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.)
That might be, but in the case of alignment descriptors, they do infact interact with alignment, you do not need to be a genius to figure out how an [evil] spell would interact with alignment.
Hogarth is right in that everyone can houserule, but an [evil] spell seems obviously evil, if it isn't clearly in the rules it is because it is so obvious.
I do not expect paizo to slam down the hammer and tell everyone how to play, even if it is an evil act to cast the spell, it doesnt necesarily have to be that bad, it is up to you to decide how casting of [evil] spells affect the character if at all.
That might be, but in the case of alignment descriptors, they do infact interact with alignment, you do not need to be a genius to figure out how an [evil] spell would interact with alignment.
Right. It would interact in the exact same way that the [Evil] subtype interacts. And since there can be lawful/neutral [Evil] creatures? That means [Evil] creatures are not necessarily evil. Which means the use of [Evil] spells is not necessarily an evil act.
Hogarth is right in that everyone can houserule, but an [evil] spell seems obviously evil, if it isn't clearly in the rules it is because it is so obvious.
This part I disagree with, because it implies that casting a [good] spell (like summoning a lantern archon) is a good act, and I don't see why that should be the case. In my campaign, it isn't.
|
Or, it is an evil act, but one that can in theory be balanced by how it is used.
Or, heck, I don't know.
At this point, I'm willing to chalk it all up to inconsistent rules.
I mean, is it an evil act to summon an [Evil] creature in a controlled and contained environment (where it cannot get out to cause any mischief), in order to verify some important fact (like that your new custom made evil smiting spell works, or that the fiend does in fact have the soul of the person you are trying to save, so you can go off and smite him?)
On the other hand, as a previous poster noted, mindless undead do have very basic instincts, and will wander around and do bad things if left unsupervised. So they are inherently evil.
But the Skeleton is evil, despite being mindless.
The rule that mindless creatures are neutral is a general rule.
The skeleton entry is more specific. It clearly states that despite an Int of '-', the Skeleton is a Neutral Evil being.
In fact, the SRD even goes on to spell out that the *force* animating the skeleton grants an evil cunning, allowing the skeleton to use weapons and armor.
In this case, the force itself (negative energy), is giving the mindless skeleton not only the ability to wear armor and use weapons, it gives it an 'evil cunning'.
Which is why skeletons attack the living. And will pick up weapons to do it more efficiently. Mindless, yet driven by an evil force even without the commands of a someone who can influence undead.
Zombies are the same. they're mindless undead, animated by an evil force. But the rules SPECIFICALLY state that left to their own devices, they will attempt to find and slay the living, devouring them.
So, while the rules in general declare mindless creatures to have no alignment and to sit around until they are told to do something, Skeletons and Zombies, by the rules, are mindless yet are driven by the force that creates them. Skeletons want to grab a weapon and slay the living. Zombies want to stalk and eat the living. Unless explicitly ordered not to, they will choose, despite having an Int of '-' to hunt and kill the living.
That's evil. They're evil creatures, with no goal in unlife other than to kill the living. Unless explicitly told not to kill, they kill. Despite having no brains, they have a drive to commit evil, and the ability to seek out and destroy life.
That might be, but in the case of alignment descriptors, they do infact interact with alignment, you do not need to be a genius to figure out how an [evil] spell would interact with alignment.Right. It would interact in the exact same way that the [Evil] subtype interacts. And since there can be lawful/neutral [Evil] creatures? That means [Evil] creatures are not necessarily evil. Which means the use of [Evil] spells is not necessarily an evil act.
That is a stretch, a spell descriptor and subtype are two different things. You actually mean it interacts with alignment by not interacting ?
I see it interacting with alignment in roughly this way :
it's an evil act, sometimes you can do evil acts for the greater good which would make the use acceptable to quite a few good aligned individuals. They will not do so lightly however.
It would still be an evil spell, resort to it every so often, even if used for the greater good, your alignment will slip to neutral.
In itself even an [evil] spell will not make a neutral character evil as long as it is not used for personal gain.
Constant castings of evil spells will still corrupt anyone though.
It's one reason why a dread necromancer (from heroes of horror) can not be good aligned. They might have the best intentions, but they use magic that taints their very soul to achieve it.
|
How did orcs get into a conversation about undead (and the +/- energy debate?
Defiling bodies?
It depends upon culture and egocentric views of things.My question is simple
Why can not "good temples" preserve the venerated remnants of "saints" for future battles against evil?Leave bodies out and summon the spiritual incarnation of st. Geronimo (now we are onto good ghosts
Why can't those undead be created by good (positive) energy and even be a culturally acceptable practice in a campaign world?
Watch out next will be neutral undead!!
can, campaign specifically. Eberron good undead rule the elves; and are turned by negative energy. But that does not happen in base DND.
This part I disagree with, because it implies that casting a [good] spell (like summoning a lantern archon) is a good act, and I don't see why that should be the case. In my campaign, it isn't.
Oh, the [Good] spell comparison's a good'n.
At this point, I'm willing to chalk it all up to inconsistent rules.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
The rules are so inconsistent that there isn't a single iron-clad answer.
Zombies are the same. they're mindless undead, animated by an evil force. But the rules SPECIFICALLY state that left to their own devices, they will attempt to find and slay the living, devouring them.
By the rules, zombies and skeletons are animated by the evil force of negative energy.
By the rules, negative energy is not evil.
The rules are inconsistent. Negative energy is both evil and not evil.
That's evil. They're evil creatures, with no goal in unlife other than to kill the living. Unless explicitly told not to kill, they kill. Despite having no brains, they have a drive to commit evil, and the ability to seek out and destroy life.
And that makes their creation evil... how? You can very easily order them to not kill.
Constant castings of evil spells will still corrupt anyone though.
That would be a major houserule, as there is nothing corrupting about the spell within the rules and the game doesn't have corruption mechanics. Which gets back to the whole, "Nothing about the spell is actually evil," thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Make even mindless undead some sort of anathema, or make them baseline murderous
You don't have to make them so. They already are. Canaries fly and eat worms. The fact that they can be used to detect poison gas in a mine doesn't mean that they are gas alarms instead of flying worm eaters. Skeletons and zombies are murderous slayers of the living. The fact that you can use them to hoe your row doesn't make farmers instead of undead killing machines. I think we've already established here that indiscriminate murder is evil by any interpretation of the RAW. I am not arguing that you can't houserule that zombies and skeletons, being mindless automatons, are neutral rather than evil. I am illustrating that their PFRPG Bestiary entries are quite explicit that they are evil.
Ninja'ed by hogarth and Marshall Jansen. And myself, about 3 pages back.
I do not see a real problem, why not just play an evil necromancer ?
Use them to bring you breakfast serve you tea, necrophilia, cannonfodder, trapspringers or a walking food supply. Save the world in between, God loves all.
|
Hogarth is right in that everyone can houserule, but an [evil] spell seems obviously evil, if it isn't clearly in the rules it is because it is so obvious.This part I disagree with, because it implies that casting a [good] spell (like summoning a lantern archon) is a good act, and I don't see why that should be the case. In my campaign, it isn't.
Don't you know? Summoning a lantern archon solely for the reason of killing it is a GOOD act.
By the rules, negative energy is not evil.
Hmm. We're specifically talking Pathfinder here? because if so, the only reference I can find of note to the alignment of Negative Energy is this:
Energy Planes: Two energy planes exist—the Positive Energy Plane (from which the animating spark of life hails) and the Negative Energy Plane (from which the sinister taint of undeath hails).
This certainly isn't rock-solid rules text, but it seems to imply the Negative Energy Plane is by definition sinister. While it may not have intelligence, it is something anathema to all that is good and natural, and therefore, evil. At least that's my take on it.
And that makes their creation evil... how? You can very easily order them to not kill.
If you were creating a tool, that could be used for good or evil, I would agree with you. (Begin silly analogy)Creating a nuclear bomb is not an inherently evil act.
However, creating a nuclear bomb that waited until you weren't paying attention to it and ran off and exploded over the closest population center regardless of who they are WOULD be an evil act. (End silly analogy).
The things you are creating are, by their very nature, evil. As soon as you can no longer control them, they revert to their evil natures. You aren't creating an inert tool that can be used for good, or for evil. You are creating an evil force that can be controlled for a time, and while controlled, can be put to good tasks. But as soon as you slack off, they are eating brains and chopping up farmers. And it's not exactly hard to spawn uncontrolled undead with the spell...
But, it's clear to me that Animate dead is not creating a tool. It's creating an evil, [Evil] creature, that can be ordered to do good, or neutral, or evil acts. But as soon as you lose control of it, it's not inert, it's EVIL.
Hmm. We're specifically talking Pathfinder here? because if so, the only reference I can find of note to the alignment of Negative Energy is this:
This certainly isn't rock-solid rules text, but it seems to imply the Negative Energy Plane is by definition sinister. While it may not have intelligence, it is something anathema to all that is good and natural, and therefore, evil. At least that's my take on it.
Energy Planes: Two energy planes exist—the Positive Energy Plane (from which the animating spark of life hails) and the Negative Energy Plane (from which the sinister taint of undeath hails).
And yet the Inflict series isn't evil, Harm isn't evil. If negative energy were evil, these spells would be, too.
(Begin silly analogy)Creating a nuclear bomb is not an inherently evil act.
However, creating a nuclear bomb that waited until you weren't paying attention to it and ran off and exploded over the closest population center regardless of who they are WOULD be an evil act. (End silly analogy).
Except undead aren't like that. They wait until you're not paying attention, and then continue to obey orders because they have no will of their own.
And this all goes back to rezzing Bart the Bastard. Bart is a bad person. Evil, even. Yet does anyone claim rezzing Bart is an inherently evil act?
But, it's clear to me that Animate dead is not creating a tool. It's creating an evil, [Evil] creature, that can be ordered to do good, or neutral, or evil acts. But as soon as you lose control of it, it's not inert, it's EVIL.
Yes, it's evil. It creation still isn't necessarily evil. You can put up plenty of failsafes to make the risks less than that of the average sword. The zombies' instincts cease to be of any consequence greater than that of making a sword.
And 'dangerous' isn't 'evil,' either.
Hmm. We're specifically talking Pathfinder here? because if so, the only reference I can find of note to the alignment of Negative Energy is this:
This certainly isn't rock-solid rules text, but it seems to imply the Negative Energy Plane is by definition sinister. While it may not have intelligence, it is something anathema to all that is good and natural, and therefore, evil. At least that's my take on it.
Energy Planes: Two energy planes exist—the Positive Energy Plane (from which the animating spark of life hails) and the Negative Energy Plane (from which the sinister taint of undeath hails).
And yet the Inflict series isn't evil, Harm isn't evil. If negative energy were evil, these spells would be, too.
(Begin silly analogy)Creating a nuclear bomb is not an inherently evil act.
However, creating a nuclear bomb that waited until you weren't paying attention to it and ran off and exploded over the closest population center regardless of who they are WOULD be an evil act. (End silly analogy).
Except undead aren't like that. They wait until you're not paying attention, and then continue to obey orders because they have no will of their own.
And this all goes back to rezzing Bart the Bastard. Bart is a bad person. Evil, even. Yet does anyone claim rezzing Bart is an inherently evil act?
But, it's clear to me that Animate dead is not creating a tool. It's creating an evil, [Evil] creature, that can be ordered to do good, or neutral, or evil acts. But as soon as you lose control of it, it's not inert, it's EVIL.Yes, it's evil. It creation still isn't necessarily evil. You can put up plenty of failsafes to make the risks less than that of the average sword. The zombies' instincts cease to be of any consequence greater than that of making a sword.
And 'dangerous' isn't 'evil,' either.
Per written rules, undead are EXACTLY like that..zombies "left unattended mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour". The fact that you can place "failsafes" don't change the fact that an unattended sword won't go kill the guy next door. A zombie will, if it can get there. If undead..under the core rules..were intended to be tools..then they wold have been neutral constructs. They are quite clearly not that.
Also a note on social taboos..just because a culture sees something (defiling a body, raising the dead, slavery, etc etc) as a norm and as nonevil does not make it nonevil. To put it another way, gnolls have no problem with any of the above, yet they are clearly, as a race evil. Sometimes its not the society..it really is the act. I think trying to insert this type of moral thinking, at least at this level into any game is a pointless exercise. Its not desigined for it, and at heart can't be. If you went by real world rules the game would grind to a halt, because a fireball is burning people to death, and who really wants to do that?
And yet the Inflict series isn't evil, Harm isn't evil. If negative energy were evil, these spells would be, too.
Not necessarily. The Inflict/Harm spells are a much more limited usage of negative energy. They channel said energy directly into a specific living thing, and then that energy is dispersed as negative energy damage, and it's gone. the energy isn't hanging around on the Prime Material Plane, so maybe it's not inherently evil. It would be evil to use those spells against innocents, but the act of casting those spells is not evil by definition.
It is however different from Animate Dead, which does create a permanent source of Negative Energy on the Prime Material Plane, and this energy is not limited to going where you direct it. It is one step away from being free to do as it wishes, and what it wishes is do kill and devour all living things.
Except undead aren't like that. They wait until you're not paying attention, and then continue to obey orders because they have no will of their own.
And this all goes back to rezzing Bart the Bastard. Bart is a bad person. Evil, even. Yet does anyone claim rezzing Bart is an inherently evil act?
They wait until you create more undead later. Or until you die. Or until someone else comes along and takes control of them. They aren't inert, waiting on someone to come and use them for evil. They are actively evil, and only through direct action can the summoner hold back that evil.
As to rezzing Bart the Bastard, I won't claim it's an inherently evil act. However, it certainly could be *an* evil act. Bart the Bastard may be Evil, but he has free will and the capacity to choose good. Skeletons and Zombies have no capacity for non-evil actions unless controlled.
Yes, it's evil. It creation still isn't necessarily evil. You can put up plenty of failsafes to make the risks less than that of the average sword. The zombies' instincts cease to be of any consequence greater than that of making a sword.
And 'dangerous' isn't 'evil,' either.
An uncontrolled zombie will eat your neighbor. An uncontrolled sword is only dangerous to your neighbor if he goes over and becomes careless with it. A controlled zombie can be told to 'follow you' or 'stay here and attack anything that comes here' or 'stay here and attack this certain subset of things that come here'.
By rules as written, this is all you can make them do. Follow you and have them kill things, or stay still and kill things. At best you can make them stay still or follow you and NOT kill things. As mindless creatures, it's questionable whether or not skeletons and zombies can even understand any commands outside of those, and all you are able to make an undead of this type do is follow/stay, and 'kill/don't kill'.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the rules, but skeletons and zombies by nature are evil. Animate dead creates evil, that is going to do evil. At the very best, you can say 'follow me and only kill orcs' or 'stay here and kill non-humans'. But I don't see how the spell allows for any nuance... it just allows you to direct the forces that want to kill. You can't even tell them to protect things... just 'kill everything' or kill this specific kind of thing' where 'kind of thing' is a creature type. By the spell as written, I don't believe you can have them get you a beer, or hoe a field.
The Bestiary fails to explain how mindless undead are evil, and the idea of having no will of your own conflicts with the idea of being evil.
<snip>
You'll need house rules either way. You need house rules to make them a force of animated evil to justify all the evil tags, or you need house rules to get rid of the evil tags. Either way you're not doing it wrong.
Why do you need house rules?
Animate Dead has the [Evil] tag, RAW.
Skeletons and Zombies are Always Neutral Evil, RAW.
The animating force in Skeletons and Zombies moves them to slay and slay/consume all living things, RAW.
Mindless creatures have no intelligence score, and are immune to mind-affecting effects, RAW.
I don't see any rules as written that require Mindless creatures to have no alignment. Mindless is a sack of abilities.
This now does beg the question: Can you cast 'control undead' on a Skeleton? now I'm not sure. Is control Undead a mind-affecting compulsion? Or an undead-affecting compulsion? The spell states intelligent undead will remember you cast it, but doesn't mention mindless undead at all.
Hmm.
By saying alignment descriptors interact with alignment, that doesnt necesarily mean casting [good] spells makes you a good person, not even if you cast them alot. Probably an unfair distinction because I obviously think casting [evil] spells does corrupt.
However good and evil are not simple reflections of eachother, good and evil are two conflicting forces the difference is good needs work and sacrifice it is something you have to work for to accomplish, evil is a failure to live up to high moral standards. You do not 'try' to be an evil person, basically you just suck as a human being.
Legions of the Nine Hells is an interesting read on evil, a good deal updated from BovD I assume, haven't actually compared them, it holds that evil acts weigh much heavier, killing a man and subsequently saving one does not get you off the hook so to speak. It also mentions casting evil spells as evil acts, which is only interesting since it is a 3.5 book discussing the nature of evil besides BovD.
Also I think the D&D definition of mindless is different from what we use in real life, mindless creatures obviously can still reason in some capacity and function with a certain ammount of cunning, also they can make intelligence checks with a +0 bonus, this leads me to believe the mind of such creatures is just too alien and limited to process things the same as other creatures do.
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.The Bestiary fails to explain how mindless undead are evil, and the idea of having no will of your own conflicts with the idea of being evil.
As for defiling bodies... Ever eaten beef? Ever stewed beef bones? It's very tasty. I guess I'm going to hell! Bear in mind that you can make undead from creatures who aren't people. Defiling a horse or bull body isn't generally taboo in most societies.
Zombies have some will off their own, it might not be much, but they really want to kill living creatures apparently.
Eating beef is the same as defiling bodies, you do not even believe that all the reason why you make that ridiculous comparison.
It is fairly safe to assume that in the fantasy world creatures have a connection to their bodies, even after death, it might be fair to assume that animating them with negative energy might disturb their souls in some manner. In a fantasy world where creatures come back from the grave for unjustice done to them in life, or sometimes after death (like not giving proper burial or other more disturbing stuff) is it really that hard to imagine that animating the dead is an evil act ?
Eating beef is the same as defiling bodies, you do not even believe that all the reason why you make that ridiculous comparison.How is eating beef different from "defiling" a cow skeleton? Do people worry about cow souls much? Remember, you don't have to reanimate a person to make a skeleton.
It is fairly safe to assume...House rule!
Perfectly reasonable but non-explicit interpretations of the rules are "house rules", especially when there are other perfectly reasonable but non-explicit interpretations of the rules. Stop playing the YOU'RE PLAYING D&D WRONG GUYS card when people are doing exactly the same thing that everyone, you included, does.
This now does beg the question: Can you cast 'control undead' on a Skeleton? now I'm not sure. Is control Undead a mind-affecting compulsion? Or an undead-affecting compulsion? The spell states intelligent undead will remember you cast it, but doesn't mention mindless undead at all.It's not a compulsion or mind-affecting.
could you stop shouting houserule in every post in the general discussion section ?
There is a rulesection for that, in this section people give their opinion and discuss things, we already have established it is fine to houserule and still we disagree, so we discuss dont take it as a personal attack and you'll be fine <3
The animating force in Skeletons and Zombies moves them to slay and slay/consume all living things, RAW."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."
Apparently they're compelled to wear weapons and armor. Evilly. Is that like carrying a bureau evilly?
Skeletons and Zombies are Always Neutral Evil, RAW."Always" neutral evil is a concept that didn't make it from 3.5 to PF, sadly. If you're going to stick to PF RAW, then it's just as reasonable to say that skeletons are labeled NE because generally you need to be a jerk to animate a skeleton, and thus will give skeletons evil orders like slaughtering puppies and not boring orders like carrying furniture or good orders like saving puppies from a burning building.
Fair enough. Now we get back to RAW: Can you order a Skeleton to do anything other than 'Follow Me' or 'Stay Here' with or without restrictions on who to kill?
|
Fair enough. Now we get back to RAW: Can you order a Skeleton to do anything other than 'Follow Me' or 'Stay Here' with or without restrictions on who to kill?
The rules say it can be given verbal commands. While it states they can follow you or be told to remain in an area and attack what you specify, it does not say you can only give those two commands. Neither does it say those are examples of the commands you can give. This ambiguity allows either of us to interpret it favorably towards our standpoints.
I would say that by the wording of Command Undead, mindless undead can only be given simple commands, such as 'follow' 'stay' 'attack' and the like. Complicated orders like 'go to the market and purchase a bag of flour' would be beyond their capabilities. Attaching it to a harness and telling it 'go' and 'stop' could allow you to perform other supervised functions such as the aforementioned plowing, and carraige pulling and the like. Also, 'stay still and do nothing' would be a valid order that would prevent any actions on its own while you were away. Others with the ability to cast Command Undead and the like could take control of it, but this is no different than leaving any other tool unsupervised.
could you stop shouting houserule in every post in the general discussion section ?
Just as soon as people stop posting houserules and calling them rules. In a discussion of the rules, it's the rules that matter, after all.
There is a rulesection for that, in this section people give their opinion and discuss things, we already have established it is fine to houserule and still we disagree, so we discuss dont take it as a personal attack and you'll be fine <3
Opinions hold little weight in a discussion of facts, chief. That an opinion is dismissed in the presence of a contradictory fact is not a personal attack. And there are a lot of contradictory facts at work here.
The entire point is that the ambiguities, contradictions, and internal inconsistencies within the rules are so massive and fundamental that you cannot get a coherent answer on this matter without houseruling because the rules are so incoherent on the issue.
could you stop shouting houserule in every post in the general discussion section ?Just as soon as people stop posting houserules and calling them rules. In a discussion of the rules, it's the rules that matter, after all.
There is a rulesection for that, in this section people give their opinion and discuss things, we already have established it is fine to houserule and still we disagree, so we discuss dont take it as a personal attack and you'll be fine <3Opinions hold little weight in a discussion of facts, chief. That an opinion is dismissed in the presence of a contradictory fact is not a personal attack. And there are a lot of contradictory facts at work here.
The entire point is that the ambiguities, contradictions, and internal inconsistencies within the rules are so massive and fundamental that you cannot get a coherent answer on this matter without houseruling because the rules are so incoherent on the issue.
For once I mostly agree with you ;)
opinion and facts are not always as easily separated, establishing that there is no single rule / fact being able to sort it out and thereafter shouting houserule at every post kinda kills the discussion.
I do enjoy discussion and though most of it does not sway me, every so often something is said I did not think off or find myself agreeing with when presented with good arguments.
Eating beef is the same as defiling bodies, you do not even believe that all the reason why you make that ridiculous comparison.How is eating beef different from "defiling" a cow skeleton? Do people worry about cow souls much? Remember, you don't have to reanimate a person to make a skeleton.
It is fairly safe to assume...House rule!
Perfectly reasonable but non-explicit interpretations of the rules are "house rules", especially when there are other perfectly reasonable but non-explicit interpretations of the rules. Stop playing the YOU'RE PLAYING D&D WRONG GUYS card when people are doing exactly the same thing that everyone, you included, does.
This now does beg the question: Can you cast 'control undead' on a Skeleton? now I'm not sure. Is control Undead a mind-affecting compulsion? Or an undead-affecting compulsion? The spell states intelligent undead will remember you cast it, but doesn't mention mindless undead at all.It's not a compulsion or mind-affecting.
de·file 1 (d-fl)
tr.v. de·filed, de·fil·ing, de·files1. To make filthy or dirty; pollute: defile a river with sewage.
2. To debase the pureness or excellence of; corrupt: a country landscape that was defiled by urban sprawl.
3. To profane or sully (a reputation, for example).
4. To make unclean or unfit for ceremonial use; desecrate: defile a temple.
5. To violate the chastity of.
That sounds like a LOT more than simply eating the target. It goes back to what I said before..an inert pile of bones, or a body is not evil. Animate dead makes it NE. Thus animate dead is the cause of the evil. It shouldn't have to be spelled out word per word in a rule book somewhere. If you, as a player/DM want to change that great..but as written..well there it is.
|
|
The book claims that left to their own devices, their preferred hobby is to kill any living things they come across. You've dismissed that with a hand.
It has the [evil] descriptor, the creatures it creatures are alignment: Neutral Evil. Again you just say "why are they Neutral Evil". Well, they're listed that way; see above as to why one could theorize this, but the bottom line is by the book, they are Neutral Evil.
We can even go so far to point out that evil in the game is generally based on "society norms"; so slaughtering lots of people or working to try to make yourself a leader via lots of bribing is considered "evil". So the society norm thing doesn't just apply to making corpses do your bidding instead of giving them proper burials; society's norm defines "alignments". Yes, this makes alignment a bit silly, but it works.
Strictly speaking, they are not "True Mindless" (a 0 int creature cannot move, does not no how to swing a weapon, etc). Just like vermin technically have some instincts, so do these. Their generic instinct is to do bad stuff and slaughter all they find; unlike cattle, who generally like eating grass and mating.
Also of note, the perpetrators of goodness (aka the Pally) get a tremendous damage bonus against them because they are destroying a particularly dark evil.
If that's not enough, nothing we can do for you exists, and you're probably just arguing to argue anyway. So you can claim because the creatures will follow basic orders (clean my house, go rescue babies from that burning orphanage; perfectly nice stuff for the animated bodies of your fallen foes to do), they are not a true source of evil, no matter what sources we pull to say differently.
It has the [evil] descriptor, the creatures it creatures are alignment: Neutral Evil. Again you just say "why are they Neutral Evil". Well, they're listed that way; see above as to why one could theorize this, but the bottom line is by the book, they are Neutral Evil.
I though alignment descriptions in PF weren't absolutes. If they are, there can be no orc druids ever, and that kind of sucks. And no kobold bards (hehe nwn). Don't have the bestiary here, but I surely hope they don't have entries for any PC classes or we'd be in big trouble when it comes to setting the alignment of our characters.
It has the [evil] descriptor, the creatures it creatures are alignment: Neutral Evil. Again you just say "why are they Neutral Evil". Well, they're listed that way; see above as to why one could theorize this, but the bottom line is by the book, they are Neutral Evil.I though alignment descriptions in PF weren't absolutes. If they are, there can be no orc druids ever, and that kind of sucks. And no kobold bards (hehe nwn). Don't have the bestiary here, but I surely hope they don't have entries for any PC classes or we'd be in big trouble when it comes to setting the alignment of our characters.
Animate dead will create a typical average skeleton, which is thus always neutral evil, you can not choose to create neutral good skeletons.
Animate dead will create a typical average skeleton, which is thus always neutral evil, you can not choose to create neutral good skeletons.Really? Where are the rules that say that skeletons are always neutral evil, or why they're always neutral evil?
Alignment: Always neutral evil. PF Bestiary, but you already knew that. Why are they always NE?
Dunno, perhaps its because the game designer said so.EDIT-Failed my WILL save...
Animate dead will create a typical average skeleton, which is thus always neutral evil, you can not choose to create neutral good skeletons.Really? Where are the rules that say that skeletons are always neutral evil, or why they're always neutral evil?
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
From: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-lists-and-details/-s/skeleton
And I swear if someone tries to make an argument off of the 95% rule on "always" I will fill the world with sheets of paper containing statted up monsters with inappropriate alignments.
I did not say skeletons are always neutral evil, I said you can not choose to create skeletons from a different alignment. There might be extraordinary circumstances that create them with other alignments, but normally it will just be an evil skeleton.
CG marilith bard/cleric of Calistria plz
And I swear if someone tries to make an argument off of the 95% rule on "always" I will fill the world with sheets of paper containing statted up monsters with inappropriate alignments.
I'll get to that one first. From my estimates the trajectory should carry it near to northwest Vancouver.