Situation:
Good cleric in a part of "mostly" good characters. The mostly-neutral Wizard wants to create a few undead as personal servants and cannon-fodder. If the cleric’s deity doesn't mention undead in its portfolio could that cleric tolerate these little batches of negative energy from a role-playing standpoint?
Does anyone have experience playing in this kind of situation?
*Le shrug.*
Making a zombie is little more than putting an engine on an abandoned chassis. Granted, it's an engine fueled by pure evilmancy, but it's not like there's any tormenting of souls going on. There's no reason why, say, priest of the god of dance would particularly care, much less be compelled by her deity to destroy the zombies. She may not like it, but no big deal. Particularly if the team's quest is a Big Deal.
Now, if this were a mummy or something intelligent? Then it would be a big deal.
You might run into a lot of "accidental" channel positive energies before the undead have had a chance to wander away.
|
IMHO it depends on how you play it in your world - my friend plays it that any undead are evil & should be destroyed where I believe it is how they are used if they are evil or good
I would love to play a necromancer in one of her games but I know that since she considers them evil she will roleplay it that her character will try to destroy them
I see undead (skeletons & zombies basically) that they are animated like puppets & the souls of the original "owners" have left leaving just a shell - I know others see differently
remember this is a fantasy world where druids walk around with animals including dinosaurs so what is different about walking around with a skeleton ? in the online game EQ people walked around with skeletons & noone blinked an eye cause it was normal but this all depends on your world
Honestly, I don't think mindless undead should be considered evil. They should be neutral, if they have any alignment at all. A creature that has no mind can't have any kind of morality. Even if you assume that skeletons and zombies have agressive base instincts, so do most animals. A Druid's animal companion can be every bit as violent and savage as a zombie but it isn't considered evil because of it.
Now, creating things like wraiths and vampires is a different story. A good character would rightly be offended by such an act. But mindless skeletons? Most people would find that kinda creepy, but it's not cause to call the pitchfork-wielding mob IMO.
|
Honestly, I don't think mindless undead should be considered evil. They should be neutral, if they have any alignment at all. A creature that has no mind can't have any kind of morality. Even if you assume that skeletons and zombies have agressive base instincts, so do most animals. A Druid's animal companion can be every bit as violent and savage as a zombie but it isn't considered evil because of it.
Now, creating things like wraiths and vampires is a different story. A good character would rightly be offended by such an act. But mindless skeletons? Most people would find that kinda creepy, but it's not cause to call the pitchfork-wielding mob IMO.
I'd be a bit leery of some one going about and raising the dead as servants. Even if they some how got permission to do so...
I'd be a bit leery of some one going about and raising the dead as servants. Even if they some how got permission to do so...
Really, it's no different from making a golem, save that 'enslave a sentient being' is not a requisite step in making a zombie. All you're doing is animating an inert vessel. It's just a vessel made of meat and bone rather than dirt and rock. They're ultimately just two different inanimate objects.
I take it, then, that if your parent, child, or spouse died, you'd be fine with someone else cutting the head off their corpse and using it as a football?
The football analogy is a horrible analogy because it's silly and trivial. A better analogy would be taking my deceased child's liver, or having a medical student use my brother's body for study. I can easily see having your body brought back as a zombie to take up the sword and defend the homefront being acknowledged by some as an equally noble fate. Some and even most may be uncomfortable with it, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
I take it, then, that if your parent, child, or spouse died, you'd be fine with someone else cutting the head off their corpse and using it as a football?
You basically just got to the core issue here, people are squeamish about death. A dead body is going to rot away. It's worm food. It's not pretty and we don't like to think of the vessels that once carried our loved ones' souls that way, but that's the plain truth of it. Animating skeletons and zombies is creepy, but it's not evil. There's no enslavement of souls or anything like that going on. The body's previous owner has departed and will not be coming back.
And even this issue can be avoided if a Necromancer uses the corpses of beings that nobody cares about. Rather than plundering the graveyard to raise someone's grandma, raise the corpses of the invading army or of orcs, trolls and other hated beings instead. Most people won't care that you "violated" the corpses of those beings.
Animate dead is an evil spell, in the D&D system it is thus considered an evil act about equal to summoning devils to do your bidding.
The deities being the standard on which morality is build, it is fair to assume a cleric of a good aligned deity will not stand by and nod agreeably.
At best one can argue it can at times be a 'neutral' act, however the spell by it's very nature being evil by itself restricts regular use.
A single evil act won't shift your alignment usually (depending on severity) but repeated use will invariably make you evil.
Mind that golems while unintelligent are also 'powered' by an elemental spirit, while not something good deities are usually concerned with a character might have moral issues with this, Mindless does not equal soulless.
Animate dead is an evil spell, in the D&D system it is thus considered an evil act about equal to summoning devils to do your bidding.
Evil is as much 'what' as 'who.' Yes, zombies are animated by dark magic that will detect as 'evil.' They are effectively made out of evil. However, from an ethical standpoint, it's still little different than creating a golem, except this time you're not enslaving a sentient being to do it. The only reason it's 'evil' is because the it's been slapped with the Saturday morning cartoon necromancer stamp of 'ebul.'
The deities being the standard on which morality is build, it is fair to assume a cleric of a good aligned deity will not stand by and nod agreeably.
And why not? Why should a god of dance care about zombies, evil or no? If you're going to make good and evil so black and white, you're only serving to make morality boring and shallow. Just because a person or deity is 'good' does not mean that they can react to things in one And Only One way. Quite the contrary, in fact!
Take Sune, FR's goddess of love. There is a young couple, engaged, but the man is a soldier who has to go off to war. He dedicates himself to the defense of his homeland and his beloved, but falls in battle. With his last breath, he asks the troupe mage to bring his body back as a zombie so that he can continue to fight for his beloved.
How does Sune react to this? I should think that she would smile on this great act of love, raise the soldier's soul to join the stars in heaven, and instruct her disciples to recount this tale of love eternal throughout the ages rather than get all caught up over, "Ew, zombie, groty."
At best one can argue it can at times be a 'neutral' act, however the spell by it's very nature being evil by itself restricts regular use.
A single evil act won't shift your alignment usually (depending on severity) but repeated use will invariably make you evil.
That is perhaps the single most vapid ethical analysis I have ever seen in my entire life.
In the D&D system casting an evil spell is an evil act, animate dead is an evil spell for the reasons that good characters are not supposed to use these on a regular basis, if you do you will experience an alignment change before long.
Sune example, it's a silly example for several reasons, you assume the deceased gives express permission of it's own free will, Sune will not smile upon the animation of a corpse, while she might actually grant a spell that allows the fallen to rise up and fight one last battle this will not be in the shape of an undead abomination.
I am not saying you should play it this way, I am not even making an ethical analysis, I am making an analysis of the game's mechanic.
Evil acts will make a character evil, by the book animate undead is an evil spell, so unless you want to deviate from the corebook a good cleric of a good aligned deity should not allow it's use in his presence.
I find this thread very amusing because right now, as it happens, I'm playing a neutral good necromancer in the Scarred Lands setting. Necromantic cleric, I might add, with undead minions and all.
Our group doesn't see necromancy as evil, since a mindless undead is merely animated with negative energy (like animate object). Now, at its core, negative energy isn't evil. Positive energy isn't good, either- it's just the assumption that most people make. Positive energy is the magical interpretation of life force; things that are alive are healed and affected positively by positive energy. There's no alignment component here. Now, negative energy is simply "anti-positive energy." It's what you use to uncreate positive energy, and thus does damage to anything that is alive (or infused with positive energy). Again, negative energy is just "unlife," not evil. Most evil things are, in fact, alive, so the idea that anything with life is good is downright dumb.
So, after shoo'ing away the idea of positive=good & negative=bad, you're left with the question of why necromancy, or more specifically, animating the dead is evil. Simply: It's not. In most cultures it's a taboo, since the living find that doing these things to the dead to be disrespectful. So, at its very core, animating the dead is simply CHAOTIC, not evil. So mindless undead are just like animated objects- creepy, but not evil. Undead with *souls* are a different story. We theorize that since a soul is created to exist with what would essentially be positive energy (life) that once it begins to exist within a creature/object powered entirely by the antithesis of its being it would slowly be tortured into an evil/f'ing crazy alignment. We theorize that while most undead would initially retain their alignment, after years of existence as a natural abomination they would eventually deteriorate into an evil persuasion.
So, in conclusion, I feel that a cleric of a good deity that didn't say anything specific about undead might fall into a few categories: Lawful deities would abhor them on the principle that they disrupted societal standards. Deities with the community domain would likely use this, too. Chaotic deities are likely to see the *mindless* undead as a unique approach to problem solving, stepping outside of tradition and expectation; they might range from mild interest to strong approval. Neutral Good deities could go either way, depending on the cleric.
Fun Fact: The Scarred Lands has an entire city, Hallowfaust, that is run by necromancers. The city is inherently neutral at its core, and the necromancers use the legions of undead at their disposal to fight off the hordes of desert enemies that threaten the city at all times. Interestingly enough, once a person dies within Hallowfaust they are tended to by the clerics with proper funeral services & spirit sendings, and then their body is given to the animators who clean & preserve the corpse in a corpse bank for use in the armies. Death and corpses are not taboo in any way, and the city celebrates a unique form of ancestor worship since the dead are, quite literally, still among them.
Situation:Good cleric in a part of "mostly" good characters. The mostly-neutral Wizard wants to create a few undead as personal servants and cannon-fodder. If the cleric’s deity doesn't mention undead in its portfolio could that cleric tolerate these little batches of negative energy from a role-playing standpoint?
Does anyone have experience playing in this kind of situation?
Given that the wizard wants "personal servants and cannon-fodder" I can see most people in the world having trouble with it. In a pinch, the great unwashed might see the benefit of raising an army of the worm-eaten to defend their homes. But as a matter of course, having the thing that used to be granny stumbling around and falling into hidden pit traps for the benefit of some wizard is not acceptable.
If your players want to do this, they can decide how their characters react. But necromancy doesn't exactly have a stellar history associated with it. It's not like the wizard is animating the dead for some heroic undertaking. He's animating them to be his toys.
I won't say the act is "evil." But selfish and disrespectful? Oh yeah.
Plus, what sort of hero want's to be associated with the guy who digs up Aunt Hilda so that the party can have a bipedal pack mule? I would say the stench of death would follow them and their reputations. Would a noble hire the PCs to rescue his kidnapped daughter? Would the poor, who are likely to be buried in (shallow) paupers' graves really want to try to get a job as a torchbearer with these guys?
Let the players make their own judgements, including the cleric's player. But make sure that the society the PCs interact with responds appropriately. Especially if the wizard animates a body that used to be the high-bishop of the cleric's god. Parishoners are likely to be a bit upset that the guy who married them is now following a wizard around and attracting flies.
Take Sune, FR's goddess of love. There is a young couple, engaged, but the man is a soldier who has to go off to war. He dedicates himself to the defense of his homeland and his beloved, but falls in battle. With his last breath, he asks the troupe mage to bring his body back as a zombie so that he can continue to fight for his beloved.How does Sune react to this? I should think that she would smile on this great act of love, raise the soldier's soul to join the stars in heaven, and instruct her disciples to recount this tale of love eternal throughout the ages rather than get all caught up over, "Ew, zombie, groty."
Sounds a lot more like an idea devoid of the realities of human psychology and emotion. Now, how would that poor woman react to seeing her dead lover again, walking about all hacked up and rotting? I doubt it would be a happy accidental reunion.
People want a focal point for their grief, a body to grieve over, and the peace of mind that the earthly vessel of their loved one's soul is as put to rest as the soul itself. That's why necromancy is evil - it's devoid of all that normal human empathy. And that's why no goddess of love would have anything to do with it.
Good and evil are rather generic terms that change from society to society. Pathfinder defines the create undead spells as Evil but I do not agree with that assessment. A society can claim something is evil or good but it is not necessarily so. Think about this, lets say we have two seperate religious societies one is Saranae, everyone can get their head wrapped around her clergy. The other is a pacifist society that believes undead are the next step in the evolution of life, or even a step toward godhood in the case of intelligent undead (and who could argue that given you sacrifice the body so the mind and soul can live on for eternity and gain a great deal of power?). It becomes two very different societies which are anathema to one another but neither is inherantly evil just because of their beliefs and actions.
Now lets complicate things. What happens when Saranae's followers make war against the other society in an attempt to destroy their "evil"? Who's the real villain then?
Now here's the chief argument for undead as wholly evil or at least the one I hear most often. "but they're powered by the negative energy plane!". Sorry but no, Im not buying that. Negative energy is no more evil then Positive energy is good. Evil things can be accomplished with Negative energy but its the use, not the energy, that determines what is good or not. To further explain, the Material plane is formed of matter, the outer planes are formed of belief, the inner planes...are. Thus your evil planes are the lower ones filled with malicious arisocratic devils, mercenary daemons, and demon hordes and any of the inner planes can not be evil just by nature. What the negative energy plane is is the plane of entropy and decay which are natural phenomena in the world. It is no more evil (or good) for stone to erode then it is for life to die, its just a natural part of the world.
All that said, I don't believe and can probably never be convinced that the creation of undead is evil. Its the intent and how its used that counts.
Now, getting back to what the conversation is really about. I think it comes down to the clerics beliefs. If they or the clergy isnt specifically against the creation of undead then I dont think the cleric should care
Question... if a Paladin uses his Detect Evil ability on a mindless zombie, does it register as evil? If yes, I'd say the magic itself and thus negative energy -is- inherently evil. If no, I could be swayed to believing that negative energy is not inherently evil. Detect Evil is pretty much the surest way to resolve this debate in terms of pure mechanics.
Question... if a Paladin uses his Detect Evil ability on a mindless zombie, does it register as evil? If yes, I'd say the magic itself and thus negative energy -is- inherently evil. If no, I could be swayed to believing that negative energy is not inherently evil. Detect Evil is pretty much the surest way to resolve this debate in terms of pure mechanics.
well it would, they are given a neutral evil alignment, also the casting of the spell in itself is evil.
That is just core though, anyone can feel free to houserule it or make exceptions, the way necromancy is commonly and casualy used by a typical necromancer reeks as evil to me though.
Near anything alignment wise is debatable, any kind of evil could be explained as a neutral act, in a campaign where spells such as detect evil are a part of the setting it helps to have some black and white boundaries, and truthfully in most cases it is just plain evil, aside from the fact that players often have the tendency to explain away their use of the spell as an excusable act (most evil creatures would).
Most evil creatures will not view themselves as evil, animating the undead will not make you a murderous psychopath overnight, but it should taint you.
In the RAW Skeletons and Zombies are aligned undead and thus show up as at least faint evil on Detect Evil scans. As such a good aligned cleric would be opposed to using them even if they didn't have to automatically go "Smash Evil!".
Respect for the dead is a near universal trait among human beings. While one culture might bury their dead and another might burn the dead it's generally assumed that the dead are treated with reverence.
Even if there is an assumption that the spirit has left the mortal shell, desecrating the body is definitely an morally proscribed act. Animating the body through the use of evil magic is definitely in the evil range.
Further most campaign settings are built with the assumption that undeath is an abomination against the natural order, while unintelligent undead would be pitied more than hated most Good institutions would try to ban the practice. Druids as protectors of nature would actively seek to destroy such abominations as well.
Evil societies such as Cheliax and Nidal would probably be perfectly fine with using undead labor, in fact as slave-holding societies there could be an understanding that ownership of a slave continued past death and that you could continue to abuse your property as you wish. This could include animation as a zombie or skeleton. Priests of Asmodeus would almost certainly approve of such arrangements.
Now you can certainly generate a campaign setting where unintelligent undead were neutral in alignment and use of undead creates was not seen as an evil act but for the most part the established settings don't support that interpretation in canon.
People want a focal point for their grief, a body to grieve over, and the peace of mind that the earthly vessel of their loved one's soul is as put to rest as the soul itself. That's why necromancy is evil - it's devoid of all that normal human empathy. And that's why no goddess of love would have anything to do with it.
You could make the same argument about animals. For some, animals are beloved pets and they would never want to see poor scruffy's corpse treated disrespectfully. And yet people, good people, also kill animals on a regular basis, take their flesh and consume it for food, use their bones for tools, their hide for clothing, or even their pelt to decorate their homes. This doesn't mean that those people are incapable of empathy for animals. Far from it. It's all about perspective.
You said people need a focul point for their love. Well surely when you love someone you don't love their body, you love their soul. The body is just a vessel, an object, a temporary thing that will die eventually as part of the natural order of things and eventually decompose and be recycled so that its elements can be reused in the service of future life. The carrion birds, worms, and other life forms that devour that corpse for sustenance are not evil. They're even doing us all a great service by acting as nature's cleanup crew.
If someone loves the body, their love is misplaced. The body, like all physical things, is just a tool. It was once the tool for a living person that allowed them to act in the world. Once they die, they no longer need it and like it or not, it will go on to serve another purpose. All things must end, no matter how much we might cling to them. Are you going to tell me that people who use the dead for organ donations or scientific research are evil? Some cultures would find those things to be an abhorrant act, and the burial practices of some cultures would horrify us. And that's what it comes down to, culture.
A necromancer that makes use of corpses is no more evil than someone who uses animal parts or any other subtsance that was once living. Yes, I know that the game rules say that making mindless zombies is evil, but that rule is stupid. It also maintains that creating a golem, which involves the enslavement of an innocent elemental being, is not an evil act, even though by any reasonable moral standard, that is not only evil, but evil of the most heinous sort. Clearly, D&D's moral compass is quite off.
Question... if a Paladin uses his Detect Evil ability on a mindless zombie, does it register as evil? If yes, I'd say the magic itself and thus negative energy -is- inherently evil. If no, I could be swayed to believing that negative energy is not inherently evil. Detect Evil is pretty much the surest way to resolve this debate in terms of pure mechanics.
Since the monster manual lists them as having a neutral evil alignment, they would register as evil to detect evil spells. However, the problem is that its unreasonable to give a mindless being an alignment to begin with. You could try to say the magic itself is evil, but what makes it evil? Because it's negative energy? But that's another thing. Negative energy isn't inherently evil (even though D&D often makes the mistake of labeling it as such). Why? Because it harms things? Well so do fire spells. And yet fireball isn't evil. That's becaause power, in and of itself, is neutral when it comes to morality. Even harmful and destructive things can be used to good ends. Negative energy is no exception. Whether or not something is good or evil should be based on the intent and action of the spellcaster, not the spell itself.
You could make the "it goes against the natural order" argument, but the key word in that is "order." That's a lawful argument, not a good argument. Lawful is not necessarily good. After all, the natural order also dictates that we all grow old and die, suffer from disease, or get eaten by predators. It's not fair and it's certainly not good. So acting against the natural order (i.e., this is the way things should be just because some god said so) would be a chaotic act, not an evil act. It would only be evil if it were used to harm innocents.
Undead aren't evil? Oh, right, I forgot all about them being a perversion of the natural order, the right of the dead to rest in peace, and basic human decency. In that case I guess there's nothing wrong with disgusting rotting corpses helping me out around the house, preparing dinner, keeping watch (although their reports are usually pretty nondescript), and even performing menial labor. I mean aside from the massive amounts of risks from such an operation, the diseases, and the enslavement of these creature's bodies, I see nothing at all wrong with it.
What's the matter Father? Why are you foaming at the mouth? Did you get rabies from that zombie? It's OK, I'm sure some more magic from that necromancer will solve all our problems.
Now Father, put down that mace...
Positive Energy isnt technically 'Good' but it does represent life, nourishment, etc. Sunlight for example is the anathema of many undead creatures and the vast majority of them while not weakened by daylight dont prefer to venture out in it, even the mindless ones...
But on another note, try going to the 'Positive Energy Plane' without adequate protection and you'll blow up eventually...its a form of energy, but it doesnt innately possess 'moral' qualities.
Negative Energy isnt technically 'Evil' though it IS harmful to living creatures. Its simply a product created in the absence of life given power through dark arts such as Necromancy which is used to infuse undead creatures - and while ALL Undead are possessed of this form of energy the act of 'creating' undead is considered to be inherently immoral because it involves desecrating some poor creatures remains to create the zombie/skeleton in question...as long as its mindless the act is immoral but not really evil. 'Intelligent' Undead on the other hand ARE Evil, and creating them can only be really for sinister purposes. (And yes, going to the Negative Energy Plane isnt going to do you any favors either if your living...lol)
So the innate 'Negative/Positive' theory isnt really in question I know, but its down to HOW its really used.
As for a Cleric in a party with mindless Undead, well, depending what God they worship they may have direct objections but definately they will have moral objections...they may just 'accidentally' use their Channel Energy near them or vent their frustrations in other ways. But then again, its down to the player themselves if their God doesnt have strong feelings VS Undead really...
But definately, there are powerful moral and ethical implications to creating and using Undead that cant be overlooked that can be looked at on a case by case basis...its down to Players and GM's really.
I am with Storm King on this one,because it makes sense.
Where do the people that think animating the dead is not evil draw the line between good and evil, between neutral and good, neutral and evil ?
Decency, respect, kindness, caring and selfsacrifice are things that climb high on the good ladder I'd think, what about evil ?
I am with Storm King on this one,because it makes sense.
Where do the people that think animating the dead is not evil draw the line between good and evil, between neutral and good, neutral and evil ?
Decency, respect, kindness, caring and selfsacrifice are things that climb high on the good ladder I'd think, what about evil ?
Being evil would be being indecent, disrespectful, cruel, careless and selfish. Oh, and cackling madly and thinking up machinations to rule the world. That always makes even a good guy detect as slightly evil.
|
|
Sean - since you yourself dont believe that casting animate dead as an evil act how does your group deal with the spell since it is given the school listing as necromancy (evil) ? just ignore it ?
maybe it should be corrected to be just necromancy ?
I must say I agree that the spell should not be considered evil only how you use it the undead
Sean - since you yourself dont believe that casting animate dead as an evil act how does your group deal with the spell since it is given the school listing as necromancy (evil) ? just ignore it ?
maybe it should be corrected to be just necromancy ?I must say I agree that the spell should not be considered evil only how you use it the undead
seems obvious, houserule it, though you might have to consider what it means to be evil in your campaign.
I am with Storm King on this one,because it makes sense.
Where do the people that think animating the dead is not evil draw the line between good and evil, between neutral and good, neutral and evil ?
Decency, respect, kindness, caring and selfsacrifice are things that climb high on the good ladder I'd think, what about evil ?
The way I see it, evil people do whatever they wish without regard for the wellbeing of others. They will harm or even kill anyone that gets in their way, innocent or not. A Neutral person won't kill innocents but he won't go out of his way to help people either. A good person goes out of his way to help others, even at personal cost.
Being evil would be being indecent, disrespectful, cruel, careless and selfish. Oh, and cackling madly and thinking up machinations to rule the world. That always makes even a good guy detect as slightly evil.
"Indecency" and "direspect" are chaotic traits, not evil traits. Offending another person's sensibilities does not cause them any actual harm. What one person or culture considers decent and respectful another person will disagree. Those are cultural (i.e. lawful) concepts. Culture is, in essence, law (as far as alignment is concerned), it is about conforming to tradition and the sensibilities of the majority. In some places it is considered very rude to eat in public, while in most other countries it is not. If I went to such a country and ate in public, that would certainly not be an evil act (I didn't harm anyone by doing so).
As far as selfishness is concerned, everyone does things that further their own desires and interests. Doing so isn't evil unless you're willing to harm others for your own gain. A neutral or good person will further their own desires so long as they don't harm others. The act of animating a zombie or skeleton harms nobody, thus it should not be considered an evil act, though, depending on the culture, it could be considered a chaotic one.
Different cultures have very different attitudes about the dead. To an ancient Egyptian, the idea of putting a corpse in a box and leaving it underground to rot would have been considered an abhorrant practice. In Tibet, the corpses of the dead are left on hills for vultures to eat. The way they see it, at least the body of the dead is going to some good use by providing nurishment to other beings. What one society considers the appropriate way to treat the dead may horrify another. None of them are wrong. None of them are evil. Necromancers are reviled because they dare to challenge these taboos.
Back in the day Dragon Mag did an article on good necromancers and I'm pretty sure the way they worked it was that you made a deal with the dead. A good necromancer would converse with the dead and make an agreement before raising them. The deal would involve some sort of exchange of a task done by the Necromancer in exchange for the dead being raised to serve him for a set period. The period of service depended on what they wanted in exchange for being undead.
Raising undead is definitely an evil act if:
* without the consent of the dead or done against their will
* disrespectful and mistreatment of the dead's body
* done with no intention of returning the dead to rest with proper burial
* intention to use the dead for acts of evil
* if you make an agreement with them and have no intention on fulfilling your side of it
* tricking/forcing/blackmailing them into an agreement
The problem is that the animate dead spell is listed as and evil spell in 3.0/3.5. Pathfinder RPG tried to rationaize this by making skeletons/zombies evil. This then adds a further problem as being unintelligent (though they do have wisdom) it can be argued that they are little better than automatons and should therefore be unaligned. This is compounded by the fact that negative energy (and positive energy) has no alignment.
The way I see it is is you are going to accept that animated undead are evil, then perhaps there is more to the spell than just negative energy. Perhaps near mindless restless spirits of the lower planes are bound to the corpse to give it animation and the negative energy serves to bind this evil to the corpse.
Sean - since you yourself dont believe that casting animate dead as an evil act how does your group deal with the spell since it is given the school listing as necromancy (evil) ? just ignore it ?
maybe it should be corrected to be just necromancy ?I must say I agree that the spell should not be considered evil only how you use it the undead
Our group has house-ruled that Animate Dead is, infact, without alignment. It's roughly the same as a permanent Animate Objects with a very expensive material component. Any spell that creates (or summons) intelligent undead retains its [evil] descriptor, as binding a soul would be considered evil by this house rule, and summoning evil creatures gives the spell an [evil] descriptor.
It also makes a difference that we play in the Scarred Lands, where the god of death, Nemorga, accepts the animation of dead among his clergy. However, Nemorga has no tolerance for free-willed undead, as all souls belong to him once their time has come. So it's an interesting dichotomy that clerics of the gatekeeper often keep mindless undead as their servants while they scout the lands to destroy and put to rest any intelligent undead.
acording to RAW the animate dead spell is Evil... and to qute Lord of the rings: Gandalf says when offered the 1 ring:" though i would use it from a deisire to do good it would wield a terible evil trough me".
the enegi of the spell beeing evil makes using it an evil act, regardless of the desire to do good with it, you could argue that by creating undead you are opening small "portals" to the negative enery plane and therefore intoducing a little more entropy into the world and thereby destroying a little amout of life every time you do so(and destroying life is evil...right).
enough undeads in one place could in theory weaken all living things in a region...
arguring that the end justifies the meens is a slide towards evil, where do you stop... that is exactly the argument used by evil people!
Negative enery might not be evil(there is no such thing as evil enery) but it represents an energy that destroys living things, and itroducing that into the material plane is not a good thing
Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor and Skeletons have an alignment of NE. Therefore I would suggest that a good Cleric would take exception to both the spell being used and the associated Skeletons and Zombies.
The biggest problem with Animate Dead is that it creates skeletons & zombies, both of which have an alignment of evil for some unknown reason. Alignment is dictated by intention & action, and things that cannot think (oozes, vermin, some undead) act purely on instinct. Now, however horrible and terrible that instinct is, it is never *choice*, and thus cannot be evil. Evil cannot be achieved unless good could also be achieved, as the two exist on separate ends of a conceptual scale. Remember, even the most vicious animals are still neutrally aligned.
Negative enery might not be evil(there is no such thing as evil enery) but it represents an energy that destroys living things, and itroducing that into the material plane is not a good thing
It should also be noted that FIRE is always destructive by its very nature, though that destruction can be harnessed in unique and beneficial ways. And yet few people look at fire and think "Yeah, totally evil. Its existence is based entirely on destruction." This is because simply destroying something, or the act of destruction isn't evil.
It should also be noted that FIRE is always destructive by its very nature, though that destruction can be harnessed in unique and beneficial ways. And yet few people look at fire and think "Yeah, totally evil. Its existence is based entirely on destruction." This is because simply destroying something, or the act of destruction isn't evil.
Fire isn't destructive; it's transformative. Wood is transformed into simpler molecules, including carbon and carbon dioxide. But the material isn't destroyed. If you were to trap the remnants of a burned piece of wood, the solid, the gaseous products, the evaporated water, you'd end up with the exact same mass as you started.
Negative energy, however, is destructive. The wood isn't transformed into ash, it's destroyed.
And the more I read about the moral relativity of making someone's great grandmother dig herself out of a grave just so I can have her deliver me a glass of fruit juice, the more I'm inclined to say "The villagers pick up their pitchforks and run your necromancer out of town."
Now, where's that pitchfork salesman? I've seen him around before . . . .
Situation:Good cleric in a part of "mostly" good characters. The If the cleric’s deity doesn't mention undead in its portfolio could that cleric tolerate these little batches of negative energy from a role-playing standpoint?
Does anyone have experience playing in this kind of situation?
Bold mine. As a DM I would have a problem with this. Creating undead is a strictly evil act, but the reasons for creating them may mitigate the act. But I must state IMHO, creating walking dead things to take out the garbage, wash your back in the shower, and turn down the sheets at night EVIL.
Now raising Aunt Sue and Grandpa Bob from their graves to stumble forth and attack the orcs assaulting the town gates, this, you could sell me. Now how is the wizard going to attemt to sell the cleric this as anything but evil, power mongering. Unless the cleric is truly naive, this seems kinda shaky to me,IMHO.
|
Animate Dead is an evil spell.
This is no an OPINION. this is a FACT. It's an evil spell in the same way that summoning a balor is an evil spell. It has the "evil" spell descriptor. Aside from "vile" there is no way for a spell to be more evil.
Likewise, zombies are Evil. They are also mindless, so don't have any "choice" in the matter - they are always evil.
These are facts of the system and assumed setting.
Now, with these facts in place, "good" characters are generally not going to like or approve of these things.
It's not the same thing as making a golem. A golem is powered by a bound force of nature, an undead is powered by the energy of pure death and destruction. Creating undead, and allowing them to exist, is to increase the amount of that energy within the prime material plane.
Now, all of this assumes the default setting. If there are rules in place that make Animate Dead not have the evil descriptor and make mindless undead not evil (I do not know of any D&D settings like this, but "Mage: the Awakening" is a solid example), or make alignment more loose and fluid (like Ebberon), then this can change.
But under the rules as written, raising up the dead is an evil act, and the cleric of a good deity is supposed to destroy such creatures and their creators whenever he can. It's what good clerics do.
You could make the "it goes against the natural order" argument, but the key word in that is "order." That's a lawful argument, not a good argument.
There are really 2 keys words here. You picked the one that supports your argument. The other key word is "natural". The natural world is at once both chaotic and lawful. And NOT evil in either case. The use of "natural order" in this case refers to a cultural norm, as opposed to the natural world - as I'm sure you recognize, but others may not.
Back to the main topic: In my campaigns, the repercussions in "good" societies would probably far outweigh the usefulness of having such servants. A society defines the factors that make up its "natural order". It is deeply ingrained in (most)societies that undead walking the streets means the end is near. That the sight and smell of such creatures downgrades property values (ya think?). And that people who use such creatures as servants are inherently evil, or at least suffer from poor judgement. So, regardless of what the cleric thinks, what does everyone else in the city/town/village think? Barring select cities (already mentioned elsewhere in this thread), that necro would never get past the front gates with his well-meaning intentions and "servants". As for running to the cemetery to raise a horde to save the town, I'd wager there'd be a heated debate amongst the townfolk over that tactic.
The biggest problem with Animate Dead is that it creates skeletons & zombies, both of which have an alignment of evil for some unknown reason. Alignment is dictated by intention & action, and things that cannot think (oozes, vermin, some undead) act purely on instinct. Now, however horrible and terrible that instinct is, it is never *choice*, and thus cannot be evil. Evil cannot be achieved unless good could also be achieved, as the two exist on separate ends of a conceptual scale. Remember, even the most vicious animals are still neutrally aligned.
Let's not confuse the D&D world with the real world. In D&D, there are things that are evil by nature regardless of intent. That would include even the mindless undead who can't intend anything.
Given that the wizard wants "personal servants and cannon-fodder" I can see most people in the world having trouble with it. In a pinch, the great unwashed might see the benefit of raising an army of the worm-eaten to defend their homes. But as a matter of course, having the thing that used to be granny stumbling around and falling into hidden pit traps for the benefit of some wizard is not acceptable.
If your players want to do this, they can decide how their characters react. But necromancy doesn't exactly have a stellar history associated with it. It's not like the wizard is animating the dead for some heroic undertaking. He's animating them to be his toys.
I won't say the act is "evil." But selfish and disrespectful? Oh yeah.
Trap-finding tool and front-line soldier? I'd say that's very different from 'toy.' Highly useful component in the arduous process of infiltrating the Big Bad's realm and saving the day? Definitely more than a toy. That zombies are useful does not make their use selfish or disrespectful. If pouring a little juice in a few vacated protein arrangements helps save the world from a thousand years of darkness, it's rather shortsighted and arbitrary to automatically call it selfish and disrespectful. In fact, it can be highly respectful. Respectful of the living, and their desire to continue living, and the peaceful lives they live. It is simply a realization that living, breathing human beings matter far more than some otherwise worthless sacks of cold meat.
Cannon fodder and trap finding may not be glorious roles, but they still help save the world.
Plus, what sort of hero want's to be associated with the guy who digs up Aunt Hilda so that the party can have a bipedal pack mule? I would say the stench of death would follow them and their reputations. Would a noble hire the PCs to rescue his kidnapped daughter? Would the poor, who are likely to be buried in (shallow) paupers' graves really want to try to get a job as a torchbearer with these guys?
Why would the PCs dig up Aunt Hilda? Adventurers leave a lot of corpses in their wake, and orcs are a lot stronger than Aunt Hilda. Just use the enemy's bodies.
Sounds a lot more like an idea devoid of the realities of human psychology and emotion. Now, how would that poor woman react to seeing her dead lover again, walking about all hacked up and rotting? I doubt it would be a happy accidental reunion.
People want a focal point for their grief, a body to grieve over, and the peace of mind that the earthly vessel of their loved one's soul is as put to rest as the soul itself. That's why necromancy is evil - it's devoid of all that normal human empathy. And that's why no goddess of love would have anything to do with it.
I find the 'zombies are evil' camp is an idea devoid of the realities of human psychology and sociology. You see, we're humans in a world that doesn't have zombies, but a society that does? That's horse of a different color, and a culture that exists with the truth of undeath is going to react to it very differently than we would.
Further, not every society and every human gives a damn about the body. To some, the body is nothing more than an empty vessel. When I die, that pile of flesh isn't me anymore. A dead body is an inanimate object, little different from a chair. That someone might be distraught that you smashed Granny's antique chair because you desperately needed a club to fend off the bandits who were attacking a poor orphan girl does not make smashing chairs inherently evil, and just because that someone smashed the chair does not automatically make them unsympathetic to the pain that comes from the loss of that chair. However, there are larger things at stake than a petty little chair. An excessive cultural attachment to chairs holds no bearing on what is truly right or wrong.
Question... if a Paladin uses his Detect Evil ability on a mindless zombie, does it register as evil? If yes, I'd say the magic itself and thus negative energy -is- inherently evil. If no, I could be swayed to believing that negative energy is not inherently evil. Detect Evil is pretty much the surest way to resolve this debate in terms of pure mechanics.
Except even then, not really. In the fiction, there are neutral and even good-aligned demons out there, buy they're still outsiders with the evil descriptor and thus detect as evil. That doesn't automatically make them evil as people. It doesn't make their existence an inherently evil act.
Just because something detects as evil does not make its existence or creation inherently wrong. 'Evil' in D&D is as much a 'what' as a 'who.' That the zombie is fueled by dark energy that gives a false positive on evildar doesn't mean there's anything more inherently wrong with it than there is with a lawful/neutral succubus daring to breathe.
Further most campaign settings are built with the assumption that undeath is an abomination against the natural order, while unintelligent undead would be pitied more than hated most Good institutions would try to ban the practice. Druids as protectors of nature would actively seek to destroy such abominations as well.
"Most societies don't like X" does not mean "X is evil and horrible and wrong by definition."
Sean - since you yourself dont believe that casting animate dead as an evil act how does your group deal with the spell since it is given the school listing as necromancy (evil) ? just ignore it ?
maybe it should be corrected to be just necromancy ?
'Evil' in D&D is as much a substance as it is anything remotely related to morality. Making a zombie uses dark magic that detects as evil. That has no bearing on the morality of the spell; it's simply cosmically charged with false positives on evildar.
There are numerous outsiders with the [Evil] descriptor. This does not mean they cease to be intelligent beings incapable of choosing their own actions and choosing a better path. It means they are physically made out of evil and will always detect as such, no matter what they make of themselves.
Quite simply? That descriptor has zero impact on morality.
Animate Dead is an evil spell.
This is no an OPINION. this is a FACT. It's an evil spell in the same way that summoning a balor is an evil spell. It has the "evil" spell descriptor. Aside from "vile" there is no way for a spell to be more evil.
The evil descriptor does not make Fall-From-Grace evil. It just makes her detect that way and react that way to spell effects. The descriptors ultimately have no bearing on morality.
'Animate Dead has the [Evil] descriptor' is a fact. 'Animate Dead is an evil spell' is an opinion. Having the [Evil] descriptor ultimately only affects spell interactions and whether or not certain gods grant certain spells to certain priests.
You could make the same argument about animals. For some, animals are beloved pets and they would never want to see poor scruffy's corpse treated disrespectfully. And yet people, good people, also kill animals on a regular basis, take their flesh and consume it for food, use their bones for tools, their hide for clothing, or even their pelt to decorate their homes. This doesn't mean that those people are incapable of empathy for animals. Far from it. It's all about perspective.
Indeed, there's a reason that animals killed for food are "livestock" and animals you don't are "pets".
You said people need a focul point for their love. Well surely when you love someone you don't love their body, you love their soul. The body is just a vessel, an object, a temporary thing that will die eventually as part of the natural order of things and eventually decompose and be recycled so that its elements can be reused in the service of future life. The carrion birds, worms, and other life forms that devour that corpse for sustenance are not evil. They're even doing us all a great service by acting as nature's cleanup crew.
And, from a perspective that respects the natural order-like say a druidic one-reanimation would be a break with the natural order, perhaps even a perversion of it.
If someone loves the body, their love is misplaced. The body, like all physical things, is just a tool. It was once the tool for a living person that allowed them to act in the world. Once they die, they no longer need it and like it or not, it will go on to serve another purpose. All things must end, no matter how much we might cling to them. Are you going to tell me that people who use the dead for organ donations or scientific research are evil? Some cultures would find those things to be an abhorrant act, and the burial practices of some cultures would horrify us. And that's what it comes down to, culture.
Organ donation doesn't even factor into this since this is D&D. Though for some real religions, the sanctity of the body after death even though the soul is departed is so important that organ donation is not considered appropriate.
But I would disagree that love directed at someone's body is misplaced. Love is about loving the totality of someone, body and soul.
It's true that different cultures have different views on death and burial, which is why alignment would not be a sole determining factor. But, if we do use the real world as a guide to developing realistic D&D settings, I think we'd find a cavalier attitude toward dead bodies is decidedly in the minority as far as cultural mores go.
It's true that different cultures have different views on death and burial, which is why alignment would not be a sole determining factor. But, if we do use the real world as a guide to developing realistic D&D settings, I think we'd find a cavalier attitude toward dead bodies is decidedly in the minority as far as cultural mores go.
...
And societal norms hold zero bearing on what is and is not right. No matter how wide-spread, no matter how 'normal,' culture is not a factor in what is truly good or evil.
And societal norms hold zero bearing on what is and is not right. No matter how wide-spread, no matter how 'normal,' culture is not a factor in what is truly good or evil.
This is WRONG, totally and completely. Society is exactly what determines right and wrong. Is cannibalism "right"? Not to you and I, but in some ancient (and not-so-ancient) societies, it was the norm, indeed, expected in order to honor the dead. Is it OK to commit suicide while blowing up the infidel? A vast majority of our society would say no, but there are some "societies" (and I use society here to define various groups of varying beliefs) that believe it is a path to matyrdom, and heaven. These types of societies do not believe they are evil, in fact, they are fighting a holy war against evil.
In the period of US expansion, it was perfectly OK and "right" to pack up Native American tribes and ship them off West. (See Trail of Tears, amongst others). Today, we see that as a wrong, even evil, act to commit on a people. Not only does societal views establish what is right and wrong, but that view can change over time, as noted above.
Be careful not to instil what you see as right and wrong on others.
This is why politics and religion should never be brought up at the dinner table, or in the forums...
This is WRONG, totally and completely. Society is exactly what determines right and wrong. Is cannibalism "right"? Not to you and I, but in some ancient (and not-so-ancient) societies, it was the norm, indeed, expected in order to honor the dead. Is it OK to commit suicide while blowing up the infidel? A vast majority of our society would say no, but there are some "societies" (and I use society here to define various groups of varying beliefs) that believe it is a path to matyrdom, and heaven. These types of societies do not believe they are evil, in fact, they are fighting a holy war against evil.In the period of US expansion, it was perfectly OK and "right" to pack up Native American tribes and ship them off West. (See Trail of Tears, amongst others). Today, we see that as a wrong, even evil, act to commit on a people. Not only does societal views establish what is right and wrong, but that view can change over time, as noted above.
Be careful not to instil what you see as right and wrong on others.
This is why politics and religion should never be brought up at the dinner table, or in the forums...
To turn this back to a D&D perspective, I'd say that D&D doesn't remove this factor in deciding right and wrong, but futher adds a complication by providing objective good and evil as well that may or may not be in alignment with cultural mores.
In my campaign, casting Animate Dead ranks somewhat worse than cannibalism and necrophilia in the list of social faux pas. Anyone who did it on a regular basis would be considered crazy (at best) or evil.