Demons are evil.
Devils are evil.
Undead are evil.
Until they aren't.
General questions yield general answers.
Any specific devil demon or undead, assuming they have intelligence, can be of any alignment.
in SRD under monsters:
Alignment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.
Giving something the Evil subtype just makes it easy to know who you can smite. It doesn't force the being to actually be evil. There are fallen Devas and Aasimon just as there are good Devils and Demons. The latter just get press far less often. (and are even less often believed.)
My posts about good/evil have to do with our real world, and why the rules were changed. Without knowing why the rule is why it is, it's difficult to alter it.
The problem is that the rules weren't changed to fix an imbalance or to solve any other ingame problem.
Undead aren't evil to "fix" something. Healing spells weren't yanked from Necromancy because Necromancers were just so all dang powerful. They were changed because of OUR perceptions of Necromancers and Undead.
Now we are in a crappy situation, where to preserve backward compatibility we have to continue with game mechanics that were changed due to no actual game mechanical problem. Therein lies the true issue.
Myself, I would love the old rules to return. Non-intelligent creatures have no alignment. i.e. they are neutral. They do what they are told, when they are told- much like swinging a sword. The sword doesn't care what you do with it, it's just a hunk of metal. A skeleton, likewise, doesn't care what it does. It does what it's told to do.
Your actions, what you tell it to do, determine whether it's doing good or evil, but in the end the undead is just a tool. (unintelligent undead, anyway).
And healing spells should be returned to necromancy where they belong.
Will that happen? No. But it's important for folks to understand that it was changed because of outside-the-game forces, rather than for any good and rational "ingame reason".
-S
Selgard, in fantasy, undead are universally evil. Honestly, in 3.0, when Skeletons were mindless, Paladins felt ripped off when Smite Evil didn't whomp them.
It's a genre convention. Undead should be evil. Specific exceptions can exist, sure. But just like demons, lets let the exceptions be exceptions, not the rule. If you summon a generic demon, its evil. If you create a generic undead, it should be evil.
A vampire Paladin certainly can exist. That doesn't mean that creating a mummy shouldn't be basically evil.
|
I do not believe in the "Diablo 2" version of Necromancy where undead are mere possessions used to accomplish personal goals. Raising undead, even mindless ones, is an inherently evil act. Undead are not "like swords" to be wielded by good or evil folk, because unlike swords, undead are formed from once living creatures, many times sentient living creatures. The very act of creating them takes something that was once sacred and defiling it to drive one's personal goals.
There are no literary tropes (that I know of) that involve heroes raising their dead comrades to act as slaves or tools in the pursuit of the general good. In literature, such acts occur only at the hands of the most depraved; even heroes in the most desperate of situations do not create undead followers to save themselves from ruin.
As if this were not enough, preventing the use of any undead by player characters will narrow the gap between casters and non-casters. I have read on these boards how fighters are "outclassed by the Necromancer" because the caster uses the slain body of their most-recent foe as a slave that provides protection and damage capability as good as the party's fighter. Making the creation of undead an inherently evil act prevents this sort of behavior and ensure that those casters that use this tactic will be cast from a truly good-aligned group.
|
Thought i would weigh in with my 2cp.
I myself am a moral relativist. Things depend as much on motive as the act itself. However, we are disussing a *FANTASY* world where there is no reletivism. Gods exist, planes exist, all of which have absolute hard core borders for good and evil.
I am of the opinion that Necromancy should be brought back to a neutral perspective. The study of necromancy (actually the word itself translates to "life engergy") is not evil, any more than a doctor is evil. Necromancy can be studied by wizards because they are studying it. Thats why the good/evil thing doesn't apply to them. I think healing should be a necramcy spell.
I think the creation of undead is a different set of arguments than necrmancy as a whole however.
Creating undead is evil. This is an absolute of the universe of fantasy. If we want to make a game world where the rules are different thats one thing, but in general fantasy, creating undead is evil. No ifs, ands or buts. And by the very nature of their creation, "mindless" undead are evil.
This does not preclude the ability for non-evil undead to exist. That is an NPC/DM/storyline thing. Just like fallen angels and deamons trying to be good. But this is not the norm, and should not be treated as such.
In short, the biggest thing i see in this debate is a moral debate in the community of players. The rules, while not consistent (something i detest in rules) are not "broken". I think the majority of this debate can be handled by a GM making his own choices. Thats what we are supposed to do as GMs anyway.
SarNati, I agree with everything you said. Why is it that other people are always more concise than I am?
|
|
SarNati, I agree with everything you said. Why is it that other people are always more concise than I am?
Lol, glad I could help. I was an english major in college. (Though i still suck at spelling =P) I've also had this argument with my players for years. So lots of time refining my arguments. I'm just glad people out there agree with me too.
I think the creation of undead is a different set of arguments than necrmancy as a whole however.
Creating undead is evil. This is an absolute of the universe of fantasy. If we want to make a game world where the rules are different thats one thing, but in general fantasy, creating undead is evil. No ifs, ands or buts. And by the very nature of their creation, "mindless" undead are evil.
I'm just curious as to why you feel that creating undead is evil?
In a Christian based society (or similar theology) I understand why such folks would abhore anything that disturbs the peace of one's remains. However, in a *fantasy* setting where there are much different societies, morals, values and theologies... why is it morally imperative that creating undead is evil?
Here's my rational. Our own species used the bones of the deceased to make tools. I can understand the thinking... "poor old Joe, he was a good hunter, but he's dead now and I need a new bone knife... he doesn't need is femur any more so its time to make a tool out of it".
Our society has evolved to find such practices taboo and in many cases illegal... but our society should not be reflective of a fantasy society.
Given my above example, lets change the scenario to a fantasy world where magic is present, and there are no theological concerns about what is done with the body of a deceased. Could not a mage think, "poor old Joe, he was a good stableboy, but now if I were to animate his bones he could steady work the belows at the blacksmith or perhaps help turn the wheel at the mill."
The body of the dead would simply be a magical tool. Why would this be deemd evil in a fantasy setting?
Because making a bone knife out of someone's femur doesn't do unkind things to their soul.
|
|
The study of necromancy (actually the word itself translates to "life engergy")
Hmm. it has been a while since my Greek roots class, but to the best of my knowledge, necromancy is comprised of the Greek necro (which is translated as "dead') and the Greek suffix -mancy (translated as 'divination'). Thus Necromancy is diviniation/commune with the dead.
I just checked Wikipedia and found this quote:
The word necromancy derives from the Greek nekrós, "dead", and manteía, "divination".
The Douglas Harper Online Etymology Dictionary has it this way:
c.1300, "divination by communication with the dead," from O.Fr. nygromancie, from M.L. nigromantia (1212), from L. necromantia "divination from an exhumed corpse," from Gk. nekromanteia, from nekros "dead body" (see necro-) + manteia "divination, oracle," from manteuesthai "to prophesy," from mantis "prophet" (see mania). Spelling infl. in M.L. by niger "black," on notion of "black arts." Modern spelling is c.1550 from attempts to correct M.E. nygromauncy.
If the word had anything to do with energy, we should see the Greek "energeia" or "ergon" (or its derived Latin or English counterparts) in there somewhere. Also, "bio" is the Greek prefix that means "life" and it does not appear in the word in any form either.
Relevant to this dicussion is the Middle Latin influence, which used the Latin "niger" (black) as late as 1550AD in reference to the "black arts". It would seem that necromancy has been viewed as dark/evil for a very long time.
Not trying to nitpick, but etymology is a hobby of mine...
I'm just curious as to why you feel that creating undead is evil?
In a Christian based society (or similar theology) I understand why such folks would abhore anything that disturbs the peace of one's remains. However, in a *fantasy* setting where there are much different societies, morals, values and theologies... why is it morally imperative that creating undead is evil?
Here's my rational. Our own species used the bones of the deceased to make tools. I can understand the thinking... "poor old Joe, he was a good hunter, but he's dead now and I need a new bone knife... he doesn't need is femur any more so its time to make a tool out of it".
Our society has evolved to find such practices taboo and in many cases illegal... but our society should not be reflective of a fantasy society.
Given my above example, lets change the scenario to a fantasy world where magic is present, and there are no theological concerns about what is done with the body of a deceased. Could not a mage think, "poor old Joe, he was a good stableboy, but now if I were to animate his bones he could steady work the belows at the blacksmith or perhaps help turn the wheel at the mill."
The body of the dead would simply be a magical tool. Why would this be deemd evil in a fantasy setting?
As Lich-Loved pointed out, necromancy has been viewed as a "black", read evil, art for hundreds of years in the west. D&D, for the most part, has a background of western mythology and modern western fantasy. That's why we recognize the versions of good and evil in the game. They're our cultures definitions. Modern relativism usually doesn't enter into a setting with absolutes of "good" and "evil".
If you want to create a setting with entirely different definitions of good / evil, etc., feel free. I wouldn't expect them to be reflected in the core rules of a game based on western ideas and mythology.
I have played in various incarnations of M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel setting since it came out. It has wildly different assumptions from the typical western D&D setting. It's a great setting and deeply involving. There are things done by "good", well "noble" anyway to use the settings terms, characters in that game (i.e. human sacrifice) that would be deemed evil in a typical D&D game. But they aren't. Because the setting has completely different morals. And everybody knows it going in (or learns it fast...). Using the 3.5 / PFRPG rules you can create any type of setting you want. Just be prepared to do it yourself and work around the games basic western ideology.
Oh, and have fun with it. That is what it's about.
should necromancy be evil
Yes. /thread
Associating mucking with corpses with EVIL would spell doom for pathology (or medieval medicine research). Art of mummification (the Egyptian style) also would definitely labelled as evil.
:)
Regards,
Ruemere
As would eating meat, by that logic. But research and embalming are not evil. Creating undead isn't an issue of 'mucking with corpses', it's more a problem of 'mucking with souls'. Guess which part I have a problem with?
should necromancy be evilYes. /thread
Since when is False Life evil? It's unreasonable to make a whole school of magic Evil. Especially one defined in the Player's Handbook as being all magic related to life energy.
Associating mucking with corpses with EVIL would spell doom for pathology (or medieval medicine research). Art of mummification (the Egyptian style) also would definitely labelled as evil.
:)
Regards,
Ruemere
First of all, we're not discussing the real world, or our opinions on the real world and or science, are we?
You didn't see a lot of pathology in the Middle Ages. They had no clue about modern science, or the germ theory of disease. Greco-Roman medical knowledge was largely a lost art (and in and of itself not terribly more advanced). Grave robbing for science / medical research was a hot topic in the 1800s and the illegal sale of bodies for science and education is still one today. They're still considered kind of "yucky". Probably got yourself burned as a witch back in the day.... Hmmm... mumification. And how have mummy's been portrayed in popular culture lately? Are they the good guys? What's the typical alignment for a mummy in D&D? Ancient Egypt, while a good fantasy setting isn't really what D&D, or most current FRPGs, have centered on.
Don't drag modern science, and scientific relatavism into good and evil, black and white, fantasy archtypes. It's generally not a good mix.
Now, as I said, if you want to construct a fantasy setting that has relativism and scientific inquiry in it, fine, go to it. have fun. A core part of most FRPGs is concrete definitions of "good" and "evil". Most of them seat necromancy, and the undead, firmly in the "evil" camp. That's the way it is, but that doesn't have to be the way your game is. That's up to you. One of the nice things about RPGs in general, I'd say.
|
|
For the moral relativists out there, here is a thought experiment for you.
Suppose for a second that necromancy was possible today. Imagine that the local necromancer decided to dig up your parent/grandparent/child/spouse and through arcane rituals, animate their corpse. The necromancer instructed the corpse to maintain a particular intersection, holding aloft a flag so motorists would see children crossing the street on their way to school.
How would you feel about this? Would you accept the situation or would it revolt you? Would you feel your loved one's remains were being defiled or dishonored in any way or would you feel they were being put to good use?
For the moral relativists out there, here is a thought experiment for you.
Suppose for a second that necromancy was possible today. Imagine that the local necromancer decided to dig up your parent/grandparent/child/spouse and through arcane rituals, animate their corpse. The necromancer instructed the corpse to maintain a particular intersection, holding aloft a flag so motorists would see children crossing the street on their way to school.
How would you feel about this? Would you accept the situation or would it revolt you? Would you feel your loved one's remains were being defiled or dishonored in any way or would you feel they were being put to good use?
Perhaps I would be all for it if it was the norm in my culture. Of course once I got over the ick factor it would be easier. Let the recently rizen work in the mines until all the flesh sloughs off before shining up the bones and giving them a traffic flag.
How would you feel if your parent's remains were hung in a tower to be eaten by vultures? I wouldn't like it either, but then again I'm not Zoroastrian (look it up if you don't believe me).
As for whether or not making undead messes with souls - it's a cosmology thing. Disturbing the dead was very bad in ancient Egypt. I'm under the impression that Catholics believe the soul leaves the body immediately, never to return. I see no evidence that in the D&D world souls care about their former bodies once they leave them.
When is the soul completely finished with its body? 10 days? 100 years? Does it care about its constituent atoms once decomposed?
I see no evidence that in the D&D world souls care about their former bodies once they leave them.
When is the soul completely finished with its body? 10 days? 100 years? Does it care about its constituent atoms once decomposed?
Er... raising the dead... body or parts thereof... obviously some kind of connection. Inability to raise them while undead... another connection. Death is a seperation of the body and soul and intellect (intelligent undead) in D&D, but there is an obvious connection. IIRC there is some discussion about a souls journey after death in D&D... have to check up on that and drag it into the discussion :) Oh, and it's fantasy... who says they have constituent atoms to worry about? :D
|
Not an attempt to harmonise or interpret current rules, but simply what I'd like to see in PFRPG:
Cure spells are necromancy.
Necromancy is not inherently evil (deathwatch, cure spells, et al.)
The Negative and Positive energy planes should be neutral.
Creating unwilling/unknowing undead is an evil act because it mucks with peoples souls (generally, giving things moral implications is more fun than just adding extra tools to the adventurers batbelt).
Creating willing undead depends upon the motives of the deceased (bringing back a murderer to kill again is evil, bringing back a researcher to finish his work on anti-venoms is good).
Once created sentient undead are whatever alignment they choose
Mindless undead are more fun if they want to eat the flesh of mortals (hungry are the dead!) so add the bloodlust and keep them evil.
|
|
Suppose for a second that necromancy was possible today. Imagine that the local necromancer decided to dig up your parent/grandparent/child/spouse and through arcane rituals, animate their corpse. The necromancer instructed the corpse to maintain a particular intersection, holding aloft a flag so motorists would see children crossing the street on their way to school.
How would you feel about this? Would you accept the situation or would it revolt you? Would you feel your loved one's remains were being defiled or dishonored in any way or would you feel they were being put to good use?
Did Grandfather ask to be raised? If so that's fair-play to him.
How would you feel if your parent's remains were hung in a tower to be eaten by vultures? I wouldn't like it either, but then again I'm not Zoroastrian (look it up if you don't believe me).
Did Grandfather ask to be eaten by vultures? If so that's fair-play to him.
I'm just curious as to why you feel that creating undead is evil?
Animating the dead is evil because the game says that Animate Dead is [Evil]. How's that for a tautology? :-)
If you want neutral undead, go nuts. But it'd be a house rule, because it's right there in black and white: Animate Dead is [Evil]. Skeletons are always Neutral Evil. Zombies are always Neutral Evil. And so forth.
The ironic thing is that there is a perfectly legal "undead-equivalent" in the rules -- the "Deathless" type. So if you want a good necromancer with a bunch of flunkies, learn to create deathless servants instead of undead. That's easy enough, isn't it?
|
|
First off, apologies for my mistranslation of "necromancy". I went back and talked to an old friend and he told me he wasn't telling me the literal translation so much as the situational translation. >.< my bad for believing him. Lol.
Second, to answer the question why are we choosing creating undead to be evil? Simply because the whole game is based on semi-modern western philosophy. The definitions of good/evil were created by westerner's off of western modern fantasy fiction. Therefor those morals will apply.
I have no issue with Necromancy as a school being neutral. I think healing spells should be necromancy not conjuration. I think a lot of the "necromancy" school of spells should not be considered evil. I think creating undead, of any type, should be left evil. You are perverting life and cheating the cosmology for your own ends. It is supreme selfishness, therefore evil. (And creating willing/free-willed undead, is still evil for the same reasons.)
It boils down to the school/magic isn't evil. Its how its used. Same with evocation spells destroying helpless villagers or illusions to drown children.
Creating willing undead depends upon the motives of the deceased (bringing back a murderer to kill again is evil, bringing back a researcher to finish his work on anti-venoms is good).
False. If you want to bring back a researcher, try 'Raise Dead'. If that researcher died of old age, too bad, because part of being mortal is leaving room for those who come later.
An important thing to note about Raise Dead is it allows the soul to say 'No.' and enjoy their rightful rest. The various Animate Dead spells don't.I'll agree that Sentient Undead can be of any alignment they choose, but like a Devil, they are 99.99(repeating)% likely to choose Evil.
Also, Deathless are beyond stupid. As others have pointed out, a being animated via positive energy is ALIVE. Fortunately, they are Splatbook Crap (tm), and not core.
JRM, turning doesn't repel outsiders. You might be thinking of Holy Water.
|
Creating undead isn't an issue of 'mucking with corpses', it's more a problem of 'mucking with souls'. Guess which part I have a problem with?
So Animating Dead, which does nothing to the soul (which may have gone to it's appropriate 'reward' centuries ago), is fine, but casting Magic Jar, or Ressurection, both of which move souls around, does count as evil?
I'm not a fan of alignment in general, and I'm completely against any sort of mechanical reductionist view of alignment that has the casting of Protection from Good 'turn you evil' or Protection from Chaos 'turn you lawful' or Protection from Evil 'turn you good.'
It cheapens the entire concept.
The game itself should be flexible enough to allow for worlds like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms or the Scarred Lands, where there are non-evil undead. If a particular setting wants to have a sub-rule that says, 'all Necromancy is evil' or 'all Evocation spells are banned' or 'all Transmutation or Summoning spells are inherently corruptive and add Taint, as they deform the flesh or call unnatural creatures to our world,' then that's cool, *for that setting,* but none of the basic schools of magic should be inherently restricted.
|
|
Also, Deathless are beyond stupid. As others have pointed out, a being animated via positive energy is ALIVE. Fortunately, they are Splatbook Crap (tm), and not core.
Much like 1st edition Mummies or the Baelnorn of the Realms or the ancestral spirits who have been called upon / propitiated / appeased in every culture since the dawn of time (and still a major part of some current faiths).
In 1st edition, Positive Energy was associated with life-force, and the Mummy's ability to create disease was the generation of life, unlike the Negative-Energy associated ability or level drain mechanics. The Mummy, unlike every other undead, wasn't taking anything away from you, it was giving you something (something you didn't want, but still, a gift of living organisms, which probably couldn't even survive on a negative energy charged body!).
But in later editions, it got less complicated than that. Negative Energy stopped being about draining and taking away and started just being associated with 'icky stuff' and dirt and bugs and blood and creepy living-and-completely-natural stuff, because the older association was too complicated for some. So Negative Energy is now associated with death, but also with life, so long as it's icky unwelcome life like disease or bodily fluids.
Indeed, Positive Energy makes *more* sense than Negative Energy for corporeal undead, since using Negative Energy to impart motion and force to something goes against it's very nature, which is to draw away energy and negate force.
If a negatively-empowered walking corpse was *compelled* to seek out and kill others, drawing upon their life-energy to maintain it's own unnatural state, they would better fit the traditional positive / negative energy descriptions. It would also make the animated dead properly evil, as the destruction of all that lives would be their vital mandate, as necessary to them as breath is to the living. The more laid-back undead, such as liches, who can survive for centuries without harming a soul, locked in research, would be a thing of the past, with even the lich now required to steal the lives of others to maintain their ageless state.
So Animating Dead, which does nothing to the soul (which may have gone to it's appropriate 'reward' centuries ago), is fine, but casting Magic Jar, or Ressurection, both of which move souls around, does count as evil?
I think Animate Dead does anyways do something to the soul, even if you're animating a fossilized Megaraptor. Since Animate Dead can only be cast on a once-living creature, it stands to reason that some fundamental element of the living is required. To wit, a soul, since the body itself is only so much meat.
I'm not a fan of alignment in general, and I'm completely against any sort of mechanical reductionist view of alignment that has the casting of Protection from Good 'turn you evil' or Protection from Chaos 'turn you lawful' or Protection from Evil 'turn you good.'
It cheapens the entire concept.
I think that if you spend more time casting Protection From Evil than Protection From Good you are at the very least more opposed to evil than good.
The game itself should be flexible enough to allow for worlds like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms or the Scarred Lands, where there are non-evil undead. If a particular setting wants to have a sub-rule that says, 'all Necromancy is evil' or 'all Evocation spells are banned' or 'all Transmutation or Summoning spells are inherently corruptive and add Taint, as they deform the flesh or call unnatural creatures to our world,' then that's cool, *for that setting,* but none of the basic schools of magic should be inherently restricted.
The game is that flexible. Those things are easily ruled. But at its core, the legacy of the game is Greyhawk and objective alignment.
|
|
How would you feel about this? Would you accept the situation or would it revolt you? Would you feel your loved one's remains were being defiled or dishonored in any way or would you feel they were being put to good use?
Turn that around. We don't need to postulate a world with Animate Dead for the basic concept, as we already do lots of 'gross' things with dead bodies in the really-real world.
Suppose that grandpa signed an organ donor card, and his body was carved up, his liver to one person, a kidney to someone else, and an eye to a third person. Would you find that ghoulish and macabre? Would you feel awkward and uncomfortable around someone who received one of these donations? What if he'd donated his body to science and it was sent to a school, and dissected by medical students as part of their training? What if it was sent to one of those 'corpse farms' where they toss a bunch of bodies out in a field and students learning forensic pathology use them to practice determining time of death from decay rates?
What if you were on vacation in Bali or Java and drove by a native funeral, where they cremate the deceased, mix her ashes into a broth and all of her family take a sip of the broth, so that they can have carry a part of their loved one within them forever, hoping to absorb some of her wisdom and virtue?
This is in our modern very squeamish world.
Imagine a medieval society, where bodies lie in the street *for days* and executed criminals hang on pikes or gibbets *for months.* The whole 'grandpa's body is sacred!' thing wasn't as big a deal, when the family was used to burying the half or more of children stillborn in the backyard, along with any adults who died unexpectedly, and seeing dead bodies was a daily event for someone who lived in a city.
Would it be any *more* gruesome to see the skeletons of executed criminals collecting waste-buckets or pulling carts or turning mills, when the alternative is seeing slaves or 'untouchable' caste people doing this sort of stuff, and often dropping dead and lying around for a couple of days?
What is more 'good' or 'evil,' animating some skeletons to do this sort of menial labor, or sacrificing yet another generation of living people to the coal-mines, until their lungs are so filled with black dust that they cough up blood and die, just like their fathers before them?
Will a priest who suffers living people to work in life-threatening conditions, such as burying victims of plague, or attempting to stop a crop-fire that's destroying their livelihood, while knowing that a single spell could save all of their lives, be able to stand before his god(dess) and say, 'I may have let a couple hundred people die rather than lift a finger to help them, but at least I didn't cast a spell with that [Evil] descriptor!'
|
|
I think that if you spend more time casting Protection From Evil than Protection From Good you are at the very least more opposed to evil than good.I'm not a fan of alignment in general, and I'm completely against any sort of mechanical reductionist view of alignment that has the casting of Protection from Good 'turn you evil' or Protection from Chaos 'turn you lawful' or Protection from Evil 'turn you good.'
It cheapens the entire concept.
That bugs me. I may not like alignment as a concept, but I definitely feel that it should be more than just numbers. It should be something higher than just, 'I cast seven Protection from Evils on my week off, to compensate for lopping the head off of that kid who was bugging me yesterday.'
And the idea of a priestess of Lolth accidentally turning good because she cast one-too-many Protection from Evils feel cheap.
That bugs me. I may not like alignment as a concept, but I definitely feel that it should be more than just numbers. It should be something higher than just, 'I cast seven Protection from Evils on my week off, to compensate for lopping the head off of that kid who was bugging me yesterday.'
I don't think Protection from X cast in a vacuum should do much. However, if you started casting it because you are fighting hand to hand with fiends, then maybe it should matter.
There's a good reason the rules don't actually have a threshold at which alignment shifts due to casting aligned spells. It's not a 'point system' and never should be.And the idea of a priestess of Lolth accidentally turning good because she cast one-too-many Protection from Evils feel cheap.
A priestess of Lolth can't cast Protection from Evil at all.
|
|
That bugs me. I may not like alignment as a concept, but I definitely feel that it should be more than just numbers. It should be something higher than just, 'I cast seven Protection from Evils on my week off, to compensate for lopping the head off of that kid who was bugging me yesterday.'And the idea of a priestess of Lolth accidentally turning good because she cast one-too-many Protection from Evils feel cheap.
I agree totaly. Its not a basic set of numbers. 5 good spells + 7 evil spells = evil alignment. But its what those numbres represent. If a player is consistantly and continualy casting evil spells instead of good ones, this represents his funamental alignment. Not from a numbers game, but from his basic choices of how he plays.
If my cleric runs around inflicting wounds on bad guys all day long rather than say, healing the party (using those simply because they are opposite spells only) does this mean he is evil? Well, what is his attitude? does he cast inflict on the "hurt them before they hurt us" attitude? or is it a "i dont want to heal people"? a better example might be animate dead vs buffing himself. Does he animate dead because it means he gets hurt less? or does he buff himself to make himself better at fighting evil? (again, just using two possible motives). Its not the number of spells of a given type that matter, its the basic premis behind the reasoning of using those spells that spell alignment. There are always multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. Its why we choose the way to accomplish it the way we do that gives rise to alignment shift.
Will a priest who suffers living people to work in life-threatening conditions, such as burying victims of plague, or attempting to stop a crop-fire that's destroying their livelihood, while knowing that a single spell could save all of their lives, be able to stand before his god(dess) and say, 'I may have let a couple hundred people die rather than lift a finger to help them, but at least I didn't cast a spell with that [Evil] descriptor!'
That's why it's called a "moral dilemma" and not a "no-brainer". :-)
It's all part of the broader question: "Do the ends justify the means?" (I would say "no" in a world of absolute Good and Evil, but that's an argument for another thread.)
|
|
Suppose that grandpa signed an organ donor card, and his body was carved up, his liver to one person, a kidney to someone else, and an eye to a third person. Would you find that ghoulish and macabre? Would you feel awkward and uncomfortable around someone who received one of these donations? What if he'd donated his body to science and it was sent to a school, and dissected by medical students as part of their training? What if it was sent to one of those 'corpse farms' where they toss a bunch of bodies out in a field and students learning forensic pathology use them to practice determining time of death from decay rates?
All of these are examples of voluntary use of a corpse post mortum. These are not examples of creating undead.
What if you were on vacation in Bali or Java and drove by a native funeral, where they cremate the deceased, mix her ashes into a broth and all of her family take a sip of the broth, so that they can have carry a part of their loved one within them forever, hoping to absorb some of her wisdom and virtue?
Again, this is customary and expected when a person dies in that culture. Thus use of the corpse in this way is not [Evil] because no one, including the target of the ritual, is doing something other than what was expected would be done.
Imagine a medieval society, where bodies lie in the street *for days* and executed criminals hang on pikes or gibbets *for months.* The whole 'grandpa's body is sacred!' thing wasn't as big a deal, when the family was used to burying the half or more of children stillborn in the backyard, along with any adults who died unexpectedly, and seeing dead bodies was a daily event for someone who lived in a city.
In the Middle Ages, these gruesome scenes wee a possibility if not a reality. And *still* the people of the Middle Ages were against necromancy, desecration of corpses and the like. We don't need to speculate on how people would react, we have their reactions right there in the etymology of the word - "black magic". Not something highly supported by the Roman Catholic Church, obviously.
What is more 'good' or 'evil,' animating some skeletons to do this sort of menial labor, or sacrificing yet another generation of living people to the coal-mines, until their lungs are so filled with black dust that they cough up blood and die, just like their fathers before them?
Will a priest who suffers living people to work in life-threatening conditions, such as burying victims of plague, or attempting to stop a crop-fire that's destroying their livelihood, while knowing that a single spell could save all of their lives, be able to stand before his god(dess) and say, 'I may have let a couple hundred people die rather than lift a finger to help them, but at least I didn't cast a spell with that [Evil] descriptor!'
This is a compelling argument and one that only the deity in question could answer. This is a "does the end justify the means" question, and those are always good kinds of questions to see in a game. However, the default answer of the game world, in which there is an absolute good and an absolute evil, should be "the end does not justify the means where creating undead are concerned". DMs are free to change this answer for their game world, but the default answer should be that creating undead, even to be slaves for a noble purpose (or what appears at first to be a noble purpose) is inherently evil.
|
|
I think Animate Dead does anyways do something to the soul, even if you're animating a fossilized Megaraptor. Since Animate Dead can only be cast on a once-living creature, it stands to reason that some fundamental element of the living is required. To wit, a soul, since the body itself is only so much meat.
This is an outstanding point and should be addressed by those in the "creating undead is not inherently evil" camp.
To be clear, my view is that actions that:
(1) destroy the soul (Trap the Soul, Soul Bind)
(2) prevent the soul from resting or having a normal continuance (undead creation spells)
(3) cause or extend pain and suffering (torture, symbol of pain, contagion)
(4) bring Evil into the world (summoning a demon or devil)
are *in general* [Evil] actions and only extenuating circumstances would make them neutral actions. Thus, I do not believe that Deathwatch should be an evil spell. Magic Jar is a borderline evil spell to me using this criteria, but it does not actually qualify. Will there be times when these actions are not [Evil]? Of course there will be, but the [Evil] descriptor is an indication that if the action is performed without great care and concern, the action is [Evil]. Even then, the action might be something that requires Atonement, with forgiveness granted (or taint removed) if the end truly did justify the means and the supplicant is truly remorseful for his actions.
I think that if you spend more time casting Protection From Evil than Protection From Good you are at the very least more opposed to evil than good.
More accurately you are more worried about getting killed by an evil thing than a good thing. LG cleric casts pro-good to defend himself from CG cleric -> who's more goodly? Their dilemma is chaos/law not good/evil. Pro-good is just handy.
The concept of someone becoming evil/good due to spells cast is just silly (IMHO). Alignment doesn't determine behavior - it reflects it.
I have no issue with Necromancy as a school being neutral. I think healing spells should be necromancy not conjuration. I think a lot of the "necromancy" school of spells should not be considered evil. I think creating undead, of any type, should be left evil. You are perverting life and cheating the cosmology for your own ends . It is supreme selfishness, therefore evil. (And creating willing/free-willed undead, is still evil for the same reasons.)
Is resurrection evil? Bringing back dead things is easily in the realm of 'cheating the cosmology for your own ends'.
More accurately you are more worried about getting killed by an evil thing than a good thing. LG cleric casts pro-good to defend himself from CG cleric -> who's more goodly? Their dilemma is chaos/law not good/evil. Pro-good is just handy.
A Lawful Good cleric cannot cast Protection from Good at all, so that situation will never come up.
Is resurrection evil? Bringing back dead things is easily in the realm of 'cheating the cosmology for your own ends'.
Doesn't happen without defacto divine permission, therefore I guess not...
More accurately you are more worried about getting killed by an evil thing than a good thing. LG cleric casts pro-good to defend himself from CG cleric -> who's more goodly? Their dilemma is chaos/law not good/evil. Pro-good is just handy.
The concept of someone becoming evil/good due to spells cast is just silly (IMHO). Alignment doesn't determine behavior - it reflects it.
That Cleric would be casting Protection from Chaos. He can't cast Pro: Good.
Is resurrection evil? Bringing back dead things is easily in the realm of 'cheating the cosmology for your own ends'.
Resurrection requires permission from the soul in question, restores the person in question to true life, respects the natural lifespan, and allows them to go back to the afterlife when they die again.
Also, if you do that too often, a Marut comes after you.
JRM, the ability to turn based on Elemental types is a separate turning pool from Turning undead. A Good Earth Cleric with a 12 charisma can Turn Undead 4/day and can Turn Air/Rebuke Earth 4/day. They are not actually the same ability.
I imagine it as summoning primal elemental energies. It's no longer positive/negative energy.
|
|
More accurately you are more worried about getting killed by an evil thing than a good thing. LG cleric casts pro-good to defend himself from CG cleric -> who's more goodly? Their dilemma is chaos/law not good/evil. Pro-good is just handy.
That Cleric would be casting Protection from Chaos. He can't cast Pro: Good.
That gives me a great idea for an adventure Ross ;)
|
|
JRM, the ability to turn based on Elemental types is a separate turning pool from Turning undead. A Good Earth Cleric with a 12 charisma can Turn Undead 4/day and can Turn Air/Rebuke Earth 4/day. They are not actually the same ability.
I imagine it as summoning primal elemental energies. It's no longer positive/negative energy.
I agree here. Different abilities. Also my 2cp on abilities vs alignments. This conversation is working on many fronts, and we have to be careful not to mix them. (Spell alignment, Necromancy Alignment as a whole, Undead Creation, Undead Alignment, Energy Alignment, Planar Alignment, etc etc)
Turn and Rebuke abilities IMO are more a use of abilities against what your opposites are.Good attempts to destroy evil. Evil attempts to command evil.
Good clerics are opposite evil undead.
Earth clerics command (rebuke) earth elementals because they share the same element/energy. They destroy (turn) air elementals because they are opposite elements/energy.
*Edited for spelling*
Umm. Soul is something one cannot perceive, while a corpse is a vessel, and quite possibly empty at that.
Regards,
Ruemere
Trap the Soul, Magic Jar, Clone, Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection all allow ways to perceive and manipulate souls. In the game world, they are demonstrably both real and have some sort of connection with their body, even after death.
And, in case you have not experienced this, let me mention that there is place in game world for progress and science. That's why labelling something as [Evil] may be not adequate given circumstances (or specifics) of a setting.
Science and progress... makes the assumption that a fantasy world has a "scientific base". Maybe it doesn't. And if your really into science and progress, there are SFRPGs. Still, if you want to base your fantasy on science, that's your privilege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_medicine#Surgical_instruments
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/medievalsurgery.htm
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles28/pope-and-science-6.shtml
http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/antiqua/vesalius.cfmNote, that most of the information must have been learnt during experiments.
Islam had a more enlightened attitude to science than Christianity in the Middle Ages. You are talking the excepetions, not the rule.
Galen lived a little earlier.
Getting a little sarcastic are we? No joke. I mentioned the grave robbing issue to demonstrate how slowly social attitudes change. I would ahve thought you could see how that would play into this discussion.
and the illegal sale of bodies for science and education is still one today. They're still considered kind of "yucky". Probably got yourself burned as a witch back in the day....
Yes, but that would not necessarily make him evil.
By modern standards no, Obviously people had different standards back then. That's the point.
Embalming and mummification required direct work with corpses. Do realize please, that not every fantasy game contains mobile mummies. However, every fantasy culture with large necropolias, is quite likely to have people who, so to speak, "dress the dead" for funerals.
Probably for religious reasons. Done with the sanction of the society and therefore, in that society / game not evil. You can bet graverobbing and messing with corpses against the will of society is though.
Ah, but not everyone plays simple black & white fantasy. I do realize you seem to prefer this, but d20 does not have to be ghettoed as game of black and white. There are so many settings which benefit from multicolored approach to issues of good and evil. Scarred Lands, Midnight, Freeport, Iron Kingdoms, Forgotten Realms, Arcana Evolved - all those settings work well with moral absolutes, but do not observe standard labelling of good and evil.
Good, I thought I mentioned people were free to play what they want. It is a generic fantasy RPG rules set. Individual settings have always varied.
Most = one? :)WFRP, Harn, Castle Falkenstein, Ars Magica, Vampire: Dark Ages, Exalted, RuneQuest, GURPS Fantasy, Pendragon... just a few examples off the top of my head. Yes, they may contain definitions of good and evil, but those are not mechanically binding.
So there mechanics don't cover it, but the setting still has it. Sue me. The fact is that there are mechanics in the game in question (D&D, OGL, and currently Pathfinder RPG).
Ah, and mentioning Greyhawk here is not entirely appropriate here. Pathfinder is a separate game, not owned or sponsored by WotC.Regards,
Ruemere
Pathfinder is OGL based, trying to improve and maintain backwards compatibility with D&D 3.5. It's stated goal I believe. No it's not D&D, but I think they share a history.
I don't mind discussions. Really. But you need to drop the attitude. I have multiple college degrees and teaching credentials. I've taught at the high school and college levels. History is what I teach. I'm fully aware of the history of medicine and of debates over the changing cultural definitions of good and evil. I've played RPGs for over 30 years (including most you've mentioned). I've enjoyed most of them, but generally spent more time with D&D (and Traveller) than others. Well Pathfinder will be taking over that role now I guess :) I prefer my debates to be more... friendly. If I came across as arrogant or rude, my apologies. Without looking back through the thread, I'm not sure. If it's just that I don't agree with you... that's life.
I just think that a replacement set of rules for 3.5 shouldn't make setting specific decisions on that level. Leave it to DMs do that, at least I do in my games. And I'm sure you do in yours.