So if creating mindless undead through necromancy is still evil in 2e...


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Creating undead (and [Evil] spells in general) is evil because the idea that some magic is just inherently bad, regardless of what you do with it, is a popular fantasy trope. That's pretty much the short and long of it.

My personal headcanon is that positive and negative energies are neutral, but they are attracted to Good and Evil respectively, like iron filings to a magnet. That's why alignment determines whether you channel positive or negative energy as a cleric, and whether you spontaneously cast cure or inflict spells.

Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.


Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Nethys you don't live in the Boneyard, you live in the Maelstrom. Did you forget that, again?

Also I'm pretty sure Aeons don't ride. They just fly.

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.

That's a fine idea but not something that's actually represented in the rules. animate dead just requires onyx and corpses; it doesn't require ritual sacrifice or any other thing of the sort.

Also note that Negative Energy binds to corpses on it's own. If you cast deathward, grab Mr.Bones the Skeleton and plane shift onto the Negative Energy Plane, Mr.Bones will swiftly animate as Mr.Bones the Animated Sekelton. Same with Davey the Corpse, who will become Davey the Zombie.

(Also, as a funny note, I went looking for stuff on the Negative Energy Plane and found that Sceaduinar used to be True Neutral, so that's an interesting tidbit.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is a good reason why the tying the setting to the rules is a bad idea.

It works great - until you don't have the concept of a "Pharasma" in your game - then the logic goes out the window.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.

That's a fine idea but not something that's actually represented in the rules. animate dead just requires onyx and corpses; it doesn't require ritual sacrifice or any other thing of the sort.

Also note that Negative Energy binds to corpses on it's own. If you cast deathward, grab Mr.Bones the Skeleton and plane shift onto the Negative Energy Plane, Mr.Bones will swiftly animate as Mr.Bones the Animated Sekelton. Same with Davey the Corpse, who will become Davey the Zombie.

(Also, as a funny note, I went looking for stuff on the Negative Energy Plane and found that Sceaduinar used to be True Neutral, so that's an interesting tidbit.)

An onyx, a corpse, and an [Evil] spell. I'm saying the evil is the means, not the end. Think of it like blasphemy. You're saying/doing something so powerfully wicked that it has real, tangible results.

But like I said, it's headcanon, it definitely doesn't have any official support.

And yeah, if you bring corpses to an environment supersaturated with negative energy, it'll happen on it's own.

But where do undead arise spontaneously on the material plane? From the corpses of hideously evil people, or in places where terrible things (torture, mass murder, etc) happened.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

This thread is a good reason why the tying the setting to the rules is a bad idea.

It works great - until you don't have the concept of a "Pharasma" in your game - then the logic goes out the window.

I don't know about that. My reasoning doesn't take Pharasma into account a single bit.


TheFinish wrote:
Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Nethys you don't live in the Boneyard, you live in the Maelstrom. Did you forget that, again?

And you don't think it strange that most N deities end up making their homes not on the primary N outer plane? I'm over here, Brigh's in Axis, I'm sure there are other examples. Heck, opening the plane up to more than its One True Queen of Neutral might be reason enough to pick this fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always been a firm advocate for mindless undead being Neutral, because their behavior is more or less strictly instinctual. I guess they're supposed to be evil because the magic that created them is Evil, but even then, I never had any problem believing that creating undead wasn't pointedly evil - just like a fireball spell or a sword swing, it was all in how you used it that dictated if it was evil or not. For example, Undead could be used to completely replace slave labor - "I've freed the slaves and improved your productivity; how dastardly of me!"


Ckorik wrote:

This thread is a good reason why the tying the setting to the rules is a bad idea.

It works great - until you don't have the concept of a "Pharasma" in your game - then the logic goes out the window.

PF isnt a generic system so these types of things are a feature for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Spells that create undead are Evil because the easiest way to attract, concentrate, and bind negative energy to a corpse is to commit an act of ritual evil.

That's a fine idea but not something that's actually represented in the rules. animate dead just requires onyx and corpses; it doesn't require ritual sacrifice or any other thing of the sort.

Also note that Negative Energy binds to corpses on it's own. If you cast deathward, grab Mr.Bones the Skeleton and plane shift onto the Negative Energy Plane, Mr.Bones will swiftly animate as Mr.Bones the Animated Sekelton. Same with Davey the Corpse, who will become Davey the Zombie.

(Also, as a funny note, I went looking for stuff on the Negative Energy Plane and found that Sceaduinar used to be True Neutral, so that's an interesting tidbit.)

An onyx, a corpse, and an [Evil] spell. I'm saying the evil is the means, not the end. Think of it like blasphemy. You're saying/doing something so powerfully wicked that it has real, tangible results.

But like I said, it's headcanon, it definitely doesn't have any official support.

And yeah, if you bring corpses to an environment supersaturated with negative energy, it'll happen on it's own.

But where do undead arise spontaneously on the material plane? From the corpses of hideously evil people, or in places where terrible things (torture, mass murder, etc) happened.

Sure, but blasphemy is literally using the power of Evil to hurt Good (and Neutrals), much like Holy Word is the opposite.

I'm not opposed to spells with [Alignment], when it makes sense. protection from [X], magic circle against [X], etc. Those make sense because you're using one of the many objective universal forces (Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) to act against it's opposite.

But what is animate dead going against? What's undead the opposite of? Life? Okay but then, why isn't raise dead a [Good] Spell?

If using negative energy to make a walking corpse = Evil, then using positive energy to bring someone back to life = Good. You cannot simply declare that two energies are Neutral, but using one is unaligned and using the other one is [Evil]. Except it's not always [Evil]. Just sometimes. Which makes even less sense. That's the main issue I have with this whole thing.

Well, that and the fact that a mindless being incapable of moral action is Neutral Evil, which goes against basically everything under Alignment.

As for where do Undead rise spontaneously: anywhere that the Negative Energy Plane has enough influence on the material. Since Negative Energy is associated with destruction, this could be a myriad of places (I seem to recall a place where burning undead rose up after a terrible forest fire, but I can't find the source.*).

Also note Good people make Undead too, since Ghosts can rise wherever and be of any alignment.

Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Nethys, "Elder God" wrote:

So what you're saying is there's a massive store of knowledge on my supposedly home plane that I have yet to claim?

The Aeons will ride at dawn.

Nethys you don't live in the Boneyard, you live in the Maelstrom. Did you forget that, again?
And you don't think it strange that most N deities end up making their homes not on the primary N outer plane? I'm over here, Brigh's in Axis, I'm sure there are other examples. Heck, opening the plane up to more than its One True Queen of Neutral might be reason enough to pick this fight.

Hey man, you do whatever, just run it by Jacobs first to see if it actually sticks, y'know.

*EDIT: I actually found the source, though it wasn't a forest fire, it was a volcano. The Fellsig is an undead created from the violence and pain caused when Droskar's Crag erupted and pulled a Vesuvius on the many settlements in Darkmoon Vale. That was a terrible thing, but it was a Neutral terrible thing, a natural disaster. There's no need for Evil to have Undead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Undead are evil because of Paladins who need their Smite Evil ability to work on them. There, you have your in-lore reason why undead are labeled evil, and why Animate Dead is an Evil spell: Because Paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's address the elephant in the room: this is not a question of ethics or morality, but one of theme and style. Animate Dead makes a spellcaster evil in the same way that black armor with red trimming makes a fighter evil. The actual reason doesn't really matter; it's just cool imagery that's commonly associated with evil antagonists in the fantasy genre. No one needed a reason to accept that Animate Dead got the [evil] descriptor, which is why one was never officially provided. It's a thematic trope that works in most games without further explanation.

The problem is that players aren't obliged to respect those thematic distinctions. It's all well and good to say that Animate Dead is evil-flavored, but what happens when a benevolent character uses these evil-flavored powers? What happens when a malicious character uses good-aligned powers? The system is thrown into an existential crisis because alignment is trying to be more than one thing at once: it's trying to embody both the ethics of the character, and the theme of the character (which, in the Pathfinder universe, is a real cosmic force). The Horror Adventures rules show that we can't just rely on the "alignment is an objective cosmic force" excuse, since that ultimately undermines the very core of the alignment system. The fact is that good characters can use evil-aligned powers just as easily as they can choose to wear black armor with red-trimming.

That leads us full circle to the people asking for a reason. This isn't about morality, it's about theme. It's about wanting animate dead to be thematically exclusive to evil characters and villains. And if that's what you want, then do it. There is nothing wrong with wanting that kind of thematic game, and just telling your necromancer-wannabe player that this isn't the kind of game you're going for. For those who don't want force that theme, any reason would be either contrived or could undermine the alignment system as a whole.

The PF1 rulebook did it right by leaving this undefined; the people who are asking for a reason are the ones who don't need it. The people who don't want a reason would be inconvenienced by it.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

TheFinish wrote:

Sure, but blasphemy is literally using the power of Evil to hurt Good (and Neutrals), much like Holy Word is the opposite.

I'm not opposed to spells with [Alignment], when it makes sense. protection from [X], magic circle against [X], etc. Those make sense because you're using one of the many objective universal forces (Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) to act against it's opposite.

And what I'm suggesting is, there are more uses for those objective universal forces than simply acting against their opposites. Evil can help create undead, for example.

TheFinish wrote:


If using negative energy to make a walking corpse = Evil, then using positive energy to bring someone back to life = Good. You cannot simply declare that two energies are Neutral, but using one is unaligned and using the other one is [Evil]. Except it's not always [Evil]. Just sometimes. Which makes even less sense. That's the main issue I have with this whole thing.

Again, I'm not suggesting that negative energy is evil, or that using negative energy is evil.

I'm suggesting that Evil has an easier time using negative energy. Spells like animate dead leverage that advantage.
(As an aside, I would allow players to research a non-evil version of animate dead, but it would have to be higher level and/or require more costly components, to account for the increased difficulty.)

By way of analogy, it's like using an Evil(TM) brand stool to help you reach a jar of "animating the dead" on a tall shelf. It's not getting the jar that's evil, it's the stool.

TheFinish wrote:


As for where do Undead rise spontaneously: anywhere that the Negative Energy Plane has enough influence on the material. Since Negative Energy is associated with destruction, this could be a myriad of places (I seem to recall a place where burning undead rose up after a terrible forest fire, but I can't find the source.).

Also note Good people make Undead too, since Ghosts can rise wherever and be of any alignment.

And places with a strong connection to the Negative Energy Plane tend to be places where Evil acts were committed. Frex, desecrating an area using the power of Evil saturates it with negative energy.

I'm suggesting that this isn't a coincidence. Doing Evil stuff attracts negative energy, strengthening the connection between people/places/things and the Negative Energy Plane, making it more likely that undead will arise spontaneously.

Even ghosts, which are weird and don't really follow most of the rules for undead, tend to be the souls of people who were murdered or betrayed or suffered some other terrible violence.

But, again, that doesn't mean that that's the only way undead form. It's just the typical way.

Anyway, this is getting pretty far off topic. As I said at the start, this is just my headcanon. I'm not saying that this is the way things are in PF1, or that it's the way things should be in PF2--just that it's a way things could be.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Technically you are already off topic since this thread wasn't supposed to be about exact reasons for how evilness and mindless undead work(while non evil mindless undead exist) or lore explanation for how negative energy works but about why it would be nice for rulebooks to explain the rules ._. Like, sure its okay that animating the dead is always considered evil by rules, but why then there are exceptions that allow you to use undead creatures without it being evil? Or why is flesh golem not evil while skeleton is evil even though both are mindless animated corpses? Negative energy making them evil would have worked as reason, if rules didn't point out that negative energy isn't evil.

I mean, even if this thread works as good demonstration, it is starting to get paladin debate level territory with stuff like using fallacies to discredit arguments(said while ironically probably demonstrating fallacy which name I forgot :P)

Silver Crusade

TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Where is is stated that you can resurrect Petitioners?

Urgathoa (and Zyphus) became Undead Deities, they didn't resurrect.

Actually it's been explicitly stated by Jame Jacobs that Pharasma does know what's going to happen and can see all the divergent path of Fate.

In the Petitioner description:

"Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife. "

Also if Pharasma knows what's going to happen, then the strands of fate are set. Therefore, Urgathoa and Zyphus achieving godhood was decreed and they are as natural as Pharasma herself, which implies Pharasma is in the wrong.

If Fate is a set thing (and having infinite strands still means it's set and unchanging, all strands are equally valid), and you have Undead happening, then Undead are fine and ordained by Fate. Ergo they are not intrinsically Evil by going against Fate or whatever.

That line doesn’t say they are normally resurrectable or have special rules for being resurrected, which they would need, being living Outsiders. I brought up earlier using Wish/Miracle to return an Outsider to mortal life, nothing in the Petitioner entry mentions being able to return the living Outsider back to living mortal with something like Raise Deaf or True Resurrection.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the going against Fate angle makes them or Pharasma right/wrong, they’re going against the Cycle of Souls which entirely was their Fate. Going with or against fate doesn’t make them Good/Evil, corrupting the Cycle of Souls is what makes them Evil.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Flesh golem creation isn't evil because it is making a neutral construct that only does what it is told. Even if a flesh golem retains it's memories there is no promise that it is going to wind up a particular alignment.

Animate Dead is evil because it makes murder hungry monsters that will go on an unreasoning killing spree if not tightly controlled. Whether or not skeletons and zombies should be murder hungry monsters is a different argument.

On the original topic of the thread, if this is still the case in PF2 I agree it should be more clearly stated as it is vague now and subject to inference and opinion. If it is not the case in PF2 then it should be clearly stated that unintelligent undead can't take independent action.

If they remain evil, a simple change from "mindless" to "unintelligent" might help. Just emphasize that they are without reason instead of implying that they are without motivation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Flesh golem creation isn't evil because it is making a neutral construct that only does what it is told. Even if a flesh golem retains it's memories there is no promise that it is going to wind up a particular alignment.

Just a nitpick, but creating a Flesh Golem is [Evil] because you need to cast animate dead to create a Flesh Golem in the first place.

Some other golems require it but most don't. Creating a golem should still be an Evil act regardless because you're forcing a sapient being into a prison and binding it to your will (which is what the geas/quest requirement in most golems represents.). The process is never called out as such though, which is weird.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

Flesh golem creation isn't evil because it is making a neutral construct that only does what it is told. Even if a flesh golem retains it's memories there is no promise that it is going to wind up a particular alignment.

Just a nitpick, but creating a Flesh Golem is [Evil] because you need to cast animate dead to create a Flesh Golem in the first place.

Some other golems require it but most don't. Creating a golem should still be an Evil act regardless because you're forcing a sapient being into a prison and binding it to your will (which is what the geas/quest requirement in most golems represents.). The process is never called out as such though, which is weird.

This is being (finally) addressed in the Construct Builder’s Handbook out later this year.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Just a nitpick, but creating a Flesh Golem is [Evil] because you need to cast animate dead to create a Flesh Golem in the first place.

Good point, thank you.

In general I think that the morality of golem crafting is off topic, but it would be fun to explore as well.


Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

Flesh golem creation isn't evil because it is making a neutral construct that only does what it is told. Even if a flesh golem retains it's memories there is no promise that it is going to wind up a particular alignment.

Just a nitpick, but creating a Flesh Golem is [Evil] because you need to cast animate dead to create a Flesh Golem in the first place.

Some other golems require it but most don't. Creating a golem should still be an Evil act regardless because you're forcing a sapient being into a prison and binding it to your will (which is what the geas/quest requirement in most golems represents.). The process is never called out as such though, which is weird.

This is being (finally) addressed in the Construct Builder’s Handbook out later this year.

Oh, did they make a post about that? Would be good to see Paizo's current stance on this and see if it has evolved in the 10 years since they copypasted the 3.5 PHB's spell chapter into the PF CRB, since it might reflect what they do with Animate Dead etc in PF2.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember playing in a home game long ago where there was a little mountain country (picture Tibet) where it was common practice to Animate Dead on your ancestors. At that time (back in 1st edition D&D days) this spell was not automatically "evil"... Anyway, a party of adventurers, on arriving in town from another (more "advanced" civilization/culture) found a Zombie chasing children is a fenced in yard. And did what adventurers do, only to be arrested for chopping up "Great Aunt Magrat". They had to pay to have her put back together and pay for the trauma caused to the children who had been playing Zombie Tag with her (a local game often played with your Elders). Real culture shock. Different cultures, different customs. Clearly that wouldn't work in Pathfinder.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... I guess it comes from the association of people who deal with dead things as being evil and thus "less than human"... kind of like the Japanese terms "hinin" (非人—literally "non-human") or Burakumin (部落民, "hamlet people"/"village people", "those who live in hamlets/villages") - who were originally members of outcast communities in the Japanese feudal era, composed of those with occupations considered impure or tainted by death (such as executioners, undertakers, workers in slaughterhouses, butchers or tanners), which have severe social stigmas of kegare (穢れ or "defilement") attached to them.

So we link Necromancy with Evil because it deals with Dead things (and thus has severe social stigmas of "Evil"/"defilement" attached to it).
... but Enchantment (which deals with forcing people to do someone elses bidding - thru such spells as Dominate Person) is NOT considered Evil. Subjugating someone else's free will is... not evil, just magic. But animating a dead body is (severe social stigmas).

yeah, Different cultures, different customs. ...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Da Goblin wrote:
Clearly that wouldn't work in Pathfinder.

Well, not with animate dead as it stands, no. A culture like that would need something custom made, a new spell, a ritual, even a magic item. Or perhaps the local revered ancestors often become a special kind of spirit that can possess and animate its own corpse.

The plot in general would work fine, though.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Desecrating a corpse is an evil act, regardless of that corpse's actions in life. It has been considered a grave misdeed in every culture in human history,

Not every culture.

No need to exaggerate, you are mostly right. But lots of cultures weren't fond of pumping dead bodies full of toxic chemicals and then burying them in wooden boxes. Some fed them to animals (sky burials), some burned them, some then ate some of the ashes to carry some of their ancestor around within them forever. Different strokes.

This is a fantasy world, though, in which a soul or spirit does exist externally of the body, and goes on to another plane of existence. It can't even be called 'desecration' in a fantasy setting when there are actual *gods* who are okay with it.

*Pharasma* may not like it, but it's her literal job to get souls to where they are supposed to go, so it totally is on-theme for her to be opposed to it, just as Calistria can be opposed to celibacy, or Cayden Cailean can be opposed to tee-totalers, without that making celibacy or sobriety evil or 'unnatural' or wrong.

(And Pharasma's not even a little bit good, so her opinion on what's 'evil' is totally irrelevant, since she's got no moral standing to make such calls, in addition to being kind of biased because of her role.)


Reading this thread, I'm sorta just ending up thinking about animated undead tree corpses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

But raise dead, resurrection and true resurrection; spells that actually mess with the souls Pharasma has already judged (or will judge) by letting them ignore the cycle and come back to the Material Plane, not [Evil]?

I mean, if we're going about the natural laws of the universe, then spitting in Pharasma's judgement by bringing someone back is way worse than just making a skeleton. If anything, making a skeleton is helping Pharasma since it prevents souls she's already judged to be brought back to life.

I'm not sure that really is the same thing though. Resurrection doesn't take someone out of the cycle of life and death, it just moves them back to the life part. They're not escaping Pharasma, they'll be back and she has all the time in the world. Also, she's not just the goddess of death and fate, but also birth and rebirth. Resurrection is really kind of the ultimate rebirth. And any life they live after that will be judged when they die again. They'll have more life experiences which will possibly alter how they are judged.

Undeath is different because it's not death or life, it's outside the cycle and breaks the rules. Pharasma's forms only have Live or Dead check-boxes, so undeath just totally screws up her paperwork. (She must also hate Shrodinger's Cat)


Meophist wrote:
Reading this thread, I'm sorta just ending up thinking about animated undead tree corpses.

Hrm, well in rules as written you can't do this with trees because it requires a creature. At least with the standard animate-dead spells, there might be an exotic variant to give you zombie trees. But that does mean you can do it with plant creatures. You can have a zombie treant for example, or even a vampire or lich. Now that would be weird.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Reading this thread, I'm sorta just ending up thinking about animated undead tree corpses.
Hrm, well in rules as written you can't do this with trees because it requires a creature. At least with the standard animate-dead spells, there might be an exotic variant to give you zombie trees. But that does mean you can do it with plant creatures. You can have a zombie treant for example, or even a vampire or lich. Now that would be weird.

I was thinking more along the likes of… an animated chair.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Reading this thread, I'm sorta just ending up thinking about animated undead tree corpses.
Hrm, well in rules as written you can't do this with trees because it requires a creature. At least with the standard animate-dead spells, there might be an exotic variant to give you zombie trees. But that does mean you can do it with plant creatures. You can have a zombie treant for example, or even a vampire or lich. Now that would be weird.

Isn't there an undead treant in RotRL ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

To declare my hand further. I like alignment, but if it were to be as prescriptive as you suggest, I’d rather they not include it.

I like playing with alignment the way we do it. I don’t want to have some player begin arguing with the DM based on what Jason Buhlman thinks is an evil act.

This will sound funny, but I disagree you would like it more without alignment. Fortunately, it would be exceptionally easy for you to prove me wrong by so stating... So don't do it. :)

See if you like this argument:

PF1 has a section that says, essentially, alignment is a fuzzy collection of personality traits that is definitely not a straightjacket, then goes on to say the DM has absolute control over what alignment you are and, if he doesn’t like the alignment you put on your character sheet, it is fully and unconditionally the power of the DM to reach over and scratch it out. So alignment is handcuffs the DM can slap on you and then toss you into another alignment category. Definitely not a straightjacket because the rules are explicit, it’s just handcuffs. :/

There are currently three or four groups with a dog in the fight. The first, just to get it out of the way, is the game designers, who might think a Barbarian/Paladin is too mechanically strong or too aesthetically displeasing. I don’t think Paizo is incapable of addressing the mechanical issue with some good game design and the aesthetics can easily be addressed with archetypes, if necessary, so, let’s move on.

The second group says we don’t want alignment because it actually is a straightjacket (true in some games). If it were possible to make alignment not a straightjacket in fact (instead of just in words), I think the vast majority of this group would be satisfied. I mean, if you can choose a character concept, match an alignment to the concept that is most appropriate, and never have anybody (specifically, the DM) bother you about it, problem solved, right? At character creation, alignment can be treated as just one aspect of personality that you just happen to jot down on your character sheet, along with ancestry and background.

The third group says we should keep alignment, but it really has two subgroups: 1) those that want to control player behavior and 2) those that like alignment because it serves a narrative and mechanical function in a game that includes Good and Evil as actual forces in the multiverse. For the group that wants to control player behavior, I would argue an alignment-agnostic social contract works better. You can still restrict alignments if you want, but many of the behaviors that are disruptive can be handled with a social contract on which agreement is reached prior to the game. For example, I have a “no rape” rule and what I would characterize for simplicity as a no PvP rule. I don't care what character concept you have; if rape is part of it, you can't play it. Similarly, a DM could easily say, “I am not restricting your alignment per se, but you cannot murder PC races, so there are going to be some limits on your character concept if you choose to be Evil.” That’s not my rule, I’m just providing it as a legitimate social contract that is, in fact, alignment-agnostic. As to the second subgroup, if the players choose their alignments based upon clear definitions that are likely to allow a great deal of variation within them, I think everyone is going to be happy.

To address these issues, I think the alignment section should start with something like this (not a whimpy "don't worry, this isn't a straightjacket;" come in strong):

Alignment is a fundamental force of the multiverse. You should choose your alignment carefully because it can have a significant impact on how your character interacts with, in particular, magic and magical beings, as well as powers granted to your character, particularly for Clerics and Paladins. That said, alignment is entirely determined by character intentions, so if you choose an alignment that best describes your character’s intentions, you will not be forced to change alignment. PC intentions are solely under the control of the player, not the DM. The DM may or may not require you record something like “Delusion: Believes all red-haired women are witches and all witches are evil” on your character sheet if your character has a belief that something is true that is, in fact, objectively false (the DM is the arbiter of what is objectively true in the world) and that may result in the character taking an action that would deviate from alignment if the character did not have that delusion. Also, insanity may be detectable by insightful creatures or via the use of spells if your character has any delusions.

Lawful Good: [Leaving blank because Law/Chaos is tricky]
Neutral Good: If you have the intention to protect innocent life whenever it is feasible, you are Neutral Good. If you fail to protect innocent life or take innocent life, the DM may ask you if it was your intention to protect innocent life, despite the outcome. If so, your alignment does not change.
Chaotic Good: …

Then launch into the Alignment-Agnostic Social Contract. One part can be “DMs may restrict Evil alignments as a shorthand for certain behaviors. If you have a concept for a character who believes Orcs are capable of free will, but you kill them for fun anyway, your character is Evil, even if you do not kill PC races for fun. If you want to play such a character, you can always ask your DM if he or she means ‘not allowed to murder PC races,’ no PvP, no Evil of any kind, or something else.”

EDIT: I should add, rules are exception-based. These rules in no way prohibit the existence of Evil, OK, I'll try to use the accepted word, taint. Animate Dead, Undead, Evil objects, etc. are all covered by this exception.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting that negative energy is evil, or that using negative energy is evil.

I'm suggesting that Evil has an easier time using negative energy. Spells like animate dead leverage that advantage.
(As an aside, I would allow players to research a non-evil version of animate dead, but it would have to be higher level and/or require more costly components, to account for the increased difficulty.)

By way of analogy, it's like using an Evil(TM) brand stool to help you reach a jar of "animating the dead" on a tall shelf. It's not getting the jar that's evil, it's the stool.

I'll just point out that "Good clerics/gods use positive energy, evil clerics/gods use negative energy, only neutral clerics of neutral gods get to choose" has been a thing since... I'm not sure, D&D 1?

So, in a way, "Evil has an easier time to use negative energy" is part of the roots of this game.

Liberty's Edge

Channel negative energy and you will hurt your living enemies even if you also hurt your living allies. Evil loves this

Channel positive energy and you will heal your living allies even if you also heal your living enemies. Good loves this

It is not that the energies are Good or Evil. It's just that the end results of using them on the living are more in line with one of the alignments


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is subjective in many fantasy worlds, I'm just glad no one has brought up Cold Hands yet, the Drizzt of undead. Then there's the anime Overlord. But pathfinder is neither of those.

There are so many rules tied to alignment, it makes absolute sense that there has to be some form of terrestrial entity that inherently registers as evil. Undead are that thing. If you want non evil undead, binding a soul to armor via Possess Object does it just fine.

No matter how you slice it, alignment is not subjective in pathfinder. There are nine outer planes that serve to prove this rule.

And when judging intent, you go based on the player, not the character in game. I can't tell you how many times I've had players go about acting like they can just take 5 seconds out of game to tell me "I go help a cat out of a tree or something" to try and game the alignment system into getting out of admitting they just want to play an evil character. Sure, in character you may be acting one way, but the intent of the player is to gain all the benefits of being evil with none of the drawbacks and I'm not having it. It's blatant metagaming.


master_marshmallow wrote:


And when judging intent, you go based on the player, not the character in game. I can't tell you how many times I've had players go about acting like they can just take 5 seconds out of game to tell me "I go help a cat out of a tree or something" to try and game the alignment system into getting out of admitting they just want to play an evil character. Sure, in character you may be acting one way, but the intent of the player is to gain all the benefits of being evil with none of the drawbacks and I'm not having it. It's blatant metagaming.

This is exasperated by the no evil rule that is so prevalent. Folks want to RP anti-heroes, and occasionally carry out terrible acts, because its expedient or interesting. However, because they cant be evil and are supposed to be a good guy they go through a series of logical gymnastics to try and make their actions good.

Just because you are willing to employ evil tactics, doesn't make your character a bad person. Assassins and necromancers are guys willing to cut corners and get things done. They are evil characters, but that doesn't mean they have to steal all babies candy or kick every puppy.

I'd like to offer my alternative for folks with these issues. I allow evil alignments in my games under a caveat in the social contract. You can do what you like to any number of my NPCs, but you need to leave the other PCs alone. No stealing, attacking, or interfering with your fellow party mates. Under this rule ive had no issues with evil alignments. YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


And when judging intent, you go based on the player, not the character in game. I can't tell you how many times I've had players go about acting like they can just take 5 seconds out of game to tell me "I go help a cat out of a tree or something" to try and game the alignment system into getting out of admitting they just want to play an evil character. Sure, in character you may be acting one way, but the intent of the player is to gain all the benefits of being evil with none of the drawbacks and I'm not having it. It's blatant metagaming.

This is exasperated by the no evil rule that is so prevalent. Folks want to RP anti-heroes, and occasionally carry out terrible acts, because its expedient or interesting. However, because they cant be evil and are supposed to be a good guy they go through a series of logical gymnastics to try and make their actions good.

Just because you are willing to employ evil tactics, doesn't make your character a bad person. Assassins and necromancers are guys willing to cut corners and get things done. They are evil characters, but that doesn't mean they have to steal all babies candy or kick every puppy.

I'd like to offer my alternative for folks with these issues. I allow evil alignments in my games under a caveat in the social contract. You can do what you like to any number of my NPCs, but you need to leave the other PCs alone. No stealing, attacking, or interfering with your fellow party mates. Under this rule ive had no issues with evil alignments. YMMV.

One can play an evil character without ruining the plot or screwing over the other players.

This is a true statement. It's not like you can't make undead to try and do good things, but those things don't just make you good outright again. The problem is we use the labels too often to dictate decisions and not simply as labels. Then again lawful dumb paladins become a problem when bad DMing rears its ugly head.

Why are you upset about playing an evil character if literally nothing about the actions you take change the consequences? If your gameplay experience isn't changed I don't see the need to argue about it unless you're specifically trying to gain some sort of in game mechanical advantage by gaming the system.

Hence metagaming.


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting that negative energy is evil, or that using negative energy is evil.

I'm suggesting that Evil has an easier time using negative energy. Spells like animate dead leverage that advantage.
(As an aside, I would allow players to research a non-evil version of animate dead, but it would have to be higher level and/or require more costly components, to account for the increased difficulty.)

By way of analogy, it's like using an Evil(TM) brand stool to help you reach a jar of "animating the dead" on a tall shelf. It's not getting the jar that's evil, it's the stool.

I'll just point out that "Good clerics/gods use positive energy, evil clerics/gods use negative energy, only neutral clerics of neutral gods get to choose" has been a thing since... I'm not sure, D&D 1?

So, in a way, "Evil has an easier time to use negative energy" is part of the roots of this game.

No - channeling energy is a newish part of the game. Clerics didn't care about that stuff in the first two editions.

The roots of the game clerics only cared about being lawful or chaotic - those were the only two alignments. It was generally assumed all monsters were chaotic and everything else was lawful.


Planpanther wrote:
Just because you are willing to employ evil tactics, doesn't make your character a bad person.

The thing about the intent argument is, it's a lot less quantifiable than character behaviour, which is why I would argue for alignment to be entirely descriptive of how a character actually plays, and therefore that evil tactics are the single thing that makes a character Evil or not.

Scarab Sages

I don't know about the rest of you, but to keep my Neutral Alignment active with my Diety (Nivi Rhombodazzle), after a week of:
Casting spells with a Good discriptor, saving people from death, slaying demons/devils/etc and actually saving the world;

I have to go kick a few puppies, and take candy from the kids at Auntie Baltwins Home for Recovery (she gives me a special rate for the service).

I am looking forward to some more Demon Fighting around the Worldwound this year, and maybe freeing some slaves... so I guess I may have to look into volunteering down at the Hellfire club on my days off... just to offset the "good" stains on my "alignment chart"...

How are the rest of you maintaining your Neutral alignment?


Buba Casanunda wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but to keep my Neutral Alignment active with my Diety (Nivi Rhombodazzle), after a week of:

Casting spells with a Good discriptor, saving people from death, slaying demons/devils/etc and actually saving the world;

I have to go kick a few puppies, and take candy from the kids at Auntie Baltwins Home for Recovery (she gives me a special rate for the service).

I am looking forward to some more Demon Fighting around the Worldwound this year, and maybe freeing some slaves... so I guess I may have to look into volunteering down at the Hellfire club on my days off... just to offset the "good" stains on my "alignment chart"...

How are the rest of you maintaining your Neutral alignment?

This would be another one of those posts that I suspect is meant at least in part sarcastically but that is an exact literal representation of how I would adjudicate the issue in question. (With a side note saying "Possible Neutral Smartass; serious-minded Neutral outsiders likely to get irked therewith.")


Buba Casanunda wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but to keep my Neutral Alignment active with my Diety (Nivi Rhombodazzle), after a week of:

Casting spells with a Good discriptor, saving people from death, slaying demons/devils/etc and actually saving the world;

I have to go kick a few puppies, and take candy from the kids at Auntie Baltwins Home for Recovery (she gives me a special rate for the service).

I am looking forward to some more Demon Fighting around the Worldwound this year, and maybe freeing some slaves... so I guess I may have to look into volunteering down at the Hellfire club on my days off... just to offset the "good" stains on my "alignment chart"...

How are the rest of you maintaining your Neutral alignment?

I'd look at the Aeon outsiders and basically roleplay how they act. They have to manage a true neutral alignment somehow, so...


If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.


Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death).

And that would be why there's a type of inevitable specifically dedicated to hunting down people who flagrantly cheat death that way as well as by becoming liches.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.

Cycle of Souls, not life. Resurrection doesn't damage the soul.


Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.

If they die for natural causes then maybe.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.
If they die for natural causes then maybe.

/looks at reincarnate


As others have noted resurrection has a different condition than raise dead. Also, resurrection is often quite rare and something reserved for PCs. This speaks to the more game part of the system. Folks want a way to keep their characters alive if they have such a luxury.

As a side note, in my home games resurrection magic has a pet cemetery effect on the target. This is why most people who can afford it, chose not to cheat death. The PCs make a good use of their hero points to avoid becoming...something....else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Almarane wrote:
If Animate Dead is evil because you don't follow the normal cycle of life (life then death then life instead of life then death), then Resurection should be evil too because this breaks the normal cycle of life juste as much as Animate Dead (life then death then life instead of life then death). We may argue that you need the creature's permission for Resurection, but still. Resurrecting someone, even with their permission, is a perversion of the cycle of life, no matter how you do it.
Cycle of Souls, not life. Resurrection doesn't damage the soul.

Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.


TheFinish wrote:


Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.

Is it spelled out somewhere that soul damage is the narrative for the penalties? Are you sure those conditions are not just game penalties for dying?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally dominate related spells should be evil as well.


Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.

Is it spelled out somewhere that soul damage is the narrative for the penalties? Are you sure those conditions are not just game penalties for dying?

I mean, heck if I know, but the description for Energy Drain and Negative Levels is:

"Some spells and a number of undead creatures have the ability to drain away life and energy; this dreadful attack results in “negative levels.” These cause a character to take a number of penalties."

What exactly are you draining when you drain "life an energy" if not the Soul (or the Mojo, or whatever you want to call it).

Note that if you kill someone with Enervation (IE they have Neg Levels >= HD) they'll be physically fine but you can't resurrect them unless you drop a resto.

So why would the penalty for dying be Negative Levels if it's not supposed to represent your life force or whatever was compromised on the way?

101 to 150 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / So if creating mindless undead through necromancy is still evil in 2e... All Messageboards