So the MM states that golems are powered/driven by earth elementals trapped within artificially constructed forms, and yet there's no mention of golem creation being an evil act.
My best guess is that the MM writers only intended golems to be createable by BBEGs (Create Construct being found only in MM and all), so they didn't bother to point out the obvious; that golem creation is an evil act. I remember the 2nd edition MM had pretty much the same description of golems and their creation, and if I remember rightly, also lacked a note about their creation being an evil act.
And yet, I know that Elminster has some type of mechanical guardian...though I'm not a FR expert so maybe it's another type of construct.
Any ideas?
How is binding an elemental to serve as a golem more evil than summoning one for any other purpose? Is casting Unseen Servant evil? What about Animal Friendship? How about summoning a celestial animal and ordering it to fight to the death?
I always thought making a golem was amoral because golems have no minds.
Always wondered the same thing. Binding a soul for eternity for the purpose of labor makes a gulag look like club med. Slavery, without susser todd's release. As for animal friendship... I guess hypnotizing an animal to put themselves in harm's way for you does seem kinda evil. I wouldn't do it in real life. But see, following this philosophy I also wouldn't own an guard dog.
That said... oh I do so love me some golems.
In case of elemental binding though, is the bound element sentient - or not?
Ahh...moral ambiguity...
In case of elemental binding though, is the bound element sentient - or not?
Ahh...moral ambiguity...
I was thinking a regular ol' sentient elemental. If it wasn't sentient then that's no more slavery than using a windmill to catch the wind. Poor wind. :|
How is binding an elemental to serve as a golem more evil than summoning one for any other purpose? Is casting Unseen Servant evil? What about Animal Friendship? How about summoning a celestial animal and ordering it to fight to the death?
I've had thoughts about that too. I ended up decided that despite their label as 'conjurations', Summon Monster X and such spells only create objects/energy to fight for the caster that appear to be creatures. This is because 1) even a good caster can use these spells and 2) the 'creatures' go POOF when they are 'killed' rather than actually die.
I always thought making a golem was amoral because golems have no minds.
Like the Jade said, I'm assuming that a regular old 10 Int earth elemental is meant by the golem's description. And it's obvious that the elemental doesn't want to be where it is; clay and flesh golems both have the Berserk quality...not sure why the other golems don't. Maybe the binding enchantments on them are stronger.
Sounds like an issue of slavery to me; the bound elemental has no choice; no negotiation; is enslaved to the will of the golem creator, and can be made to do any act it can understand. Sounds evil to me. If the golem is destroyed; what happens to the elemental; is it released or is it also destroyed? If released, can it wreak its vengance upon the summoner or his agents?
Interesting question Tequila Sunrise, thanks.
Constructs are supposed to be "mindless" creations right?
Dont you need to have a mind in order to have a will?
Even the most simple minded creature has an instinct of self-preservation. Golems lack even this basic function of will, do they not?
I think the idea is that a golem is mindless (except when the elemental breaks free and goes Berserk) only because the creator's enchantment holds the elemental's mind/spirit dormant. At least that's the best way I can rationalize a golem's 0 Int with the fact that an elemental is supposed to power the thing. Hmmm, maybe there's an interesting Wizards article somewhere in this discussion...
|
A little further down the same road is the Eberron setting where so many things have bound elementals in them -- Lightning Rails, Air ships, even most of their elemental magic items like a flaming sword are supposed to have one or more bound elementals in them.
Let me preface the following by saying that I am taking a step away from "morality" for a moment (and just kind of thinking off the top of my head).
It could be viewed in many ways like slavery was here in the US. I think that most people who had slaves didn't really give it a second thought. To them slaves were little more than a car is today. (I am glad we have moved on from that.) They didn't really see it as a moral issue -- it was just simply what you did. In a magic setting, there are probably very few people who would understand or even know that the elementals were bound into items. I don't think that it is public knowledge. All the general population knows is that it "works". I can see a number of plot types that may revolve around "Free the Elementals" or something similar. (There may be cults that dedicate their lives to freeing every elemental they can by sabotaging lightning rails, destroying magic items, etc.)
As far as the "mindless" argument goes -- while many constructs are considered mindless, there are a number of them that are intelligent (Nimblewrights come to mind). I see the elemental little more than the hamster that is forced to run in the wheel to make the construct go. The elemental only makes the construct (or other magic items) "go". If there is intelligence in the construct, it must come from someplace else.
Anyway, just a few random thoughts.
I don't think there is any way to answer the question, since
I know of
nothing in the real world analogous to "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." Does it have a mind? Can it suffer? It feels wrong, particularly since the word "unwilling," which
strongly implies capacity for volition, is used, but
but I don't think the answers are ready.
Creating a flesh golem I would say is definitely evil
because it requires committing an act which is considered taboo by nearly all real and fantasy cultures with which I am familiar, namely harvesting body parts from corpses to serve selfish purposes (in this case, to create a monster).
I think every culture considers disrespect for the dead to be morally wrong.
I believe that elementals were considered "non-intelligent" until 3rd ed. I guess they were just sort of "pure element" combined with the will of the caster. More like the psionic astral constructs these days.
I never bought that and always my mages have some "treats" for the elemental (gems for earth, incense for fire & air, perfume for water).
I guess the whole issue of slavery got overlooked when they geve elementals minds (and, explicitly, souls).
There are several ways to handle it:
1)Slavery is evil. Making a golem is evil.
1A) Slavery is evil but imprisonment is not. It's still good if you go out and catch a "bad" elemental and use it. The only "good" way out of this.
1B) You aren't only imprisoning the elemental you are lobotomizing it. Elementals don't get better after being in a golem. They just die with the golem. So you are lobotomizing the elemental, imprisoning the crippled elemental with the only means of release being complete obliteration (since the soul of the elemental and its body are the same thing)
1C) You are obliterating the elemental in the first instance. It takes the destruction of the elemental to power the golem. The berserk thing is just the vestiges of the elementals rage at its destruction.
2) Slavery ISN'T evil. There is some valid justification for this thought. If the other option is genocide, then slavery may be the "good" choice. Of course, this completely undermines "going out and killing the bad guys" which is a D&D staple. It would be a royal hassle to capture all the goblins, take them back to the village and force them to labor to make up for their misdeeds. Maybe elementals are regarded more as a resource than as people.
3)Get the elemental to consent to it. But it some flowers, Set up a trust fund of gems it can take back to the Elemental Plane of earth
4)Maybe the sensesance (0 Int)while being the motive power of a golem actually empowers the elemental (a few more hit dice or something). Then elementals are clamouring to become golems.
5) Maybe you just invoke Rule Zero and say you don't need an elemental to power a golem. You don't need one to create any other run of the mill magic item. You don't need one to create an intelligent magic item, though using one is a good excuse for having the item be intelligent.
I recently ran a similar thread to this in the WotC forums. Here's the summary of the common consensi of the thread from there, but it is by no means "official" material; take it or leave it as you please.
1. The game designers will state if an act is evil. It does not have to be inferred by interpretation. "Binding" is not termed an evil act; "enslaving" however, would be.
2. A spirit from the elemental planes is not an (element type) elemental. Consider it a proto elemental, or simply one of the limitless elemental energy farts the elemental planes are composed of.
3. A feat in an issue of Dragon allows the creator to remove the berserk ability/problem through superior binding. Thus, it could be that the berserk problem is only a result of imperfect binding, rather than a raging desire to be free.
4. Awaken construct and other related spells "grant" the construct an intelligence score, rather than "restore" the elemental spirit's intelligence, which further reinforces the "nonsentient spirit" paradigm.
Just my two coppers, hope it helps.
Either way, it opens up a whole bunch of roleplaying opportunities. If I ever got the chance to play in an Eberron campaign, I want to play a Warforged character who feels it's their DUTY to free the enslaved elementals that power many of the luxuries that Khorvaire has gotten used to (airships, lightning rails, sky coaches, etc).
Binding a sentient creature can be construed as an evil act - it matters whose point of view you're looking from. Is the creature willing or unwilling? Would a paladin use an elemental-bound set of armor if he knew there was a sentient creature bound to it? If you go with "elemental binding is just energy" then you don't have such issues to worry about. I, however, think the concept of binding an actual elemental creature has a lot more non-game mechanic ideas to explore.
Speaking of flesh golems, though, I imagine the Undying Court have a particular hatred for such abominations.
1. Nimblewrights aren't golems. All constructs aren't golems. Only creatures listed under "golem" or with "golem" in the name are golems. Golems are powered by "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." Nimblewrights are not powered by "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." The DM can make the decision to include them, but this is a house rule/descritpion, not part of the RAW.
2. "The process of creating a goelm binds the UNWILLING spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator." (MM 134) Note the word unwilling. Thus, the spirit is sentient, and the text is pretty clear in it's indication that this is a form of imposed slavery. Whether the spirit is an out-of-the-book earth elemental or not is irrelevant. It is, in fact, sentient. For that matter, the golem's level of intelligence, as pointed out above, has nothing to do with the animating spirit.
Unfortunately, this doesn't alleviate the moral ambiguity of the situation any less, as the alignment of the spirit is left out of the statement. Granted, there is a great precedence for evil earth elemental (Ogremach and others), however it is not stated in this. Compare it to binding demons- in some cases, binding demons is seen as an act of some level of good (keep in mind that morals can be both objective and subjective in D&D), depending on the nature of the service/binding imposed upon them, as a form of punishment for the forces of evil. In other cases, very similar acts can be seen to be evil, since they tap into the basic forces of depravity. Sometimes it comes down to two different author's interpretations/desires for a scenario/story when considering the same act.
3. Again, if the DM wants to go this route, it's his call, but don't assume that summoning spells simply create a force that looks and behaves like a creature. The summoned creature has all of its mental faculties (or lack thereof) and abilities, and stating that it is something other than an actual creature can open up some other problems ("If it's just a force, how come it can't follow my orders exactly, if it can follow any at all?"). As a matter of fact, summoning a good creature changes the spell's subtype to "Good", reflecting that you are tapping into the fundamental powers of goodness. Sending it to die in battle is not evil, since the creature is never in any real danger. A summoned creature is not killed, but rather sent back to its home plane. An easier method to look at this is that the magic holding the creature in this world is rather tenuous, thus explaining the limited duration and the ability of the creature to be dispelled. Simultaneously, this tenuous link keeps the creature from any real danger.
4. Calling is a different matter. Calling a creature and using it as fodder can indeed be an evil act.
5. Animal friendship no longer exists. If you mean "wild empathy", you will note that the attitude of the animal is exactly like the attitude of any NPC you use diplomacy on, so the creature is not going to jump on a sword blade for you. Charm animal is the exact same. Hold animal is no more evil than hold person (which is to say, not at all in it's abject state, although circumstances can make it an evil act, but then again, they can also do that to a cure spell when used on a villain). Dominate animal is as evil as dominate person. All this simply means that the act in and of itself isn't definatively evil, but the circumstances it is used under may influence that. Intent and roleplaying (on the player's part) are paramount to adjudicating this.
6. Back to building a golem- it certainly appears that the process is unsavory, but there are also references to be found, I'm sure, of good spellcasters that build golems, and the act is not defined as evil. I have to agree that if it were meant to be, there would probably be a mention of it by the game designers. To answer in-game solutions, I would say that there are a variety of ways to build one, some of which use dark arts, and other use more gentle methods (or imprison evil spirits), meaning that a character's alignment is never at risk when creating a golem.
Going back to literary and folkloric sources for the golem, there is definitely a moral dimension to the act of creating one. This often centers on the hubris involved in creating an animate being, something that only the gods, or the Creator, are supposed to have the right to do.
I guess I'll have to go read the original Frankenstein, now.
This thread also pulled to the surface a vague memory of a story from Ashkenazi Jewish tradition (IIRC) about a golem that a rabbi made to defend the Jewish people of Prague. (I may be getting this quite wrong--if someone else knows the story better, please tell). Anyhow, I don't remember the details, but IIRC there was this interesting moral conflict--the rabbi was doing good by protecting the community, but was usurping God's prerogative in creating animate beings. I think the berserk element also comes from this story, but the details escape me.
Edit--just remembered my source, which gives a pretty good discussion of the origins of the golem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
(Sorry, I don't know how to make pretty links like Lilith)
|
|
1. Nimblewrights aren't golems. All constructs aren't golems. Only creatures listed under "golem" or with "golem" in the name are golems. Golems are powered by "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." Nimblewrights are not powered by "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth." The DM can make the decision to include them, but this is a house rule/descritpion, not part of the RAW.
True -- sorry about the confusion -- I was going off the top of my head. My point was that there are a number of golems (and other constructs) that are intelligent and that the bound elemental has little to nothing to do with the intelligence of the golem. Some examples are Brain Golem (Fiend Folio), Brass Golem (MM2), Cadaver Golem (Heroes of Horror), Demonflesh Golem (Fiend Folio), Diamond Golem (Monsters of Faerun), Dragonflesh Golem (MM2), Relief Golem (Dragon 334), etc. All of these have an intelligence score, but I don't feel that it has to do with the intelligence of the elemental.
Wow, this is the best discussion I've been involved in for quite a while! I'm thinking of sending a query to Wizards and possibly Paizo for an article on this topic. Unfortunately I don't know if there's a designated place for something like this in Paizo; I've only been subscribed to Dungeon for a few months and have never even read a Dragon. If anyone can point me in the right direction that would be cool.
I was having thoughts a while back about a similar subject, and I do not want to threadjack this subject (its a good one TS) but I was wondering why exactly the force needs to be an EARTH Elemental. It was the center of one of the many queries that I will probably never submit. Why cant you power your golem with alternative sources: Fire, water, air, bio-diesel, etc.?
I've wondered that too. I guess using earth elementals is more or less a flavor thing; any monster that's big and clunky is associated with Earth by default. In the M:tG multiverse, constructs are powered by Powerstones which is a concept I've thought about using in d&d. Eldritch gems, anyone?
Unfortunately, this doesn't alleviate the moral ambiguity of the situation any less, as the alignment of the spirit is left out of the statement. Granted, there is a great precedence for evil earth elemental (Ogremach and others), however it is not stated in this. Compare it to binding demons- in some cases, binding demons is seen as an act of some level of good (keep in mind that morals can be both objective and subjective in D&D), depending on the nature of the service/binding imposed upon them, as a form of punishment for the forces of evil. In other cases, very similar acts can be seen to be evil, since they tap into the basic forces of depravity. Sometimes it comes down to two different author's interpretations/desires for a scenario/story when considering the same act.
Thanks for bringing in that quote from the golem entry in the MM, I was about to do that before I read your post. I am however going to dissagree with you on this point; though slavery may have been morally ambiguous in our world's past/might still be ambiguous in certain places, the vast majority of gamers do not consider slavery to be ambiguous. This is apparent in the rulebooks themselves (BoED) and in the many d&d novels; the PCs and NPCs of the d&d world overwhelmingly consdier slavery to be evil. I couldn't even see a LG or LN character binding an unwilling elemental to serve him eternally as a golem; the argument that this imprisonment is meant as punishment is faulty in that the purpose of punishment is to reform. I don't think Ogremach would feel any desire to reform his ways as a result of a good archmage telling him 'I'm locking you in this walking tin can until I feel that you've thought about what you've done and sufficiently repented.'
Again, if the DM wants to go this route, it's his call, but don't assume that summoning spells simply create a force that looks and behaves like a creature. The summoned creature has all of its mental faculties (or lack thereof) and abilities, and stating that it is something other than an actual creature can open up some other problems ("If it's just a force, how come it can't follow my orders exactly, if it can follow any at all?"). As a matter of fact, summoning a good creature changes the spell's subtype to "Good", reflecting that you are tapping into the fundamental powers of goodness. Sending it to die in battle is not evil, since the creature is never in any real danger. A summoned creature is not killed, but rather sent back to its home plane. An easier method to look at this is that the magic holding the creature in this world is rather tenuous, thus explaining the limited duration and the ability of the creature to be dispelled. Simultaneously, this tenuous link keeps the creature from any real danger.
Still doesn't feel quite right to me. If I summon a celestial lion to fight for me, chances are it'll be stabbed, slammed or wounded in some other way. Even if the spell sends it back to Elysium right before that sword-stroke lands that would have killed the lion, it probably still retains some scratches from its service to me. So what if my spell returns the lion to Elysium, but it is unable to hunt effectively because of its wounds and finally dies because of it? Or what if the lion pops back into Elysium and what? Demon invasion!!! The lion is almost dead and expected to have any hope of defending itself? Maybe I'm thinking too much about this, but hey that's what I do!
I recently ran a similar thread to this in the WotC forums. Here's the summary of the common consensi of the thread from there, but it is by no means "official" material; take it or leave it as you please.
And I thought I was the first person to think of this! Thanks for your input, however none of these consensi are really easing my mind on this topic. They feel too much like people who take published material as gospel. I hope I don't offend you by saying this because I don't want to turn this thread into a Wizards boards bicker-fest.
A little further down the same road is the Eberron setting where so many things have bound elementals in them -- Lightning Rails, Air ships, even most of their elemental magic items like a flaming sword are supposed to have one or more bound elementals in them.
Yes I thought about all the elemental binding that goes on in Eberron, in passing, but since I don't run an eberron game I'm not overly concerned with dealing with THAT load of moral ambiguity! Concerning mundane magic swords, armor and whatnot, I consider them to be purely a product of raw magical energy; 'spirits' and elementals not included.
Either way, it opens up a whole bunch of roleplaying opportunities. If I ever got the chance to play in an Eberron campaign, I want to play a Warforged character who feels it's their DUTY to free the enslaved elementals that power many of the luxuries that Khorvaire has gotten used to (airships, lightning rails, sky coaches, etc).
Once again, Lilith has shown her true colors--genius! If I ever find myself in an Eberron game I'm totally going to do this too, despite the fact that I've never thought about playing a warforged before!
You are correct. I am Reading "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay" right now and the beginning of the book deals with this old Jewish legend. I'm still at the beginning of the book, so I dont know how the legend ends.
Michael Chabon is one of my favorite modern writers. I have yet to read K&K though.
Director of Sales
|
You are correct. I am Reading "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay" right now and the beginning of the book deals with this old Jewish legend. I'm still at the beginning of the book, so I dont know how the legend ends.Michael Chabon is one of my favorite modern writers. I have yet to read K&K though.
Kavalier & Klay is a great book. For another (much more lighthearted but) interesting take on the morality of Golem creation and use, Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay deals with the subject in a comically real-world way. And whenever Golems crop up in the successive Discworld books, there is always at least some thought given over to the morality involved.
And Discworld just rules in its own right.
Kavalier & Klay is a great book. For another (much more lighthearted but) interesting take on the morality of Golem creation and use, Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay deals with the subject in a comically real-world way. And whenever Golems crop up in the successive Discworld books, there is always at least some thought given over to the morality involved.
And Discworld just rules in its own right.
I'm always looking for a good recommendation, Cosmo. I'll definitely check out Feet of Clay and the Discworld books. I had a Discworld video game that I never got a chance to play. I would have but then PS2 came out and of course I had a whole new list of worlds that needed saving. I sing thee a dirge to the forgotten games of platforms past. I should dig it out and give it a shot.
TS - I always thought that the Warforged might feel a kinship with bound elementals. They, after a fashion, were bound and created for a purpose, but what gave them life? Why are they able to think, talk and walk freely - what is it that gave them the ability to do so? Why do they have this ability and others do not? Do they really have a soul? Are they more than the sum of their parts? (Those fun questions of "Why are we here" that have plagued mankind for so long.) While for the most part, the 'forged know WHY they are here (House Cannith created them to serve in the Last War), it's the HOW that I think would plague them the most. I imagine the Lord of Blades has his rhetoric on the matter.
A version of the Golem myth is here. It doesn't make any mention of the beserk ability, but I think in one version I read it was the fact that the Rabbi was "dismissing" him that caused it.
TS - I always thought that the Warforged might feel a kinship with bound elementals. They, after a fashion, were bound and created for a purpose, but what gave them life? Why are they able to think, talk and walk freely - what is it that gave them the ability to do so? Why do they have this ability and others do not? Do they really have a soul? Are they more than the sum of their parts? (Those fun questions of "Why are we here" that have plagued mankind for so long.) While for the most part, the 'forged know WHY they are here (House Cannith created them to serve in the Last War), it's the HOW that I think would plague them the most. I imagine the Lord of Blades has his rhetoric on the matter.
A version of the Golem myth is here. It doesn't make any mention of the beserk ability, but I think in one version I read it was the fact that the Rabbi was "dismissing" him that caused it.
I just figure that with enough magical knowledge, a caster can create a spirit/soul that inhabits an intelligent item; I think of warfored as just intelligent items from DMG with limbs. Heretical, yes, but hey this is d&d not Temple!
That golem myth is pretty interesting; Rabbi Loew and his two companions that create the golem remind me of a coven. I remember an X-file episode that involved a golem created by a grieving girl whose fiance had been killed by an anti-semite.
Something I would like to point out: while sentient, in most cases an elemental can be considered sociopathic at best. The purpose of a fire elemental's existence is to burn. It doesn't care what it burns, so long as it burns. With proper application, it will burn things in a constructive and useful manner, but it can just as easily burn down an orphanage. This is the most drastic example, but at no point does any book say elementals care about humanity.
And, while I may be wrong, I thought what drove Rabbi Loew's golem berserk was trying to understand and mimic humans.
And the Eberron issue has an interesting background. Elemental binding was first discovered by giants, the same race that sacrificed elven slaves to gain power, and considered wreaking a cataclysm upon Eberron to preserve their civilization. The only thing that stopped them was the dragons burning down their cities to prevent it. Then, it was used by the drow, stolen from them by the gnomes, and was then used to construct weapons of war for profit. The history alone, if known by anyone, would spark several riots. However, as I pointed out earlier, most elementals aren't exactly friendly, and wouldn't exactly thank any saviors who freed them, unless by "thank" we mean "show them the glory of pure flame".
A fitting example is in Howl's Moving Castle. The castle is powered by a "fire demon" called Calcifer, who plays a form of comic relief, constantly complaining about his use as little better than a steam engine, then later in the movie, when asked to save the breaking castle, he says he needs something of the girl's. She gives him her hair, and he then grows 3 times his original size. When she compliments his new strength, his response is: "Imagine what I could have done with your eyes, or even your heart!" He is driven to make deals by his nature, which sufficently alien to our own as to render questions of morality moot, as I feel they do with elementals.
Now, making a deal with an elemental to power a construct I feel would not be an evil act, forcing one to might be.
Something I would like to point out: while sentient, in most cases an elemental can be considered sociopathic at best. The purpose of a fire elemental's existence is to burn. It doesn't care what it burns, so long as it burns. With proper application, it will burn things in a constructive and useful manner, but it can just as easily burn down an orphanage. This is the most drastic example, but at no point does any book say elementals care about humanity.
And, while I may be wrong, I thought what drove Rabbi Loew's golem berserk was trying to understand and mimic humans.
And the Eberron issue has an interesting background. Elemental binding was first discovered by giants, the same race that sacrificed elven slaves to gain power, and considered wreaking a cataclysm upon Eberron to preserve their civilization. The only thing that stopped them was the dragons burning down their cities to prevent it. Then, it was used by the drow, stolen from them by the gnomes, and was then used to construct weapons of war for profit. The history alone, if known by anyone, would spark several riots. However, as I pointed out earlier, most elementals aren't exactly friendly, and wouldn't exactly thank any saviors who freed them, unless by "thank" we mean "show them the glory of pure flame".
A fitting example is in Howl's Moving Castle. The castle is powered by a "fire demon" called Calcifer, who plays a form of comic relief, constantly complaining about his use as little better than a steam engine, then later in the movie, when asked to save the breaking castle, he says he needs something of the girl's. She gives him her hair, and he then grows 3 times his original size. When she compliments his new strength, his response is: "Imagine what I could have done with your eyes, or even your heart!" He is driven to make deals by his nature, which sufficently alien to our own as to render questions of morality moot, as I feel they do with elementals.
Now, making a deal with an elemental to power a construct I feel would not be an...
Calcifer was dern cute.
The thing about fire elementals living to burn stuff doesn't mean that if sentient, it would choose to keep a furnace lit and not be back at home on the elemental plane of fire talking with his flaming buddies about the high cost of kindling these days. It's like me. I was born to do it. But if you made me do it with a furnace I'd be oh so unhappy. Unless it was shiny and new... then maybe.
|
|
I just figure that with enough magical knowledge, a caster can create a spirit/soul that inhabits an intelligent item; I think of warfored as just intelligent items from DMG with limbs. Heretical, yes, but hey this is d&d not Temple!
While vearing off a little from the primary topic (morality and Golems) the ability for someone to be able to create a soul has a whole lot of moral implications all by itself. Look at all the debates surrounding cloning. While creating something that moves, reacts, or even thinks is one thing. Creating something from scratch that has a soul is much different.
I am looking forward to the Faiths of Eberron.
From the "Previews for August" from the WotC site...
Rumors persist of a warforged battalion that deserted its Karrnathi masters and entered the Mournland. Calling themselves the Godforged, they are unified by a belief that warforged have souls -- and that these souls were bestowed upon them by a construct god. How the Godforged conceive of such a deity is unknown to those outside the cult -- whether the philosophical ideal of "construct" can exist without a created body is a matter for the scholars -- but they are not content to worship a distant concept. The Godforged are dedicated to the great task of building a body to let their god walk the world as a comrade. The construction of this vessel -- the Becoming God -- is the project of lifetimes.
Thought that you might be interested.
and that these souls were bestowed upon them by a construct god. How the Godforged conceive of such a deity is unknown to those outside the cult
I created a god of constructs in my own campaign. I guess if I take on Eberron this deity would have a far greater role in things. Hmm...
Regarding morality in general, there is another consideration here: although there are obvious differences, most campaigns take place in societies which are at medieval-early modern Europe levels of sophistication, technologically and (perhaps) philosophically. Is it reasonable to expect that a denizen of that kind of world would think the way we terrifically enlightened early 21st century Americans do? Modes of thinking and standards of behavior were completely different 500 or 600 years ago, totally alien to us. Would we condemn people from those times as evil if they didn't adhere to what we feel to be standards of ethical conduct?
A fitting example is in Howl's Moving Castle. The castle is powered by a "fire demon" called Calcifer, who plays a form of comic relief, constantly complaining about his use as little better than a steam engine, then later in the movie, when asked to save the breaking castle, he says he needs something of the girl's. She gives him her hair, and he then grows 3 times his original size. When she compliments his new strength, his response is: "Imagine what I could have done with your eyes, or even your heart!" He is driven to make deals by his nature, which sufficently alien to our own as to render questions of morality moot, as I feel they do with elementals.
I LOVE that movie and all Miyazaki stuff...mostly. Mononoke is not a favorite of mine. But Spirited Away and Castle in the Sky also rock my world!
Okay, now that that's out of my system, onward. My problem with your argument: a fire elemental is not deserving of eternal slavery because while it's psychology is different from a mortals, it does not harm anybody except when commanded to do so or when trapped on the Prime by some pesty mortal.
While vearing off a little from the primary topic (morality and Golems) the ability for someone to be able to create a soul has a whole lot of moral implications all by itself. Look at all the debates surrounding cloning. While creating something that moves, reacts, or even thinks is one thing. Creating something from scratch that has a soul is much different.
In the d&d world, I consider the creation of a soul to be a morally neutral act. It can be evil or good depending on what intent is behind the creation.
In the real world, it's a lot more gray. My prediction is that if human cloning becomes feasible, even if only for the richest of governments, it will sooner or later become common practice and society will just adjust to the change like it has always done. I personally am not holding my breath in excitement for this day to come, but only because I think the world already has WAY too many folks in it not because I think it's morally wrong for humans to create life. Maybe once the globe gets a workable birthrate-control program under way, clones wouldn't be such a burden but really how soon is THAT likely to happen?!
Regarding morality in general, there is another consideration here: although there are obvious differences, most campaigns take place in societies which are at medieval-early modern Europe levels of sophistication, technologically and (perhaps) philosophically. Is it reasonable to expect that a denizen of that kind of world would think the way we terrifically enlightened early 21st century Americans do? Modes of thinking and standards of behavior were completely different 500 or 600 years ago, totally alien to us. Would we condemn people from those times as evil if they didn't adhere to what we feel to be standards of ethical conduct?
My assumption in this discussion is to look at this issue from a modern 'enlightened' sense of morality. If we really played d&d as a medieval-fantasy world, SO many assumptions and gaming trends/traditions would have to be thrown out the window.
Its been pointed out many times that there are elementals that occupy many different niches in the elemental planes, including elementals that are the equivilant of animals, creatures that are living and have a preservation instinct and a degree of will, but are not specifically "sentient."
If you tie an animal to a tree, it will fight back, but it isn't the same as tying up a human being agaisnt its will, or at least most humans wouldn't think so. An animal is also capable of going berserk, again without needing to be sentient.
My point is instead of thinking about this like enslaving a human being, what about thinking about this as hooking a horse up to a cart. On top of that, elementals don't perceive time or age the way beings from the Prime Material do, so its not much different "hitching" your stone golem to an elemental for a week or a thousand years.
At least that's my take on it.
I would say that bound elementals either have a 0 or 1 int not a 10. (remember elemental planes have elemental animal counterparts) For golems who have a higher int then they may be bound from more int elementals. But in this case I would expect good characters to treat them differently.
In many cases the majority or neutral perception of binding animal intelligent elementals would not be much different than how people would treat an ox. Now when it comes to other animal such as dogs and horses they are not treated the same way because of a slightly higher int and better charisma. Who would feel remorse when using a spell to have giant spiders or scorpions fight for you? There are people who are animal lovers who would never want an ox to be yoked up to a harness plowing a field all day. I think the same would apply to golem and construct without int scores. As Lilith suggested.
Golem rights activists anyone?
I'll buy this possibility.
Sounds good to me, too.
Third the motion, although it does raise an interesting question:
If you can bind an unwilling "vermin" grade elemental to a golem, what happens if you spend the extra effort to bind an "animal" grade elemental.
Or even, what happens if you go to the trouble to make a deal with a "human" grade elemental and get it to willingly bind?
Just the image of a party coming across an iron golem, thinking their all hot stuff with their admantine weapons, then the golem speaks!
"Begone mortals, Admantus forbids you passage!"
Then the golem sinks into the ground a la earth glide. Watch the player's faces contort!!!
That would be completely up to the DM to adjudicate, and while I think that's a fun possibility, it would entail some CR adjustments.
Absolutely it would. I just like, as a DM and a player, things that break the molds. What if earth spirits were simply the most convienient, but any spirit could be bound, if the trouble were gone to. A flaming iron golem, a clay golem that could turn itself into a wave of mud, or a flesh golem that could gust of wind people away? Heck, if one allowed the demi, para, and pos/neg planes in the mix, it could get really interesting.
You'll have to forgive my posts; I have the creative version of Turret's: ideas just come out, I can't help it.
Absolutely it would. I just like, as a DM and a player, things that break the molds. What if earth spirits were simply the most convienient, but any spirit could be bound, if the trouble were gone to. A flaming iron golem, a clay golem that could turn itself into a wave of mud, or a flesh golem that could gust of wind people away? Heck, if one allowed the demi, para, and pos/neg planes in the mix, it could get really interesting.
You'll have to forgive my posts; I have the creative version of Turret's: ideas just come out, I can't help it.
As far as different elemental, I think earth would be the most common since golems are usually made from hard materials but water would be a great choice for the flesh golem since it has a rebel spirit and water would give it a semblance of life. Air would be good for the quick wristed nimblewright construct.
As far as how one would regard an intelligent golem or construct, I would imagine it would be very similar to a familiar. At 9th level a familiar has a 10 int.
Almost any changes can be made to a golem. In the 3.0 module Lord of the Iron Fortress, Andy Collins introduced the blade golem that has a 19 dex and wounding abilities but does not have a breath weapon.
ok; lets settle this good evil thing in game term; ahem:
Valegrim summons his mystic power and locates an iron golem; he casts detect evil; spell fissles vs magic resistance; Val shakes his efreeti head and shrugs.
Darn; guess we keep kibitzing about this cool subject; some great ideas in here.
was thinking about the do golems or elemental bound feel pain; seems they do if they get free; maybe they are just anguished at being bound or enslaved; seems the same thing to me as pain. binding an evil thing to your will to do good; hmm sounds slippery slope to me in the long run; pride goeth before a fall and all that, can the evil thing twist the good goal; can the good being stay good with so much power readily at hand; hmm. The idea that perspective matters as slavery was for most of our history not considered evil; heck, even the bible says if you a slave, be a good one. But in this game there is an actual black and white line of good and evil; hence, the spells that tell you if something is good or evil; they wouldn't work otherwise. Even this is problematic sometimes as the question of who powers the spell comes into question and whether or not they consider it good or evil from their perspective; wow what a nut to crack eh?
In the old days of 1st ed and such; you just used animate magic which was neither good or evil; just magic.
I'd say because there is little definition of what an elemental spirit is, but we know its not an "elemental" as per the monster manual entry, or else it would directly say it, we must assume its something of animal or otherwise non-sentient intelligence.
When I put a saddle on my quarterhorse, I'm not commiting an evil act. Even when I break the wild horse to be rideable, im not committing an evil act. (Although some might say I am.) Thus, if the golem "spirit" is similar to an animal or vermin in sentience, then the act of binding it is no more evil than that of breaking in a wild horse.
Just a thought.
oh; by the way; the word beserk comes from Bear shirt as in the Northmen wearing bearskins over their chainmail that made them very resistant to both cutting and pummeling attack so they could fight with all out offensive techniques and mad rage. Am kinda wondering how this got attributed to flesh golems in the game; I would have called it more like schitzophrenia or mad panic that sets in on a spirit that wakes up and find itself bound to a physical, prime material form. But I digress, back to the moral themes....
I'd say because there is little definition of what an elemental spirit is, but we know its not an "elemental" as per the monster manual entry, or else it would directly say it, we must assume its something of animal or otherwise non-sentient intelligence.
I'm willing to accept this as a possibility but I'm not willing to assume that it's the truth of the matter.
I'd say because there is little definition of what an elemental spirit is, but we know its not an "elemental" as per the monster manual entry, or else it would directly say it, we must assume its something of animal or otherwise non-sentient intelligence.
When I put a saddle on my quarterhorse, I'm not commiting an evil act. Even when I break the wild horse to be rideable, im not committing an evil act. (Although some might say I am.) Thus, if the golem "spirit" is similar to an animal or vermin in sentience, then the act of binding it is no more evil than that of breaking in a wild horse.
Just a thought.
Isnt slavery or any creature just breaking the spirit or will to resist? Therefore breaking a horse is evil; I never broke a horse in my life, but I have used love and kindness and gentle training with pads and such; horses repond to it and will take a saddle and rider without any bucking or fight at all if you start when they are a foal, never tried it on a wild horse, but never met one of those anyhow. Kindness works; it is just not as fast and kindness doesnt break their spirit; so if breaking a horse cowboy style evil? could be; can you get a spirit to bind to a golem in service with kindness and sense of duty; maybe, havent tried; something to consider anyhow.
Isnt slavery or any creature just breaking the spirit or will to resist? Therefore breaking a horse is evil; I never broke a horse in my life, but I have used love and kindness and gentle training with pads and such; horses repond to it and will take a saddle and rider without any bucking or fight at all if you start when they are a foal, never tried it on a wild horse, but never met one of those anyhow. Kindness works; it is just not as fast and kindness doesnt break their spirit; so if breaking a horse cowboy style evil? could be; can you get a spirit to bind to a golem in service with kindness and sense of duty; maybe, havent tried; something to consider anyhow.
I agree. I've had my stallion spirit broken by a sexy sexy sorceress. So it's evil slavery, pure and simple. I am merely the idiot fuel for some kind of passionate love golem. Pray for me, won't you?
5. Animal friendship no longer exists. If you mean "wild empathy", you will note that the attitude of the animal is exactly like the attitude of any NPC you use diplomacy on, so the creature is not going to jump on a sword blade for you. Charm animal is the exact same. Hold animal is no more evil than hold person (which is to say, not at all in it's abject state, although circumstances can make it an evil act, but then again, they can also do that to a cure spell when used on a villain). Dominate animal is as evil as dominate person. All this simply means that the act in and of itself isn't definatively evil, but the circumstances it is used under may influence that. Intent and roleplaying (on the player's part) are paramount to adjudicating this.
Yearh sorry, I've been playing for so long I get mixed up with terminologies sometimes :) I didn't mean Wild Empathy, I meant the old first level Druid and Ranger spell Animal Friendship, which essentially forces an animal you meet to become your Animal Companion. I didn't realize this spell no longer exists.
On a side note though, to me it seems that Charm effects, if they existed in the real world, would be unequivocally and obviously immoral in every way. It doesn't matter what you Charm someone (or something) to do, the very fact that they are doing it because you seized control of their decision making faculties is pretty wrong. Imagine how violated you'd feel if you were the secretary of an important person, and some lobbyist reeaally needed to speak to them for some great altruistic motive, but you'd been told not to let anyone in. Suddenly you decide to make an exception and let them in against your orders. Later you discover that they Charmed you into doing it. I think even if they had the best motives, it would seem pretty hollow to the victim.
D&D isn't real life though. The way I see it in D&D, the reason there is objective Evil is so that there are beings upon whom it is OK to perpetrate evil acts. That's why it can be hard to judge good and evil in D&D terms from our own beliefs, and why we are having this discussion. We can't use our conventional morality because in the real world there is no-one who is born a demonic and unchanging force for evil that it's therefore OK to do evil on without having to justify it any further.
Maybe this is one of those situations, where the morality can't really be approached from real-world morality and we just have to say "if an evil spellcaster makes a golem it may well be an evil act, but if a good spellcaster makes a golem, they are imprisoning an evil elemental for punishment and it's a good act."
Short little post here:
In the issue of dragon that detailed boccob, there is a "fable" from his church in wich he binds a demon army; the moral as told by Dragon is that it is better to bind evil to do good rather than destroy it outright.
hope that helps considering it could be viewed as "official"
Maybe this is one of those situations, where the morality can't really be approached from real-world morality and we just have to say "if an evil spellcaster makes a golem it may well be an evil act, but if a good spellcaster makes a golem, they are imprisoning an evil elemental for punishment and it's a good act."
Only wanted to chime in on this one point, K. Enslaving evil is not generally considered a good act. If that isn't so, someone tell me so I can put in for free hobgoblin labor! We have a ton of them in the city pokey. ;)
Edit: That said, sometimes what is not 'good' necessarily can create a good result. If a stone golem can protect a town of good citizens from evil invaders, good comes from it, regardless of whether Flamey McWonderspark was unfairly shackled as battery or not.