into what is being shown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think probably my least favorite thing about the alignment system in D&D and adjacent (and there are many things I dislike about it) is how the need to fill the alignment field in the bestiary creates the notion that intelligent beings have a certain alignment just because of their species, type, place of birth, etc.

Like I get that the bestiary entries are for a generic instance of the monster who is serving as an antagonist, and for that things like "goblins are evil" is reasonable.

But it seems that "Can you have a non-evil [thing that thinks and thus can make independent choices]" should be obviously answered in the affirmative. That's not to say that anybody needs to change the default alignment for whatever it is, just that "any given individual can be a character, and a character can have any beliefs, and thus alignment, that the GM wants it to."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. No they aren't.
If you want to say "yea, they totes are and ur totally wrong!1!," then please address the arguments made in the post I just linked. And address them with actual rules text.

Silver Crusade

137ben wrote:

No. No they aren't.

If you want to say "yea, they totes are and ur totally wrong!1!," then please address the arguments made in the post I just linked. And address them with actual rules text.

That post spends a lot of time talking about creating undead from bodies, souls, and raising people who were Undead.

Doesn't really address anything about Undead always being Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Post-death Obiwan Kenobi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading that thread, however, raises a different thought.

Namely, why are undead Neutral Evil? If the mindless undead can do nothing but follow orders, doesn't that give them a lot more evidence towards them being Lawful?

If their mindless status disqualifies them from being Lawful, then it should also disqualify them from being Evil. If their mindless status does not grant them immunity to being considered Evil, then they should also be Lawful, no?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

Reading that thread, however, raises a different thought.

Namely, why are undead Neutral Evil? If the mindless undead can do nothing but follow orders, doesn't that give them a lot more evidence towards them being Lawful?

If their mindless status disqualifies them from being Lawful, then it should also disqualify them from being Evil. If their mindless status does not grant them immunity to being considered Evil, then they should also be Lawful, no?

Not necessarily. Animals don't have the higher cognitave ability that PCs do, hence, they are Neutral. Undead carry within them an animating spark of Negative Energy, which is anathema towards life, hence, they are evil. So, you can have a kind, caring Vampire and still have it be Evil, both because of its undead nature and because of what it must do to survive. A creature's alignment does not take into account its personality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, negative energy is unaligned.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Again, negative energy is unaligned.

By itself, yes, I agree. It is simply an energy type, or anti-energy, if you prefer. However, when it infuses an intelligent creature and begins to dictate actions, does it become Evil. Or, at least, an enabler of Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

Reading that thread, however, raises a different thought.

Namely, why are undead Neutral Evil? If the mindless undead can do nothing but follow orders, doesn't that give them a lot more evidence towards them being Lawful?

If their mindless status disqualifies them from being Lawful, then it should also disqualify them from being Evil. If their mindless status does not grant them immunity to being considered Evil, then they should also be Lawful, no?

Not necessarily. Animals don't have the higher cognitave ability that PCs do, hence, they are Neutral. Undead carry within them an animating spark of Negative Energy, which is anathema towards life, hence, they are evil. So, you can have a kind, caring Vampire and still have it be Evil, both because of its undead nature and because of what it must do to survive. A creature's alignment does not take into account its personality.

Actually, a creature's alignment is its personality. Or rather, its personality dictates its alignment.

You are equating it instead to the [evil] subtype, which would certainly make sense as far as undead go, were it not for the fact that a lot of this was already rolled into the undead type for effects that target evil, such as Smite Evil.


Saethori wrote:


Actually, a creature's alignment is its personality. Or rather, its personality dictates its alignment.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I am. A lap cat has a loving personality towards the members if its owner's family, while a housecat that has gone feral lashes out at everyone that passes by. Yet both are Neutral animals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
Saethori wrote:


Actually, a creature's alignment is its personality. Or rather, its personality dictates its alignment.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I am. A lap cat has a loving personality towards the members if its owner's family, while a housecat that has gone feral lashes out at everyone that passes by. Yet both are Neutral animals.

I do not understand how this is relevant. The housecat in either example is True Neutral, yes, but the latter one has a different view of what counts as its friends and family than the former. It certainly isn't Lawful, or Chaotic, or Good, or Evil.

Alignment wrote:
Alignment is a curious creature; it summarizes the philosophy and morality of a person, and yet no two characters with the same alignment are exactly alike. Still, alignment says much about a character's soul and the way she interacts with others.

The alignment is a summary of philosophy and morality. A housecat has no inclination towards any axis. While a cat may be more predisposed towards given traits than the next cat, they still aren't achieving any of the ideals any other alignment might ask of them.

A cat might follow an instruction, or it might decide to curl up on the stairs and clean itself. It might attack a person, or it might lick the hand of that same person.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
Post-death Obiwan Kenobi.

Force ghosts don't count, since they only form from good Jedi and not evil Sith, according to one interpretation I've read. (Although the idea of evil Sith force-ghosts sounds too cool...) :)

Also much of real world myth and tradition from non-European cultures, which portray the spirits of one's ancestors as forces to be respected and venerated. But PF operates from a Eurocentric view, in which death is feared and not considered part of a cycle. So if you die, both your body and your soul become evil / unclean (unless said soul proceeds immediately to another plane, and never ever interacts with the living world in any way, and said body is buried out of sight, where it can't remind us that we too are mortal), because death is scary and we want 'those people' to stay the hell away from us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
Post-death Obiwan Kenobi.
Force ghosts don't count, since they only form from good Jedi and not evil Sith, according to one interpretation I've read.

How did Anakin Skywalker pull it off, then? I would be skeptical if that last hour of remorse was enough to pull an alignment 180.

Though it puts the whole practice of people waiting until their deathbed to repent in a whole different light...


Driven by desire to consume by their nature, but without a real agenda.
Neutral evil.
Some overcome this inherent nature, some don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There have been dark side force ghosts. Palpatine himself has a short stint as one.


Saethori wrote:
Set wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
Post-death Obiwan Kenobi.
Force ghosts don't count, since they only form from good Jedi and not evil Sith, according to one interpretation I've read.

How did Anakin Skywalker pull it off, then? I would be skeptical if that last hour of remorse was enough to pull an alignment 180.

Though it puts the whole practice of people waiting until their deathbed to repent in a whole different light...

Actually if you really examine the Jedi Code, it's not about being good, it's about being detached. A Jedi can slaughter a crowd full of people, and not acquire a single Dark Side point as long as he does not do so with emotion. Skywalkers however, tend to be anything but detached.

That's why the notion of Grey Jedi is ludicrous.. the Jedi Code itself is as Grey as you can get.

51 to 100 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are Undead Always Evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.