|
Reply to the above post, which is generally rather informative.
Mindless Undead, as written, are inherently evil.
Mindless Undead, as written, obey no orders which are not explicitly given.
The above article seems to contradict this unnecessarily.
Mindless Undead to not have to roam around the countryside killing people and eating their flesh in order to be evil. In fact, they can't do that - they are not capable of deciding anything, even instinctively, because they are mindless.
Instead, I believe default assumption / explanation is that their mere presence corrupting in some way. I don't have any solid official sources on this, and I can't check Libris Mortis right now,so forgive me if this is not 100% accurate.
But I believe that, if they are ordered to just stand in place (which they will do so for hundreds of years) their presence causes the death and destruction of living things. Like if there's a recently-buried crypt full of 500 skeletons, and someone comes along and tries to build a farm over it, the crops will grow more slowly, and eventually stop growing / wither and die. Children will be born less and grow up weaker, people will seem to age faster, miscarriages increase in frequency, etc.
They are inherently evil because, even when doing absolutely nothing at all, they corrupt, consume, and destroy the essence of life.
I believe that is the official explanation.
|
If they are doing absolutely nothing at all, they CANNOT corrupt/consume/destroy anything. Doing nothing precludes that. Unless you are placing moral responsiblity on radiation. In which the sun would be considered Evil by the fact that it destroys skin cells.
Edit:So if you say that they cannot 'do nothing' at any time, because they radiate decay and corruption, that would be more reasonable.
Wasn't the original statement from you that I quoted that society and culture have no bearing on what is right and wrong? So which is it? If it's taboo in our society, didn't our society have some bearing on that opinion?
'Taboo' is not the same as 'evil.' Our society can declare something taboo. That doesn't make it inherently evil. Our society can decree that it believes something to be evil. That doesn't make it inherently evil.
Ramming an enemy vessel in a military engagement cannot be compared to walking into a market and blowing yourself up, killing civilians. EVER.
And I'm sorry to say this, because I try to stay civil, but if you believe they are the same, you are dead wrong. I've been there, and if you care to chat about it offline, I can explain the difference in graphic detail.
Anything can be compared to anything. And the fact that there is such a charged emotional response makes this comparison extremely useful to examine logically.
The fundamental act of a suicide bombing is blowing yourself up to destroy something. Ramming an enemy vessel in a military engagement is a case of blowing yourself up to destroy something. The distinction is that this is a case of soldiers in battle killing soldiers who knew the risks going in, as opposed to the mass murder of innocent civilians who were just trying to buy dinner for their families.
It's important to identify which part of an act is, in fact, evil. In this case, 'blowing yourself up to destroy something?' Not evil. 'Mass murder of innocents?' That's the evil part.
So you missed my point entirely, and in a rush to show your moral absolutism, you crossed your own statements. Who decides what is right and wrong? You? Me? The society where we live? The religion we practice? The Native American example was used to show that we as a nation thought it was right to move those people AT THAT TIME. Now of course, we don't hold to that opinion, showing the concept of right and wrong can change over time.
There is right. There is wrong. There is good. There is evil. There is truth.
These are all true things, whether or not we can ever truly know what absolute good is.
That societies and their interpretations of good and evil change does not mean that what is good and right and just has changed. Only that societies and their interpretations have changed. The truth exists independently of our knowledge of it.
Why?
Why does the child have to be evil? Parents aren't?
Is it so it supports your argument?
Again, the parents are [Evil]. They are physically wrought from evil. That's not who they are. That's what they are. Both Falls-From-Grace and the incubus are still [Evil]. They're just not evil. And, as a succubus and an incubus, they're both as subject to Always Chaotic/Evil as all demons (in other words, Always Chaotic/Evil doesn't mean always chaotic/evil).
If they bring the child into the world, they're bringing an Always Chaotic/Evil creature made of [Evil] into the world. This is all by definition of what the family is.
Someone you know is creating undead (violation of "respect for life" and an evil act).
Except it isn't necessarily disrespectful, and utilizing [Evil] is not necessarily an evil act.
Saying that you will not abide the creation of undead is neither "Stupid" nor being a "prick". OTOH, insisting that anothers interpretation of their alignment is being "Stupid/Good pricks" IS actually being a prick.
Your exact words for in-character commentary were, "My goddess does not allow that of me, why should I allow that of you?"
What that means is that the priest of generic goodness should hold everyone around her to the exact same stringent standards that a priest of generic goodness holds himself to, and oppose (possibly violently) anyone who does not live up to those most stringent of standards.
This specific philosophy is the epitome of the stupid/good prick who cannot accept that the rest of the world doesn't have to live up to her standards.
So you are saying..if you took a feudal based town, and walked into it with a couple of zombies, they would just keep right on doing their serf thing without batting an eyelash? Even in a world where they accepted magic and monsters as "real", your average townsperson would almost never come in contact with such things, and what they did know, especially of the undead, would be that they were horrors. If your game has people hanging about town leading zombie caravans, great for you, but I think its safe to say that your typical village, based on real world examples would not take kindly to having undead shambling about.
The correct answer to this question is 'not necessarily.' The peasants won't necessarily panic, and one or two of them may even use a skeletal ox, if they're profoundly lucky.
Even then, societal reactions still have no bearing on whether or not the creation of zombies and skeletons is truly evil.
And you ultimately cannot have a magical high fantasy world based on reality. A magical high fantasy world must, by necessity, be affected by magical high fantasy
As far as the unnatural..again look at the time and the framework. You have druids running about, gods of nature, and not a pair of polyester slacks in sight. Undead by their very nature are unnatural, which is why animals react badly to them. Its not so much a moral argument, as yet another reason that most people would view them as evil or to be destroyed.
Mind that the nature deities default to neutral. Also mind that the full plate folks walk around in, the ironwood druids use, the wagons peasants ride around in, the cities some humans live in? All of these are unnatural.
And societal reaction still has no bearing on morality.
Have you actually checked the Animate Dead spell and monster entries for Skeleton and Zombie?
Yes. Yes, I have.
Because, according to the Rules As Written, both the spell and the undead created by it are inherently evil.
The spell has the [Evil] descriptor. However, looking at the [Evil] subtype, [Evil] is only a matter of spell interactions, not a matter of morality. [Evil] monsters are not necessarily evil, they are simply made of the substance of [Evil]. Falls-From-Grace is [Evil] but not evil.
Likewise, [Evil] spells utilize the substance of [Evil], but that doesn't necessarily make their use evil. And likewise, bringing a creature into the world who is less evil than you'd be bringing if you rez'd Bart the Bastard is not necessarily an evil act. All the monster entries have against the undead are some sort of 'evil cunning' (which Bart probably has to a far greater extent), a penchant for killing people if you neglect to give them orders, and some brutal tactics in their usual use (which reflects on the master, in that case, rather than the creature or the act of creation). Well, that and the 'Always Neutral Evil' tag, which holds a whole lot of meaning in Falls-From-Grace's case, nyah?
So, the mindless constructs are evil. So what? That doesn't make their creation an evil act. They lack the will or impetus to inflict destruction of their own accord if given orders to the contrary. Rezzing Bart the Bastard is inflicting an evil every bit as virulent on the world, and he's just some jerk soldier.
The spell is [Evil]. The creature is evil. That doesn't make the act necessarily evil within the rules. Especially when you're making skeletons out of bears to protect sentient beings.
By RAW, due to the tremendous inconsistencies within the rules, the correct question of whether or not the creation of undead is necessarily an evil act (as well as the question of whether a good-aligned Cleric is compelled to actively and/or violently oppose their creation) is a resounding 'not necessarily.'
|
|
Firstly, you make a number of excellent points. I particularity like the use of Fall-From-Grace, she's an awesome character.
I do have issue with one of your points, however, which turns out to be fairly significant to the whole debate.
The spell is [Evil]. The creature is evil. That doesn't make the act necessarily evil within the rules. Especially when you're making skeletons out of bears to protect sentient beings.
This is not correct.
If a spell has the [evil] descriptor, then the act of casting the spell is an evil act.
Now, what the caster does with them after the spell is cast is entirely up to the caster, and its entirely possible that they might be used to preform several good acts after they have been created.
But the act of casting the spell is an evil act. A paladin with use magic device operating a staff, wand or scroll would lose his paladin status the instant he cast the spell.
So, if the simple act of creating them is evil, then it would be necessary to do significant good with them in order to justify or "negate" the act.
Doing a poor family a favor by raising up their dead Ox so it can pull their cart all the time does not seem like enough, especially since an Ox could be gotten for significantly less than the material component cost of casting the spell.
Raising up a group of bears to protect innocents might balance out the scales, an excellent point. But to do so, the caster must learn an [Evil] spell, prepare an [Evil] spell, and purposely gather (relatively) expensive material components that are partially dependent on exactly which kind of [Evil] creature the caster intends to create.
Or, the caster could use Summon Monster IV to bring in a group of Celestial Wolves.
Choosing Animate Dead is, at best, a morally gray choice even in the best of circumstances. Choosing Summon Monster is neutral, dependent only on the casters choice.
A second argument:
Imagine a ruler who institutes the "raise up dead animals idea" as a country-wide policy. What he did would count as a significant or major evil act, would it not?
I say yes, as it leads to hundreds or thousands of [Evil] spells being cast and [Evil] beings being created. His order is directly responsible for the addition of a great deal of evil in the world.
So if giving the order to cast a hundred [Evil] spells is an evil act, what does that mean for those who cast such a spell?
To the other poster:
If they are doing absolutely nothing at all, they CANNOT corrupt/consume/destroy anything. Doing nothing precludes that. Unless you are placing moral responsiblity on radiation. In which the sun would be considered Evil by the fact that it destroys skin cells.
Edit:So if you say that they cannot 'do nothing' at any time, because they radiate decay and corruption, that would be more reasonable.
Actually, my thought was this: where does the Skeleton end and the negative energy empowering it begin? To destroy one is to destroy both, so how are they separate?
Does turn undead (or channel positive energy or whatever the current proper term is) cause actual physical harm to the skeleton, or does it harm the energy? Is there a difference, and if so, where does the difference begin?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@ VV, regarding nuclear power plants: Point conceded, conditionally; nuclear power plants, when working as designed, provide power. Zombies, when working as designed, eat brains. Proper process engineering can reduce the chance of a zombie horde becoming uncontrolled (although unless you destroy all your undead minions before you die, it is inevitable that they will become uncontrolled upon your shuffling off the mortal coil). Biological weapons might be a better contemporary analogy. I think most of us would agree that making or using biological weapons is pretty despicable, even if we're using them only to kill the bad guys in righteous war. And why do we think biological weapons are bad? Because they kill in a pretty cruel and horrific way, and because they are particularly prone to getting out of control and killing indiscriminately... like zombie hordes.
@ VV, regarding suicide attacks: You're absolutely correct that target selection (civilian vs. combatant) is the deciding moral factor here. There are 2 undercurrents that affect the issue, however. Many religions consider suicide itself to be an evil act (though not self-sacrifice). Obviously, people disagree about that, so I'm not asserting here that it's an objective, absolute evil; I'm merely pointing out a negative association. The real problem with suicide attacks is that somewhere along the line, someone induced the suicide attacker to do the deed. Suicide attack facilitators are pure damn evil. Let me be clear: I am asserting that as objective, absolute evil. They are cowards who prey on the weak-minded and purposefully send others to certain death to protect themselves from danger. Whatever the ideological underpinning, that kind of behavior is just plain wrong. Does that mean that the suicide attack itself is an evil act? Not necessarily, but it does mean that a suicide attack is the result of evil.
@ BobChuck: I think VV's argument is that the [Evil] monster subtype and [Evil] spell descriptors do not make the actual monsters and spells evil. [Evil] =/= evil. I do not present this as a straw man; VV does a good job of shoring up this position with the Fall-From-Grace argument. However, I disagree. Occam's razor would indicate that those descriptors do, in fact, describe. However, this thread clearly indicates that there are plenty of folks with different interpretations. That requires a bit of an imaginative approach to the text: that words ("always neutral evil") don't actually mean what they mean, or at least that more clear rulings (e.g. the zombie stat block) should be interpreted by less clear rulings (the alignment chapter). Fall-From-Grace is [Evil] but not evil; however, she's the big white elephant exception, not the rule. "Always neutral evil" even allows for the occasional rare exception, but hardly for vast, sweeping categorical exceptions. The big thing that distinguishes Fall-From-Grace from zombies is the capacity for moral volition; she overcomes her [Evil] nature by choosing good (or at least neutrality). How could a zombie, which lacks moral volition but has an evil nature (though not the evil descriptor), in any way overcome its nature?
BTW, for those of you who don't have the backstory, Fall-From-Grace is a CN (iirc) succubus from Planescape: Torment. Technically, her kids wouldn't have the [Evil] subtype, because they'd be half-fiends, which have the [native] subtype but not the [Evil] subtype. EDIT: Unless, of course, Dad was also a demon, as VV said. That's a hit on me.
It occurs to me that there are 2 discussions going on here (3, if you also count the troll posts dismissing the validity of everybody else's discussion). One is about rules interpretation, the other's about ethics. They're two of my favorite topics.
|
Well going by the Golarion take on undead From classic horror's revisited
Spoiler
The Nature of Evil
“Skeletons and zombies are evil, even though they are
mindless. This is because undeath itself is a naturally evil
force, just as fire is naturally hot. While life and death exist
in a cycle, neither is inherently good or evil, for creatures
must die to feed others and make room for new life,
which in turn must die to make room for even newer life.
Undeath, by contrast, is a perversion of the natural order;
an endless state that is neither life nor death, and a power
that only corrupts and consumes. Vampires and brainhungry
zombies cannot create new life or sustain other life,
they can only destroy life and propagate their kind until
the world is filled with undying predators and no prey.
Even things built with the power of undeath are merely
perversions and mockeries of life, whether an animate
corpse or an intelligent palace made of bones.
“This is not to say that all necromancers are evil or the
school of necromantic magic is inherently evil. Necromancy
spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life
force—the magic of death and the magic of undeath are
two different things. A circle of death spell uses the power of
death to snuff out life, but it is no more evil than stabbing
a creature with a sword. Some argue that magic is just a
tool, and how a tool is used determines whether the act is
good or evil, but a counterargument holds that some tools
are specifically designed to be used for evil, like implements
of torture. Worse, some tools are inherently evil, and want
to be used for evil. If fire always burned the innocent and
spared the guilty, fire would be evil. Undeath is an inherently
evil source of power, designed to corrupt and destroy life for
no purpose other than hatred and because it can. There are
exceptional, intelligent undead that are not evil, just as there
are extremely rare demons and devils who become good,
but evil is the norm because their essence is evil.”
|
|
BTW, for those of you who don't have the backstory, Fall-From-Grace is a CN (iirc) succubus from Planescape: Torment. Technically, her kids wouldn't have the [Evil] subtype, because they'd be half-fiends, which have the [native] subtype but not the [Evil] subtype.
Actually, this point is also addressed in VV's beautifully crafted post.
The father is an Incubus, i.e., male succubus. Male Succubus + Female Succubus = baby Succubus.
|
|
Actually, my thought was this: where does the Skeleton end and the negative energy empowering it begin? To destroy one is to destroy both, so how are they separate?
Does turn undead (or channel positive energy or whatever the current proper term is) cause actual physical harm to the skeleton, or does it harm the energy? Is there a difference, and if so, where does the difference begin?
The skeleton consists of the bones of the creature it was created from. The negative energy is the force that animates it. Just as a golem is the material used to create it and the spirit bound to animate it.
When you destroy a skeleton you either remove the energy animating it, or destroy the form being animated.
Channel Energy erodes the negative energy with positive energy, removing the animating force if enough damage is done.
Turn Undead...um...compels the physical form away from the user? I don't know.
All of this is my own pure conjecture.
People are fast around here.
I have no life outside of D&D. :)
Sounded like they didn't pick one or the other either, just left it to DM discretion.Well going by the Golarion take on undead From classic horror's revisited
Spoiler
** spoiler omitted **...
They picked a different option (very similar to my personal interpretation) that overlaps parts of Playing With Fire and Crawling Darkness. Because those two options aren't mutually exclusive at all, as I was saying earlier.
|
|
They picked a different option (very similar to my personal interpretation) that overlaps parts of Playing With Fire and Crawling Darkness. Because those two options aren't mutually exclusive at all, as I was saying earlier.
Missed your post. Reading that with BobChuck's I see the point made. I will say that it needs to be made clear along with every other houserule so people understand how the world functions.
They picked a different option (very similar to my personal interpretation) that overlaps parts of Playing With Fire and Crawling Darkness. Because those two options aren't mutually exclusive at all, as I was saying earlier.Missed your post. Reading that with BobChuck's I see the point made. I will say that it needs to be made clear along with every other houserule so people understand how the world functions.
Indeed. It's especially important to clarify situations like this where any ruling at all is a house rule.
Problem: "real-world feelings" do not equate to in-game mechanics.
The argument is an excellent point for challenging or changing the rules, but D&D very UNrealistically has firm moral absolutes. That is also the problem with decrying the position that "creating undead is evil" is somehow single-minded or hypocritical. In RL, sure, but in-game it is all part of the world.
Except nothing in the rules says "creating undead is evil."
The process is creating a neutral/evil creature with an [Evil] spell. However, nowhere in the rules does is say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, and actually says that an [Evil] creature isn't necessarily evil. [Evil] exists independently from evil.
As for the hypocrisy? That comes in when logic that condemns animating zombies as evil is just as applicable to making a sword, where blatant double standards are applied.
"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
This is the definition of evil within the game, in its entirety. Now, let us say that a character animates a skeletal bear to protect her family and her homeland. Where do any of the aspects from the definition given for 'evil' come into play? RAW, animating zombies is not necessarily evil.
|
|
Except nothing in the rules says "creating undead is evil."The process is creating a neutral/evil creature with an [Evil] spell. However, nowhere in the rules does is say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act
This is incorrect.
First: nowhere in the core rules for 3.0, 3.5, or pathfinder do they provide ANY definitions for what is and is not an evil act. Saying "nowhere in the rules does is say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act" is not a valid point, nor is it relevant to the discussion, as the rules do not describe ANY evil acts.
It's like saying (overkill for emphasis) "brutally torturing, skinning alive, and sacrificing a thousand people in the name of my evil deity isn't stated in the rules to be an evil act, so it's not evil".
It's not proof, it's not a valid point, and it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
The only official source we have for what is an is not an evil act is the Book of Vile Darkness, by Monte Cook.
In there, the act of casting a spell is quite explicitly stated to be an evil act. In fact, it's one of the most explicitly evil acts out there, though by no means a severe or major act.
Again, as I said in my earlier post, whether or not it should be is an excellent topic for discussion. But the facts are quite clear.
It's like saying (overkill for emphasis) "brutally torturing, skinning alive, and sacrificing a thousand people in the name of my evil deity isn't stated in the rules to be an evil act, so it's not evil".
Except the brutal blah de blah falls quite clearly in the definition of 'evil' given. You've got the destruction of innocent life, the killing in service to an evil master, the lack of compassion.
Animating a bear skeleton to protect your homeland has none of that. It falls well outside of the definition of 'evil' given.
The only official source we have for what is an is not an evil act is the Book of Vile Darkness, by Monte Cook.
Not Pathfinder material, chief. Not a part of Pathfinder rules. And paired with BoED, it successfully renders the entire alignment system completely nonfunctional and unusable under the weight of its internal inconsistencies.
Why can NO good aligned cleric cast Animate Dead?
Because deities don't grant access to spells with the opposing alignment descriptor. Good gods can't grant [Evil] because they lack the ability to grant the substance of [Evil]. Doesn't make it evil. No good-aligned Cleric can cast any number of Wizard or Bard spells, either. I'm sure that in many settings, there are plenty of domains that no good deities get access to, as well, or domains that only evil deities get access to. Doesn't make those spells in those domains evil, either.
Why do only EVIL monsters have spells and SLA's with the [Evil] descriptor?
Irrelevant. Particularly considering any intelligent 'evil' monster is just as capable of choosing to be good (no matter how rare that occurrence may be), thus resulting in a good creature with [Evil] SLAs.
What WOULD you call an act that NECESSAIRLY creates evil creatures and calls for using an [Evil] spell?
What I'd say has no bearing on what the rules say.
However, [Evil] is a substance, same as petrol or anything else. It may as well read 'dark energy.' As for the creation of necessarily evil creatures? Considering they lack will or impetus and are completely loyal and unerringly follow all (simple) commands, it's rather difficult to declare that an evil act when compared to rezzing Bart the Bastard, who has the will to inflict his hatred upon the world.
At what point does it BECOME evil to create undead? You make zombies to protect your family of man-eating ogres from the good-aligned heroes come to stop your depravations. Is the act now Good?
The creation of the undead is not necessarily evil in and of itself. It's the myriad nuances around the creation of those undead that determine whether or not it is an evil act.
Creating zombies to perpetuate murder? The evil part there lies in the 'perpetuating murder' part, not the creation of zombies.
Creating zombies to perpetuate murder? The evil part there lies in the 'perpetuating murder' part, not the creation of zombies.
Let's shoot for a little more consistency in argument here. For the purpose of this example, you separate the creation of the zombie from the use the zombie is put to, but you don't in the case of the bear skeleton used to defend your homeland. That's as much two distinct acts as creating the murderous zombies.
Since the use the zombies are put to, as you see it, does not have any relevance to whether or not creating them is evil, neither would the use the bear skeletons are put to affect whether or not creating them is evil. In both cases, we are free to contemplate the act of creating the undead creatures separately from the uses they are put to.
Casting an evil spell to create creatures tained with evil... I have to lump that in as evil. No doubt about it. Using an evil tool to create an evil thing? I can't see any reasonable justification in calling it anything but an evil act.
So with murderous zombies - two evil acts. With defending bear skeletons - one evil act, one that is not (not certain it's good necessarily since even neutral creatures will defend their own without any thought of the morality of the situation).
Baelnorns (Good Aligned Elven Liches from Myth Drannor) are animated by Negative Energy but they register as "Evil" still despite their alignment due to their physical undead nature. The things they do to protect and preserve their home could be considered 'evil' by chasing away intruders and the like but they tend to do so harmlessly. (Found in the 'Liber Mortis' variant types of Liches chapter, alongside Fiendliches, etc.)
"Deathless", a variant undead found in the Book Of Exalted Deeds isnt anyway distinguishable from normal undead, looks the same, rots the same, practically is the same - it just doesnt behave the same way or was made for an evil purpose. Yet that isnt immoral or evil to create those since they are used to protect innocents, etc by spellcasters and those that make them.
There are contradictions to 'the evil' of creating undead, creating sentient undead like Ghouls is an evil act, since they willfully want to do harm to the living - everything else involving mindless undead is a shade of grey such as with the two examples given above.
But as the spell 'Animate Dead' is classified as an Evil spell it is for Pathfinder concretely black not grey even though the intentions for 'using' these undead is good, since after all if the controller dies (as many NPC bad guy necromancers often do), their undiscovered mindless automatons wait until something living comes across their path - then a driving instinct to 'quench' that positive energy lifeforce overcomes them and makes them attack. (Thats why the spell 'Hide From Undead' works, it hides your lifeforce, though intellgent undead might realise you look living and not be fooled if they pass their saving throw)
Problem: This implies that NO action is inherrently good or evil, just the intent of the actor, which may be the case in RL, but is logically impossible in D&D with it's absolute morality system.
Perpetuating murder is an inherently evil act, no matter what means you use to do it. That the tool used for doing so was zombies rather than a really big club doesn't change the fact that the evil part of the equation was 'perpetuating murder.'
And in case you hadn't noticed, D&D's absolute alignment system is primarily defined by intentions rather than actions. Which is part of the system's internal inconsistencies and general inserviceability.
During the inquisition, the reason for torture was to elicit repentance and ensure salvation for the victim.
In D&D, this may be interpreted as "brutally torturing, skinning alive, and sacrificing a thousand evil people in the name of my good deity so they can be saved in the afterlife". Is this action good, or even neutral? Obviously not. It is evil because the game assumes moral absolutes.
You know, countering, "Making undead does not, in and of itself, fall within the defined parameters of what the game states as evil," with examples that quite clearly involve debasing and destroying innocent life with a side of ample hurting and oppressing? 'Tis quite ironic.
The game has a definition of evil. Torture falls within it. Making a skeletal ox does not.
Let's shoot for a little more consistency in argument here. For the purpose of this example, you separate the creation of the zombie from the use the zombie is put to, but you don't in the case of the bear skeleton used to defend your homeland. That's as much two distinct acts as creating the murderous zombies.
I don't separate the two because the two do not need to be separated. Nothing in the process as a whole falls within the given definition of 'evil.' That includes the creation of the skeleton in the first place.
Casting an evil spell to create creatures tained with evil... I have to lump that in as evil. No doubt about it. Using an evil tool to create an evil thing? I can't see any reasonable justification in calling it anything but an evil act.
Except Animate Dead isn't an evil spell. It's an [Evil] spell. A spell that utilizes a poorly-worded substance within the game world that has been established as not necessarily being morally evil. After all, there are non-evil [Evil]s.
[Evil] is not always evil. Using an [Evil] spell is not necessarily evil. The creation of an evil is not necessarily any more evil than the resurrection of Bart the Bastard. So tell me, is the resurrection of Bart the Bastard an evil act?
|
|
On with the alignment debate!
It's like saying (overkill for emphasis) "brutally torturing, skinning alive, and sacrificing a thousand people in the name of my evil deity isn't stated in the rules to be an evil act, so it's not evil".Except the brutal blah de blah falls quite clearly in the definition of 'evil' given. You've got the destruction of innocent life, the killing in service to an evil master, the lack of compassion.
Animating a bear skeleton to protect your homeland has none of that. It falls well outside of the definition of 'evil' given.
First, that definition of evil you are referring too? it's two sentences long. It's a handy summary, not a compelete definition.
According to your interpretation, if an evil person is willing to let another evil person sacrifice himself in order to summon a powerful [Evil] archdevil (which will promptly proceed to go around killing a whole bunch of people due to having free will), then neither the act of sacrifice nor the act of summoning are not evil acts.
To put it another way, replace both above "evil persons" with "Paladins". From what I understand, you are saying that neither of them would lose their Paladin status, as neither has committed an evil act. After all, they are not responsible for what the arch-devil does, as they are not in control of it.
But, even if they are doing it to save an innocent soul, and even if all the archdevil's victims will be evil beings (say demon worshipers or servants of his rivals), aren't they still crossing the line? They are helping an archfiend strengthen his own position, thereby enabling him to more easily damn thousands upon thousands of souls.
Secondly, I've addressed the Bear Skeleton example in an earlier post (which you really should go ahead and read). It has problems. To summarize:
"Raising up a group of bears to protect innocents might balance out the scales, an excellent point. But to do so, the caster must learn an [Evil] spell, prepare an [Evil] spell, and purposely gather the (relatively) expensive material components that are partially dependent on exactly which kind of [Evil] creature the caster intends to create."
In short, the caster must purposely and deliberately go about preparing to cast an [Evil] spell that creates [Evil] creatures. Or, he can cast Summon Monster, which is a thoroughly neutral spell with absolutely no moral complications (unless the caster willingly chooses to add some).
Thirdly, Summon Monster. Or any of the summoning/calling spells, really. I'm more curious than anything: if a spellcaster calls up an evil creature (say imp) with a normally neutral spell, is he committing an evil act, since he is choosing to make the spell [Evil] even though he doesn't have to?
The only official source we have for what is an is not an evil act is the Book of Vile Darkness, by Monte Cook.Not Pathfinder material, chief. Not a part of Pathfinder rules. And paired with BoED, it successfully renders the entire alignment system completely nonfunctional and unusable under the weight of its internal inconsistencies.
Then please provide a detailed and actually usable list of "Evil Acts" from an official source.
Monte Cook's work is literally our only reference point here. If we can't use list provided by the guy who wrote third edition, what do you suggest we use?
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by
themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts
with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual
creatures, with alignment, and so on."
I wonder how a spell descriptor interacts with alignment...
saying that an [evil] spell is infact not at all evil, is a bunch of nonsense, it's like saying demons are not evil.
Sure there are one in a million exceptions to demons being evil, but they are still tainted by evil. The spell is tainted by evil, you do not have to do something evil with it, but it is still tainted.
|
|
saying that an [evil] spell is infact not at all evil, is a bunch of nonsense, it's like saying demons are not evil.
Sure there are one in a million exceptions to demons being evil, but they are still tainted by evil. The spell is tainted by evil, you do not have to do something evil with it, but it is still tainted.
Can you explain why Create Undead has the [Evil] tag?
Should have been Animate Dead. *sigh*
No, I can not explain it, though I can make up a theory
It might just be very possible that the very creation of unlife is anathema to the world of the living opposing the very foundation of the living world, if life is sacred this must surely be profane.
Create Undead is a more ovious example of evil since it creates evil non-mindless undead.
When the original creator dies these undead will effectively be a freewilled force of evil.
This is also true of skeletons and zombies, but they are a bit less dangerous being as dumb as a dungbeetle.
Just a footnote, but Deathless are animated with positive energy, not negative energy, as I recall.
Also, claiming 3.5 had power creep when the Core book had Natural Spell, heavy armor clerics and their spells to give them better then fighter power, and wizard SoDs, is lol to the ten billionth degree.
As for Malconvoker, you uh, do realize that the Celestials actively allow devils to make deals and consessions with mortals due to their dedication in fighting the demons, right? The class is based around conjuring evil creatures in order to fight other evil creatures, while keeping yourself clean - if you ever become evil aligned, you can no longer advance under the class. I've always found it kinda cool, personally :U
Lastly, undead: The spell is Evil, which means it is an Evil Spell. Come on, VV, we've agreed far more then we've disagreed, but here I think you're off. Zombies and skeletons are still bags of anti-life, and their natural instinct is to kill the living.
As for golems, the one golem I recall going berserk and going on a kill spree were Flesh Golems, and making them was - you guessed it - an Evil act ;p
Clay Golems also go berserker.
Back in the day, basically the ones that clerics made (clay) were imperfect and the ones that wizards made didn't go rogue. I can't remember of the top of my head whether flesh golems were something both classes could make.
IIRC golem creation has never been evil in any version of D&D. In 1e you got yourself a manual of golems and went to town.
Just a footnote, but Deathless are animated with positive energy, not negative energy, as I recall.
Also, claiming 3.5 had power creep when the Core book had Natural Spell, heavy armor clerics and their spells to give them better then fighter power, and wizard SoDs, is lol to the ten billionth degree.
As for Malconvoker, you uh, do realize that the Celestials actively allow devils to make deals and consessions with mortals due to their dedication in fighting the demons, right? The class is based around conjuring evil creatures in order to fight other evil creatures, while keeping yourself clean - if you ever become evil aligned, you can no longer advance under the class. I've always found it kinda cool, personally :U
Lastly, undead: The spell is Evil, which means it is an Evil Spell. Come on, VV, we've agreed far more then we've disagreed, but here I think you're off. Zombies and skeletons are still bags of anti-life, and their natural instinct is to kill the living.
As for golems, the one golem I recall going berserk and going on a kill spree were Flesh Golems, and making them was - you guessed it - an Evil act ;p
Deathless are a bit weird, they are a bit of a weak attempt to make non-evil undead, it begs the question what undead actually are, to me deathless do not seem to be it.
Still 3.5 had powercreep, saying that is funny because the core was already unbalanced to some extent doesnt really help that.
You do realize that the workings of the Malconvoker are not discussed in the class, just that it works, wether that is through diabolical trickery or otherwise that is for the DM to decide. The class naturally floats on it's coolness not so much a sensible explanation.
Undead, well I do actually agree on that point.
Golems I am not sure on, apparently creating golems consists of binding an elemental spirit, then again it doesn't actually say you enslave a sentient being or that the spirit is unwilling.
Golem making in general seems a little shady, but not so much evil perse, flesh golems do reek of yicky evilness.
You do realize that the workings of the Malconvoker are not discussed in the class, just that it works, wether that is through diabolical trickery or otherwise that is for the DM to decide. The class naturally floats on it's coolness not so much a sensible explanation.
Just to point out: I totally agree here, but I also think that sometimes "coolness" is a viable excuse to let something go. Maybe give clerics an ability - be it a feat or PrC or something - that allows them to muck a bit with undead without having to be Evil aligned. I think there were a few PrCs for necromancy, but I don't think any removed the Evil part of undead spells.
As for deaders, my original statement regarding clerics is that, while most good ones would frown on it, the guy serving the God of Freedom probably wouldn't care too much. If there's wandering undead, yeah, bust some skulls, but if the wizard summons a few momentarily to help with a cause, so long as he makes them fall back to the ground once he's done, it's not THAT big of a deal for them. Now, if the god has hating on undead as part of their profile, then it's time to [/b]actively[b] find deaders to smash in, and that's when the wizard would get more then just a stern talking to.
You do realize that the workings of the Malconvoker are not discussed in the class, just that it works, wether that is through diabolical trickery or otherwise that is for the DM to decide. The class naturally floats on it's coolness not so much a sensible explanation.Just to point out: I totally agree here, but I also think that sometimes "coolness" is a viable excuse to let something go. Maybe give clerics an ability - be it a feat or PrC or something - that allows them to muck a bit with undead without having to be Evil aligned. I think there were a few PrCs for necromancy, but I don't think any removed the Evil part of undead spells.
As for deaders, my original statement regarding clerics is that, while most good ones would frown on it, the guy serving the God of Freedom probably wouldn't care too much. If there's wandering undead, yeah, bust some skulls, but if the wizard summons a few momentarily to help with a cause, so long as he makes them fall back to the ground once he's done, it's not THAT big of a deal for them. Now, if the god has hating on undead as part of their profile, then it's time to [/b]actively[b] find deaders to smash in, and that's when the wizard would get more then just a stern talking to.
I agree that things can be allowed for the sake of a fun game, I have a malconvoker in the party I am DMing for it's a wizard, I'd be hesitant to allow it for a cleric and a good cleric is out. I allow the class in so much as it allows the wizard to remain neutral for game purposes, however once he dies his soul will go to the nine hells.
Good Clerics are enemies of the undead, there shouldnt really be more to it, unless there is a very good reason. They get God granted power to smite them, they defile the sanctity of life by their very presence in the realm of the living.
If you play a good cleric, play a good cleric do not find ways to weasel out off it to be able to use the cool dark stuff, that is my opinion at least.
Do continue to tell everyone how to play D&D. It's fascinating.Good Clerics are enemies of the undead, there shouldnt really be more to it, unless there is a very good reason. They get God granted power to smite them, they defile the sanctity of life by their very presence in the realm of the living.
If you play a good cleric, play a good cleric do not find ways to weasel out off it to be able to use the cool dark stuff, that is my opinion at least.
Snap.
But seriously, that's a pretty narrow, and frankly ignorant way to approach both the undead & clerics in general. D&D was created as a fantastically flexible system that allowed a plethora of options in both character concept & build. To say that good clerics always hate the undead because they're capable of damaging them is, well, silly. Anyone with a sword, mace, or magic missile can hurt them. Good clerics are only capable of damaging them because they channel positive energy, and the undead are animated by negative energy. I *honestly* can't see a chaotic good good caring all to much about infringing on "social norms" by animating corpses, icky or not.
Also, it should be noted that Good clerics weren't even really capable of getting anything out of the malconovoker- they can't cast spells with the [evil] descriptor, and thus could never summon any of the groovy baddies the class relied on. The whole point of the class was to magically (and mundanely) pit your enemies against your enemies, convincing evil-aligned summons to fight other evil folks through coercion and lies. That's chaotic, buddy- not evil.
however once he dies his soul will go to the nine hells.
Others have mentioned what comes after this, but this is what really confuses me.
Why?
Malconvokers don't make any deals with devils. I mean, they CAN, but that's not a part of the class. In fact, it's explicitly stated that you CANNOT make a pact with a devil on accident - you have to do it knowingly and without coercion, otherwise the pact doesn't hold, and your soul is your own. Remember, devils are lawful evil - they make shady deals, but they don't just run all willy nilly and steal souls without the person knowing about it.
Do continue to tell everyone how to play D&D. It's fascinating.Good Clerics are enemies of the undead, there shouldnt really be more to it, unless there is a very good reason. They get God granted power to smite them, they defile the sanctity of life by their very presence in the realm of the living.
If you play a good cleric, play a good cleric do not find ways to weasel out off it to be able to use the cool dark stuff, that is my opinion at least.
If you did fail to notice that was my opinion, I dont care how someone houserules it, D&D is not meant to be played RAW (again my opinion) the flexibility is one of it's greatest strengths.
"If you play a good cleric, play a good cleric do not find ways to weasel out off it to be able to use the cool dark stuff, that is my opinion at least."
If it is considered ignorant to say good clerics shouldnt be condoning evil acts by default, sure you are right, though frankly without houseruling the animate dead spell into something else that is rather ignorant in itself.
"Also, it should be noted that Good clerics weren't even really capable of getting anything out of the malconovoker- they can't cast spells with the [evil] descriptor, and thus could never summon any of the groovy baddies the class relied on. The whole point of the class was to magically (and mundanely) pit your enemies against your enemies, convincing evil-aligned summons to fight other evil folks through coercion and lies. That's chaotic, buddy- not evil."
Malconvokers have this ability:
"Unrestricted Conjuration: For the purpose only of
casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions
that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments.
In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil
descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment.
For example, a good cleric who becomes a malconvoker
could cast summon monster I to summon a fiendish raven
(whose alignment gives the spell the evil descriptor). The
cleric could not cast death knell, though, which has the evil
descriptor but is not of the conjuration school."
This ability allows a good cleric to function as a Malconvoker.
The focus of the class was certainly not along the lines of chaos, sure coercion and lies could be considered chaotic, though lawful evil creatures are perfectly capable of lying and manipulating.
The malconvoker caters to people who want to do the evil, cool stuff in a non-evil party, the details on how or what are left deliberately vague
.
According to your interpretation, if an evil person is willing to let another evil person sacrifice himself in order to summon a powerful [Evil] archdevil (which will promptly proceed to go around killing a whole bunch of people due to having free will), then neither the act of sacrifice nor the act of summoning are not evil acts.
To put it another way, replace both above "evil persons" with "Paladins". From what I understand, you are saying that neither of them would lose their Paladin status, as neither has committed an evil act. After all, they are not responsible for what the arch-devil does, as they are not in control of it.
When you dismantle an act into its component parts, you must remember to include all component parts. Like the whole, 'bringing a murderous uncontrollable superdemon into the world,' part. Yeah, that's a whole lot of harming, there.
And that archdemon is indeed a known, uncontrollable, murderous, powerful, self-driven element. The natural consequences are quite clear, in that regard.
And do note that Paladins are subject to considerably more than simply the alignment system. And they're ill-designed, to boot, when it comes to conduct.
Lastly, undead: The spell is Evil, which means it is an Evil Spell. Come on, VV, we've agreed far more then we've disagreed, but here I think you're off. Zombies and skeletons are still bags of anti-life, and their natural instinct is to kill the living.
Except it isn't an evil spell. It's an [Evil] spell, just as Falls-From-Grace is an [Evil] creature. Yet even though Falls-From-Grace is [Evil], she isn't evil. [Evil] is a substance. Nothing more, nothing less. It carries no inherent moral weight, only a strong correlation.
Still 3.5 had powercreep, saying that is funny because the core was already unbalanced to some extent doesnt really help that.
But here's the thing; the 3.5 PHB is the single most unbalanced splat in the entire library, bar none. A high-level core-only Wizard is still several orders of magnitude more powerful than a full-splat Warblade. The splats are a balance patch.
If making the options that got completely and utterly screwed (like, say, 'guy who kills things with swords) actually become viable and effective is 'power creep,' then power creep is the best thing that ever happened to the game.
Good Clerics are enemies of the undead, there shouldnt really be more to it, unless there is a very good reason. They get God granted power to smite them, they defile the sanctity of life by their very presence in the realm of the living.
If you play a good cleric, play a good cleric do not find ways to weasel out off it to be able to use the cool dark stuff, that is my opinion at least.
That's a character aspect, chief, not a necessity of the class. There are good gods who don't give a damn about zombies, and their clergy needn't worry about 'em either.
And again, dark isn't evil.
|
|
I'd point out that animated undead are not eligibile for basic Raise Dead anymore; they're tainted. So something happens with them. Literature generally has the soul of creatures reanimated "trapped" away from whatever afterlife they go to.
Regardless, it's defiling a body. Even if it is a fallen enemy, you have to accept this fact. Having party members do it is always "difficult"; on one hand, you don't want to ever encourage PVP. On another hand, you're a cleric of a good deity accepting potential soul trapping and definite body defiling in exchange for, as the would call them, a "meat shield".
All of my good and some of my neutral characters would not in any way tolerate this. Sallik would get a kick, Thallin would think it's "business as usual" and invite you to the empire of Asmodeus, but most of the rest would be disgusted.
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher
Emphasis mine, direct from PFRD. Seems clear to me that Create Undead[EVIL] to make NE aligned undead is a no-go for a good Cleric. I suggest that the good Cleric, to answer the OP, would jump up and down on the neutralish Wizard.
EDIT: This is just going round and round isn't it?