Well yeah. We keep going like this we're going to start an alignment argument and then the thread will be proper screwed.
Oh god please help me!
This isn't an alignment argument is it? I thought the OP was answered.Ah well...anyone fancy chicken skewers with satay sauce[EVIL]?
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.
ok I get that Falls-From-Grace, is not evil, but demons are inherently evil, every single one of them is tainted and are evil from the moment they come into existence. Due to extraordinary circumstance one in a million might have an alignment change.
The evil is still there, the fact that a very rare few manage to somehow compensate for that evil to justify an alignment other than chaotic evil does not make the evil go away.The fact that not all users of [evil] spells are evil does not take away they are prone to corruption by casting the spell.
"[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 languagedependant
spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures
with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."
Tell me VV how does a descriptor interact with alignment ?
I got partially ninja'd by spacelard ^^ I should not have left my seat to make tea.
I know this argument has very little chance to actually convince anyone, it is not so much about what we read in the books it is just how we think it will be most fun, or like we think it should be, I do not really believe VV think [evil] means it is an alignment neutral spell, he just wants to believe it, and that is fine with me, just don't call everyone else a hypocrit please ;)
ok I get that Falls-From-Grace, is not evil, but demons are inherently evil, every single one of them is tainted and are evil from the moment they come into existence. Due to extraordinary circumstance one in a million might have an alignment change.
The evil is still there, the fact that a very rare few manage to somehow compensate for that evil to justify an alignment other than chaotic evil does not make the evil go away.
Again and again and again, the point is [Evil] is distinct from evil. This is all about the 'not necessarily.' The [Evil] in demons is a substance, independent of morality. Demons aren't evil because they're [Evil]. They're evil because they're evil, because they revel in the pain and suffering and destruction of others.
Tell me VV how does a descriptor interact with alignment ?
It causes the spell to register as evil with regards to various effects, such as Detect Evil, in much the same way as a Smite Evil effect would still deal extra damage to Falls-From-Grace.
ok I get that Falls-From-Grace, is not evil, but demons are inherently evil, every single one of them is tainted and are evil from the moment they come into existence. Due to extraordinary circumstance one in a million might have an alignment change.
The evil is still there, the fact that a very rare few manage to somehow compensate for that evil to justify an alignment other than chaotic evil does not make the evil go away.Again and again and again, the point is [Evil] is distinct from evil. This is all about the 'not necessarily.' The [Evil] in demons is a substance, independent of morality. Demons aren't evil because they're [Evil]. They're evil because they're evil, because they revel in the pain and suffering and destruction of others.
Tell me VV how does a descriptor interact with alignment ?It causes the spell to register as evil with regards to various effects, such as Detect Evil, in much the same way as a Smite Evil effect would still deal extra damage to Falls-From-Grace.
A creature subtype is different from a spell descriptor, either way I'll ask my question again :
"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."
VV you just described how an evil spell interacts with other spells, now how does it interact with alignment ?
If a spell has the [evil] descriptor, then the act of casting the spell is an evil act.That doesn't make any sense.
It's a really easy issue to fix. You can just remove the evil tag (which VV is arguing loudly for but it's really not the only way to solve the issue), or you can make the spell do something that is actually malevolent. Make even mindless undead some sort of anathema, or make them baseline murderous, or make the act of making undead essentially malevolent in some way (more than trapping the soul of the revived; it's kind of hard to argue that trapping the soul of a horse is evil if the horse is dead but okay if the horse is alive).
You get a universe that makes a bit more sense, and you get a ton of completely awesome story hooks out of the deal.
Feel free to stomp your feet and call it a house rule, but it's a house rule that doesn't change the way you play the game except for adding a ton of awesome stories.
I think this is exactly what most people are trying to say here...undead ARE baseline anathema, malevolent, and kill when not left with orders. Even in a high fantasy game..you can't expect NORMAL people..the ones that have almost NO contact with magic as being ok with undead creatures...even if it was the family ox. You destroy all context of a living world, if everyone just shrugs at the guy leading a dragon on a leash...Some of the arguments on here seem to be if you live in a world of magic, you will have no troubles with a pit fiend opening a day care center down the road.
VV stated tat the way people would react to and undead has no base on if it is evil or not..and that is true in a sense..but it is also no DEFENSE as to if it is evil or not. My argument is that there is a good reason why people react badly in terror to the undead..they are creatures that exist outside the natural order, and almost always actively or passively destroy the living. On that same note..wagons clothing, etc are unnatural..but no where on the same order as an undead creature.Seeing that, officially at least, skeletons possess "evil cunning" and zombies "mill about to destroy the living"..if you play by official cannon, farmer Bob's undead ox should start killing the kids as soon as it is not givin an exact command. If you play that mindless undead act like machines, fine for you..but those are house rules, and not something to be pushed on people. If you use fiction and past games as a rule of thumb, nations that viewed undead as machines tend to have an overall evil aligment/rulers, and tend to go down in flames...
ok I get that Falls-From-Grace, is not evil, but demons are inherently evil, every single one of them is tainted and are evil from the moment they come into existence. Due to extraordinary circumstance one in a million might have an alignment change.
The evil is still there, the fact that a very rare few manage to somehow compensate for that evil to justify an alignment other than chaotic evil does not make the evil go away.Again and again and again, the point is [Evil] is distinct from evil. This is all about the 'not necessarily.' The [Evil] in demons is a substance, independent of morality. Demons aren't evil because they're [Evil]. They're evil because they're evil, because they revel in the pain and suffering and destruction of others.
Tell me VV how does a descriptor interact with alignment ?It causes the spell to register as evil with regards to various effects, such as Detect Evil, in much the same way as a Smite Evil effect would still deal extra damage to Falls-From-Grace.A creature subtype is different from a spell descriptor, either way I'll ask my question again :
"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."VV you just described how an evil spell interacts with other spells, now how does it interact with alignment ?
You do have to keep in mind..that the number of demons that are not evil can be counted on one hand. In fact, per Pathfinder they are created directly from evil, as such I am not sure that Falls-from Grace even exists as such anymore. Planescape gave fiends wayyy too many human traits and personality, and had them drinking in bars with devils and humans on their off hours.
Malconvokers have this ability:<snip>
I stand corrected on the malconvoker.
You do have to keep in mind..that the number of demons that are not evil can be counted on one hand. In fact, per Pathfinder they are created directly from evil, as such I am not sure that Falls-from Grace even exists as such anymore. Planescape gave fiends wayyy too many human traits and personality, and had them drinking in bars with devils and humans on their off hours.
I do agree, I never enjoyed planescape at all due to this and the weird abstractness inherent to the setting, which is fine if you like to play planescape as a stand alone setting, but it did not mix well with other settings.
Falls-Form-Grace probably has been reworked in some splat Dragon Magazine or some like that for the fans, even in 2nd edition I found it odd to reduce a succubus to a 'bad girl with bat wings turning her life around'.
On the subject of undead they are in no way meant to be a part of the living world, infact they are anathema to life. Give unlife the tiniest bit of cunning, personality or sentience and you will have created something that should have never been.
|
On the subject of undead they are in no way meant to be a part of the living world, infact they are anathema to life. Give unlife the tiniest bit of cunning, personality or sentience and you will have created something that should have never been.
You could say the same for robots in science fiction, and not everyone thinks the way you do about them. So obviously undead being unnatural is a point of view. So it is part of the DMs worldbuilding to decide that fact.
robots aren't a direct opposite force, they are still made with the building blocks of the natural world. unlife however is a direct opposite of life, as good holds life sacred doesn't it make sense that by bringing unlife into the natural world you are defiling that which is sacred ?
DMs always can do what they want, at least as long as it makes for an enjoyable game.
|
|
robots aren't a direct opposite force, they are still made with the building blocks of the natural world. unlife however is a direct opposite of life, as good holds life sacred doesn't it make sense that by bringing unlife into the natural world you are defiling that which is sacred ?
Again, you use words like sacred and un-anything. These are viewpoints. Unless you make it so that undead are physically harmful to any and every life around it for its entire existance, it does not have a basis in the world. But as soon as you have undead that don't, you've lost consistancy.
For example, in this case an unwilling vampire would be a tragic figure. Forced to feed off of living, watching everything he touches decay. His favorite books would molder to dust, his finest clothing would tatter and unravel in only a few weeks. His very touch on his lovers face would inflict bruises and cancer.
Unlife, logically speaking, is not the opposite of life. That's just a separated ecosystem. But vampires and shadows and the others are living : they're reproducing, they're feeding, they're dying... They're much more living than gods. And they appear in a much more natural manner, too, since most are not created by mortals.
Negative energy is a part of the natural world, and the undead themselves are the proof of that.
And defiling stuff is chaotic, not evil.
robots aren't a direct opposite force, they are still made with the building blocks of the natural world. unlife however is a direct opposite of life, as good holds life sacred doesn't it make sense that by bringing unlife into the natural world you are defiling that which is sacred ?Again, you use words like sacred and un-anything. These are viewpoints. Unless you make it so that undead are physically harmful to any and every life around it for its entire existance, it does not have a basis in the world. But as soon as you have undead that don't, you've lost consistancy.
For example, in this case an unwilling vampire would be a tragic figure. Forced to feed off of living, watching everything he touches decay. His favorite books would molder to dust, his finest clothing would tatter and unravel in only a few weeks. His very touch on his lovers face would inflict bruises and cancer.
Thematically life and unlife are opposites, it is like good and evil aren't perfect mirror images of eachother not even distorted ones.
A vampires touch does not cause cancer or inflict bruises, neither does a living man's touch heal bruises and cure disease, I am missing your point with this bit.
Unlife, logically speaking, is not the opposite of life. That's just a separated ecosystem. But vampires and shadows and the others are living : they're reproducing, they're feeding, they're dying... They're much more living than gods. And they appear in a much more natural manner, too, since most are not created by mortals.
Negative energy is a part of the natural world, and the undead themselves are the proof of that.And defiling stuff is chaotic, not evil.
I disagree on almost all the points you try to make.
|
|
A vampires touch does not cause cancer or inflict bruises, neither does a living man's touch heal bruises and cure disease, I am missing your point with this bit.
Precisely the point. There is no backup to the statement 'undead are anathema to life'. Undead do not cause the deterioration of life any differently than a construct does, by claw/bite/slam. If the touch of any undead caused life to wither, then it could be considered diametrically opposed. As it stands, it is not a consistant world element, but a wavery, yes-and-no problem.
I disagree on almost all the points you try to make.
Which is fine, because we disagree on your points as well.
A vampires touch does not cause cancer or inflict bruises, neither does a living man's touch heal bruises and cure disease, I am missing your point with this bit.
Precisely the point. There is no backup to the statement 'undead are anathema to life'. Undead do not cause the deterioration of life any differently than a construct does, by claw/bite/slam. If the touch of any undead caused life to wither, then it could be considered diametrically opposed. As it stands, it is not a consistant world element, but a wavery, yes-and-no problem.
Which is fine, because we disagree on your points as well.
I disagree on almost all the points you try to make.
Energy Drain ? it might not be the bruises and cancer you described but a vampire sure can do that, it comes pretty close.
Depending on the form of undeath a creature takes it will conflict with the living world in some way or another, but it varies wildly how, in many cases it might just not be notable for any game effect.
nonetheless the corruption of life by undead is a very popular fantasy theme. wilting flowers, aging, rotting diseases.
I assume life is powered by positive energy and undead by negative energy, negative energy hurts life, positive energy hurts undead.. that is pretty much opposed.
|
|
Energy Drain ? it might not be the bruises and cancer you described but a vampire sure can do that, it comes pretty close.
Depending on the form of undeath a creature takes it will conflict with the living world in some way or another, but it varies wildly how, in many cases it might just not be notable for any game effect.
nonetheless the corruption of life by undead is a very popular fantasy theme. wilting flowers, aging, rotting diseases.
I assume life is powered by positive energy and undead by negative energy, negative energy hurts life, positive energy hurts undead.. that is pretty much opposed.
It may not be notable for game effect, but it should be noticable for story effects. If a skeleton can be created and used for farming without any ill effect for generations, it breaks the theme of 'undeath is anathema to life'. Vampires have the choice to inflict the level drain, meaning that it is not a requirement. Otherwise there would be mention of how they cannot interact with the living without causing harm.
Life is not powered by positive energy, only healed by it. Too much positive energy is deadly to life, as seen by the Positive Energy Plane. Undead can never be harmed by negative energy.
Corruption of life by undeath is a popular trope, however it is not the only option. Resident Evil has undead created by a virus that increases cellular growth. Reanimation by overpowering life. D&D has not had a consistant worldview of undead, although Pathfinder has improved upon it.
I disagree on almost all the points you try to make.
Almost ? What do you agree on, then ?
The only thing that may lack an explanation in my post is that negative energy is natural. It is because it is a basic constituant of the cosmology, and does not need artificial means to keep being one. Undeath happens.Life is equally threatened by a rift to the negative energy plane than it is by a rift to the elemental plane of fire.
well that is true, I would like to see skeleton a bit less 'pile of bones undead guy' a game effect that does indeed wither plants and such over time would be nice.
Vampires do have a choice to inflict energy drain, I am not sure that really matters ? In D&D some concessions are made, silver is apparently bad for werewolves, but it does not burn them on touch, only real effect is when you hit it with a silver weapon to overcome DR.
life and unlife are not a perfect mirror image, but yes too much positive energy can kill, apparently individual cells multiply too fast or something like it and your body goes rampant, before you know it your body explodes, too much is not good living creatures depend on more than a little positive energy to exist, preferably we keep our organs intact as well.
Negative energy does not do that to undead, true, undead do not have a physiology, perhaps negative energy should eat away at all things organic instead, well it doesn't.
Resident Evil is fun, not related to the D&D zombies really, possibly could make something similar with positive energy or other experimentation, it would probably not be an undead zombie though.
Unlife, logically speaking, is not the opposite of life. That's just a separated ecosystem. But vampires and shadows and the others are living : they're reproducing, they're feeding, they're dying... They're much more living than gods. And they appear in a much more natural manner, too, since most are not created by mortals.
Negative energy is a part of the natural world, and the undead themselves are the proof of that.And defiling stuff is chaotic, not evil.
I agree with, vampires and shadows reproducing, feeding in a away.. even though they do not necesarily need it, they also typically die.. when staked or burned or blown up by the local cleric or paladin.
So what's the difference with life, then ?
you edited your post, undeath happens.. well that is a good point, question is how that happens I suppose, typically it is the cause of extreme mental anguish or some sort of strong emotion at the point of death.
I am not inclined to believe that it is as it should be, he / she should be dead, still it does happen every so often. I am more inclined to believe this is through a mortals strong will, attention of a greater power or a specific location of power or a connection with other planes, still it is a good point though.
Frankly, listing mindless undead (and the spell that crates them) as [Evil] was one of the few misteps that Paizo made with Pathfinder. I personally will be ignoring it, since it makes no sense. A skeleton is no more evil than an animated object...because it basically IS an animated object.
hmm yea, I have a problem with creatures being listed as mindless period really.
Vermin should not be mindless, even if it is just instinct they act upon,
neither should undead with no mind but a decent charisma score and alignment, I have serious doubts about golems as well, sure they have virtually no personality (charisma 1), but they apparently do act somewhat intelligent even if it is artificial.
One issue with undead is that there's a fluff/mechanics dissonance.
They're described as being made of negative energy, as being anti-life bags, as being horrible and evil and poisonous.
Except, they're not. They're just standard enemies with the undead template.
One of my friends came up with two solutions. First, just remove the anti-life bit. Zombies and skeletons are just basic constructs, only they're filled with negative energy.
The other idea is to give undead a group mob effect. When there's enough of them clustered together, they start gaining an aura that does a small amount of negative energy damage, maybe just 1 for a simple mob of skeletons, more if there's a group of super-zombies.
robots aren't a direct opposite force, they are still made with the building blocks of the natural world. unlife however is a direct opposite of life, as good holds life sacred doesn't it make sense that by bringing unlife into the natural world you are defiling that which is sacred ?Again, you use words like sacred and un-anything. These are viewpoints. Unless you make it so that undead are physically harmful to any and every life around it for its entire existance, it does not have a basis in the world. But as soon as you have undead that don't, you've lost consistancy.
For example, in this case an unwilling vampire would be a tragic figure. Forced to feed off of living, watching everything he touches decay. His favorite books would molder to dust, his finest clothing would tatter and unravel in only a few weeks. His very touch on his lovers face would inflict bruises and cancer.
That may work in Vampire the Masquerade, but in D&D it's pretty black and white... vampires are always evil. Their night to night necessities involve killing sentient beings. D&D is a high fantasy game, not a tragic personal horror game. Vampires and other monsters are meant to be villains to overcome. Undead are evil... even liches will eventually become corrupted into evil by that negative energy and their obsessions.
|
|
That may work in Vampire the Masquerade, but in D&D it's pretty black and white... vampires are always evil. Their night to night necessities involve killing sentient beings. D&D is a high fantasy game, not a tragic personal horror game. Vampires and other monsters are meant to be villains to overcome. Undead are evil... even liches will eventually become corrupted into evil by that negative energy and their obsessions.
That's my issue. They SAY it is black and white, cut and dried. But it isn't. Hopefully Pathfinder fixes that.
Frankly, listing mindless undead (and the spell that crates them) as [Evil] was one of the few misteps that Paizo made with Pathfinder. I personally will be ignoring it, since it makes no sense. A skeleton is no more evil than an animated object...because it basically IS an animated object.
What makes it evil is the power THAT animates it. Thats the reason mindless undead are not simply listed as "constructs" and flesh golems are.
What makes it evil is the power THAT animates it. Thats the reason mindless undead are not simply listed as "constructs" and flesh golems are.
And now we're back to the difference between [Evil] and evil. Specifically, that the use of [Evil] is not necessarily evil. As it stands, there's nothing evil about the [Evil] used in skeletons and zombies.
A good cleric of a good deity is a servitor of a cosmic force of [Good]. If the wizard casts animate dead, the wizard is invoking a directly opposed cosmic principle (as seen by the fact that no cleric of a good deity, and no good cleric of any deity, can use [Evil] spells). If the cleric doesn't do something on his own to correct the situation, his deity should treat him as apostate.
That's utterly disregarding whether casting an [Evil] spell is immoral or not. That malum prohibitum and malum in se are distinguishable does not prevent them from both being judged and punished.
What makes it evil is the power THAT animates it. Thats the reason mindless undead are not simply listed as "constructs" and flesh golems are.And now we're back to the difference between [Evil] and evil. Specifically, that the use of [Evil] is not necessarily evil. As it stands, there's nothing evil about the [Evil] used in skeletons and zombies.
ok VV, we are back to this :
"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."
you still haven't managed to give a satisfactory answer to how a descriptor affects alignment, you gave some answer that specifically mentioned how it affects certain spells or abilities, but not alignment.
>> As far as PRPG goes it seems to be that casting an [evil] descriptor spell to create an evil creature, is an evil act. Most people seem to agree with that, just not wether it should be.
Skeletons and zombies don't really say EVIL , a big part of it is that they have no intelligence score and they do not have any evilish direct game effect. They rather seem a side effect of evil more than cause / source of evil, I believe they should be EVIL though, personally I do not have any trouble assuming they are and making up what game effect they have on life in the surrounding area, perhaps it is better to give them a little intelligence, but according to the rules you would have to supply them with skillpoints and feats making them and the animate dead spell more powerful.
I am also not quite sure what having no intelligence score means in D&D, it seems to me every single creature in the bestiary should have at least an intelligence of 1, otherwise it would basically be a vegetable / object. Perhaps instead of giving them no intelligence at all apply special rules to these creatures denying them feats and skillpoints and some immunities ?
you still haven't managed to give a satisfactory answer to how a descriptor affects alignment, you gave some answer that specifically mentioned how it affects certain spells or abilities, but not alignment.And neither do the rules as written. I suggest making some (gasp, shock) house rules to cover this subject, if it's important to you.
I am also not quite sure what having no intelligence score means in D&D, it seems to me every single creature in the bestiary should have at least an intelligence of 1, otherwise it would basically be a vegetable / object.In game terms, it means having no skill points, no feats, and automatically failing any int-based check. Practically, it means having no memory, no will of your own beyond instinct, and no problem-solving ability.
I am not a big fan of the concept of "mindless" creatures in D&D, but that's a rant for another day.
(gasp, shock)is that sarcasm ?
I do not think it is a houserule at all, rather I believe an [evil] spell is infact "evil", but in either case it doesn't matter for my campaign, casting [evil] spells in my campaign is an evil act it would still be even if the rules did say otherwise. Perhaps you can give a satisfactory answer, as to how a descriptor interacts with alignment ?
I am not against houseruling, I do that alot, but it is a bit pointless to voice that in every discussion, I hope to gain some insights from other players I can find myself agreeing with, that might possibly make some good changes to my own game.
not quite right about the mindless part :
"Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence
score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based
skills or checks."
This suggests that every creature has some reasoning capability even if it does not have an intelligence score.
Madcap Storm King wrote:
To bring such a powerful force into the world, to be used for great destruction on either side, that is immoral.
To leave it on an easily cut rope over your own home is moronic.
To do both and provide a danger to your people is most certainly immoral.
...
This thread is so ridiculously mired in hypocrisy and double standards as to be absurd. Do you even think about the implications of your arguments? By the whole, 'Well what if the zombies go out of control? That's dangerous. It must therefore be evil,' argument, a priest of Moradin who makes a +5 Axe of Slashiness is performing an evil act because someone might kill whoever the priest gives it to and then take the axe to do evil.
Sorry, I don't find hypocrisy to negate an argument. Things can exist from multiple perspectives, isn't that YOUR whole argument?
It's not that it's dangerous. It's that it's improperly guarded and maintained to prevent a greater force from taking it over. On top of that, it's going to be garrisoned close to a town if it's used for guarding them. It's roughly as smart as breeding guard rhinoceros who will work for anyone wearing more of the color red, and hoping no one wearing more red than your guards comes around to take them away.
I never said being stupid was evil. I said being stupid was being stupid.
BUT if your stupidity does endanger other human beings, if your ignorance costs them their lives, should you not be held accountable?
And on the axe, that's a powerful item, but it's hardly supposed to be easy to take. You give it to the strongest warrior or the one who needs the most protecting. A higher level warrior can't just tell the guy with the axe to fork it over and have him do so without a fight.
On the morality of creating powerful weapons... That's outside the scope of this discussion. We're talking about zombies and skeletons, which every first level adventurer can kill. They're not that bad.
Madcap Storm King wrote:
Or it relates to the undead (especially zombies) coming directly from Uncanny Valley In other words unless these people were created from pods, they are going to run from the zombies, the skeletons, and the vampires with half their faces burnt off. People don't react to you well if you have a large wart on your face. How do you think they'll react if you've got pallid green skin, missing flesh, a shambling gait and the strong smell of rotting flesh about you?
I think "flip out" is a severe under reaction.
Yes, zombies are ugly. They are creepy. They are smelly. I've met plenty of folks who meet the same criteria. That doesn't make 'em evil.
I never said they were anywhere in that paragraph you quoted. I was responding to how people would react if they saw a reanimated freaking corpse trotting around.
Madcap Storm King wrote:
Yeah, because positioning bombs and guns outside a residential district isn't a bad idea. I was responding to her specific idea, not the overall tone of the thread. Her argument is that they are like a machine, and she suggested using them for warfare and defense. The fact that they are powered by negative energy is irrelevant, those ones are created for the action of killing. Whether killing is immoral or not depends on the situation. But whereas guns need soldiers to operate them, all those undead need is a powerful caster to control them. More akin to making angry animate longswords that only need to be told what to do by a high enough level fighter.
...
You are aware that you just called the zombie horde safer than the machine gun. After all, any random soldier can pick up your own machine gun and go to town. The zombies have the additional failsafe in that only certain people with certain abilities can take control of them.
Yes, because I said a large army being controlled utterly by one man is not as dangerous as one guy getting one weapon. One man having the power of many versus one man having the power of one. Clearly the man with power equaled by one other guy is more dangerous.
What?
Aside from that, the soldiers have the capacity to fight back even when not ordered to and loyalty to their country. The zombies are slave minded and will obey commands even if they are suicidal or disadvantageous to their creator.
Besides that, soldiers are hardly average people. I've known quite a few in my time, and I'd say memorizing words written in a book and remembering not to sleep through mass is probably not as hard as the training the least of them go through.
That, and you don't station a shack full of machine guns with significantly less soldiers to protect people. That is dumb.
And do note, the logic has to stand on its own merits.
What were the merits of your argument again? Wizards and Clerics becoming public servants and regulated to casting Animate Dead every time a pony dies? Ponies are free, that's what happens when horses love each other very much. Man, an autonomous society is so much more dramatically interesting when there are horrible creatures from beyond the grave doing the work and no one even reacts to it. Very realistic. I know if I saw an animated skeleton carrying someone's groceries down the street I would probably not even react, despite the fact that it's been animated by phantom forces only a few people in the world are privy to. The idea of people being able to kill me with a thought and then bring my body back against my will to do their bidding doesn't scare me, probably because they went too deep with the lobotomy.
Discounting dramatic quality, I'm done even arguing that undead are evil by this point. I'm more over arguing that implementing them on a massive scale is a bad plan. It's like putting big robot controlled metal spiky things all over the X Mansion to fend off intruders even though Magneto can control metal. You're just contributing to your own destruction. And yeah, dragging down other people with you is immoral. Helping people to die is usually considered bad.
The logic you used to counter that specific scenario, when taken on its own merits, calls the priest of Moradin evil for making an axe. Bad logic is bad logic.
For making an axe? No. If he made an axe that can cut god and then guarded it inadequately, yeah, the guy's asking for it. What was his end goal again? Getting his butt handed to him by his own idiocy?
I am not a big fan of the concept of "mindless" creatures in D&D, but that's a rant for another day.
Amen. I hate the D&D dual definition of mindless as "dumb" and "immune to mental powers". I even ranted about it during the Pathfinder playtest, but to no avail.
Still see no reason that positive energy can not be used to animate the "bones of saints" or to raise an army to oppose the army of darkness.
You're implicitly making the assumption "positive energy = good". If that's how it is in your campaign, more power to you, but note that there are plenty of evil creatures that are healed by positive energy (e.g. orcs) and a few good creatures that are healed by negative energy (e.g. good-aligned ghosts).
But leaving that aside, I think the main argument against making good-aligned zombies common is that it's not really popular in fantasy fiction. The bad guys get walking corpses that kill, and the good guys get spirits like Obi-Wan Kenobi who give advice. (I'm sure there are exceptions, like the ghost army in the Lord of the Rings.)
|
|
Now that THAT is out of the way, it's cool that both MiB and VV decided to houserule differently. TriOmega makes a good call in asking why the rules are the way they are. And I agree that it should be different, and houserule accordingly. I rule mindless undead have the moral alignment of their creator, thus MOST are evil, but not ALL. I also remove the [Evil] descriptor from the spell Animate Dead, but not from Create Undead.
Your thought is similar to mine, Mirror. My explanation is they are aligned according to the purpose they were created for. So those raised to slay all life are Evil, while those raised to pour afternoon tea are Neutral.
I find your argument on the subject of [Evil] compelling, but since I haven't had a good grasp of what precisely we're arguing on it I can't say yet if I agree or disagree.
What makes it evil is the power THAT animates it. Thats the reason mindless undead are not simply listed as "constructs" and flesh golems are.And now we're back to the difference between [Evil] and evil. Specifically, that the use of [Evil] is not necessarily evil. As it stands, there's nothing evil about the [Evil] used in skeletons and zombies.
If the power that grants the bones power to move is not evil in nature, then why exactly, in your view are they, as written neutral evil, with evil cunning? I think we can agree that a pile of simple bones is not evil by nature. SOMETHING has to give them this slight bend to an evil nature, and the only change to the bones is the spell. Logically then the spell itself gives them this evil "taint". It may not be the energy that empowers the bones, per say, versus the INTENT of the use of the energy. Looked at in that light, cause wounds spells are no more "evil" then a fireball, but molding that energy into making the dead walk, no matter what the intentions of the caster is.
Flesh golems are twisted, but animated by elemental forse, so are listed as not only neutral, but constructs. They are built and powered up, ant animated. They same would stand for a bone golem. Its not an animated skeleton because it is not energized/powered/ however you want to describe it by the same energy that runs the undead..and makes them evil. A golem without orders..even a bone golem made from a single skeleton will just stand. A animated skeleton will go out of its way to follow a vague evil instinct.Otherwise zombies and skeletons are just constructs, that are for some unknown reason evil.
If you play it diffrent in your games..great for you.
Houseruling is great, personally I do not believe in Ken & Barbie undead, but it fits for some people I suppose.
How are people getting from '[Evil] is not necessarily evil' to societies that don't bat an eye at the unliving and pony animation hordes?
When I say [Evil] is not necessarily evil, I mean [Evil] is not necessarily evil. The inconsistencies in RAW with regards to the nature of evil are such that 'not necessarily' is the correct answer with regards to the evilness of making skeletons. To do the whole '[Evil] is by necessity evil' is a houserule, as the rules put in some wiggle room on the evilness of [Evil].
Hogarth got the right of it. Any ruling either way is a houserule, because the rules are so internally inconsistent.
And Mirror, Falls-From-Grace is quite subject to Smite Evil, despite not being evil. All creatures with the [Evil] subtype are treated as evil for the purposes of all spells and abilities, including smiting. That's a specific clause in the [Evil] subtype. The [Evil] subtype continues to have meaning, because it has mechanical effect. (Meanwhile, things like the [Fire] descriptor have pretty much zero impact on the core game. In fact, there are a lot of meaningless descriptors in the core game that do not interact with anything else and can be removed completely without any impact at all on the core game.)
|
Rules are suprisingly cut-and-dry here; the thing you bring into being is evil (bestiary), and you are defiling a body. The evil descriptor is not used lightly; good clerics cannot animate dead for a reason. You seem to be arguing for argument's sake; you can houserule them otherwise; but by the rules they are a force of animated evil.
|
|
Rules are suprisingly cut-and-dry here; the thing you bring into being is evil (bestiary), and you are defiling a body. The evil descriptor is not used lightly; good clerics cannot animate dead for a reason. You seem to be arguing for argument's sake; you can houserule them otherwise; but by the rules they are a force of animated evil.
Only they are not, because there is no consistant reason for them to be evil besides 'they just are'. Defiling a body is a societal norm, not a rule. The rules say they are evil by consensus of the group, and if the group does not accept that all undead are evil the rule is broken. Without a clear explanation of why, it ruins the world for anyone who stops to consider it.
|
|
You can argue that for pretty much anything alignment based; alignment never made any sense in DND, its mostly- elimination in 4th was one thing I liked. But regardless of whether you think channeling forces of darkness to reanimate bodies of creatures wall is bad or not, DND does. You may similarly argue any actions (and people do) as good or evil. The game takes a black and white approach. Anything you do against that is a house rule; and as much as you want to argue whether meat corpsing your enemies is "acceptable", it's not going to change.
Rules are suprisingly cut-and-dry here; the thing you bring into being is evil (bestiary), and you are defiling a body.Only they are not, because there is no consistent reason for them to be evil besides 'they just are'.
To be specific, the PFRPG Bestiary is fairly clear that skeletons and zombies act evilly if they're not being told not to:
"While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force--a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."
"When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour."
Now you can get into modern ideas of mens rea, of course.