An evil race as a whole, but that doesn't mean they will all be evil or can not be saved. What is it infact that makes a gnoll evil, burning an human village with children and elderly people ? Afterall they are only preventing the humans from doing the same to them.
We're talking about gnolls - an evil race. We don't just suspect they'll do evil, we know they will.
As to why? This takes you back to an earlier post where this was already covered:
3) Evil does not mean violent. It can mean that they are cold blooded violent killers but it can also mean that they are bullying oppressive dicks. There are plenty of evil merchants, government officials and such out there. They do not murder infants or even beat their wives. They are evil because they are selfish a-holes that rip off their customers or because they are racist and mean. But it doesn't mean that they have to be violent.
&
The 'burn the village' choice is just the easy choice where you justification your racism against tribal hyena people. This is true especially since the players would be meta-gaming as they have no knowledge of the creatures ‘true ultimate alignment’.
So, in summary if someone says "but its kind are always evil" means racism with most likely a good dose of metagaming using knowledge the character does not possess.
To be truthful, metagaming creates racism but racism doesn't require metagaming.Oh and what does this describe?
"murderous genocidal racists"
Is it gnolls? or is it the adventurers if they burn the village?
You wanted the proof that it was bad in a non relativistic morality system. I believe I have provide you sufficient information on the steps to allow you to see what people don't like about non-relativistic morality: That you can't justify actions to be good unless they are good. In other words that you can't get away with certain actions.
|
None of your assertions hold any water. Heroes in the greek sense, as well as those in a much more modern coloquial...@Blayde. The point I was trying to make is two-fold. Heroism and virtue are not one and the same. All the characters named do heroic things, but those heroic things involve wanton slaughter, deception, betrayal, and losing one's own mind. Sometimes these characters struggle against some inner demons, and sometimes the evil, vicious things they do ARE their heroic acts.True heroism is a product of being virtuous. The thing is, no one is perfect and therefore not everyone is as virtuous as they could or should be. That is the struggle every hero faces. That's what I love and that's what brings me back to the game time and time again.
So we'll have to agree to disagree. I could go on at length about this, but I fear that my views on this are too dissimilar to yours and that further discussion would be just a waste of time.
Furthermore, while the PF/D&D system has always been malleable enough to tell any type of story a DM/designer so chooses, I dislike the assumption that at its core D&D was always about good vs. evil. This is very much not so, and any close examination of the ethics of common actions taken in game comparative to real world morals and ethics shows a game virtually devoid of virtue.While it is true that Law, Neutrality and Chaos were indeed the original alignments, what you fail to consider is that Law generally equated to Good and heroism, while Chaos implied anarchy and Evil. However, the good/evil parallels were not strongly defined. Initially, dwarves were Lawful and elves Chaotic, while humans could be of any of the three alignments. As the game evolved, so too did the alignment system. So yes, even with the initial alignment system, the game was and (is still) about good vs. evil. This is borne out pretty much in every module ever written. And its how I play my games.
Though you say heroes in the "Greek" sense, it seems to me that what you are actually referring to is more akin to the "Byronic" sense. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say even "antihero." Because heroes in a much more modern colloquial sense are in fact more of the antihero than anything else. That is after all what sells.
taken from Wikipedia
In popular culture
Modern-day heroes have enjoyed an increased moral complexity. In 1930, originally introduced as a mysterious radio narrator by David Chrisman, William Sweets, and Harry Engman Charlot for Street and Smith Publications, The Shadow was fully developed and transformed into a pop culture antihero icon by pulp writer Walter B. Gibson. Mid-20th century playwrights such as Samuel Beckett and Tom Stoppard showcased anti-heroic protagonists recognizable by their lack of identity and determination. Pulp fiction and noir detective stories of the mid-20th century saw characters such as Sam Spade, who lacked the glorious appeal of previous heroic figures, become popular. Influenced by the pulps, early comic books featured anti-heroic characters such as Batman (whose shadowy nature contrasted with their openly "heroic" peers like Superman) and Sub-Mariner (who would just as soon conquer humanity as try to save it). Marvel's most prolific anti-hero is perhaps The Punisher, who is more than willing to kill those who he views as deserving of death. Sergio Leone's "spaghetti westerns" showcased a wandering vigilante (the "Man with No Name" played by Clint Eastwood) whose gruff demeanor clashed with other heroic characteristics.
Many modern antiheroes possess, or even encapsulate, the postmodern rejection of traditional values symptomatic of Modernist literature in general, as well as the disillusion felt after World War II and the Nuclear Age. The continuing popularity of the antihero in modern literature and popular culture may be based on the recognition that a person is fraught with human frailties, unlike the archetypes of the white-hatted cowboy and the noble warrior, and is therefore more accessible to readers and viewers. This popularity may also be symptomatic of the rejection by the avant-garde of traditional values after the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s.
In the postmodern era, traditionally defined heroic qualities, akin to the classic "knight in shining armor" type, have given way to the "gritty truth" of life, and authority in general is being questioned. The brooding vigilante or "noble criminal" archetype, seen in characters like Batman or Dirty Harry, is slowly becoming part of the popular conception of heroic valor rather than being characteristics that are deemed un-heroic
What I describe, and therefore how I play my games, is more akin to the Greek sense than anything you've stated.
Taken from Wikipedia
An epic hero is an important figure from a history or legend, usually favored by or even partially descended from deities, but aligned more closely with mortal figures in popular portrayals. The hero participates in a cyclical journey or quest, faces adversaries that try to defeat him in his journey, gathers allies along his journey, and returns home significantly transformed by his journey. The epic hero illustrates traits, performs deeds, and exemplifies certain morals that are valued by the society from which the epic originates. They usually embody cultural and religious beliefs of the people. Many epic heroes are recurring characters in the legends of their native culture. Epic heroes have no superpowers, but are smart, brave, and have fears but overcome them to protect their friends, families, and countries. An epic hero can also be a warrior of some sort who performs extraordinary tasks that most find difficult. This hero is loyal, smart, and brave. The epic hero is also typically joined by sidekicks, who will initially be rejected from the group for their own safety, thus embodying selflessness, a commonly valued trait in society, into the epic hero. The sidekick will be permitted into the group eventually, the epic hero remaining with an unscathed heroic reputation for being reluctant to let the sidekick join in the suffering. (It is, after all, a trait of an epic hero to be brave and to put themselves in danger if it means saving or otherwise pleasing others.)
What we have is a misunderstanding of interpretation. How my DM interpreted such modules as he ran them is vastly different from your own. His view of heroism runs along the same way as my own.
This what I meant earlier when I stated that our ideas on this subject are too dissimilar for further discussion. I won't change my mind and you most certainly won't change yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, they make crap up that just happens to be part of the lore of several established fantasy worlds.Where in the spell description for animate dead does it say that the spell works by animating the corpse with a random malevolent being from the negative material plane?And this is why the discussion is the worst undead creature of all.
People just make crap up.
And I'm a big believer that in campaign settings based on those worlds, it should be evil.
But there are plenty of worlds where it isn't part of the lore.
The default world is supposed to be generic.
It is generic. The base rules represent the majority of campaign worlds. Just because the rules don't work for a specific world you want to use doesn't mean they are not generic. It means that your world is in the minority.
If you want a generic set of rules that represents every possible fantasy world, then you want a blank book.
For the record, I like the arguement that skeletons and zombies are evil because, without a soul, humans are evil.
Of course, neither it nor the claptrap about animate dead pulling some random malevolent being from the negative plane is RAW. Nor is one more logical than another, but the idea of humans being innately evil is more authentic to Weatern medieval settings and opens up all kinds of plot twists such as "why are humans innately evil?"
Well, if you go with a medieval Christian theology, or something based on it (*cough* paladins *cough*), the short answer is "original sin" and from there you get all sorts of interesting bits of theology such as baptism/christening (Bless Water in Pathfinder) and the idea that undead cannot rise up on consecrated ground (Consecrate in Pathfinder).
Now, as for where original sin comes from in a non-Christian context, absent a magic rib-woman and a forbidden apple, let's come up with some appropriate origin for Golarion:
Long ago, Lamashtu, the mother of monsters, had an orgy with a bunch of gorillas, baboons, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and one particularly adventurous and virile lemur. She gave birth to a bunch of hairy little ape monsters who were even more vile than all the other monsters she'd brought forth to date and She had high hopes that they would destroy all the other nasty prudish gods for Her, and She taunted Them that Her new children would do exactly that. The other gods then attacked Lamashtu and stole Her new babies, but rather than kill them, they dunked them in this hideous holy water they'd created and the little monsters screamed "It burns, mommy! It burns!" until they lost all memory of Her, and then the shaved off the rest of the baby ape monsters' hair with divine razors and infernal epiladies, and then to add extra insult to injury, the rest of the barren gods told the shaven ape monsters that They'd created them in Their image, and worse, gave them all some new creation called a soul, a horrible torture device that would cause the little monsters pain and make them cry any time they did anything the other gods thought was wrong. They even started slipping souls to Lamashtu's other children, the ones they hadn't kidnapped and brainwashed, so even those monsters could be tormented by this awful thing called a conscience.
That's the actual divine truth and the true origin of humans, halflings and all the rest. They're ape monsters sprung from Lamashtu's fertile loins who were then shaven and brainwashed by the jealous barren gods, and as proof of that truth, when they die and the nasty soul/conscience thing goes away, their natural evil remains in their bodies and they will then go on to slaughter and eat with animalistic abandon if that corpse is ever animated by magic without bringing the soul back first.
There. Not official Golarion theology, but something completely possible, and a great thing for a gnoll priest with a high Knowledge Religion and Diplomacy to tell to a human paladin at the next ecumenical council: Humans are nothing more than shaven brainwashed ape monsters who've forgotten their true mother, Lamashtu.
Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.
Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.
It has nothing to do with defiling as the good or evil of that would vary from one society to the next. In some societies, defiling corpse would be considered stealing or destroying community property. In other cultures, the corpse is an empty vessel, and they really don't care what happens to it.
A corpse is an object.
I can cast animate objects on a corpse, and get a neutral construct. This is not an evil act.
I cast animate dead on a corpse, and I get a neutral evil zombie or skeleton. This is an evil act.
There is something specific about how animate dead works that is evil.
Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.It has nothing to do with defiling as the good or evil of that would vary from one society to the next. In some societies, defiling corpse would be considered stealing or destroying community property. In other cultures, the corpse is an empty vessel, and they really don't care what happens to it.
A corpse is an object.
I can cast animate objects on a corpse, and get a neutral construct. This is not an evil act.
I cast animate dead on a corpse, and I get a neutral evil zombie or skeleton. This is an evil act.
There is something specific about how animate dead works that is evil.
That is your position, but others have argued differently. My idea was meant for them.
That is your position, but others have argued differently. My idea was meant for them.Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.It has nothing to do with defiling as the good or evil of that would vary from one society to the next. In some societies, defiling corpse would be considered stealing or destroying community property. In other cultures, the corpse is an empty vessel, and they really don't care what happens to it.
A corpse is an object.
I can cast animate objects on a corpse, and get a neutral construct. This is not an evil act.
I cast animate dead on a corpse, and I get a neutral evil zombie or skeleton. This is an evil act.
There is something specific about how animate dead works that is evil.
Then take my arguement as support, as I don't believe that the evil of the spell has anything to do with corpse defilement.
Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.It has nothing to do with defiling as the good or evil of that would vary from one society to the next. In some societies, defiling corpse would be considered stealing or destroying community property. In other cultures, the corpse is an empty vessel, and they really don't care what happens to it.
A corpse is an object.
I can cast animate objects on a corpse, and get a neutral construct. This is not an evil act.
I cast animate dead on a corpse, and I get a neutral evil zombie or skeleton. This is an evil act.
There is something specific about how animate dead works that is evil.
This only follows if you are following every letter of the RAW to an absurd degree.
Animate Dead is currently listed as an Evil spell. It is up to the DM to explain why it has this label. It could summon evil spirits. It could incite evil thoughts. It could violate assorted religious taboos about the sacred/profane divide which basically boils down to the idea that corpses have cooties and only icky people touch them. Whatever. You come up with your own explanation. But if you make that decision, you own it, including any illogic it contains from embracing the (highly dubious) position of game designer infallibility.
Hop over to the Book of Vile Darkness. It's a 3.0 source of all sorts of evil spells. Look on page 104 and view the spell "Sorrow." It makes someone feel really sad, the material component is a tear, it's a 1st level bard and cleric enchantment spell, and it has the Evil descriptor. Huh? Read that again. Yep, according to the BoVD, a bard playing mopey emo music or a priest telling the tear-jerking tale of little Sally the crippled halfling are casting an Evil spell if they use "Sorrow."
Now, we could come up with explanations of why "Sorrow" deserves the Evil tag. Maybe it summons La Llorena (despite being enchantment rather than necromancy) and has her wail mournfully about her drowned children. Maybe it fills a person's head with evil memories of La Llorona wailing about her drowned children. Or maybe it doesn't and we decide that the game designer was wanting to tag a few more spells with the Evil descriptor so clerics with the Evil domain would have more to play with.
But if you're wanting to go by the RAW, please explain why my mopey 1st level bard is committing an Evil act every time he readies his guitar and launches into "Girlfriend in a Coma" or whatever other emo song I've decided is his verbal component for "Sorrow."
|
Something if it hasn't been mentioned, if animate dead is evil because it has to do with defiling the corpse, what about zombie wolves or cats? Somehow it is ok to skin them and tan their hides for your clothes and wear it out on an evening stroll, while munching on their smoked meat, but keeping one as a guard animal is eeeeeeeeevil. Right.
The difference between sentients and non-sentients, I suppose.
In the fantasy world, it's acceptable to skin a dragon, which is at least as sentient as the people who killed it, and making armor out of it's skin, so long it's moral alignment isn't the same as yours (although it doesn't matter if it has the same ethical alignment!).
In the real world, we donate human bodies, and even living tissue from people who haven't died, for use in classrooms, in 'corpse farms' used to train forensics investigors, to be divided up to donate tissues to save lives, or even to make macabre artwork. People consume the remains of their loved ones, to retain their goodness within themselves for all time, and other people consume hosts and sacramental wine that they are assured by the church literally transforms (transubstantiates) into the flesh and blood of a prophet of the faith, allowing them to absorb some of the goodness of that man.
It's easy to pretend that 'the western world' considers the desecration of the dead unclean (and suggesting that anything else is not as properly civilized), but the concept of the bodies of the dead remaining sacred after the soul departs is actually contradictory to western religious teaching, which, indeed strongly discourages reverence for worldly things, fleshly things and material things. Some eastern philosophies and faiths, on the other hand, are more prone to considering even the *viewing* of dead bodies (let alone the touching of them, or making cathedrals out of them) to be a source of spiritual contamination.
It's also a popular meme these days that the world has gotten more morally relativist and blurry and whatever, despite the 'heroes' of classical lore being happy racists, slavers and, in some cases, active participants in genocide. Our world is *less* morally relative than the days when the most 'advanced' people in the world obeisance to Zeus, a god with a half-dozen rapes to his reputation. But, since the dawn of time, every generation has insisted that the world is worse than it was 'in the old days.' In my lifetime, men lost the right to lawfully rape their wives, for instance, and I don't see this as evidence of a 'moral decline.'
And none of that is terribly relevant to the D&D game setting, but they always seem to get dragged up.
Kudos to those who have come up with in-theme explanations for why animating a body with otherwise neutral negative energy would create an evil taint. That's the sort of stuff that makes these threads worth reading.
The difference between sentients and non-sentients, I suppose.
In the fantasy world, it's acceptable to skin a dragon, which is at least as sentient as the people who killed it, and making armor out of it's skin, so long it's moral alignment isn't the same as yours (although it doesn't matter if it has the same ethical alignment!).
Pretty close on the sentience. A dragon is non-humanoid, a "monster". On the upside they can eat people and nobody sbouts "canibal!" :)
In the real world, we donate human bodies, and even living tissue from people who haven't died, for use in classrooms, in 'corpse farms' used to train forensics investigors, to be divided up to donate tissues to save lives, or even to make macabre artwork. People consume the remains of their loved ones, to retain their goodness within themselves for all time, and other people consume hosts and sacramental wine that they are assured by the church literally transforms (transubstantiates) into the flesh and blood of a prophet of the faith, allowing them to absorb some of the goodness of that man.
Body / tissue donation is a recent habit in our culture. It was "grave robbing" in the 19th century and the kind of thing that would get you excommunicated by the Church back in the day. Ritual canibalism aside. I didn't say the medieval mind was noted for consistency :)
It's easy to pretend that 'the western world' considers the desecration of the dead unclean (and suggesting that anything else is not as properly civilized), but the concept of the bodies of the dead remaining sacred after the soul departs is actually contradictory to western religious teaching, which, indeed strongly discourages reverence for worldly things, fleshly things and material things. Some eastern philosophies and faiths, on the other hand, are more prone to considering even the *viewing* of dead bodies (let alone the touching of them, or making cathedrals out of them) to be a source of spiritual contamination.It's also a popular meme these days that the world has gotten more morally relativist and...
It did. Operative word "did" consider it unclean. Science and secularization took care of that. As for transubstantiation, logic again is not a strong point of medieval theology. Bodies were not supposed to be disturbed, but you could eat Christ's body and drink his blood. Sacred sacrifice. The body is a shell... but it has to be interred in consecrated ground is also a bit... contradictory. And the world hasn't changed from having a single absolute view of evil. There were always numerous views based on cultural / religious beliefs. Back in the not so good days individuals believed their way was "right / good" and other viewpoints were "evil" Today we question our own stance and allow for the possibility of other viewpoints. D&D harks back to the "wer'e right and your evil" days. Being a game, it works. God forbid that be the everyday take on it.
Hopefully if you read these threads you're being entertained... why else wold you do it :D
|
|
A dragon is non-humanoid, a "monster". On the upside they can eat people and nobody sbouts "canibal!" :)
Of course not. A cannibal would be a dragon that eats other dragons.
A non-human creature eating humans is guilty of anthropophagy.
It's also fairly inefficient and unsafe. Something the size of a dragon should probably eat whales. Lots of meat, and none of them are 20th level sorcerers.
A dragon is non-humanoid, a "monster". On the upside they can eat people and nobody sbouts "canibal!" :)Of course not. A cannibal would be a dragon that eats other dragons.
A non-human creature eating humans is guilty of anthropophagy.
It's also fairly inefficient and unsafe. Something the size of a dragon should probably eat whales. Lots of meat, and none of them are 20th level sorcerers.
Shadowrun is probably one of the most morally light games out there, but in that system eating any sentient creature is considered cannibalism. Ghouls and all of the other cannibalistic creatures are pretty much kill on sight to the rest of the world.
|
Too bad D&D 3.0 left Animate Dead as Death Domain - Not EVIL Domain. My GraveDigger is Lawful Good. He even knocks up the Ocasional Skeleton Dog as Guardian...Once he achieves a suitable level he's going into Crypt Building and then i'm thinking Salt Mummies as Guardians for the King's Pyramid as his personal crypt builder and High Priest.
|
|
Shadowrun is probably one of the most morally light games out there, but in that system eating any sentient creature is considered cannibalism.
So a tiger or great white shark is considered cannibalistic if eats a human? Good on Shadowrun, but that word doesn't mean what they think it means, to paraphrase a movie I never liked.
Which brings the discussion back around to morality and intelligence.
A tiger or white shark eats someone, that's 'anthropophagy,' a term nobody really uses, in favor of the simpler and more visceral term 'maneater.' Such an animal is, when possible, killed. Nobody wants a maneater running around, after all.
But the animal is not considered malevolent, or evil. It's just a threat to human life, and it's gotta go. We may say 'bad dog' when a puppy piddles on the carpet, or 'good dog' when he catches the ball and returns it, but most of us don't actually regard our furry friends as capable of saintly virtue or wicked vice.
Same thing with a gun, or a knife, or a car. If someone is killed by such a thing, the gun, etc. is not put on trial. The person who used the gun, knife, etc. to kill someone is the one who is considered morally responsible. We have this whacky notion that things that can't make moral choices are not morally responsible for what is done with them.
Porting this over to 3.X D&D, all animals are Int 2 and neutral. All vermin are mindless and neutral. For an animal or vermin to have a moral alignment, good or evil, it is raised to Int 3, via the celestial or fiendish template, because, and, you'd think this would go without saying, something incapable of malice (or compassion) cannot be evil (or good).
Pathfinder does away with the Int 3-for-fiendish/celestial critters thing, but that doesn't actually change anything, because it *also* does away with the change to evil/good alignment for fiendish/celestial animals and vermin. A piranha from hell has the same Int 2 and neutral alignment that a bunny rabbit from mount celestia has, in Pathfinder, so the moral alignment vs. Intelligence score debate remains zero sum, with the only creatures with an Intelligence score below 3 having a moral alignment being the recently retconned Skeleton and Zombie.
Meanwhile, the Golem, explicitly described as going on murderous rampages (as a RULE, while the skeleton not only doesn't have rules for this, but doesn't even have *flavor text* suggesting such a possibility) and requiring the enslavement of a living creature, remains neutral.
It's bogus.
From a real world perspective, it's bogus (contradicting the many real world examples of differing cultural assumptions regarding the dead mentioned in this thread).
From a setting specific perspective, it's bogus (contradicting the existence of farms in Geb, where undead labor to *grow living things to feed other living things*).
From a flavor text perspective, it's bogus (contradicting The Great Beyond, as well as 25 previous years of negative energy being neutral).
From a mechanical consistency standpoint, it's bogus (contradicting the rules examples for alignment / intelligence in 3.0 and 3.5, and being fundementally inconsistent with the treatment of Golems).
People in the late 20th century, in most developed nations, no longer keep the bodies of relatives in their homes for several days, while the graves are being prepared, and have come to the conclusion that human corpses are icky, because we've gotten soft and squeamish and forgotten how much a part of life the very real presence of death was, not so long ago, and still is, in much of the world. The way we avoid contact with or even really viewing the dead (before they've been perfumed, slathered in makeup and pumped full of toxic chemicals, anyway) in today's America is *not* the way 'it's always been.'
Shadowrun is probably one of the most morally light games out there, but in that system eating any sentient creature is considered cannibalism.So a tiger or great white shark is considered cannibalistic if eats a human? Good on Shadowrun, but that word doesn't mean what they think it means, to paraphrase a movie I never liked.
One sentient eating another is "canibalism" in Shadowrun, not animals. That wasn't really clear from his post.
Which brings the discussion back around to morality and intelligence.A tiger or white shark eats someone, that's 'anthropophagy,' a term nobody really uses, in favor of the simpler and more visceral term 'maneater.' Such an animal is, when possible, killed. Nobody wants a maneater running around, after all.
But the animal is not considered malevolent, or evil. It's just a threat to human life, and it's gotta go. We may say 'bad dog' when a puppy piddles on the carpet, or 'good dog' when he catches the ball and returns it, but most of us don't actually regard our furry friends as capable of saintly virtue or wicked vice.
Same thing with a gun, or a knife, or a car. If someone is killed by such a thing, the gun, etc. is not put on trial. The person who used the gun, knife, etc. to kill someone is the one who is considered morally responsible. We have this whacky notion that things that can't make moral choices are not morally responsible for what is done with them.
Which brings us to the description of the skeleton in Pathfinder:
"Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. 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." (PFRPG Bestairy, pg.250)
Brought to life through "foul magic" (hence the evil descriptor on the spell) and possessing an "evil cunning". And of course, Alignment: "Always Neutral Evil". Maybe the guy who talked about animation requiring evil spirits pegged it. The "animating force" is the only real reason for the evil inherent in them.
The beliefs about morality / intelligence and moral choices is however, again, a modern one. In the Middle Ages they regularly attributed moral weight (good or evil) to animals, forces of nature, etc. D&D / PFRPG have a number of medieval assumptions built into them, this among them. Of course, there is always Rule 0 if you disagree or the setting calls for a different interpretation. Or H3ll, just revel in the evil and raise your skeleton legions :D
|
|
The whole issue at hand with this discussion isn't so much why the spell is evil. I think its safe to say that we all can accept the fact that, as written, it is. The problem we seem to have is one of interpretation, much like what meatrace and myself have in regards to heroism.
As it stands, we will never truly agree on why it is evil, because we each have our own ideas as to what is truly evil, which leads us to interpret the descriptor in very different ways. If you feel, for example, that a corpse is nothing more than an object, then the use of animate dead should be more akin to a utility spell, which makes it really no different from using animate object and therefore should not be evil. If it were truly that simple, then I could get behind the spell not having the Evil descriptor. But that's just it. As we all see its not really that simple. There is of course the moral high ground ( a camp that I belong to) which postulates that it is evil because of our system of beliefs tell us it is wrong. But I suppose that also is just too simple a choice as well. So where can we all find enough common ground to put aside our respective beliefs long enough to accept why this spell has such a descriptor?
Let it start with me. I will put forward that the reason why animate dead has that descriptor is because, unlike raise dead, the animus is enslaved to the will of the caster. Whereas raise dead offers a choice as to whether or not a soul wishes to return to the mortal coil, animate dead does no such thing. Now, we can argue the semantics of what constitutes good or evil, right and wrong, or even what is moral or immoral, but I think we can all agree that having our free will taken from us is not a good thing. That to have our will enslaved to another sentient being is immoral. I think that we can agree that doing such a thing is just plain wrong. And if we can agree on that, then I think we are one step closer to understanding why animate dead is an evil spell.
Let it start with me. I will put forward that the reason why animate dead has that descriptor is because, unlike raise dead, the animus is enslaved to the will of the caster. Whereas raise dead offers a choice as to whether or not a soul wishes to return to the mortal coil, animate dead does no such thing. Now, we can argue the semantics of what constitutes good or evil, right and wrong, or even what is moral or immoral, but I think we can all agree that having our free will taken from us is not a good thing. That to have our will enslaved to another sentient being is immoral. I think that we can agree that doing such a thing is just plain wrong. And if we can agree on that, then I think we are one step closer to understanding why animate dead is an evil spell.
So if I'm riding along on a horse, which is enslaved by bit and bridle and not able to exercise its free will--or worse, has been conditioned via Stockholm Syndrome to view carrying my butt on a piece of dead cow hide on its back as natural--and I'm somehow not evil? Then my horse dies, and I cast Animate Dead and Haste on it to make a fast zombie horse. It has improved speed, and while it is enslaved to me, I've only enslaved the dim memory of its consciousness and the actual horsey soul is off in the Happy Hunting Grounds believing it's a wild free horse. And yet this is somehow more evil than riding a living horse that can feel pain.
Personally I have to say that a fast zombie horse seems a superior steed to a regular horse: faster, 100% loyal, can be run 24/7 without needing fuel and actually requires no fuel. Totally worth a chunk of onyx.
Let it start with me. I will put forward that the reason why animate dead has that descriptor is because, unlike raise dead, the animus is enslaved to the will of the caster. Whereas raise dead offers a choice as to whether or not a soul wishes to return to the mortal coil, animate dead does no such thing. Now, we can argue the semantics of what constitutes good or evil, right and wrong, or even what is moral or immoral, but I think we can all agree that having our free will taken from us is not a good thing. That to have our will enslaved to another sentient being is immoral. I think that we can agree that doing such a thing is just plain wrong. And if we can agree on that, then I think we are one step closer to understanding why animate dead is an evil spell.
So if I'm riding along on a horse, which is enslaved by bit and bridle and not able to exercise its free will--or worse, has been conditioned via Stockholm Syndrome to view carrying my butt on a piece of dead cow hide on its back as natural--and I'm somehow not evil? Then my horse dies, and I cast Animate Dead and Haste on it to make a fast zombie horse. It has improved speed, and while it is enslaved to me, I've only enslaved the dim memory of its consciousness and the actual horsey soul is off in the Happy Hunting Grounds believing it's a wild free horse. And yet this is somehow more evil than riding a living horse that can feel pain.
Personally I have to say that a fast zombie horse seems a superior steed to a regular horse: faster, 100% loyal, can be run 24/7 without needing fuel and actually requires no fuel. Totally worth a chunk of onyx.
I also consider this one of the better arguments why it should be evil, I don't want to GM a campaign where chivalrous knights have no problem riding undead horses and even favor them because it is a superior steed.
Most people will not want to play a campaign where everyone can animate dead freely when it gets down to it. I know as a GM I wouldnt like the particular flavor, the fact it just screams wrongness, regardless of wether it actually is is sometimes enough to warrant the evil tag in a fantasy game.
|
|
Let it start with me. I will put forward that the reason why animate dead has that descriptor is because, unlike raise dead, the animus is enslaved to the will of the caster. Whereas raise dead offers a choice as to whether or not a soul wishes to return to the mortal coil, animate dead does no such thing. Now, we can argue the semantics of what constitutes good or evil, right and wrong, or even what is moral or immoral, but I think we can all agree that having our free will taken from us is not a good thing. That to have our will enslaved to another sentient being is immoral. I think that we can agree that doing such a thing is just plain wrong. And if we can agree on that, then I think we are one step closer to understanding why animate dead is an evil spell.
So if I'm riding along on a horse, which is enslaved by bit and bridle and not able to exercise its free will--or worse, has been conditioned via Stockholm Syndrome to view carrying my butt on a piece of dead cow hide on its back as natural--and I'm somehow not evil? Then my horse dies, and I cast Animate Dead and Haste on it to make a fast zombie horse. It has improved speed, and while it is enslaved to me, I've only enslaved the dim memory of its consciousness and the actual horsey soul is off in the Happy Hunting Grounds believing it's a wild free horse. And yet this is somehow more evil than riding a living horse that can feel pain.
Personally I have to say that a fast zombie horse seems a superior steed to a regular horse: faster, 100% loyal, can be run 24/7 without needing fuel and actually requires no fuel. Totally worth a chunk of onyx.
Oh I see. You've got jokes. Whatever was I thinking in trying to advance the discussion in a matter that is considered mature? Well, since you brought this up, lets see how funny I can be.
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it with the respect that a sentient creature is due (in game, I would be asking a druid or ranger or anyone else capable of speaking or somehow communicating with animals to act as my go between). This gives the creature a choice it would not otherwise have. If you have indeed used any of these methods to obtain the mount, then no you are not evil. Cruelly breaking the horse to get an effect akin to Stockholm Syndrome that you can manipulate is. Now if these measures to preserve my good alignment seem a tad extreme, then I would say that it is no more extreme than your own example. Silly moment over.I'm not trying to be an a$$ here. I just want to have a serious discussion without getting caught up in silly devil's advocate type responses that don't really advance the conversation, but only serve to bog it down.
Oh I see. You've got jokes. Whatever was I thinking in trying to advance the discussion in a matter that is considered mature? Well, since you brought this up, lets see how funny I can be.
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it with the respect that a sentient creature is due (in game, I would be asking a druid or ranger or anyone else capable of speaking or somehow communicating with animals to act as my go between). This gives the creature a choice it would not otherwise have. If you have indeed used any of these methods to obtain the mount, then no you are not evil. Cruelly breaking the horse to get an effect akin to Stockholm Syndrome that you can manipulate is. Now if these measures to preserve my good alignment seem a tad extreme, then I would say that it is no more extreme than your own example. Silly moment over.
I'm not trying to be an a$$ here. I just want to have a serious discussion without getting caught up in silly devil's advocate type responses that don't really advance the conversation, but only serve to bog it down.
You want serious? Fine. How in a world with a Speak with Animals spell is anyone going to not be evil if doing any of many standard farming practices? Gelding horses? You must have had one hell of a diplomacy roll to get a wild free horse to agree to that. And you can completely line out bacon for breakfast or a roast haunch of venison at the inn. The animals sure as hell wouldn't consent to that if you could actually talk to them. Ditto with all the plants you could talk to with Speak with Plants excepting those that bear fruit and would like that animals eat the fruit and in so doing transport the seeds to new locales.
But if the line you put between Good and Evil is simply a matter of consent, all you should therefore need to keep Animate Dead from getting the Evil descriptor is a series of castings of Speak with Dead at the local cemetary: Mind if I animate your bones? Yes! Do you mind if I animate your bones. Yes, but can I stop you? How about you? Mind if I animate your bones? Why should I? It's not like I'm using them anymore. Go ahead.
All humor aside, if a necromancer gains consent of the dead as to the fate of their remains, what exactly would the moral objection be? Surely honoring the requests of the dead should trump any other concerns.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm disappointed no one caught my inspiration. *sigh* too obscure.
As to Animate Dead = evil but Animate Object = not evil, using my little IC journal here, maybe Animate Object, being higher level, 'washes out' the impulses, or, (evil DM mode set to 'ON') given the short duration, they don't get time to manifest.
And yes, the schools as a rule 'suck'. Mage Armour (creates armour of force) is Conjuration, Shield (creates shield of force) is Abjuration and Magic Missile (creates darts of force) is Evocation. In my manic moments I've wondered how to rewrite the schools while keeping them balanced.
|
|
Oh I see. You've got jokes. Whatever was I thinking in trying to advance the discussion in a matter that is considered mature? Well, since you brought this up, lets see how funny I can be.
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it with the respect that a sentient creature is due (in game, I would be asking a druid or ranger or anyone else capable of speaking or somehow communicating with animals to act as my go between). This gives the creature a choice it would not otherwise have. If you have indeed used any of these methods to obtain the mount, then no you are not evil. Cruelly breaking the horse to get an effect akin to Stockholm Syndrome that you can manipulate is. Now if these measures to preserve my good alignment seem a tad extreme, then I would say that it is no more extreme than your own example. Silly moment over.
I'm not trying to be an a$$ here. I just want to have a serious discussion without getting caught up in silly devil's advocate type responses that don't really advance the conversation, but only serve to bog it down.You want serious? Fine. How in a world with a Speak with Animals spell is anyone going to not be evil if doing any of many standard farming practices? Gelding horses? You must have had one hell of a diplomacy roll to get a wild free horse to agree to that. And you can completely line out bacon for breakfast or a roast haunch of venison at the inn. The animals sure as hell wouldn't consent to that if you could actually talk to them. Ditto with all the plants you could talk to with Speak with Plants excepting those that bear fruit and would like that animals eat the fruit and in so doing transport the seeds to new locales.
But if the line you put between Good and Evil is simply a matter of consent, all you should therefore need to keep Animate Dead from getting the Evil descriptor is a series of castings of Speak with Dead at the local...
I will say what I have to say and then retire from this thread, as while I am willing to consider what you are saying to me, you do not seem to be willing to do the same for me. The discussion at this point is no longer civil or friendly its just two people arguing.
Breaking a horse is a standard farming practice. You put it in a context, that while humorous, made it seem an evil practice. I merely responded in like fashion and made my intent clear, where as you did not. Mockery and sarcasm are not conducive to a good debate, as it clearly illustrates contempt for the one you're speaking to. I hold none for you. And I would hope that you hold none for me. As such I would like to exit this debate while this possibility still exists.Now with that out of the way...
Usurping a sentient creature's free will is never a good act. Animate Dead is evil because it does exactly this, in opposition of raise dead. You pose the use of speak with dead. This would indeed be fine...if you are using animate object to animate the dead corpse or you were attempting to bring life to said corpse. But you wouldn't be. You would use animate dead to do the deed. Which would make the act all the more cruel, because rather than having either a nonintelligent creature that you are using as a puppet (with the permission of the vacated soul) or a fully sentient being capable of making its own decisions in how it goes about rendering its aid, you would instead have an undead creature of diminished intellectual capacity that you are forcing to do your bidding. You would have a slave. That you negotiated for it through the use of speak with dead wouldn't change that fact whatsoever.
But if that doesn't work for you, then I'll try to put it another way. Animate dead could be argued to be a form of molestation (the word being used to mean - to disturb, interfere with, or annoy - though as you will see, it could work even in the second sense). You are interfering with the natural order of the universe by using this spell. And you forcing yourself on the corpse to do so which could be seen as a form eldritch rape, whereas raise dead requires consent (from the soul in question being raised and/or the deity in possession of it in the afterlife). With animate dead, you don't give it chance to say no.
Discuss as you wish. I'm going to bed now. Maybe when I get back up, I'll see what else has been said. Who knows? Maybe I'll even respond. ;)
|
|
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it...
Having been raised on a farm, and broken horses to ride, I can assure you that this is not how it is done, and while I have seen *one* experimental farm run by a professional psychiatrist that used positive reinforcement, it wasn't a working farm, and the B.F. Skinner wasn't around to teach the mongol's about positive reinforcement back in the day. Breaking a horse to ride is still, to this day, called breaking a horse. Not 'being really nice to a horse.'
Similarly, when I killed and butchered animals to eat, even a big friendly pig named Dooley that I had ridden as a child and considered more of a pet than a walking slab of bacon, I didn't stop to wonder if it was moral or ethical. It's just what is done. I didn't enjoy it or take any pleasure it the act, but I didn't lose sleep over it, either. He was an old pig, at least 12 years old, but the bacon tasted fine.
It's hardly a joke or a straw man argument to point out that the world is and always has been full of killing and death, and that our society has pretty much forgotten that, while we stand on soil made from dead bodies, eat dead bodies, cloth ourselves in dead bodies and run our cars on dead bodies. Even soap has ingredients from dead bodies, so that we *wash ourselves* with the products of death.
Icky, unclean, unwholesome, desecration, blah-blah-blah. We live off of the deaths of other creatures. We always have. Even plants, that get the bulk of their nourishment from the sun, benefit from minerals deposited into the soil from the decay of other living creatures.
Cue Mufasa's dad singing about the Circle of Life.
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it...Having been raised on a farm, and broken horses to ride, I can assure you that this is not how it is done, and while I have seen *one* experimental farm run by a professional psychiatrist that used positive reinforcement, it wasn't a working farm, and the B.F. Skinner wasn't around to teach the mongol's about positive reinforcement back in the day. Breaking a horse to ride is still, to this day, called breaking a horse. Not 'being really nice to a horse.'
Similarly, when I killed and butchered animals to eat, even a big friendly pig named Dooley that I had ridden as a child and considered more of a pet than a walking slab of bacon, I didn't stop to wonder if it was moral or ethical. It's just what is done. I didn't enjoy it or take any pleasure it the act, but I didn't lose sleep over it, either. He was an old pig, at least 12 years old, but the bacon tasted fine.
It's hardly a joke or a straw man argument to point out that the world is and always has been full of killing and death, and that our society has pretty much forgotten that, while we stand on soil made from dead bodies, eat dead bodies, cloth ourselves in dead bodies and run our cars on dead bodies. Even soap has ingredients from dead bodies, so that we *wash ourselves* with the products of death.
Icky, unclean, unwholesome, desecration, blah-blah-blah. We live off of the deaths of other creatures. We always have. Even plants, that get the bulk of their nourishment from the sun, benefit from minerals deposited into the soil from the decay of other living creatures.
Cue Mufasa's dad singing about the Circle of Life.
Hmm…
That's what my interpretation of "why is a skeleton evil?" builds off of: the circle of life thing. Taking a dead body, and infusing it with "unlife", creates an actual creature that defies the established life cycle: it cannot die, it cannot create life in any fashion, it cannot decompose, it has a sentience, in other words, it's an abomination.And to contradict your post a bit: we don't stand on soil made from dead bodies. It's the other way around. Living things are made from "soil" and just simply turn back into "soil" when they die. :)
I will say what I have to say and then retire from this thread, as while I am willing to consider what you are saying to me, you do not seem to be willing to do the same for me. The discussion at this point is no longer civil or friendly its just two people arguing.
Breaking a horse is a standard farming practice. You put it in a context, that while humorous, made it seem an evil practice. I merely responded in like fashion and made my intent clear, where as you did not. Mockery and sarcasm are not conducive to a good debate, as it clearly illustrates contempt for the one you're speaking to. I hold none for you. And I would hope that you hold none for me. As such I would like to exit this debate while this possibility still exists.
Now with that out of the way...
Usurping a sentient creature's free will is never a good act. Animate Dead is evil because it does exactly this, in opposition of raise dead. You pose the use of speak with dead. This would indeed be fine...if you are using animate object to animate the dead corpse or you were attempting to bring life to said corpse. But you wouldn't be. You would use animate dead to do the deed. Which would make the act all the more cruel, because rather than having either a nonintelligent creature that you are using as a puppet (with the permission of the vacated soul) or a fully sentient being capable of making its own decisions in how it goes about rendering its aid, you would instead have an undead creature of diminished intellectual capacity that you are forcing to do your bidding. You would have a slave. That you negotiated for it through the use of speak with dead wouldn't change that fact whatsoever.
But if that doesn't work for you, then I'll try to put it another way. Animate dead could be argued to be a form of molestation (the word being used to mean - to disturb, interfere with, or annoy - though as you will see, it could work even in the second sense). You are interfering with the natural order of the universe by using this spell. And you forcing yourself on the corpse to do so which could be seen as a form eldritch rape, whereas raise dead requires consent (from the soul in question being raised and/or the deity in possession of it in the afterlife). With animate dead, you don't give it chance to say no.
Discuss as you wish. I'm going to bed now. Maybe when I get back up, I'll see what else has been said. Who knows? Maybe I'll even respond. ;)
I use mockery and sarcasm to point out flaws in an argument, not to disparage another debater. If you make a ridiculous argument, you shouldn't be surprised to have it ridiculed.
But to put the flaws in the cut-and-dried no-humor mode, it seems as if your position is that anything is evil and deserves the Evil tag if it interferes with another person's free will. This is a fine position, except in that you don't bother to extend it logically to other spells.
You argue that Raise Dead is not evil because the spirit of the dead person has the option to say "No" if they choose then say that Animate Dead is evil because the spirit of the dead has no say over whether their bones are animated or not, even though this spell does not in fact in any way touch the spirit since the skeleton or zombie remains a soulless husk. You argue that this is wrong because it's corpse abuse, and when I posit that the necromancer has first used Speak with Dead to find a corpse that would not mind, you say that this is not evil only so long as Animate Object is used rather than Animate Dead.
Why, exactly? If the dead person has consented to someone using Animate Dead rather than Animate Object, it would seem that violation of consent cannot be the reason for the Evil tag.
Moreover, on the violation of consent angle, why doesn't Speak With Dead get an Evil tag? You're effectively breaking the lock on the ultimate private diary of a person's innermost thoughts and you can force the corpse to tell you anything, even the answer to deeply personal questions. I don't know about you, but that seems the ultimate in corpse defilement, and something I'd mind far more than just having some necromancer animate my skeleton to carry his library books.
While I can respect the position that violation of consent is an evil act, it's a straw man argument for defending why Animate Dead always gets an Evil tag.
When someone casts Animate Dead they are disturbing the remains of a once living creature (an immoral act), and in the vast majority of cases these "minions" are sent into battle simply to absorb blows (thereby desecrating the remains), and its a well known fact Necromancers frequently go through countless swarms of these 'expendable' pawns in their lifetimes, but seldom is the question asked of WHERE the bodies would come from...
Necromancers being practical people, would go to the largest concentration of bodies they could find (graveyards and so forth) where the dead have been peacefully interred.
Consider also that in a Desecrated/Unhallowed area, undead created within the confines of these areas are tougher than their usual counterparts (an evil spell bolstering another evil spell).
Its not the spell itself inasmuch that is Evil, its the implications of its use (it messes with the remains of the dead, binds the shells of once living beings into servitude who ultimately get destroyed sooner or later desecrating those remains further).
Most societies dont tolerate Undead in any form, in virtually every setting I have seen (you dont see obviously undead openly walking through the street among living people with people acting like its an everyday thing). Shucks, even a Mage walking though a street with some kind of summoned minion following behind him is going to get alot of strange looks and alot of whispers behind his back because of his Outsider pal thats tagging along for example.
Regardless of how some people might try to spin it, a Necromancer who dies leaves his Undead Entourage behind....now what happens with these 'pets'?, those with a nugget of sentience (Ghouls, Shadows, etc) will venture off and start killing any living thing they come across by whatever means is craftiest. Skeletons and Zombies fill the 'Mindless' category, but Zombies in particular will wander and if they encounter living creatures they attack relentlessly. Skeletons may stand still at the point they were last commanded, but should anything happen upon THEM the Skeletons will attack.
Skeletons and Zombies still have some semblance of instinct, and will react in self defense against non-living foes, but if they sense a creature is living (while uncontrolled) it is SHOWN in Pathfinder they can and DO attack those that cross their path...otherwise why else would they bother to feature in countless undead encounter tables?
When a Mage dies, their summon monsters vanish because the spell lasts rounds per level with no real consequences for the summon in question (it cant really die), so the mages companions dont have any additional worries there. But with a Necromancer they do, because his 'pets' will attack them when he falls.
And lastly and most importantly...you cant reason with Skeletons and Zombies period, they dont have any self preservation instinct, they fight until destroyed. But it is possible to reason with other intelligent undead (albeit that would be difficult, there are rules for this in the Libra Mortis about using Diplomacy vs Undead to avoid conflict), but even then it is a one shot deal (the undead, being evil, inevitably regret not taking the opportunity to devour/destroy their prey and resume the hunt once more).
Not to mention the existance of being Undead is different than that of being an Outsider, you can eat, drink, sleep, experience sensations, and so much more. As an Undead ALL you do is exist, you dont sleep, you dont really eat (unless your a Ghoul or Vampire, etc), you just exist.
Regardless, the vast majority of characters and civilisations in Pathfinder consider Necromancy of this sort illegal and immoral, and I doubt Paizo are going to remove the Evil descriptor on the spell anytime soon.
Consider this - when a player uses Summon Monster to summon a Fiendish (Whatever), or to summon an Evil creature, the spell ITSELF gains the Evil descriptor (likewise, a Celestial creature or Good aligned creature causes the spell to gain the Good descriptor).
Not to mention that Skeletons and Zombies are Neutral Evil too in Pathfinder.
This isnt a question of how 'moral' messing with the bodies of the dead is, its simply down to the fact the spell itself, like a Summon Monster spell that summons an Evil outsider of some sort, are both irrevocably Evil.
Mages dont wander the street with their summon monsters, undead minions and so forth taggling along, mingling with the unwashed masses in a campaign. Hell, even Celestial creatures dont tag along with their masters, because commonfolk would point at and get concerned about some weird looking glowing creature walking around (A passing cleric or paladin could alleviate the public fears but its NOT common knowledge to most NPC's if they dont have the Knowledge skill that is required).
Wether people like it or not, the act of channeling negative energy into a creatures dead shell, animating it and then controlling it is bad enough...but nobody really asks where the necromancer suddenly got his 30 new Skeletons/Zombies (for example) that he suddenly walks into a dungeon with. (Likely where a large concentration of bodies can be found, such as a village graveyard, desecrating the remains of ALOT of people en mass).
Plus Necromancers dont really care for their pawns that much, they are meatshields to absorb some hits (which thereby desecrates the remains). And what happens to the desecrated remains of these fallen undead?, 99% of the time they are left to rot where they fell and the Necromancer moves on to animate something else.
An attitude like that to peoples remains being 'expendable' is not the traits of a Good aligned character.
And FYI, the only really "Good" undead is Deathless from the Book Of Exalted Deeds, these creatures are not bound into service and can leave their vessels when they wish, and they are animated by positive not negative energy.
As for the physical experience of an Outsider over an Undead being?
Outsiders dont HAVE to eat or drink, they can do so if they wish for the pleasure of it and they never go hungry (no maddening insanity there)
Some undead HAVE to eat, Vampires and so forth and I am sure if any of us woke up suddenly craving someones blood we would have a hard time justifying not just eating someone (no veggie vampires please). A character turned into a Vampire (even if they were good in life), is going to succumb to the hunger eventually and eat someone, slip into remorse and so forth. Unless they do the noble thing and end their own life, the act of continually preying on other good people WILL gain you corruption eventually and soon you'll justify eating Joe Bob because you dont have any rats or cows around to bleed and it allows you to 'spread' the greater good you think your still doing...then it becomes easier to justify doing it again, and again....
Undead experience most sensations (Libra Mortis explains for most undead these are phantom sensations, akin to being half numb when they touch something, etc.), but most can see and hear perfectly. Oh yes...and when 'living' people discover you and try to put you out your misery?...your not going to have time to be diplomatic, its you or them, and in the act of self preservation 'Good' people turned Undead will kill a few in their time, and who knows, might even turn hateful and vengeful towards the living in general because their existance is a constantly hostile one.
Not to mention that a passing Evil Cleric can just control you and make you do horrible things against your wishes...
..."Attack those Villagers!" says the Cleric, and you go in no better than a Dominated plebian and attack and kill. Should you win, you have the luxury of watching your master pick at their remains and possibly even animate more bodies while you stand by helplessly, a tool of their evil. And such acts, even though against your will, are STILL evil, you could always put yourself out of your misery and do the living world a favor.
Outsiders of any variety have the whole banquet of sensations and emotions to enjoy, they have what mortals enjoy and so much more, they will never starve or die of thirst and some dont even need to sleep (but can do so if they wish).
And FYI, the only really "Good" undead is Deathless from the Book Of Exalted Deeds, these creatures are not bound into service and can leave their vessels when they wish, and they are animated by positive not negative energy.
That's a pretty thin reed to base an argument on, especially since demi-liches can also leave their vessels when they want, are in fact usually not in residence, and were doing this shtick for three and a half editions before "deathless" were even invented.
And the whole "positive energy" business is irrelevant to Pathfinder anyway because that bit from Eberron and the BoED wasn't released to the SRD.
And following the Pathfinder RAW, you should also note that ghosts, while still animated by negative energy like the rest of the Pathfinder undead crew, can be any alignment.
As for vampires being naughty or nice, that greatly depends on the world that the DM is running and whether the thirst for blood can be denied or if the story bible for the world makes all vampires automatically fall into a frenzy reminiscent of the final scene of Reefer Madness or an addled crack ho from an '80s anti-drug PSA. If you're running the later sort of world, then yeah, vampires are automatically evil or at least doomed to be so, but that's not bragging rights for winning an argument; that's just the DM running the orbital mind control lasers for their world and enforcing alignments.
In other words, if I say all undead are automatically Evil for my world, or Eeeeeevil!, then fine, they are. That's Rule 0.
But by the same token, I and many other DMs can Rule 0 a more grey and nuanced morality for our worlds if we want, and since Rule 0 is part of the RAW, well, it's not like we're violating it.
And FYI, the only really "Good" undead is Deathless from the Book Of Exalted Deeds, these creatures are not bound into service and can leave their vessels when they wish, and they are animated by positive not negative energy.That's a pretty thin reed to base an argument on, especially since demi-liches can also leave their vessels when they want, are in fact usually not in residence, and were doing this shtick for three and a half editions before "deathless" were even invented.
And the whole "positive energy" business is irrelevant to Pathfinder anyway because that bit from Eberron and the BoED wasn't released to the SRD.
And following the Pathfinder RAW, you should also note that ghosts, while still animated by negative energy like the rest of the Pathfinder undead crew, can be any alignment.
As for vampires being naughty or nice, that greatly depends on the world that the DM is running and whether the thirst for blood can be denied or if the story bible for the world makes all vampires automatically fall into a frenzy reminiscent of the final scene of Reefer Madness or an addled crack ho from an '80s anti-drug PSA. If you're running the later sort of world, then yeah, vampires are automatically evil or at least doomed to be so, but that's not bragging rights for winning an argument; that's just the DM running the orbital mind control lasers for their world and enforcing alignments.
In other words, if I say all undead are automatically Evil for my world, or Eeeeeevil!, then fine, they are. That's Rule 0.
But by the same token, I and many other DMs can Rule 0 a more grey and nuanced morality for our worlds if we want, and since Rule 0 is part of the RAW, well, it's not like we're violating it.
Still, Necromancers have to get their lackeys from somewhere, wether they kill people themselves or dig up some remains, they are desecrating the remains and animating them.
It should be noted that Skeletons and Zombies while 'mindless' are still Neutral Evil, which implies unlike Vermin (who are also 'mindless' but neutral), that Undead intrinsically apart from very rare exceptions are Evil.
And yes, even a Ghost can be Good alignment...but does it get bleached by positive energy?, does it have horrific undead powers?, yes on both counts. While its diplomatically possible to negociate with a Ghost (for the purposes of laying it to rest), more often than not they will be either avoided or attacked depending know Knowledgeable people are. Not to mention Ghosts died in some horrific manner usually, so they look more often than not...mutilated or suchlike, and D&D characters and NPC's alike are oh so quick to act based on appearances.
I am well aware Pathfinder is more 'greyer' than D&D used to be, but Animate Dead is a Evil spell, though can houserule it anyway you want. It creates Neutral Evil, unliving creatures that cant be reasoned with or bargained with whose only job is to kill or be killed mindlessly.
Not to mention that a passing Evil Cleric can 'steal' your undead away with a Channel Test and set them upon you and your comrades, or if you fall in battle, your now uncontrolled minions will put you out of your misery if your unconcious/bleeding out and attack your companions too.
Not to mention Necromancers dont care about their expendable skeletons/zombies really, and move on oh so quickly to make more as soon as some fall while the remains of the former minions are left to rot where they fell.
Plus, Necromancy of that sort is illegal in most settings, otherwise you'd see Necromancers and their pets in the streets. You dont though, because people would get their pitchforks and torches if they seen that, not to mention the towns Clerics and Paladins as well as guards and so forth would be on you like a bad rash looking to string you up on a noose (and rightly so).
3.5 book Heroes of Horror says animate undead to fight evil is an over all neutral act (pg 81).
So D&D does think Good act + evil Act = neutral.
3.5 book Heroes of Horror says animate undead to fight evil is an over all neutral act (pg 81).
So D&D does think Good act + evil Act = neutral.
So my Paladin is a-ok if he saves an orphanage from an evil warlord one minute and then burns it down with all the children inside the next? After all, that good act makes the evil one merely neutral, right? My class features are safe!
Who knew playing a Paladin could be so much fun?! :-p
3.5 book Heroes of Horror says animate undead to fight evil is an over all neutral act (pg 81).
So D&D does think Good act + evil Act = neutral.
note that fighting evil is not necesarily a good act either, evil fight eachother all the time dont they ?
Anyway, I think animate dead is evil, do I have a good explanation that explains beyond doubt that it is ? no I don't.
On the other hand I can not have a necromancer animate hordes of skeletons and zombies to serve as his personal army run afoul of the party's paladin and tell him cooly smite evil does not work... animating the dead is a staple of evil spellcasters plain and simple, I do not really care why it is evil.. except that it has to be.
Still, Necromancers have to get their lackeys from somewhere, wether they kill people themselves or dig up some remains, they are desecrating the remains and animating them.
Ever think that a necromancer could get a person's consent ahead of time and pay them for their remains?
Necromancy Jeff: "So Bob I have a delicate question for you"
Bob the dirt farmer: "What is it Jeff?"
Necromancy Jeff: "Well you see I noticed you are in a bad financial straight."
Bob the dirt farmer: "Yes, sir. The dirt ain't growing so good this year."
Necromancy Jeff: "Well maybe we can help each other out"
Bob the dirt farmer: "How is that?"
Necromancy Jeff: "You are devout right? What happens when you die?"
Bob the dirt farmer: "Well I am devout sir. When I die my soul goes to heaven where I shall never hunger or toil again."
Necromancy Jeff:"So... Ill give you 10 gold for the right to animate your body after you die."
Bob the dirt farmer: "What?!?"
Necromancy Jeff:"Well I wont try and accelerate your death or nothing. And its not like you'll need your body anymore. Plus it would really help out you and your family now."
Bob the dirt farmer: "Ok. When you put it like that you have yourself a deal."
Ohhh... spoooky eeevil!
Still, Necromancers have to get their lackeys from somewhere, wether they kill people themselves or dig up some remains, they are desecrating the remains and animating them.
It should be noted that Skeletons and Zombies while 'mindless' are still Neutral Evil, which implies unlike Vermin (who are also 'mindless' but neutral), that Undead intrinsically apart from very rare exceptions are Evil.
And yes, even a Ghost can be Good alignment...but does it get bleached by positive energy?, does it have horrific undead powers?, yes on both counts. While its diplomatically possible to negociate with a Ghost (for the purposes of laying it to rest), more often than not they will be either avoided or attacked depending know Knowledgeable people are. Not to mention Ghosts died in some horrific manner usually, so they look more often than not...mutilated or suchlike, and D&D characters and NPC's alike are oh so quick to act based on appearances.
I am well aware Pathfinder is more 'greyer' than D&D used to be, but Animate Dead is a Evil spell, though can houserule it anyway you want. It creates Neutral Evil, unliving creatures that cant be reasoned with or bargained with whose only job is to kill or be killed mindlessly.
Strange how the nation of Geb in the Golarion setting has not only trained their skeletons and zombies to harvest produce but are doing it so efficiently they have enough to export. It seems that, in Geb at least, that a skeleton or zombie's job description has been expanded from "kill or be killed mindlessly" to "pick cotton mindlessly" or "cut grain mindlessly." I'm assuming you use the zombies to pick fruit and such, as skeletal fingers would go right through avocados or tomatoes and damage them for market, whereas the skeletons who have weapon proficiency can be told to use scythes for their original purpose of cutting grain.
As for where necromancers get their lackeys, it all depends on the social conventions. If zombies are outlawed then only outlaws will have zombies. If the only socially acceptable fate for a corpse is internment in the local churchyard, well then, yes, the only place for a necromancer to get a corpse in such a situation is by robbing a churchyard or killing someone and using the body before it gets to a churchyard.
But consider the times. Is it not also acceptable for local lords to cut off the heads of their enemies and stick them on pikes at the front gates? For small towns to string up thieves and other outlaws and leave them hanging from the gallows tree as a deterrent to other law breakers and/or evil doers?
Now, a necromancer could easily ride into such a town and go "Wow! Free corpses!" when he sees the gallows tree with zombies just ripe for the picking. But a lawful necromancer, not knowing the local customs, might instead wander into the tavern and inquire as to who owns the corpses hanging on the tree outside and if they are for sale, since it seems very similar to the way that rug merchants display their wares in his own lands.
Now what's the mayor to do? If the purpose of hanging thieves and murderers is to serve as deterrent to other miscreants, wouldn't having them shamble around as zombies in some foreign necromancers control be further deterrent? And the necromancer here is willing to pay cold hard cash which could be used as restitution for the assorted widows, orphan, and other victims of the dead criminals.
The other obvious source for lawful necromancers to get corpses in medieval setting with the approval of the local authorities is a battle field. I mean, a lord who's conscripting peasants to fight his battles is hardly going to have many qualms about conscripting their corpses, at least when it comes to the difference between winning and losing. Especially when losing means your head is going to be decorating your enemy's battlements.
The business about evil priests coming by and grabbing your undead--and the neutral priests who can also do the same trick--is this appreciably different from the druids who can wander by and grab control of your farm animals or even your fruit trees? This is a security issue, and if a society allowed skeletons and/or zombies, there would be laws regarding their ownership, transport and very likely registration.
Let's say we've got the kingdom where the necromancer saved the good king's bacon and more importantly head via some well-timed use of Animate Dead. Not all of the zombies and skeletons were destroyed in the battle, so when the king is rewarding everyone who fought at his side with whatever boon he can reasonably grant, the necromancer asks that he be permitted to keep a squadron of the skeletons or zombies for his personal needs and research purposes in peacetime.
Now of course this is a PR disaster for the king whichever way you look at it, but probably the most lawful and probably good choice is to allow the necromancer's request and give him the official permit with the understanding that his undead are his responsibility, he can only have them with him in certain areas, he does not get to sell or lend them out to other necromancers, and finally that private businesses have the right to tell him to keep his walking corpses off their premises. After all, you don't take your horse into the tavern either and nobody wants to look at a zombie while they're drinking.
Yes, a dark priest can come steal control of the necromancer's zombies and use them to work evil. So what? A blackguard can come steal a paladin's sword and use it to work evil too. Theft is theft.
|
|
Strange how the nation of Geb in the Golarion setting has not only trained their skeletons and zombies to harvest produce but are doing it so efficiently they have enough to export. It seems that, in Geb at least, that a skeleton or zombie's job description has been expanded from "kill or be killed mindlessly" to "pick cotton mindlessly" or "cut grain mindlessly." I'm assuming you use the zombies to pick fruit and such, as skeletal fingers would go right through avocados or tomatoes and damage them for market, whereas the skeletons who have weapon proficiency can be told to use scythes for their original purpose of cutting grain.As for where necromancers get their lackeys, it all depends on the social conventions.
The Nation of Geb's standard and common alignment for their citizenry - Lawful Evil.
So that is case closed on a nation which creates undead as a slave force not being an evil act.Done.
No different than a nation that summons demons or devils to do their bidding.
I would also love to see the rush of merchants who want to go out and buy produce picked from corpses. The rampant contagion plus the occasional bonus bits in your bushel would be mmmmm, mmmmm tasty all around. Stupid concept - I would say it would only make sense to sell this stuff in Geb or out to other necrophages. From the campaign guide write-up it doesn't sound like Geb has much of an export business since every other nation wants to see them obliterated. So I think your assumptions about their thriving undead supported mercantilism is just that, an assumption. Beyond their borders I highly doubt that anyone would want to buy their necrotouched fruit-rollups or elotes.
So after 10 pages I still haven't seen a good argument as to why animating dead isn’t evil.
After 10 pages I still haven't seen a logical argument why most if not all undead are evil, including Ghosts -
(Bestiary: Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.)
I fully support DM creativity and decision to run things different on this one. If a DM wants a good Ghost, or an undead coming back to seek justice being LG – then I am ok with it. Should be the exception to the norm though and make sense on a case-by-case basis. As long as it's good story, makes sense, doesn't break/bend too many rules, and follows some form of rule consistency so as to not screw over players then I think most people are good with this. We don't need 10 pages of DM or story justification to get this going.
You can be as nuanced or as black as white as you like. The more gray areas you create and explore the more mechanical inconsistencies you create for your players by making monsters 100% random and give players nothing to work with on planning or thinking level.
Ex: DM - Oh those zombies you wasted, they were the remains of the Lawful Good brothers sent back to defend their monastery, they were just lumbering over to touch you guys and give each of you their Blessing Touch. So let me see,…. how much xp should I deduct……
On the other hand players who want to powergame Animate Dead as the anyspell and who are here making arguments that they should be able to use the slain Chimera as their animated mount ala Neverending Story or as trap bait– well, you can - just pay the price and take the alignment hit. Action=consequence.
3.5 book Heroes of Horror says animate undead to fight evil is an over all neutral act (pg 81).
So D&D does think Good act + evil Act = neutral.So my Paladin is a-ok if he saves an orphanage from an evil warlord one minute and then burns it down with all the children inside the next? After all, that good act makes the evil one merely neutral, right? My class features are safe!
Who knew playing a Paladin could be so much fun?! :-p
No, each act has a rating they just could balance out. You still lose your code by commiting evil.
I don't see how saving and orphanage requires burning it down.Animating dead to stop an warlord would be better example.
Still you fall as Code doesn't care much about alignment if you commit any evil acts.
The Nation of Geb's standard and common alignment for their citizenry - Lawful Evil.
So that is case closed on a nation which creates undead as a slave force not being an evil act.
Done.
No different than a nation that summons demons or devils to do their bidding.I would also love to see the rush of merchants who want to go out and buy produce picked from corpses. The rampant contagion plus the occasional bonus bits in your bushel would be mmmmm, mmmmm tasty all around. Stupid concept - I would say it would only make sense to sell this stuff in Geb or out to other necrophages. From the campaign guide write-up it doesn't sound like Geb has much of an export business since every other nation wants to see them obliterated. So I think your assumptions about their thriving undead supported mercantilism is just that, an assumption. Beyond their borders I highly doubt that anyone would want to buy their necrotouched fruit-rollups or elotes.
I would say the US south during the time of slavery had a thriving export market of their raw cotton to England's textile industry. And in the current day world there are child slaves picking the beans for a great deal of the world's cocoa.
I expect Geb's exports are mostly consumed by Nex, which is barren due to the war, but arrive in outlying countries either legally by Walmart pricing--the rich may afford to be picky but the poor do not--or if there is no legal importation to nations other than Nex, then by smuggling, especially if it could be concentrated into a form easily stored and easily transported, such as, for example, brandy.
The English used to tax wine by the barrel regardless of alcohol content or quality so the winegrowers of Cognac who were making the Two Buck Chuck of their day distilled it into brandy to be watered back to cheap wine later on. It was then seized by the customs houses in Chaucer's day, and after aging in the French oak a number of years, the customs agents realized it was pretty damn good stuff without watering it down.
So yeah, brandy, jam, textiles. There's all sorts of stuff that can be smuggled out of Geb, and would be if a profit could be made doing it.
|
|
I think you missed one of the important points I made -
The rampant contagion plus the occasional bonus bits in your bushel would be mmmmm, mmmmm tasty all around. Stupid concept - I would say it would only make sense to sell this stuff in Geb or out to other necrophages.
It isn't a question of just cheap prices and you cannot simply compare it to the US pre-civil war.
Sure there are elements to that time period - slavery, plantations, etc. The big difference is that anything that is not a durable good or resource (ex - lumber) item has a good chance of carrying contagion in it - just from the rotting corpses. Would you buy food or cloth/textile which are manufactured and processed buy decomposing corpses? In a land that has the greatest chance to have periodic outbreaks of the plague?Sorry, beyond solid durable goods (furniture, weapons, solid resources, etc) I would say their production would not be exportable. Also from the campaign book there is no indication that Geb's primary export would be any of these items -it's implied that they (zombies) are used as labor for food and possible textile production. Considering the cost to export these things and the penalties and treason tag associated with buying this third-rate product I would say their economic model is not a viable money making machine. Good for their own isolated use, but not top rate or effective product to place on the world market for sale where purchase/import (even on the black market) can lead to the death of a nation just from the possible plague rats stowed away in boxed from a ship or caravan out of Geb.
So disease + crappy product doesn't even come close to value of slave produced items. Too many drawbacks to be practical.
Still all of this fails to address:
"I still haven't seen a good argument as to why animating dead isn't evil."
"I still haven't seen a logical argument why most if not all undead are evil, including Ghosts -
(Bestiary: Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.)"
This is a fascinating topic which requires 500 posts.
I think you missed one of the important points I made -
The rampant contagion plus the occasional bonus bits in your bushel would be mmmmm, mmmmm tasty all around. Stupid concept - I would say it would only make sense to sell this stuff in Geb or out to other necrophages.It isn't a question of just cheap prices and you cannot simply compare it to the US pre-civil war.
Sure there are elements to that time period - slavery, plantations, etc. The big difference is that anything that is not a durable good or resource (ex - lumber) item has a good chance of carrying contagion in it - just from the rotting corpses. Would you buy food or cloth/textile which are manufactured and processed buy decomposing corpses? In a land that has the greatest chance to have periodic outbreaks of the plague?Sorry, beyond solid durable goods (furniture, weapons, solid resources, etc) I would say their production would not be exportable. Also from the campaign book there is no indication that Geb's primary export would be any of these items -it's implied that they (zombies) are used as labor for food and possible textile production. Considering the cost to export these things and the penalties and treason tag associated with buying this third-rate product I would say their economic model is not a viable money making machine. Good for their own isolated use, but not top rate or effective product to place on the world market for sale where purchase/import (even on the black market) can lead to the death of a nation just from the possible plague rats stowed away in boxed from a ship or caravan out of Geb.
So disease + crappy product doesn't even come close to value of slave produced items. Too many drawbacks to be practical.
Still all of this fails to address:
"I still haven't seen a good argument as to why animating dead isn't evil."
"I still haven't seen a logical argument why most if not all undead are evil, including Ghosts -
(Bestiary: Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling...
Do you have RAW examples that state that zombies are continually rotting? Is it like the Xanth zombies where the rotting bits magically renew themselves so zombies that drop a finger in the apricots will magically have a new one tomorrow, even if the original is in a basket on the way to market? And aside from plague zombies which are specifically designed to carry a specific zombie-spawning plague, you'd think that zombies would be about the worst possible vector to spread real world plague. Zombies don't have warm blood so wouldn't be attractive to fleas at all.
While I have no problem with Geb being continually plagued by the plague, it's quite likely that it's being harbored by the same thing that hosts it in the real world, that being the black rat. And even if the nation of Geb had zero undead but was still a source of the plague that would be a cause to bar imports.
That said, there are a few other things which would prevent anything save magical plague from tagging along. Distilled spirits are one of these. You could throw real world plague rats into brandy or whisky and that would pretty thoroughly sterilize them once they'd pickled a bit.
But of course the politics of Geb and the transmission vectors of the plague are a side issue from whether or not animating the dead is evil or whether all undead are naturally evil either.
|
|
Do you have RAW examples that state that zombies are continually rotting? Is it like the Xanth zombies where the rotting bits magically renew themselves so zombies that drop a finger in the apricots will magically have a new one tomorrow, even if the original is in a basket on the way to market? And aside from plague zombies which are specifically designed to carry a specific zombie-spawning plague, you'd think that zombies would be about the worst possible vector to spread real world plague. Zombies don't have warm blood so wouldn't be attractive to fleas at all.
Actually I do have same RAW derived reasoning, but it may require some working through -
On Decay -
Gentle Repose:
You preserve the remains of a dead creature so that they do not decay. Doing so effectively extends the time limit on raising that creature from the dead (see raise dead). Days spent under the influence of this spell don’t count against the time limit. Additionally, this spell makes transporting a slain (and thus decaying) comrade less unpleasant.
So zombies - i.e. corpses do rot. Now I don't have RAW rates for rotting, but it is implied from another spell that dead creatures do rot. There is no implication that zombies can regenerate nor do they restore lost limbs or fingers which my accidentally drop into the soup they are about to serve.
Undead Creature traits
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
Based on the fact that they do not heal (under normal conditions - RAW) + the facts that corpses do rot (according to RAW) it would imply that zombies are not the cleanest, nor the most hygienic creatures around, especially if they take any kind of damage and start to fall apart faster than at non-existent rates for decomposition in PFRPG.
Also do you think there would be less or more black rats in a nation where a majority of the populace are rotting corpses? These zombies are programmed to not attack anything that moves - how may bites or hollowed out animated zombies (as a percentage) do you think may exist in a zombie workforce? Even a small amount would invalidate food and textile production for distribution.
It's unfortunate that I would have to cite RAW to build a common sense argument for the accepted physics and metaphysics in the game. Sad actually
Zombies rot, zombies are unclean - and I have to try and prove it step-by-step because people here can't get over the fact that animating the dead is an evil act and that animated dead, while mindless are an affront to the natural order of the universe.
If I remember correctly, in 1st edition there was some portion of the RAW about zombies rotting until enough flesh fell off that what you had was a skeleton. Necromancers who wanted to prevent this used Gentle Repose as a stay-fresh spell.
Of course, in 3rd edition it's different, but I know there are feats that let necromancer's make sturdier zombies, which is a bit cross purposes if they still rot away. One assumes someone would come up with a solution to this, either magic or just soaking them in saltpeter and smoking them like large hams.
It's rather implausible that there would be a whole nation filled with undead and nobody has conceived of embalming or even considers it important. And it's dead cheap too. Here, look:
Unguent of Timelessness
Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd
Slot —; Price 150 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
When applied to any matter that was once alive, such as wood, paper, or a dead body, this ointment allows that substance to resist the passage of time. Each year of actual time affects the substance as if only a day had passed. The coated object gains a +1 resistance bonus on all saving throws. The unguent never wears off, although it can be magically removed (by dispelling the effect, for instance). One flask contains enough material to coat eight Medium or smaller objects. A Large object counts as two Medium objects, and a Huge object counts as four Medium objects.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, gentle repose; Cost 75 gp
That's less than 10 GP per zombie. All you need to do is hit a corpse with Make Whole to put it in just-killed state then spread it with a little Unguent of Timelessness and then you can cast Animate Dead on your relatively clean hygenic zombie.
In fact, if I were Geb running my Lawful Evil necromancy friendly nation I'd be requiring this by law since a shabby zombie is the mark of an incompetent or slovenly necromancer and Geb has appearances to maintain.