Sorry if this has been addressed a million times before...
Moo.
|
All of the above, plus the following:
-Ankhegs are magical beasts.
-Dwarves have beards
-Half-elves and half-orcs are always half-human. No half-elf half-orcs. No half-dwarves, or half-halfling/half-gnomes.
-Elves are better than you
-Any individual point in the Darklands is more dangerous than its corresponding point on the surface.
Personally, I think that the current schools of magic and the spells therein make no sense at all, but then, they never have.
1st Ed and 2nd Ed AD&D were better, although there were still a few questionable calls. Unfortunately (IMO) for 3.x (especially in the 3.5 supplements), it seems "balancing" the schools took precedence over making the schools consistent and distinct: healing spells should be Necromancy, fear effects should be Enchantments, all Force spells should be Evocations, Shadow spells should be Illusion/Conjuration, etc.
Since PF RPG is a revision of the 3rd edition rules and supposed to be backwards compatible, some things are out of the question. It isn't even a question of sacred cows.
Since we're talking about Sacred Cows: Sooner or later, I think there will be a Pathfinder RPG Second Edition, which will be a real new edition rather than an improvement on 3e. Such a game will change rather more things than the current venture, and will have more trastic changes as well. In that case:
|
|
Since we're talking about Sacred Cows: Sooner or later, I think there will be a Pathfinder RPG Second Edition, which will be a real new edition rather than an improvement on 3e. Such a game will change rather more things than the current venture, and will have more trastic changes as well.
I sort of hope that it's not really a 'new edition'. I'd prefer slow change and development of options. My paradigm for this would be what happened with Rolemaster, which had RM2 with a lot of options from which most people -- it seemed to me -- were able to make a game they liked to play or GM. Then the new RM appeared -- RMSS, later RMFRP which is effectively the same beast -- and the fracture created was significant regardless of how one would debate the merits of the new version (personally, I don't like it, but more importantly I was happy enough with the old version and pretty irritated to see the old one fall out of support. Fortunately, ICE have now brought it back...).
Yes, part of the problem with the 4e transition was that some of us don't like the new game, and also that the GSL stuff left a bad taste after an era of more Open Gaming, but part of it is just what comes with new versions. Given that Paizo are going to be carrying the 3.x torch, I don't want 'new editions' to be as different from this as 4e was from 3.5 or 3e was from 2e (now, to be clear, I prefer 3e to 2e, but it's not the same game; I like 3.x and I want PFRPG/3.P to remain fundamentally the same game).
Now, this is basically a question of what comprises a 'new edition' and how violent a change is too violent a change -- opinions will of course vary on both issues -- but I'd prefer the evolution of the game to be pursued with caution. The changes you mention, other than the idea that tha class roster might change, aren't enormous, however.
- The skills system.
Which completely blindsided me. See, I was practically chomping at the bit waiting for the Skills and Feats design forum to be put up so that I could make my suggestion and what happens? After about three posts, it gets deemed "unproductive" and the thread gets locked. Completely did not see that one coming.
|
|
- The skills system.
Which completely blindsided me. See, I was practically chomping at the bit waiting for the Skills and Feats design forum to be put up so that I could make my suggestion and what happens? After about three posts, it gets deemed "unproductive" and the thread gets locked. Completely did not see that one coming.
Did you put it up as an alias? Can't even find it.
hrm i can't find it either.
|
Did you put it up as an alias? Can't even find it.- The skills system.
Which completely blindsided me. See, I was practically chomping at the bit waiting for the Skills and Feats design forum to be put up so that I could make my suggestion and what happens? After about three posts, it gets deemed "unproductive" and the thread gets locked. Completely did not see that one coming.
hrm i can't find it either.
Right Here...I just looked at his recent posts...
Since we're talking about Sacred Cows: Sooner or later, I think there will be a Pathfinder RPG Second Edition, which will be a real new edition rather than an improvement on 3e. Such a game will change rather more things than the current venture, and will have more trastic changes as well. In that case:I guess the class roster might change, and some classes will get a major modification (I think that sorcerers will move far, far away from wizards, probably getting their own spell lists and a totally different focus. Something along the lines of 3e Warlocks plus Beta Bloodlines on steroids).
Vancian Magic is, indeed, a Sacred Cow, and PF2e will keep it. Maybe it will be modified in some way, but they won't convert to the Mana standard.
Magic Schools will stay, too, I think, but some spells will probably travel around.
Crits will still be the same I think.
Same for Dying rules. It's not as if there was anything wrong with it.
BAB could undergo a change. Maybe it will be turned into a set of skills, or it will be...
Ughhhh. Vancian is terrible. If they were to make their own system, and not a 3rd compatible, I think that'd be the the first thing to go.
Creative Director
|
What things are off-limits for being changed? For instance...
- are the classes set in stone (ie, can there be new classes in the core book that are not in the D&D PHB 3.5)?
- is vancian magic set in stone? Could it be used for wizards but not for sorcerers?
- are the standard schools of magic set in stone?
- are critical hits definitely staying the same?
- are the death & dying rules set in stone?
- is the single BAB set in stone (as opposed to having two BABs; one for melee and another for missile)?Sorry if this has been addressed a million times before...
Not only do we want the game to be backwards compatible so that you can use any 3.5 adventure or resource in PF RPG (and vice versa) with a minimum of fuss and conversion... we ALSO want PF RPG to be compatible with the game spiritually. All of us here at Paizo are huge fans of D&D, and that includes things like the classes, Vancing magic, the schools of magic, critical hits, death and dying, and single BAB. Those things are fundamental parts of the game WE love. I'm not interested at this point in building some completely new game.
Bear in mind that we're quite a far way into the Beta playtest. Fundamental changes like adding new BAB tracks or new classes or lasers or car chase rules would be a poor chose at this juncture. With each day that passes, the playtest becomes more and more about fine tuning what's in the Beta and less and less about crazy wild new ideas.
|
|
... lasers or car chase rules...
Ok, I can see lasers OR car chase rules, but what about lasers and car chase rules? I think that might have some possibilities!
(Also, that was humour. but now I shall have laser wielding gangster chases through ancient rome stuck in my head all day. Go on. try thinking about it and then try stopping thinking about it. It's not easy!)
I sort of hope that it's not really a 'new edition'. I'd prefer slow change and development of options.
Can't make an omelettte and all that. I'm not saying that they should make a different game, but they can't just do dozens of revisions. Sooner or later, a new edition is needed.
|
|
Can't make an omelettte and all that. I'm not saying that they should make a different game, but they can't just do dozens of revisions. Sooner or later, a new edition is needed.
I just don't think so. Options are pretty good, I think. In the end, some can transition into core, but for me historically, whole new editions have a better than even chance of losing me as a customer.
Yes, part of the problem with the 4e transition was that some of us don't like the new game, and also that the GSL stuff left a bad taste after an era of more Open Gaming, but part of it is just what comes with new versions.
4e's a bad example. For me, that's basically a new game, not a new edition. PF2e would be a new edition, not a new game.
They won't pull off a stunt like the GSL, either.
Given that Paizo are going to be carrying the 3.x torch, I don't want 'new editions' to be as different from this as 4e was from 3.5 or 3e was from 2e (now, to be clear, I prefer 3e to 2e, but it's not the same game; I like 3.x and I want PFRPG/3.P to remain fundamentally the same game).
3e wasn't a new game in my opinion. Big new edition, that's true, but not a whole new game.
PF2e would probably not be as different to PF1e than 3e to 2e. I guess it will still have HD, BAB, the three Saves, AC as it is now, d20 mechanics. There will be skills, very much like they're now, and feats, again essentially the same. There will be the same roster of races of classes. There will be the nine alignments, Vancian Magic, and so on.
It will just change more than you could do while maintaining backwards compatibility the way a revision does.
I can see several classes getting a complete do-over (sorcerers with a different way to use magic, for example), multiclassing would work differently, racial abilities might be handled a bit differently, and especially those of powerful races.
CR can be redone or replaced.
The skill system can be properly redone (not that the PF way isn't great) since you can play around with DC expectations.
I could see full attacks going away and warriors and so on being rebuilt with that in mind.
but I'd prefer the evolution of the game to be pursued with caution. The changes you mention, other than the idea that tha class roster might change, aren't enormous, however.
I'm not advocating enormous changes. But some changes I think the game will eventually get will mean that you cannot maintain backwards compatibility.
I'm really not saying that this should come soon, and I'm definetly not saying that PF should be this game. I still think 3e isn't dead yet. But I do think that in several years, I'll be ready for a new edition of D&D, provided that this edition stays true to the game I love.
To be honest, I was excited at first when they announced 4e. But when it became clear what they did to my favourite game, that excitement turned to horror. And Paizo has shown just what they can do with 3e. So I'll gladly wait several years.
I just don't think so. Options are pretty good, I think. In the end, some can transition into core, but for me historically, whole new editions have a better than even chance of losing me as a customer.
I thought 3e was a godsent that cleared up a lot of weird stuff in 2e.
I don't count 4e, since I don't consider it the same game.
I am confident that Paizo could properly develop a new edition of MFG (my favourite game) that stays true to the game spiritually. It will be a lot like 3e I suspect, as most of the fundamentals in 3e are rock solid. The devil's in the details.
Ughhhh. Vancian is terrible. If they were to make their own system, and not a 3rd compatible, I think that'd be the the first thing to go.
Nope. Vancian magic is uniquely D&D, one of the things a lot of fans still like, and something they have repeatedly said they like about D&D.
|
|
*snip*
I think that we just mean different things by 'new edition' and 'new game'. However, although I do love 3.x, I think that it was comparably as different to 2e as 4e is to it. The fundamental difference, to me, between the transition to 3.x and the transition to 4e is probably rooted in the facts that I like 3.x, I didn't really like 2e and I don't like 4e. I don't think that 2e fans were wrong to be bitter, because their game really did die (which didn't happen so much from 1e to 2e, unless you were a monk or assassin and they did eventually come back before the end, at least in Greyhawk).
|
I do not think anything is a sacred cow in D&D.
More, I think the term has been deliberately misused in an attempt to immunize any and all changes from even the deliberate and considered or minor criticism.
People have always felt free to suggest entire systems be changed in D&D. Over time, many of those systems have been changed or augmented in one way or another. Nothing is above criticism or discussion. Even when the published rules are not altered published variants abound, and the stream of house rules continues unabated.
On the other side "sacred cow" is turned into an ad hominem or guilt by association charge. "That is just a sacred cow" does not prove a rule is flawed. "We got rid of that sacred cow" does not prove a new rule is superior.
Let us take an example from the list suggested, Vancian magic.
If Vancian magic is a sacred cow, how do sorcerers exist? And how do they persist in existing next to wizards and clerics?
By their initial presence it is proven that Vancian magic is not the sole and exclusive method available, and by their continuing presence it is proven that Vancian magic can continue to coexist with other forms.
Just because a system is not changed does not mean it cannot or has not been questioned.
A conscious decision to retain a system for flavor or compatability does mean the system is beyond questioning and analysis.
I see more evidence of sacred cows in demands for change ("No one can rationally deny this system is flawed." is an all too common refrain) and defenses of altered systems ("No one can rationally claim this is not better than the old way of doing it." is equally ubiquitous) than I do in any support of various systems.
If there are sacred cows that needs to be done away with it, they are the sacred cows of change because you can change something, and change justifying itself.
Apparently, Psionics being the redheaded stepchild is still a sacred cow :P
Yes. And it really should be. Psionics are cool in my opinion. But a lot of people don't want them. So it's best they play just a minor role you can easily leave out.
I think that we just mean different things by 'new edition' and 'new game'.
Probably true.
My fundamental difference was that while so much changed in the rules between 2e and 3e, the story elements remained mostly the same. The background remained the same. They didn't have to tear their settings apart to make them fit.
|
|
What things are off-limits for being changed? For instance...
Rather than making a laundry list of particular items, I think it's best to remember that PRPG's primary goal is for 3.5 rules to remain in print.
This implies that core classes are indeed more or less set in stone, as are the Prestige Classes, though additions to the basic components of the game are always possible.
So long as you can grab an OGL book and basically can use it with PRPG with minimal efforts on your part, I think PRPG reaches its primary design intent.
This leaves a lot of room to improve the game "under the hood", basically, like CBM rolls do. They are there, but I can still use a 3.5 character with a Sunder special ability with them. The particular rule just shifts instead of being out of existence.
Now, the sacred cows that I would like to change are three things related to negative energy:
1 - Negative energy shouldn't be evil. Fire is not. It may be inimical to life, but is not. Water is not. Damn, positive energy isn't even good by definition.
2 - ...so mindless undead shouldn't be evil. If you don't command them they stand there, motionless, until someone attacks them, AND they are evil. Or they attack anything in sight because they are evil, or they are not, because negative energy is just an energy, not a force...
3 - Healing spells should be in the same school as inflicting spells. The two are basically the same, channel energy, and why the hell one is conjuration and the other necromancy always puzzled me. No other reason than to make necromancy evil...
Now, the sacred cows that I would like to change are three things related to negative energy:
1 - Negative energy shouldn't be evil. Fire is not. It may be inimical to life, but is not. Water is not. Damn, positive energy isn't even good by definition.
2 - ...so mindless undead shouldn't be evil. If you don't command them they stand there, motionless, until someone attacks them, AND they are evil. Or they attack anything in sight because they are evil, or they are not, because negative energy is just an energy, not a force...
3 - Healing spells should be in the same school as inflicting spells. The two are basically the same, channel energy, and why the hell one is conjuration and the other necromancy always puzzled me. No other reason than to make necromancy evil...
I think mindless undead should be evil, because the idea of a holy sword not blowing them up or them not showing up under Detect Evil is silly. However, I agree with 1 & 3.
if the mindless undead are not evil, then in my opinion they should rampage around when not controlled. You HAVE to command them NOT to attack. They don't stand motionless if they are evil.
For me it's like this:
Neutral and don't attack unless ordered or to defend.
or
Evil, and they attack simply to attack. You have to control them NOT to attack, what is not hard, but has deep consequences on the world.
Any of the option is alright for me. really. Only the "is evil but does nothing wrong if left without any command" hurts me.
|
I would also suggest that Alignment is another of the sacred cows.
Of all the changes from 3.x to 4e, this one left the worst taste in my mouth. D&D is a game of fantasy heroics, and nowhere else is that as clear than in the alignment rules. Goodness is a THING in D&D, and evil is a stain on the world.
Anything without the nine cardinal alignments is not D&D, and therefor they may be the one true sacred cow to the game.
Ryn, who has always been a fan of shining paladins and depraved demons
1 - Negative energy shouldn't be evil. Fire is not. It may be inimical to life, but is not. Water is not. Damn, positive energy isn't even good by definition.
I don't believe it is. Negative energy's just negative energy.
2 - ...so mindless undead shouldn't be evil.
Oh yes, they should. It's not because they're powered by negative energy. Negative energy isn't inherently evil. It's the use it's put to - in this case making a mockery of life itself.
3 - Healing spells should be in the same school as inflicting spells. The two are basically the same, channel energy, and why the hell one is conjuration and the other necromancy always puzzled me. No other reason than to make necromancy evil...
I could see that one. Make both necromancy, and let necromancy deal with life energies in general.
Now, the sacred cows that I would like to change are three things related to negative energy:
1 - Negative energy shouldn't be evil. Fire is not. It may be inimical to life, but is not. Water is not. Damn, positive energy isn't even good by definition.
2 - ...so mindless undead shouldn't be evil. If you don't command them they stand there, motionless, until someone attacks them, AND they are evil. Or they attack anything in sight because they are evil, or they are not, because negative energy is just an energy, not a force...
3 - Healing spells should be in the same school as inflicting spells. The two are basically the same, channel energy, and why the hell one is conjuration and the other necromancy always puzzled me. No other reason than to make necromancy evil...
I disagree. If you want call it "evil death energy"
IMO positive energy is life energy, the energy of life. It is good or neutral as it is lifes foundation. Negative energy is like antimatter to it. It is death energy the energy of death. It is evil; comic book evil but evil.
Mindless undead are animated by a tiny amount of this energy but vampires are infused with the stuff. It is what makes them evil. Wraiths hate life because they are negative energy creatures.
If you want to have animated creatures that are not inherently evil how about golems. No problem.
Evil death energy is jsut not enough for me. For me sentient undead are really a mockery to life, and they are evil. Alright. But then, the mindless ones are like robots, not worse than golems (see, you capture an elemental to power a golem, and a mindless undead does not even have any kind of soul) and such things. If fire, that is inimical do life, is not evil, then I think it's plain stupid to negative energy be. And if negative energy is evil, than inflic spells should be evil, and cure spells should be good. And that is b#@+$%@*, because a cure spell can't be Good descriptor. Good descriptor means bringing more good to the world. And it's always a good act to cast a good spells. I think that BoED says this, but cure spells are not because any evil person can cast it to heal it's own wounds and bring evil to the world.
But then, I can understand that this is my opinion. But if negative energy is evil for you guys, then positive should be good, and the spells should be changed too. My problem is with the inconsistency of this system, not with the energy per-se. In my games it's an ENERGY, plainly simple, without aligment. If negative is evil, then negative spells are evil too, if positive is good, positive spells are good too. That's how I think.
Or mindless undead are EVIL and ATTACK if left alone, or they are NEUTRAL and act as robots. No EVIL ROBOTS! (Edit: of d00m!)
|
|
I think mindless undead should be evil, because the idea of a holy sword not blowing them up or them not showing up under Detect Evil is silly. However, I agree with 1 & 3.
I don't agree, just because I don't think that 'evil' means a great deal if it completely lacks not just intent but the capability to form intent. 'Evil' spells shouldn't be considered 'evil' themselves, either (but you'd have to be evil to use them...).
Positive energy, while the very power of life, isn't inherently good, just as negative energy isn't inherently evil. It's what you do with it that determines whether you're doing Good or Evil here.
A cleric using inflict light wounds in battle against a criminal isn't any worse (or better) than a fireball using magic missile. They both seek to hurt or kill someone. If that someone is a massmurdering rapist who is running screaming towards an orphan, it's probably good. If it is the orphan, it's probably evil.
Same for healing: It's good if you heal innocents, or worthy champions of goodness, and so on, but healing the Incarnation of Murder is evil.
Creating undead isn't evil because you use negative energy to create them, but because you desecrate corpses and violate life and the natural circle. Even if that zombie you create will then be ordered to dig out an avalance victim, it was still an evil act to begin with. Maybe a necessary evil (no one else at hand, couldn't properly dig yourself, whatever, so not animating that corpse would have been worse), it was still evil to begin with, and ends don't automatically justify the means.
What's the difference between animating anything in the manner of a construct and animating undead? If we're talking about violating the natural order and desecrating corpses, well, why don't we talk about the violation of the natural order that exists with a golem (stones don't walk around like that, iron can't move by itself, flesh doesn't just sew itself back together like that, etc.)? I'm sure druids would have plenty to say about what you did to that natural rock formation when you siphoned off the top edge for your stone golem.
Tectorman, a lump of iron doesn't have a soul. Animating it is not any more wrong than making a sword of it. (A druid might still get all uppity, but it's not Evil with a capital 'E'.)
A corpse had a soul, and animating it as undead makes use of that property. Undead offend the natural order of life, and (based on the interaction with Raise Dead and Ressurection) muck with the person's afterlife. Note that a Flesh Golem is Neutral - For it the bodies are just meat, not meat that used have a soul. Also note that I can't cast Animate Dead on a rock, because a rock was not previously alive. (Also I'm not a high level cleric or necromancer, but for the sake of argument assume I could, in general, make zombies.)
Further, casting Animate Objects on a pile of corpses produces things a lot like zombies, only not zombies. This is rude, and in bad taste, but doesn't prevent the bodies from decaying or anybody from reaching their proper rest.
I do not think anything is a sacred cow in D&D.
More, I think the term has been deliberately misused in an attempt to immunize any and all changes from even the deliberate and considered or minor criticism.
A Sacred Cow is any change to an AD&D or OD&D mechanic that survived the change from 2e to 3e that creates excessive backlash from the grognards in its fanbase.
To really understand the "sacred cows" of Pathfinder you have to understand its target audience: people who are disaffected by 4e enough to not want to play that game, and continue playing d20 games instead.
To that effect, to answer the OP, Pathfinder's sacred cows would be everything that 4e removed from D&D that produced strong negative backlash: the 9 alignments, multiclassing (although it needs reworking - perhaps fractional BAB and making several class level-dependent abilities character level-dependent instead?), bonus combos, weird races, non-combat spells, craft and profession skills, etc..
Basically Pathfinder needs to find a niche alongside 4e. Where 4e is a "heroic fantasy small-group-tactics miniatures skirmish game", Pathfinder needs to be a "statistics-based interactive fantasy world simulation engine" which is essentially what 3e attempted to be.
Tectorman, a lump of iron doesn't have a soul. Animating it is not any more wrong than making a sword of it. (A druid might still get all uppity, but it's not Evil with a capital 'E'.)
A corpse had a soul, and animating it as undead makes use of that property. Undead offend the natural order of life, and (based on the interaction with Raise Dead and Ressurection) muck with the person's afterlife. Note that a Flesh Golem is Neutral - For it the bodies are just meat, not meat that used have a soul. Also note that I can't cast Animate Dead on a rock, because a rock was not previously alive. (Also I'm not a high level cleric or necromancer, but for the sake of argument assume I could, in general, make zombies.)
Further, casting Animate Objects on a pile of corpses produces things a lot like zombies, only not zombies. This is rude, and in bad taste, but doesn't prevent the bodies from decaying or anybody from reaching their proper rest.
Why's the flesh golem neutral? Why is its body just meat?
How does animating a corpse as undead make use of any sort of property other than that it's raw material in the form of what used to be a body?
Also, in the back of Complete Warrior it has some guidelines for improvised weapons. Furthermore, in Frostburn, there's a weapon where the business end is a skull. So let's say I use a thigh bone as a club. Not talking about souls or whether or not they're being used for a moment, wouldn't this also be desecrating a body?
I am a huge fan of Vancian magic and the D&D flavor and am very happy that this won't change in the Pathfinder RPG (after all, if it were changing, I would be staying with 3.5E...).
Animating undead prevents resurrection. You're right, using Soul Bind or even soul-destroying magic won't prevent animation of undead. I'm not sure, but you might even be able to animate a Cloned body.
But the fact that you prevent resurrection (even True Resurrection won't work until the undead is destroyed) means that animating an undead is at least on par with with Trap the Soul and the like in terms of preventing a creature from reaching its afterlife.
Re: Golems - A Flesh Golem is animated by an elemental spirit, not negative energy. While it acts a lot like a big, magic immune zombie, I'm personally of the opinion that zombies are innately inimical to life, even if they lack the initiative to do so without orders, while Golems are just robots. (Creating a Flesh Golem is evil according to the rules. It requires casting Animate Dead and this is specifically called out in the creation rules. The golem itself, however, is not evil.)
Re: Tools made of bodies - If this is desecrating a body or not is up to the family. Either way, it's not Evil with a capital E. Whoever's body it was isn't home any more. Creating undead is different.
Obviously, this is all just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
(I'm also of the opinion that the reason zombies don't rot (much) is because the negative energy they're full of kills all the bacteria and bugs that cause decomposition.)
|
|
A Sacred Cow is any change to an AD&D or OD&D mechanic that survived the change from 2e to 3e that creates excessive backlash from the grognards in its fanbase.
Right, as I said, the term has been deliberately misused.
What you defined is an edition war. It has only an incidental relationship to whether or not people question various elements of the D&D game system, and whether or not any proposed or proprietary changes are of any worth within the game.To that effect, to answer the OP, Pathfinder's sacred cows would be everything that 4e removed from D&D that produced strong negative backlash: the 9 alignments, multiclassing (although it needs reworking - perhaps fractional BAB and making several class level-dependent abilities character level-dependent instead?), bonus combos, weird races, non-combat spells, craft and profession skills, etc..
The problem is that approach obfuscates whether the backlash is because of edition bigotry or because the changes simply suck.
If there is to be a discussion of what to change in the future, it is essential to understand that distinction.As perhaps the simplest example:
The traditional 9 alignment system sucks. It does not fully account for the range of attitudes and expressions within each alignment, and it routinely fails to really define one axis.
The 4E system sucks completely. It attempts to address the failures of the traditional system by a wimpy abdication that neither resolves the existing issues nor provides a suitable replacement for them within the essential D&D paradigm of heroic fantasy.
And so it is not that alignment is above being questioned or changed, it is that the new system sucks as bad or worse than the old one.
I see no support for the view that animating a body as undead keeps a soul from reaching its afterlife only that it keeps a soul from being brought back to life.Another thing to consider is that dying of old age also blocks resurrection magic. As such if any condition that blocks resurrection magic keeps the soul from reaching its afterlife, then dying of old age keeps the soul from reaching its afterlife.
Old age doesn't block resurrection. It just means it doesn't work. The age rules for D&D strongly suggest that each creature has a certain maximum length of life. If you try to raise someone who died of old age, one of two things is happening: 1) Raise dead doesn't make you younger, so they are raised and instantly die again, of old age. 2) Something about the nature of a natural death means the soul doesn't want to come back.
However since I like to make sure that I fully understand the views of the other parties in a discussion would you mind giving me any reasons you might have for believing that animating a body as undead keeps a soul from reaching its afterlife, beyond the fact that resurrection magic is blocked? Also would you answer the question of what happens to a soul in the following scenario, kill something, cast soul bind, animate body as a skeleton, break the gem freeing the soul?
The interaction between Resurrection effects and zombification is the only support I have within the rules, other than to say if the soul was not somehow involved there would be no difference between undead and casting Animate Objects on a corpse.
As far as the interaction between Soul Bind/Trap the Soul/Magic Jar and making undead, I don't think it was a situation the rules were meant to cover, but I think the individual in question would not be able to be Raised until both the gem and the undead were destroyed. I'm not sure exactly where a soul goes while its body is undead, but I'm not sure mortals are meant to know things like that.
I'm just trying to fit flavor to mechanics. Though I do think Zombies should be Evil.
The easiest way to figure it would be that free-willed undead are Evil because they are evil. Mindless undead are Evil the same way Lemures and Hellwasps are. Creating Undead is Evil because it brings an Evil being into the world. (Precedent is that Summoning and Calling spells take alignment from the creature you bring into the material world.)