Animating the dead bodies of people's relatives is an Evil act, unless A) blessed by the Gods, and the Good Gods at that or B) the souls that formerly inhabited those bodies have given their permission.
Just a bit of fatigue on Pathfinder's behalf, I believe, that there isn't a 'good' version of this spell for Clerics and Paladins (and we oh-so-rare White Necromancers!) to call upon to fight the minions of decay and corruption!
And yes I'd make Animate Objects a Necromancer spell, you're ensouling an object with life, and while it's probably as much Transmutation as Necromancy, a goodly portion of our abilities are stolen from the g$$**@n Enchantment School so why the hell not?
|
Aha! So it does! My complaint is withdrawn.
If the dudes in charge of the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion had thought of that, skeletons and zombies would remain neutral and this discussion would be moot (since it was said by a designer over on EN world that the reason for the change was so that paladins could smite skeletons and zombies). :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Fluffwise, one could justify undead as 'evil' if the negative energy doesn't make the zombie/skeleton run around yelling 'brains' but that the energy (while non-aligned, per The Great Beyond) taints the creature to 'ping' as evil.
Think of it like how poppy seeds can trigger a false positive on a drug test for opiates. Stronger undead, which are evil ping at 1 HP or 30. So mindless undead 'ping' as evil since they have a fragment of the same energy the big boys run on.
Knowlege (Religion) is like the advanced drug test that can break down morphine from opium from poppy seeds.
It's like how a succubus that becomes a paladin would still radiate [evil] and [chaotic] because of the nature of her being.
Kevin is on the spot (as usual). I really don't like the "undead = EEEEVIIIL !" route of D&D and I am sad that Paizo goes this way as well. It's killing several nice character ideas - I was always fond of "fight fire with fire, but watch out lest you burn your soul away" vibe of Neutral Necromancers, Malconvokers and others. SKR's "a skeleton is more evil than a 3rd world rapist drug-dealing warlord because skeletons exist to extinguish life" is silly.
Where did I make a *qualitative* judgement about the relative evil-ness of X vs. Y? I did not. I stated that the negative energy used to create undead is evil. I didn't say it was *more evil* than what an intelligent evil human could come up with... I just said it's *inherently* evil.
Interesting discussion. My take:
I personally can't see how undead, intelligent or not, can be considered anything BUT evil. Just because an undead is mindless, that is no proof to justify otherwise. Several things in the game are mindless, yet still register as evil… lingering auras, spell effects such as desecration, and certain magic items/artifacts.
I also disagree with the notion that just because an undead creature is mindless, it can't discern it's environment. IRL, several mindless organisms exist that obviously fullfill their purpose, despite the lack of capacity to think… single cell organisms and viruses in particular. It's not a stretch to equate that to mindless undead.
I could see a better argument for a necromancer, for instance, who isn't evil himself, but uses evil magic (in the form of creating mindless undead in this case), but not necessarily for evil purpose. Obviously, said necromancer is walking a fine moral line.
|
It is inherently more hateful and destructive than racism, murder, genocide, torture because it wants to destroy life simply because it exists, no matter that life's shape, form, needs, intent, or purpose.
Unless my skills at English as a second language fail me (which is possible), I understand that sentence as Negative Energy being more evil than, pretty much, the most vile things men do *just because* its very nature is to destroy life.
Unless my skills at English as a second language fail me (which is possible), I understand that sentence as Negative Energy being more evil than, pretty much, the most vile things men do *just because* its very nature is to destroy life.It is inherently more hateful and destructive than racism, murder, genocide, torture because it wants to destroy life simply because it exists, no matter that life's shape, form, needs, intent, or purpose.
I've got books and books full of traps, each one with no other purpose than to destroy life. Are they evil? Is a golem that was programmed to "attack all living things" evil?
There are lots of things that exist that destroy life. Radiation, earthquakes, hurricanes, an exploding star. You might say that many undead function like a virus. Yet I wouldn't call any of them evil because they lack the ability to be aware that their actions cause harm.
As I said in another thread yesterday and today...
To me, evil has to be malicious in both intent AND action. Likewise, good has to be benevolent in both intent AND action. Anything else is a gray area and (to me) neutral.
I understand the "flavor" that negative energy is evil with an capital E because it destroys life. I just don't LIKE that flavor. To me, it's not really about undead. It's about the nature of "what is good?" and "what is evil?" My belief, both in game and out, is that intentions matter. Others, in this thread, apparently take the viewpoint that actions, not intentions matter.
Without consciousness, there can't be intent. Maybe it's my law enforcement background, but I see it as similar to the reason why only humans can commit crimes. Because, in this world, only humans are capable of deciding right from wrong.
However, po-tay-to, po-tah-to. We are really putting a lot of effort into discussing a very minor thing here. In the end, it's not that big a deal. If you don't like undead being evil, all you need to do is change 1 word of the stat block. That's what I'm doing.
I'm confused... so undead are inherently evil due to being powered by negative energy, which is evil... does that mean that all living beings, since they are powered by positive energy, which logically would be good as the opposite of negative energy, would be inherently good?
Heh. good point.
Hence the idea I had above about how to rationalize this all with negative energy on its own being devoid of alignment (just dangerous, like fire to an ice creature), but when artificially combined with previously mortal remains (or really anything previously powered by positive energy), that admixture represents something evil by its creation (and perhaps why the sceaduinar as neutral beings purely comprised of negative energy view undead as an abomination, a sort of perverse mockery of their own inability to create in the same way that their positive counterparts are capable).
Beings purely empowered by negative energy would be untainted by evil, but the corruption of positive energy-based life by negative energy would be evil (similarly doing the same with positive energy to a negative-based creature -whatever that might be- would likewise exist as an evil corruption of its base nature).
|
|
To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
Well then, how many times can I create undead before CG Necromancer becomes CE Necromancer?
Well then, how many times can I create undead before CG Necromancer becomes CE Necromancer?To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
One, a-two, three [Evil]
To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
I think the trouble here is that PFS is defining something as "Evil" without defining what "Evil" is.
Sean does give a definition of Evil here, and the relative evil of undeadness/negative energy:
It is inherently more hateful and destructive than racism, murder, genocide, torture because it wants to destroy life simply because it exists, no matter that life's shape, form, needs, intent, or purpose.
There's twofold trouble in this statement both in that it does give a "X more evil than Y" value judgment and in having that value judgment reversed from standard modern legal interpretations. "Murder" plain and simple is not as bad as "Murder" combined with "Rape" and "Torture" and "Emotional Cruelty" and "Hate Crime" and so forth, at least from the standpoint of the American law.
Of course, the American legal system also leads to situations like this:
"Sergeant, you've got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself,
I mean,
I mean,
I mean, just
I'm sittin' here on the bench,
I mean I'm sittin' here on the Group W bench.
'Cause you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army,
Burn women, keids, houses, and villages, after bein' a litter-bug?"
There has to be something of a rational test. If a wizard is caught making, say, zombie goldfish and has them shut in specimen jars as scientific curios or conversation pieces, do the paladins really need to come busting down his door? Is he somehow more evil than the wizard next door who uses magic missile to kill the squirrels that get into his peach tree?
And if the mere presence of the inherent uncanny unnaturalness of a zombie goldfish is sufficient to repel natural life, then you could easily come up with a scenario where every house has a zombie goldfish in a bowl to keep plague-infested rats from crawling out of the sewers, and any paladin who starts mindlessly smiting away when his evil-o-meter goes "ping!" would cause a far greater evil to befall the townsfolk.
sheer brilliance
I want to have your babies.
|
|
I think the trouble here is that PFS is defining something as "Evil" without defining what "Evil" is.
Actually that's not that bad. Instead of making arbitrary calls, it's left to the GM. Most sane GMs will label racism, genocide and torture as Evil. There will be, however, a GM who will say "slaves are OK, feel free to use them in my PFS game" and a GM who will say "slavery is evil. I'm not gonna take those slaves away from your PFS charsheet, but please downplay them in my game, OK ?".
And then there are the unintelligent undead and the whole negative energy is evil so animating undead is evil thing, and it leaves no room for interpretation. Eeeevil is eeevil. Beh. Sounds like the worst chapters of the BoED :(
... (similarly doing the same with positive energy to a negative-based creature -whatever that might be- would likewise exist as an evil corruption of its base nature).
Now I got something new to do! Thanks Todd!
Creative Director
|
Well then, how many times can I create undead before CG Necromancer becomes CE Necromancer?To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
Pretty much once. PFS isn't about shades of gray, since it has to keep some pretty distinct boundaries in place. It doesn't really have a lot of the luxuries a home game has.
Making undead Neutral is a paladin nerf.Not according to PFRPG p. 61. Undead are automatically smite-able. Even if it's the LG spirit of your old teacher Yoda, or the founder of your knightly order, or the first saint of your diety's religion. Smite away!
LOL. You're killing me.
That's a cultural thing, not a moral thing. And doesn't fall under alignment's definition of Evil either way.
actually, the word is 'abject' and describes any instance where a living being is confronted with potential mortality. Corpses, and human body parts are very abject (and are moreso when moving) This is from where we get phrases like 'abject terror'
almost universally, we have massive tabboo regarding the dead, and this springs from the abject. the very few cultures that are a little more blaise regarding the dead are strongly ritualised in nature. so universally, deadbody parts are considered horrific.
Batts
Considering that both zombies and flesh golems are mindless automatons animated by magic, what is the distinction between the two that makes one evil and the other not?The fact that the golem is created by the Craft Construct feat and an elemental spirit animates it into a construct is what makes it different from a zombie that's animated by evil necromancy effects.
Ummm, don't smack me with dictim, but how is involuntarily binding an elemental spirit to a construct shell not evil (or Evil)? I mean I know it isn't per the rules, but if slavery is evil, and binding negative energy to a corpse is evil...
...
Kinda derail: I just found out about Aokigahara Forest; no disrespect to the dead intended, but that idea is ripe for plunking down on Golarion somewhere.
|
|
Ummm, don't smack me with dictum,
Dictum? I nearly killed 'im!
Sorry, couldn't help it. Neat forest, though...
There's always this place, for creepy use of dead people. (40,000 of them, supposedly.)
That's a cultural thing, not a moral thing. And doesn't fall under alignment's definition of Evil either way.actually, the word is 'abject' and describes any instance where a living being is confronted with potential mortality. Corpses, and human body parts are very abject (and are moreso when moving) This is from where we get phrases like 'abject terror'
almost universally, we have massive tabboo regarding the dead, and this springs from the abject. the very few cultures that are a little more blaise regarding the dead are strongly ritualised in nature. so universally, deadbody parts are considered horrific.
Batts
Um, that's not the meaning of "abject" that I know. From what I understand, "abject" means "utter, low, hopeless, dispirited and miserable" so you can also have phrases like "abject poverty" and "abject cowardice."
And the degree to which dead bits of people are horrific varies from culture to culture and age to age. Walk into some churches in Europe and you'll see the bling-encrusted bones of saints on display. And in Tibet, they use skulls to make teapots.
|
|
The undead or the process of creating undead are evil because it reduces the dead to an abobination status with the sole purpose of perpetrating evil, destruction or the loss of other living creatures. At best, it reduces the deceased into a cheap tool devoid of the dignity that should be given to a man in his death. The so-called "mindless undead as tool or guardian for the cause of good" concept is flawed at its core as the energies used in creation are inherently evil, as evidenced by the ease of creation compared to other methods of creating suitable soldiers of good such as constructs, planar allies, summoned champions and the like. The undead creation process is appealing compared to other creation methods because it is a shortcut. A shortcut used by those who have given themselves over to evil, if you want... akin to the "Dark Side" is more powerful concept: not really, but it's quicker/cheaper/easier to get there compared to the proper (Jedi) way to go about it...
|
|
That's what I'm trying to clarify. PF defines Evil as debasing or destroying innocent life. If creating undead doesn't do that, why is it an Evil act?
'Cause it totally violates the spiritual beliefs that hydra to yank it's body around like that after you killed it and took it's loot?
Or, yanno, the hydra's grandkids might see it lurching around and fighting evil at your command, and be all traumatized and stuff that their evil monster grandpa is now fighting other monsters, instead of being respectfully left for them to devour as is their tradition.
For like the ten billionth time. FFS you guys :|
Negative energy as it exists just sorta sitting there isn't evil, no more then radiation is evil.
When you make a negative energy golem - a creature made from dead corpses powered by "Not-Life" energy - then yes, it's evil, because it's natural state is "Life? Eliminate it."
In other words, yes, all living creatures are made of positive energy. That doesn't make them good aligned, because they aren't mindless golems. Undead see living creatures in all their positive energy and their natural state is to get rid of it. That's why undead are evil. Their natural state is "kill."
Golems do not have "kill" as their natural state. They are empty. Humans and orcs do not have a natural state. They have an intelligence score.
|
|
That's what I'm trying to clarify. PF defines Evil as debasing or destroying innocent life. If creating undead doesn't do that, why is it an Evil act?Because you are debasing innocent life. The corpse may be beyond caring, but it's relatives aren't. If I walk by and see my grandfather mowing your lawn, I think I have a right to be pissed, no?
You have a right to be pissed, but that's the extent of it. If you kill me for it, you're a murderer, which is way worse than animating the dead.
And I can cast animate dead, making me alot more powerful than Joe the Commoner.
Also, if I am a good aligned adventurer and I killed your father and reanimated him, he probably deserved it. Most people don't go out of their way to kill the elderly unless the elderly are vicious psychopaths.
Irregardless, they don't radiate evil in my campaign world. Positive energy still destroys them, and a Paladin can waste a smite on the lowly skeleton if he wishes.
I think part of the trouble is that the 3.5 SRD designers went overboard with the "Evil" descriptor tags.
For example, is disease Evil with a capital E or just evil with a lowercase e? Can a paladin still cure disease, regardless of which descriptor tag it has? If so, then what would be the problem with paladins being able to destroy undead in a similar manner, regardless of their alignment?
There's an interesting discussion here on the two models, "The Crawling Darkness" vs. "Playing with Fire."
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality
I can understand PRG going with "The Crawling Darkness" model since it's spelled out in parts of the SRD, but as the discussion points out, it's contradicted by other portions of the SRD.
Instead of choosing one or the other, it's possible to postulate a third model which I'd call "The Slumbering Horror."
With "The Slumbering Horror," the negative material plane is sentient but currently asleep and thus about as actively evil as Emperor Palpatine zonked out in bed with his sleep mask and Death Star jammies. Skeletons and Zombies thus radiate Evil but unless actively commanded to DO something evil by a necromancer or dark priest, they're about as actively evil as the Sith Lord currently sawing logs in the Death Star's master bedroom.
Of course, sleep is not necessarily quiet, and the Darkness can and does dream. When it does, the zombies and skeletons go around doing whatever it is the Darkness is dreaming of, which following the logic of dreams, can often be fanciful. Want a Danse Macabre? It's completely possible for the Darkness to dream of its minions frolicking along in a procession with musical instruments, beckoning for the living to come join them rather than just attacking the living with whatever's handy and beating someone to death with a lute.
Then again, it's also possible for dreams to become lucid and for the Darkness to wake up for a short period of time, taking active control of its mindless puppets and even sending Suggestions to its intelligent undead that there's some task that the impersonal force of Evil would like for them to do.
It's a middleground position and wouldn't work for all games, but it's an interpretation that would allow most of the SRD rules to stand without question and would also explain a lot of apparent contradictions.
Slumbering horror. I like that, and I may appropriate the extended description for my local game. Over here, magic is the stuff of dreams and necromancy is pure nightmare. Fear and agony of mortals seeps through the astral plane and coalesces in a semi-aware aggregate. Wizards can draw on this (negative energy) and use it to fill the gap where the corpse is missing its soul. Mindless undead are evil because they are powered by nightmares.
Just going to quote the two schools of thought on this one.
...The Morality of Necromancy: Black and Gray
The rules of D&D attempt to be all things to all people, and unfortunately that just isn’t possible if you’re trying to make a system of objective morality. By trying to cater to two very different play styles as regards to the moral quandaries of the use of negative energy, the game ends up catering to neither – and this has been the cause of a great many arguments for which there actually are no possible resolutions. Ultimately therefore, it falls to every DM to determine whether in their game the powers of Necromancy are inherently evil, or merely extremely dangerous. That’s a choice which must be made, and has far reaching implications throughout the game. That’s an awful lot of work, and most DMs honestly just don’t care enough to be bothered with it, and I understand. Fortunately, we have collated those changes for you right here:Moral Option 1: The Crawling Darkness
Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy in general, and undead in particular, be inherently Evil. So much so that we can capitalize it: Evil. And say it again for emphasis: Evil. That means that when you cast a negative energy wave you are physically unleashing Evil onto the world. When you animate a corpse, you are creating a being whose singular purpose is to make moral choices which are objectionable on every level.
That’s a big commitment. It means that anyone using Inflict Wounds is an awful person, at least while they are doing it. The Plane of Negative Energy is in this model the source of all Evil, more so than the Abyss or Hell. It’s Evil without an opinion, immorality in its purest most undiluted form.
Moral Option 2: Playing with Fire
Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy be a base physical property of the magical universe that the D&D characters live in – like extremes of Cold or Fire it is inimical to life, and it is ultimately no more mysterious than that. An animate
Hey man, Frank and I don't mind people quoting the Tome of Necromancy, but we do like to get credit for it.
Hey man, Frank and I don't mind people quoting the Tome of Necromancy, but we do like to get credit for it.You're right, I sorry. I should have let it be denounced as worthless drivel from the mouth of Frank Trollman. :) I tend to link the Tomes when I do, and I forgot this time. Sorry.
I linked to them in my last post, but wanted to thank you and Frank for writing what is pretty much the defining discussion on this matter.
Hey man, Frank and I don't mind people quoting the Tome of Necromancy, but we do like to get credit for it.You're right, I'm sorry. I should have let it be denounced as worthless drivel from the mouth of Frank Trollman. :) I tend to link the Tomes when I do, and I forgot this time. Sorry.
Lol. Fair enough.
Always glad to hear people enjoying them. :P