|
I've always thought the "evil" of undeath is ingrained into D&D as a result of the respect for the dead in Western culture. In historical times, disturbing the rest of the dead was a great evil, and could interfere with the afterlife of the deceased.
Morality in D&D often mirrors our real, historical morals, to give us something to relate to. If you want your campaign world to have different values, of course it's your prerogative to change it, and strike the evil descriptor from those spells.
Naturally, in your scenario, you've got an unpalatable situation... Many people are likely to die (presumably for a very good cause, otherwise sending people to their deaths is unethical). Even so, animating the dead for that purpose is an "ends justifies the means" position. Generally, that's not how morality works. If a good cleric finds themself in that situation, and sees no alternative but to commit the evil act for the greater good, they should also be willing to atone (via the spell) for their decision.
With animal corpses the ethical question becomes a little shakier. With the remains of sentient creatures it is more of a desecration of the dead and the disturbance of their eternal rest, and in some beleifs, the disturbance of their soul.
However, in both cases I would guess that it would be the requisite calling upon of negative energy to animate the corpses, which most religions would probably consider a peversion of life. Iteresting idea though, clerics of Pelor or Heironious raising the bodies of their dead soldiers as zombies or skeletons as soon as they fall and sending them against their foes.
I'm in agreement with the idea that raising the dead itself is not really whats evil - its the fact that you have to channel raw evil to do it (negative energy) that makes it evil.
I'm in agreement with the idea that raising the dead itself is not really whats evil - its the fact that you have to channel raw evil to do it (negative energy) that makes it evil.
Exactly. In-game, it has absolutely nothing to do with the social climate where the undead are summoned- the fact is, Good and Evil are objective in D&D, not subjective. There are demons, and there are angels. They can specifically tell you what is right and what is wrong, and there's no if's, and's, or but's about it.
Look at the entry of skeletons and zombies in the MM. See their alignment? Neutral evil. They may be incapable of higher thought or any learning, but they are still filled with seething hatred and anger, or simply an urge to destroy and kill, or something that is evil.
Bringing undead into the world, for any means, is just as evil as summoning an demon or devil (and many apologists for undead could apply their arguments to fiends as well; doesn't change the situation). You have to tap into raw, quantifiable forces of cosmic evil to do it.
Now, you can obviously house rule this however you want, but that's the in-game reason in the RAW.
Oh, and a summoned creature doesn't really die when "slain." It reforms perfectly fine on its home plane within a day. A called creature, on the other hand, does die. At any rate, summoning is actually the best method of those discussed (calling and animation of the dead being the others), since it's not inherently evil (provided you didn't summon a fiend) and the creature you've employed is actually at no risk.
Although the books don't explicity say so, the inference that I've drawn from them is that creating mindless undead is evil because you're messing with the unwilling soul. How exactly, I have not yet philosophized about but I figure that by creating skeletons and zombies, the caster is preventing their souls from attaining full peace in death.
And then there's the 'undeath energy is inherently evil' idea, as has been mentioned, which is just as valid an inference.
|
As previously said it is about respect for the dead and traditions about the afterlife. I mean how you would feel if some guy took your dead grandmother and raised her from the dead and then made her dead corpse attack someone. And then the corpse then is attack by the enemy and then her entrails are spread out across a field.
The old 1st edition Lords of Darkness went into the reason why most good and even neutral casters didn't animate the dead. Essentially, they pointed out that a small portion of life force or "animus" remains in any body that was once alive, until there is nothing left that is identifiable as the body any more.
Infusing the body with negative energy corrupts the remaining animus into giving the creature a semblance of life, sort of using the negative energy as a "false soul" to manipulate what's left of the animus to cause the being to get up and walk around.
Given that this animus is soul energy, its still a portion of the soul of that being, so essentially part of the soul is corrupted, and even if the creature is at rest in the outer planes, they will feel this "tugging" at their soul energy when its animated, and it will bother them.
Of course, back in 1st edition it was essentially evil to cast animate dead, but it didn't automatically make you evil, and even Lords of Darkness mentioned that people that willingly allowed themselves to be animated (for example, guards that served a given temple that agreed to let their bodies be used in this manner to serve their faith even after death) might be animated without any ill effects
Of course, in 3.5 something like this would likely be Deathless rather than Undead. In fact, it would be interesting to see a lower level spell that animated those that had willingly allowed their bodies to be used to be animated as Deathless skelatons.
If the undead in question don't have an ability draining, energy draining or disease spreading attack (and with a mummy remove the mummy rot), and the invocation of negative energy is seen as an evil act, simply use the deathless type instead of undead, and say that they are animated by the holy radiance of positive energy to act as guardians and advisors to their descendents. In the Rokugan backstory in OA, spirits of the dead after the Spirit Wars remained with their clans in precisely this sort of role. Also there's Eberron's Aereni as an example. I view raising the dead in D&D as not inherently evil-it's the power that animates the dead that determines virtue or wickedness. Also Saern I remember that at one point you indicated that you felt deathless were unnecessary because undead could be good aligned? Are you still sticking to that thought pattern or have you changed your mind on that? This isn't intended as an attack just a question.
Actually this reminded me of a question that sprung to mind: could you take one fallen creature and animate it as two undead- a skeleton or zombie from the body (since these two don't technically require the soul to function-the animating energy does the work) and an incorporeal one from the soul since such an undead would not require even the slightest bit of the body? I could see this being used as a houserule.
Yes, I retain my dislike of the "deathless." If an argument needs to be made, then look at ghosts. Ghosts can be of any alignment, even good, and yet are undead and powered by negative energy. I think I would be more comfortable with deathless as a subtype, meaning that they use non-evil means of animation. However, I still get annoyed by the assumption that these things are powered by positive energy.
If a guard was so loyal that they wish to serve in death, that's very noble and all. But their skeletal remains are going to be powered by negative energy and are going to be twisted into an evil thing filled with loathing and sorrow and hatred. That's the price you pay. Anyone who still wants to go through with it makes the choice that more poignant.
Objectively it would depend on if the soul was affected in creation of mindless undead...if it is somehow binded to that decaying flesh etc. I could understand that it would be objectively evil act.
If not, I would go for socially constructed morals which would vary from culture, and possibly would not be seen any more evil than, say, organ donations or donating your body to science. Actually, in my homebrew I have one nation which uses its dead in manual labor...and people there generally accept that it is right to give your body to use when you have stopped using it.
So I would say it depends on society and how exactly the creation of undead works.
well, I have always thought of skellies and zombies as more like robots or golems than real undead and like any mindless and controlled minion could be used to do good or evil. Still, following the renew, reuse, reanimate logic; it would be a use of a materials, but there seems something inherently evil about digging up someones family member and controlling their flesh or bones to do your will; they after all have no say in the matter and the game mechanics have never stated if the soul that was once attached to that body is aware or suffers at all from the bodies actions unbenknownst to the controller. Or, perhaps it is that having absolute control is evil; I would certainly suggest this as the source of evil, but then I think creating and controlling a golem is also and evil act and have supporting theory for this also.
Some ethical questions might be:
Is it morally right for any power to create life or near life that is under the absolute control of the creator or any power that may wrest control from said creator.
Is it morally right to use raw materials to create a semblace of life especially if they were once among the living.
Can any dark evil power be used to promote good.
Should there be laws or rules concerning the use of ones body after their spirit or soul has move on, can any proof be given that this body is in fact not going to be needed again or that their no longer exists a connection between spirit or soul and the presumably unused body.
What is the relationship between a once mortal corpse and the spells of its animation; why does it not work on say; a crafted set of materials in the semblace of a body; wherefrom comes this power and what control does it have on the animated remains once unlife is givin?
hehe spark some debate amongst your scholars, philosophers, churches and lawmakers :)
Animating corpses as zombies or skeletons is evil because you have to pervert the soul that inhabited the body to do it, twisting it from a force of life (postive energy) to a force of decay and entropy (negative energy). As a result of this, these souls cannot be ressurected until the undead creature is slain (Even by True Res.)
If one were to cast Animate Object on a corpse, it would be merely creepy and wrong, but not evil. And it would not prevent Ressurection or True ressurection from recreating the bulk of the body.
Creating Golems and the like is not evil because you are merely binding an elemental spirit (I think flesh golems stil require the casting of an evil spell, but are still less evil than zombies.)
Summoning outsiders and elementals for cannon fodder is not evil, because summoned creatures don't actually die while summoned (barring exotic issues like artifacts that specifically consume souls.)
As for deathless, I personally don't like them. Honor and oaths aside, it takes something like Lichdom or Wightdom for a mortal to live on through death by sheer force of will. Part of goodness is letting go of things that are not yours. It is selfish (and thus evil) to refuse to give up living, even for a good cause. Good believes in taking turns, and this applies to guard duty and paladinhood too. If a good being really is bound to duty, it can return as an outsider.
Interesting concept re: the outsider, Ross. Hmm, perhaps there should be a spell or ritual that one can undergo that will turn one into a form of outsider so you can remain as an eternal guardian. I much prefer this to simply turning the loyal servant into an undead abomination. Perhaps just applying the celestial or half-celestial template is all that's needed.
Sorry to threadjack, but here's an interesting question: the various souces on the Lower Planes (mainly the Fiendish Codices) indicate that it takes large amounts of time for a demon or devil to ascend the infernal or abyssal hierarchy. Do celestials also require extensive amounts of time for advancement? I'd think that, if a guardian died and was bound to guard something really important, they'd almost instantly become a hound archon or something and resume their duties. What about memories of their past life? Fiends loose that, but it seems celestials would be more likely to remember what they were before their afterlife began.
I dont remember seeing anywhere that you have to pervert the soul of someone to create a skeleton or zombie; where is this information? Flesh golems as less evil; that is funny; either you are evil or not; less evil; is that like a flesh golem is a quart low of evil juice ") Sometimes we find things like this that the game guys just left out, the whole idea of golems come from a Jewish text on the subject and was considered very evil and certain death for the creator; wonder why it was changed for game purposes while animating unintelligent undead is still evil; sure some of the spells have the evil descriptor, but why do they has been asked by many a gamer; the game guys certainly seem to violate their own laid out ethics as pertains to the game rules from various published sources.
I dont remember seeing anywhere that you have to pervert the soul of someone to create a skeleton or zombie; where is this information? Flesh golems as less evil; that is funny; either you are evil or not; less evil; is that like a flesh golem is a quart low of evil juice ") Sometimes we find things like this that the game guys just left out, the whole idea of golems come from a Jewish text on the subject and was considered very evil and certain death for the creator; wonder why it was changed for game purposes while animating unintelligent undead is still evil; sure some of the spells have the evil descriptor, but why do they has been asked by many a gamer; the game guys certainly seem to violate their own laid out ethics as pertains to the game rules from various published sources.
Bearing in mind that often you seem to simply be trying to stimulate discussion, the rational isn't necessarily so much the use of a soul which is perverted in some way (which may or may not be the case; there seem to be differing views in the current edition on whether or not an unintelligent undead, or any undead at all, actually has a "soul" or if they are simply kept going by some form of necrotic energy) as it is about the use of negative energy.
Positive energy = life = Good (with a capital "G", meaning it's objective).
Negative energy = anti-life = Evil (same deal).
It's about having to tap into, as I previously said, cosmic forces of evil. That's why animating undead is an evil act.
The creation of a flesh golem isn't "as" evil, in theory, because, while you must use an Evil spell, you aren't actually making an undead (although this is ignoring that whole "binding an unwilling elemental earth spirit" issue, too). The end result is a construct.
It is true that something is evil or not in D&D, but there is still magnitude. For instance, being a robber is evil. Being a murderer is more evil.
And I get the information that a soul is necessary for the creation of undead because Raise Dead cannot raise a (dead again) zombie, and resurrect and true res. specify that an undead creature must be destroyed before the original person can be raised.
Well I suppose that a detect evil spell would neither show a golem nor a skeleton as evil; this is one of the game rules that doesnt make a lot of sense if creating a skelly is evil. In my game a evil person is not detectable by detect evil unless he is of sufficient level or dedicated to evil like an evil priest or antipaladin, and a neutral person would show evil as would anyone else if they had just deliberately done an evil act within some time frame; ie a 2nd level guy who just murdered someone would show evil on the spell for 2 days; just my rule of thumb for easy math.
Saern's point is a good one; many people identify positive and negative planes with G and E directly. So how much evil does a person radiate for animating a nuetral undead?
Um, undead to show up with detect evil. They have their own specific entry on the table. Clerics of evil deities do, too, so turns out your house rule isn't really a house rule after all via convergent evolution. :)
Anyway, the later question is interesting. A similar one is "would a good aligned ghost show up under detect evil, since it is undead?" My thought would be "no," because there's a separate spell for that (detect undead); detect evil only works on undead if the undead in question were evil.
So, how much evil would a neutral, or even good, undead radiate? None, because it isn't evil. If the spell used to create it carried the Evil descriptor, however, then you could decect that spell's lingering aura as defined in the spell description (though it may be static and not move with the undead, unless you decided to consider the undead similar to the spell's ongoing "effect").
|
|
I think much of the problem when thinking about undead ( and let's focus on mindless undead) stems from our cross-cultural myths and beliefs. For this argument you must assume a set of commonly shared beliefs--the body consists of at least a physical form and an other-than-physical form, whether you call it a spirit or some other descriptor. What happens to the soul when the body dies? Does it immediately ascend to some higher state of being? Charon the Ferryman takes it? Valkyries fly it away? Aimless wandering like Cain? Is there a period of time in which it, perforce, is in situ? Christians don't usually agree amongst one another on whether or not the soul 'sleeps' in the grave until Judgement Day--I think biblical scholars might argue that scripturally all souls await an awakening of sorts, though most laymen tend to speak of the dead as already in Heaven, and there at the very moment of death ("he's amongst the angels now"). I believe I understand correctly that Jews uniformly believe the soul rests, making revenants,ghouls and golems especially wicked. The Northern peoples of pre-Christian Europe uniformly believed the body needed to be burned to release the soul, but objects of power were buried for actual use in the underworld. I would argue that to be comfortable with the use of mindless undead you must first believe that there is no soul, or that the soul is completely gone upon the moment of death. If detect evil detects all undead, then there must be some remnant of the original soul, or the undead were animated with evil magic. Otherwise, animate dead should be no different than animate broomsticks and mops to clean my house. What does Eberron say on the Kharnathi? I should take a quick look.
Burial of corpses is usually connected with beliefs that it is somehow necessary for a happy, successful afterlife to keep the corpse intact.
In Christianity, orthodox doctrine teaches the resurrection of the body--interpreted by many Christians through the ages as meaning that the person's original body is restored to perfection, and his soul is reawakened or returned to inhabit that body.
In Chinese religious tradition, everyone has several souls, one of which stays with (or near) the corpse and inhabits the tomb. Bodies that were mutilated in some fashion, such as by being decapitated, might be incapable of experiencing a normal afterlife, and might escape the grave and wander about as headless ghosts.
In general, the elaborate rituals humans perform when they inter a body are closely related to beliefs about the body's connection to its soul--if the body is the temple for the soul, it makes sense to treat it with dignity and respect, especially if you believe the two are connected even in death. D&D's magic system seems to affirm the idea that body and soul are innately and permanently connected, since it takes 9th level magic to raise a soul to life without possession of at least some small part of the remains. Animating a corpse as a skeleton or zombie at the very least prevents returning the soul that once inhabited the corpse to life, except by near-godlike magic. It is also subjecting a once-living being to the unnatural indignity of having its corpse treated like a puppet. Even doing this with animals is questionable (if I were playing a cleric of Obad-hai or a druid I would certainly object), but to do so with intellegent, soul-possessing creatures is repugnant.
As for the undying, or whatever--animating corpses with positive energy doesn't really fit the logic of the standard D&D system--positive energy is the energy of life. It is used to raise the dead and actually restore them to life, not keep their corpses moving in an unliving, mindless (or merely twisted) state. The nearest analogue I can think of from fanatasy literature is when Aragorn calls on the ghosts of the oathbreakers at Erech to serve him as an army against Sauron's allies. In this case, though, Aragorn is merely calling on people whose souls are bound to the "material plane" (middle earth) by an unfulfilled oath. He is not animating the dead, but giving dead souls who are animated by their actions (oathbreaking) a chance to redeem themselves and gain release from their deathless/undead state.
There is also a really interesting Celtic mythology in which a magic cauldron is used by a certain villain to reanimate the corpses of dead warriors every night so that they can do battle again on the morrow. Reanimation is not portrayed as good in this myth either, as I recall, although there are some ambiguities, depending on which version of the tale you read. (IIRC, this tale is part of the Welsh Mabinogion, but I think some version appears in Irish mythology as well, and I think Lloyd Alexander reinterpreted the tale in one of the books of his "Taran" series.)
In contemporary society, we tend to have a somewhat more utilitarian attitude toward corpses, and few of us believe in the connection of the corpse to the soul, if we believe in an eternal soul in the first place. However, we still retain a vestigial horror regarding the mistreatment of the dead. Read Lovecraft's "Herbert West, Reanimator," which plays on this theme, or witness our horror when we hear about some sick mass-murderer like Jeffrey Dahmer cutting up corpses to hide or dispose of them. Even lighter treatments of the topic, such as "Weekend at Bernie's" (not sure if I got the name right--movie about trying to fool people into thinking a guy who just died is alive) gain their humor by playing on society's discomfort with corpses and ill-treatment thereof.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, animating the dead is not evil, but then from a purely utilitarian standpoint, no action is innately evil--the ends justify the means. You'd kind of have to change some basic assumptions in the game to accommodate a utilitarian viewpoint. Few of us are quite that utilitarian, in real life. Otherwise we'd probably be making pet food out of our dead relatives instead of having funerals.
hehe; bit o a lengthy post there; but is right along with what I have been renumerating about.
OK, I'll bite....
No offense, but your trying to rationalize that which cannot be reasoned with. The rules say specific spells are evil (and others are fire, cold, etc.) - ultimately they are just descriptors arbitrarily assigned by game designers whose made these decisions based on a variety of factors.
Strange then that some negative energy spells are not considered evil such as Inflict, Enervation/Energy Drain, Destruction, Slay Living, etc.
My last cleric made heavy use of the negative energy in combat; after all, its "a means to an end". Just like fire, steel, and (to bring the conversation full circle), undead.
I dont remember seeing anywhere that you have to pervert the soul of someone to create a skeleton or zombie; where is this information? Flesh golems as less evil; that is funny; either you are evil or not; less evil; is that like a flesh golem is a quart low of evil juice ")
I think, both in real world philosophies and in the Rules As Written, there are degrees of alignment. I'm thinking specifically of the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. A lot of heroes are "Good" aligned, but very few live up to the difficult path of being "Exalted." And I think the intent is pretty clear that "exalted" is supposed to be "more Good than Good." The way I explained it to a friend of mine is that Exalted is "Good" turned up to 11. By the same rationale, it stands to reason that some acts and beings might be more "Evil" than others. A cruel brigand who waylays little old ladies for a few coppers is evil, and so is a cultist who performs human sacrifices. Surely one is more evil than the other?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I dont remember seeing anywhere that you have to pervert the soul of someone to create a skeleton or zombie; where is this information?
It's not explicit, but check this info out from the SRD:
From the description of raise dead:
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised.From resurrection:
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.From true resurrection:
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures.
Notice a pattern? Creatures turned into undead creatures cannot be resurrected (even with true resurrection!) unless their undead bodies are destroyed. From this knowledge, we can infer that becoming undead traps the original creature's soul in some way. This is pretty much as Evil as you can get, IMO.
My last cleric made heavy use of the negative energy in combat; after all, its "a means to an end". Just like fire, steel, and (to bring the conversation full circle), undead.
Pretty much so. If negative energy is inherently evil, so is that greatsword your paladin is waving. Negative energy doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Many applications of good and evil are culture-dependent. Many of us in modern society consider several medical treatments concerning living and dead people as good, like organ transplants, autopsies, blood transfusions etc. All of these have also been opposed and sometimes are opposed even now, on ethical grounds. Abortion is still a hot topic as is stem cell research.
Now, let's assume a society where people in general give consent for their bodies to be used as mindless undead, used for making the society better (in my homebrew, there is a nation where undead are used as manual labor, in Eberron there is a nation where undead are used as army). Could be totalitarist, could be altruistic, could be generally "that's how things have always been done". Now, assuming that creation of mindless undead does not involve binding the soul to continuous agony, how exactly is this "evil" then?
Oh, and in future I will be imposing "no resurrection magic" houserule anyway.
Well, I would agree with you Magdalena, people kill people or at least perhaps thems kill thems for a more widespread pronoun to include monsters, but the game defines Negative energy as evil; therefore, not like a sword which is only a tool that can be used many ways; can negative energy be used for any non evil act? It pretty much heals undead which are evil and destoys life which is evil. Am open to other ideas if you have any. I have found that Good and Evil in the game are entirely dependant on the definition of the GM regardless of what any of the source material says so we all just try to find out how these are represented in any particular game and just go with it. I know one gm that has entirely gotten rid of the whole good and evil thing in his game so nobody has an alignment; they just are; very different from my game where alignment is a very big deal. Pretty cool that the same game can be so vastly different :)
sidenote; if your going to get rid of resurection magic; then I suggest you use my house rule that you can go into negative hitpoints for every point of constitution that you have rather than the arbitrary 10 points which came from who knows where. This doesnt come into play very much; makes that characteristic a bit more important and will throw a bone to your characters so they dont feel so cheated.
|
On the one hand, the game presumes planes with definitive examples of good and evil - so if it is in the "rules" as being evil, it is evil, and not a matter of interpretation. But, of course, in the real world we interpret the game rules and make our own minds up about what is and isn't evil. So I would say it is down to the DM to determine, since he holds and is the final arbiter of the "rules" in his campaign.
hehe Fatespinner; the pattern is not what you think or are suggesting; these rule changes are specifically to stop players from killing a gms campaign as in the old rules a high level cleric would just run into a bunch of undead and one resurrection later; no more adventure. i believe that this is why the rule was changed to be as it is; the game now has people develop the power to raise dead the like much faster therefore bringing these adventure spoilers into play more often. In the old days a 9th level priest could cast raise dead; bam; your vampire is gone.
I do see the pattern you are suggesting also, but dont agree on causality.
My last cleric made heavy use of the negative energy in combat; after all, its "a means to an end". Just like fire, steel, and (to bring the conversation full circle), undead.Pretty much so. If negative energy is inherently evil, so is that greatsword your paladin is waving. Negative energy doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Many applications of good and evil are culture-dependent. Many of us in modern society consider several medical treatments concerning living and dead people as good, like organ transplants, autopsies, blood transfusions etc. All of these have also been opposed and sometimes are opposed even now, on ethical grounds. Abortion is still a hot topic as is stem cell research.
Now, let's assume a society where people in general give consent for their bodies to be used as mindless undead, used for making the society better (in my homebrew, there is a nation where undead are used as manual labor, in Eberron there is a nation where undead are used as army). Could be totalitarist, could be altruistic, could be generally "that's how things have always been done". Now, assuming that creation of mindless undead does not involve binding the soul to continuous agony, how exactly is this "evil" then?
Oh, and in future I will be imposing "no resurrection magic" houserule anyway.
The arbitrary nature of the rules aside, your premise seems sound, except for the alignment of the skeletons and zombies themselves. Again, it's evil. Neutral evil. In 3.0 it was simply Neutral. I suppose the logic was that they were very much like any mindless creature, be it a vermin or animated object or golem or what have you. But in 3.5, despite their mindless nature, they are still evil beings. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that such things are filled with agony, loathing, and hatred, even if they can't be conscious of that fact.
So there's another qualifier for why the creation of undead is evil. Other than some ghosts, all of them in the MM (and I think everywhere else, too, although baelnorns might be another exception, but are more likely considered "deathless" in 3.5) are evil. When you bring such a being into the world, you are creating a creature filled with evil; thus, the creation of said being is evil.
You could probably lump this under "arbitrary rules" again, but it's another thing you have to change (although extremely minor) if you want to make the creation of undead acceptable.
Again, it comes down to what you, as the DM, want to do. You can swap alignments and descriptors around to portray undead and their creation as anything you want. However, in a "normal" game of D&D, the creation of undead is objectively evil; no societal interpretation allowed.
...but the game defines Negative energy as evil; therefore, not like a sword which is only a tool that can be used many ways; can negative energy be used for any non evil act? It pretty much heals undead which are evil and destoys life which is evil. Am open to other ideas if you have any.
No, I don't think the game does define negative energy as evil. Slay Living, Destruction, Harm , Finger of Death, and Inflict suite of spells are not (by rules) evil; that is, they lack an [evil] descriptor.
Otherwise, I agree on principle - that its just a game where a group of designers made arbitrary classifications on what evil is and isn't.
The arbitrary nature of the rules aside, your premise seems sound, except for the alignment of the skeletons and zombies themselves. Again, it's evil. Neutral evil. In 3.0 it was simply Neutral. I suppose the logic was that they were very much like any mindless creature, be it a vermin or animated object or golem or what have you. But in 3.5, despite their mindless nature, they are still evil beings. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that such things are filled with agony, loathing, and hatred, even if they can't be conscious of that fact.
So there's another qualifier for why the creation of undead is evil. Other than...
I think it was generally assumed that heroes fight undead (zombies, skeletons, ghouls, etc.); its pretty canon to the genre. I attribute the undead alignment change in 3.5 to allowing PCs (usually heroic types) to use their alignment-specific abilities against these undead. They're the bad-guys in the movies, they should be the bad guys in the game. Its as simple as that - no need for over-analysis.
But really, if its mindless and souless, how then can it be evil?
|
|
Posters have been using the ghost as an example of undead that is not necessarily evil. I'm interested as well in how some of you with more direct experience with this rule set rationalize the Shadow Dancer's summoned Shadow. I think it says in the DMG that the shadow is just like a shadow from the MM (therefore an Undead creature), but that it mirrors the Shadow Dancer's alignment.
So, what exactly is this creature, and is summoning it an evil act?
|
|
Posters have been using the ghost as an example of undead that is not necessarily evil. I'm interested as well in how some of you with more direct experience with this rule set rationalize the Shadow Dancer's summoned Shadow. I think it says in the DMG that the shadow is just like a shadow from the MM (therefore an Undead creature), but that it mirrors the Shadow Dancer's alignment.
So, what exactly is this creature, and is summoning it an evil act?
It would only be an evil act if the Shadow Dancer herself was evil. Now whether the shadow might have a different set of abilities that mirrored a good alignment is a different question.
The arbitrary nature of the rules aside, your premise seems sound, except for the alignment of the skeletons and zombies themselves. Again, it's evil. Neutral evil. In 3.0 it was simply Neutral. I suppose the logic was that they were very much like any mindless creature, be it a vermin or animated object or golem or what have you. But in 3.5, despite their mindless nature, they are still evil beings. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that such things are filled with agony, loathing, and hatred, even if they can't be conscious of that fact.
So there's another qualifier for why the creation of undead is evil. Other than...
I think it was generally assumed that heroes fight undead (zombies, skeletons, ghouls, etc.); its pretty canon to the genre. I attribute the undead alignment change in 3.5 to allowing PCs (usually heroic types) to use their alignment-specific abilities against these undead. They're the bad-guys in the movies, they should be the bad guys in the game. Its as simple as that - no need for over-analysis.
But really, if its mindless and souless, how then can it be evil?
Like Valegrim, you may very well be correct from a metagame stance. However, and no offense (none taken here, BTW), but I don't think coming up with an in-game/roleplaying explanation is over analysis.
As far as how it can be evil and mindless, look at a lemure. It's a LE devil, but also mindless.
The mere fact that it can respond to situations without someone pulling a lever means that it has a certain level of mental faculties. Another piece of evidence is that humanoid skeletons and zombies often have weapons. If they were truly mindless, they couldn't fathom holding such things, but they do. Thus, they have enough of a mind to perform basic thought processes, and thus have room for emotions.
However, they have an incapacity to learn beyond whatever base "program" is imprinted into them through their animation, and thus are "mindless."
If that's still not good enough, then it has to do with the negative energy and twisting of the souls or something. Kind of a cop out, yes, but the point remains that, just because it's arbitrary, doesn't mean that you can't/shouldn't work out an in-game reason for something.
Sorry, kind of got off on a tangent.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
i believe that this is why the rule was changed to be as it is; the game now has people develop the power to raise dead the like much faster therefore bringing these adventure spoilers into play more often. In the old days a 9th level priest could cast raise dead; bam; your vampire is gone.
Pretty much any spell capable of restoring life to the dead in 3.5 has a casting time of at least 10 minutes. I believe all of them have a range of touch as well and usually some expensive material component.
With that said, if your party can somehow manage to pin the vampire down for 10 whole minutes while the cleric lays his hands on him and sprinkles 10,000gp of diamond dust on his struggling body, then I'd say that they deserve the 'insta-kill.' It may have been a balance issue in the old days, but the casting times of those spells in 3.5 ensures that they will probably never see effective use as a weapon. This is what makes me believe that creating undead traps the soul and I still stand by my original views. The undead body must be destroyed to release the spirit so that it may be resurrected. Trapping souls and preventing them from reaching the afterlife is an evil act.
The mere fact that it can respond to situations without someone pulling a lever means that it has a certain level of mental faculties. Another piece of evidence is that humanoid skeletons and zombies often have weapons. If they were truly mindless, they couldn't fathom holding such things, but they do. Thus, they have enough of a mind to perform basic thought processes, and thus have room for emotions.
However, they have an incapacity to learn beyond whatever base "program" is imprinted into them through their animation, and thus are "mindless."
...
Good point.
This is what makes me believe that creating undead traps the soul and I still stand by my original views. The undead body must be destroyed to release the spirit so that it may be resurrected. Trapping souls and preventing them from reaching the afterlife is an evil act.
Not to jack this thread or anything, but that's something I've always wondered about.
There's no age-of-corpse restriction on animate dead. If I cast it on a corpse that's 500 years old and make a skeleton, do I somehow recall that creature's soul back from the afterlife to power it? Or has it not reached the afterlife yet?
What about spells that don't use the whole corpse? If I cut off a dead person's finger, and cast reincarnate or resurrection on it, does that prevent someone else from using the rest of the corpse to make a zombie or a skeleton? What about if the reincarnated person dies? Then can I make a skeleton out of both his corpses? Or neither?
What about monsters like vargouilles that transform part of the person into a monster? Can I kill the vargouille and than raise the body? Can I turn the body into a zombie (presumably missing a head would make it not "mostly intact" so probably not, but what if it was just the skin, like with forsaken shells)?
Jeremy you are exactly correct that none of the rules cover what happens when a ressurected character has his old body turned into undead. I am of the opinion that making undead tampers with the soul. So I would say either the undead can not be made from that corpse, or more likely I would say that an undead can be made. Justified by an aura of the soul that still persists in the old corpse (perhaps the level or constitution that gets left behind?), but the bond between the negative energy being and the positive energy being would be a terrible pain and burden on both of them.
I'm getting a campaign idea that revolves around a powerful NPC beseeching the party to destroy his vampire counterpart. Perhaps his corpse was missing an arm and his new body has a withered arm as a result.
On the undead are inherently evil argument. Guns don't kill people. Neither does Slay living, despite the fact that it was designed to end life it still requires a sentient being to actually cast the spell, thus the responsibility for any deaths lies solely on the caster. The spell, like a gun, is a tool. An mindless undead is also in many ways like a tool. Unlike a tool however the undead has it's own devices and, if left to them (say if the controlling caster dies or seperated from his flock), will spend it's time destoying all the life it comes across. A construct also has no devices, if given no instruction it will do nothing.
|
|
This is what makes me believe that creating undead traps the soul and I still stand by my original views. The undead body must be destroyed to release the spirit so that it may be resurrected. Trapping souls and preventing them from reaching the afterlife is an evil act.Not to jack this thread or anything, but that's something I've always wondered about.
There's no age-of-corpse restriction on animate dead. If I cast it on a corpse that's 500 years old and make a skeleton, do I somehow recall that creature's soul back from the afterlife to power it? Or has it not reached the afterlife yet?
What about spells that don't use the whole corpse? If I cut off a dead person's finger, and cast reincarnate or resurrection on it, does that prevent someone else from using the rest of the corpse to make a zombie or a skeleton? What about if the reincarnated person dies? Then can I make a skeleton out of both his corpses? Or neither?
What about monsters like vargouilles that transform part of the person into a monster? Can I kill the vargouille and than raise the body? Can I turn the body into a zombie (presumably missing a head would make it not "mostly intact" so probably not, but what if it was just the skin, like with forsaken shells)?
Dang...good point. I can understand Fatespinner's view, just for ease and not having a 3 hour philosophical debate on this issue.
Let me quote from "Libris Mortis": "Among scholars, debates rage about the multitude of forms, bodies, powers, and abilities to be found among the undead. Why are they not all alike? The differences spring from the source of unlife itself, the dark elan that suffuses the necrotic tissue of the dead."
Ok so this kinda shoots down Fate's theory, cuz it seems the source of the undead doesnt always come from the same place....and to add to Jeremy's questions, who is to say the body of the undead creature has to be "possessed" with the soul of the person that originally inhabited that body? Which brings me to the second quote: "One unifying element defines most undead creatures: Each must have been alive in the past, no matter how little of the original creature is left, even if just the spirit or memory remains." So you dont need a soul to have an undead creature be undead...just a memory and negative energy to infuse the body with unlife.....hmmmm
Helping Fatey out with this quote, ".... Alternatively, some good spirits might be unnaturally trapped within their bodies, slowly being perverted to evil as the dark spirits convert the body to undead status." Ok this seems to say that "dark spirts" turn a body to an undead creature and "dark spirits" are inheirently evil.
Someone mentioned mindless undead and weilding weapons... "The abilty to think is a quality the vast bulk of undead do not possess. Mindless creatures merely respond to preset commands or stimuli, driven by nothing other than the energy that animates them.....They are mechanical in their actions, and often those actions are as easy to anticipate as the revolution of a water wheel." So it seems that even mindless just "do", sorta like the saying of "you never really forget how to ride a bike." Even though they are in a different "state" they havent forgotten mechanical motions.
Now I would like to note that in the Libris Mortis book, I have not found anywhere where it says its outright evil to animate dead, but it sure leads you to conclude that.....
"ends justifies the means"
Many villians start with this
I fall into using negative energy to animate undead is evil in a D&D universe where Good and Evil are real things manifesting physical forms in Demons and angels as well as whole universes of pure good, evil, law, chaos.
I like the whole corrupting the residual animus explaination. I think old wise sages will use this explaination in my campaigns, cause it sounds cool.
"ends justifies the means"Many villians start with this
...which makes it such a delicious philosophy to play.
Concerning the alignments of the mindless undead, I indeed would have to make that adjustment that their alignment is N. And when animated, the animator can instill some basic functions what the undead in question is supposed to be doing (aggressive, manual labor or what).
The other option, which might be entertaining too, would be to rule so that soul is bound in eternal agony to mindless undead, even if it had been spending last 500 years in bliss of Mount Celestia or wherever. And if someone animates a corpse whose owner has been resurrected by other means, there would be some morbid effects on the living counterpart too (perhaps the living one would become more detached and cold, literally soulless...). Lots of interesting story potential in that concept too.
On the side of simplicity, material suitable for animation which comes from a creature that has been ressurected or restored to life in any form cannot be animated.
On the side of story and plot, it would be so much better if they could. Perhaps the mechanical side of a person suffering such a fate is to acquire an amount of negative levels equal to the HD of the undead "twin." These negative levels are temporary, but remain and cannot be removed until said twin is destroyed. Furthermore, these negative levels can never be of great enough number to kill the victim. For example, if a 3rd level character is ressurected (thus becoming a 2nd level, 2 HD character) and recieves a new body, but then his old body becomes a wight (4 HD) for some reason, the character would gain only one negative level, because any more would kill him. If said character where instead 5th level or higher, he would have a total of 4 negative levels.
Just for added complexity, if a character who has been revived in any form, but left behind another body, currently has a death ward effect on them when someone attempts to animate their former corpse, then the animation simply fails. This would almost never come up, however.
The other option, which might be entertaining too, would be to rule so that soul is bound in eternal agony to mindless undead, even if it had been spending last 500 years in bliss of Mount Celestia or wherever.
How evil. I like it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
On the side of simplicity, material suitable for animation which comes from a creature that has been ressurected or restored to life in any form cannot be animated.
In my games, I've always ruled that the corpse of any creature which has been resurrected crumbles into fine dust (unless, of course, you have a whole body to begin with, as is necessary for raise dead). It keeps my continuity intact. :)
One point that needs to be noted here ... with these mindless undead the assumption is that they were animated after death against their will but what would the case be if the living people ASKED to be reanimated after death out of a sense of duty (to the state, church, clan, etc.) or some other purpose, most likely as a sentient undead but if they decided to as a mindless one? Also I agree with Magdalena: if it has no intelligence it can't form the intent to be good, evil or any alignment other than neutral and if separated from its master would not automatically go out and begin killing people or animals. As for deathless, I personally like the concept but TETO and your opinions, if you don't, are perfectly valid as well.
On the ressurrection and undeath concepts, TECHNICALLY, the rules seem to eliminate the undead body and resurrected body existing at the same time idea but the rules were made to be...tweaked from time to time when the writers box themselves into a corner. One word should provide all the necessary explanation on that point: Polymorph.
Edit: One other thing. Spells that use negative energy are often necromancy (school dealing with manipultion of the forces of life and death) but positive energy are conjuration? This is odd, since one set draws from the negative energy plane and the other from the positive energy plane and one would think the two sets should be the same school. Oh well, one of the mysteries of the game I guess.
|
|
One point that needs to be noted here ... with these mindless undead the assumption is that they were animated after death against their will but what would the case be if the living people ASKED to be reanimated after death out of a sense of duty (to the state, church, clan, etc.) or some other purpose, most likely as a sentient undead but if they decided to as a mindless one?
I agree with this concept. It was used in the 2ed setting (can't remember the name right now) that pitted "totemic barbarians" against "arcane primitives" on an island. The "arcane primitives" had a culture in which it was respectful to a dead person to allow them to continue to assist their loved ones after their death, in the form of undeath. It created a culture where, instead of slaves, they had the zombie remains of their ancestors to protect and serve them. Seemed fairly ingenious, and posed interesting roleplaying conflicts when the LG arcanists met with the CG barbarians (who saw undeath as desecration).