RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I was thinking on the 'inflict/channel/cure' not being good/evil bit, but Animate Dead is.
If you take the 'negative energy is non-aligned' but want to keep skeletons and zombies evil, how about this idea...
Normally these impulses are not an issue, but if left unchecked, they can manifest in previously 'mindless' undead. It appears that the gods themselves have determined that because of the potential, these animated bodies are quaintly classified as 'evil' and holy warriors can vent their wrath on them, as any other undead.
Negative energy is not 'evil' anymore than a sword is evil. Indeed, I have found records of an Azlanti colony that used negative energy as a basis for all their magic. Fragmentary records indicate that they vanished in a single night, before the fall of the Starstone. I have contracted the ship Bellerophon to travel to these ruins for my own research...
Liekwise, maybe 'cure disease' supercharges the immune system (positive energy)
False Life stumps me.
Psionic aside
Before we all got neo-religious/paranoid about touching the dead...we would have had no problem with the clan witchdoctor casting animate dead to help defend the village.We wouldn't have a problem? I have seen zombie films dude, that s**t is bound to backfire.
It is a bit general to say we would all have no problem with a witch-doctor casting animate dead to help defend the village. May be I am 100% opposed to the witch-doctor animating my old dad's bones!
However, if my character was an Olman tribesman, he might see the use of the animate dead spell in a different light. However, the spell does carry an evil descriptor and the creation of the dead is still considered an evil act.
If we have a game with rules for alignment, don't we need to agree on what is good or evil?
In a game with rules for alignment, there do need to be rules defining good and evil. But I think those rules need to be in the campaign setting book, not the DMG/PHB. I think Dark Sun/Maztica/Golorian/Eberon/Forgotten Realms/Oriental Adventures should all have different views of good/evil.
While I think you make a decent point, the core rule book offers a standard D&D campaign which is playable in all it's aspects including rules for alignment. They work well for most campaigns, but isn't well suited for the complications specific campaign world's can bring.
it does offer an excellent base for your campaign it is easier to houserule from a set of rules rather than make up those alignment rules from scratch.
|
@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.
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.
It has worked great for me in all 5 of the gaming groups I have been in over the last 20 some odd years.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an absolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.
You take that out off context of what I was responding to.
The alignment system works, it is playable, alignment is too much incorporated into the D&D system to plainly ignore it in the core rulebook, because the game would not be playable without it.
If you go buy a campaign setting sourcebook, it might very well need an update on how the alignment should be different from the core rules in that specific setting.
|
|
Ok, so some people here will never agree that undead creation is evil, so let's move on to the next debate:
Is undead creation lawful? I would say no, as it may infringe on all kinds of inheritance/succession laws, etc. (i.e. a skilled necromancer could reanimate and control a very lifelike copy of a dead noble, for instance, and "show up" at the noble house after "missing in action" for two years, for instance...) In that framework, I could see most societies not wanting to touch undead creation with a ten foot pole from a legislative point of view (i.e. also, the various clergies would see this as stepping on their territory as they normally control matters pertaining to raise dead / resurrection / afterlife...)
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.It has worked great for me in all 5 of the gaming groups I have been in over the last 20 some odd years.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an abusolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.
Over the last 30 or so years I've been playing, I've seen the morality rules break down over and over again. Recently, we had the classic Batman conundrum - do we burn a gnoll village to the ground (including elderly and children) since we know that the gnoll children are predestined to be evil? This debate soaked up most of the game night.
I believe that, if the morality system has always been clear to you, it's a good indication that your GM doesn't challenge you.
And right on queue, you respond with an textbook example of relative morality.
Traditionally among some Hispanic groups on la dia de la muerte, dead ancestors are dug up and sit for a meal with the family. Would this suddenly become unlawful if the ancestors were animated? No.Ok, so some people here will never agree that undead creation is evil, so let's move on to the next debate:
Is undead creation lawful? I would say no, as it may infringe on all kinds of inheritance/succession laws, etc. (i.e. a skilled necromancer could reanimate and control a very lifelike copy of a dead noble, for instance, and "show up" at the noble house after "missing in action" for two years, for instance...) In that framework, I could see most societies not wanting to touch undead creation with a ten foot pole from a legislative point of view (i.e. also, the various clergies would see this as stepping on their territory as they normally control matters pertaining to raise dead / resurrection / afterlife...)
If you brought back the ancestor's spirit for a fun day at the park? Not evil.
Animate their corpse with a random malevolent spirit from the negative energy plane? Evil.
Animate dead only does the latter. If you created a spell that did the former, it would not have the [evil] descriptor on it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I was thinking on the 'inflict/channel/cure' not being good/evil bit, but Animate Dead is.
If you take the 'negative energy is non-aligned' but want to keep skeletons and zombies evil, how about this idea...
** spoiler omitted **Liekwise, maybe 'cure disease' supercharges the immune system (positive energy)
False Life stumps me.
Psionic aside
** spoiler omitted **
That's an interesting take on it, I think I rather like it.
I presented a question (ie. Do we burn the gnoll village down). If you can answer that question using absolute morality and prove that your answer is absolutely right, I'll conceed you've got a point worth listening to.And right on queue, you respond with an textbook example of relative morality.
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.It has worked great for me in all 5 of the gaming groups I have been in over the last 20 some odd years.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an abusolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.
Over the last 30 or so years I've been playing, I've seen the morality rules break down over and over again. Recently, we had the classic Batman conundrum - do we burn a gnoll village to the ground (including elderly and children) since we know that the gnoll children are predestined to be evil? This debate soaked up most of the game night.
I believe that, if the morality system has always been clear to you, it's a good indication that your GM doesn't challenge you.
You mean if I answer the question with the correct answer or the answer you want to hear? I would wager those two are not the same.
Ok, so some people here will never agree that undead creation is evil, so let's move on to the next debate:
Is undead creation lawful? I would say no, as it may infringe on all kinds of inheritance/succession laws, etc. (i.e. a skilled necromancer could reanimate and control a very lifelike copy of a dead noble, for instance, and "show up" at the noble house after "missing in action" for two years, for instance...) In that framework, I could see most societies not wanting to touch undead creation with a ten foot pole from a legislative point of view (i.e. also, the various clergies would see this as stepping on their territory as they normally control matters pertaining to raise dead / resurrection / afterlife...)
in my book a lawful alignment has little to do with actual law in practice, a lawful evil person might for example not have any respect for law at all, though he sticks to his own code of behaviour and discipline, though instead of simply breaking the law such a person might be more inclined to use the law to suit him.
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?Traditionally among some Hispanic groups on la dia de la muerte, dead ancestors are dug up and sit for a meal with the family. Would this suddenly become unlawful if the ancestors were animated? No.Ok, so some people here will never agree that undead creation is evil, so let's move on to the next debate:
Is undead creation lawful? I would say no, as it may infringe on all kinds of inheritance/succession laws, etc. (i.e. a skilled necromancer could reanimate and control a very lifelike copy of a dead noble, for instance, and "show up" at the noble house after "missing in action" for two years, for instance...) In that framework, I could see most societies not wanting to touch undead creation with a ten foot pole from a legislative point of view (i.e. also, the various clergies would see this as stepping on their territory as they normally control matters pertaining to raise dead / resurrection / afterlife...)
If you brought back the ancestor's spirit for a fun day at the park? Not evil.
Animate their corpse with a random malevolent spirit from the negative energy plane? Evil.
Animate dead only does the latter. If you created a spell that did the former, it would not have the [evil] descriptor on it.
"This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands."
From Skeleton [Template]
"Alignment: Always neutral evil."
From Zombie [Template]
"Alignment: Always neutral evil."
From Undead type
"Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces."
In most gaming worlds these forces have strong ties to the negative energy plane, but that is not strictly required.
Ergo, you just summoned an evil spiritual or supernatural force to animate the body of poor old grandma for your Day of the Dead celebration. Have fun!
For the people that support "animating the dead body = evil" argument a quick question.
How is animate a body through animate object a less evil process then using animate dead?
I presented a question (ie. Do we burn the gnoll village down). If you can answer that question using absolute morality and prove that your answer is absolutely right, I'll conceed you've got a point worth listening to.And right on queue, you respond with an textbook example of relative morality.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an abusolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.Over the last 30 or so years I've been playing, I've seen the morality rules break down over and over again. Recently, we had the classic Batman conundrum - do we burn a gnoll village to the ground (including elderly and children) since we know that the gnoll children are predestined to be evil? This debate soaked up most of the game night.
.
Spoilered to avoid to much additional side tracking (I hope).
The non relativistic morality answer is "No". As in it is not Ok to kill creatures that will become evil or even ones who are evil but have not done acts that warrant such a punishment.
I'll rephrase my position on 'why' Animate Dead is evil from the last time this popped up.
Zombies and Skeletons in base Pathfinder are evil. Unless controlled, they actively seek out and destroy life. Yes, this has not been the case in every roleplaying game ever in history, and yes, it is different from various versions of Pathfinder's ancestors. Yes undead are mindless and mindless is supposed to preclude the ability to have an alignment. However, rules as written this is clear, they are evil beings that will murder babies as soon as their creator stops controlling them.
Animate Dead has the [evil] tag. Yes, other necromantic magics don't have the evil tag, and neither does cloudkill, and so none of this makes sense, right?
Well, no.
I will posit that, Rules as Written, Animate Dead will 100% of the time create permanent, willful undead (mindless or not, they are driven to evil). This permanent creation of undead is a permanent increase of the forces of negative energy in the world. regardless of your short term usage of the corpses, this is a 'bad thing' on a cosmic scale. It's always a bad thing. Cultural memes and opinions on desecration of corpses don't matter, you're casting a spell that creates permanent murder engines that are fairly easy to lose control of.
Now, why isn't Cloudkill [evil] when all it can do is murder things? Well, I'll posit that the actual *casting* of Cloudkill is not inherently evil, because it can be targeted. You could use Cloudkill righteously. You'd have to be careful, mind you, but the gods are willing to give you that option. Cloudkill is dangerous, in that it would be easy to accidentally affect others, but that's a choice that the caster will make and live with. If you kill innocents with your Cloudkill, that's [evil].
But wait, what about other necromantic magic? Isn't Ennervate also increasing the negative energy in the world? Why isn't that evil? Again, you're playing with fire here. It is utilizing negative energy, and if you end up draining an innocent person to the point of death, then again, you've just used Ennervate in an [evil] way. However, if you use it for a good purpose, there is no permanence on the world, and your use of Necromancy, while sketchy, isn't inherently damning.
So, Animate Dead gets the [evil] tag because it's creating permanent evil in the world, that wants to hunt and destroy life. The caster can certainly use the creations for good, with the purest motives, and plan to make sure the undead created are destroyed after the task is complete, but the gods say you're doing a bad thing, regardless of motives, and there you go.
Casting Ennervate, or Fireball, or Cloudkill... these can easily be [evil] acts, but they are of a different flavor than permanent undead creation, regardless of the motives.
That said: the idea of animated dead that are not inherently evil is interesting, and would make a fine house rule. I can see a lot of interesting stories that could be told about a world that actively harnessed mindless undead that don't eat babies even when you don't actively tell them not to eat babies.
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.It has worked great for me in all 5 of the gaming groups I have been in over the last 20 some odd years.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an abusolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.
Over the last 30 or so years I've been playing, I've seen the morality rules break down over and over again. Recently, we had the classic Batman conundrum - do we burn a gnoll village to the ground (including elderly and children) since we know that the gnoll children are predestined to be evil? This debate soaked up most of the game night.
I believe that, if the morality system has always been clear to you, it's a good indication that your GM doesn't challenge you.
Much of the time I am the GM, but fairly often I am a player as well.
The morality system is fairly clear to me, not perfect but certainly playable. I very much doubt approaching it from a campaign setting point of view would take these problems away, which was my point.
I would be happy to answer your question, but I just do not know the specifics.. specifical I can tell you killing children is not a good act and other options might be preferable, gnolls predestined to be evil is a matter of opinion, but assuming they believe that it will bring greater evil if left alive it would not clearly be an evil act.
However, I might well say players fail to live up to their good alignment if they do. Anyone burning down village after village without moral objections would be evil.
I think if the default alignment system worked as well as you say it does, debates over alignment wouldn't be so common as they are in these messageboards.It has worked great for me in all 5 of the gaming groups I have been in over the last 20 some odd years.
It only breaks down when people try to cram relative morality into an abusolute system.
If you want a game with relative morality, then use a different system.
Over the last 30 or so years I've been playing, I've seen the morality rules break down over and over again. Recently, we had the classic Batman conundrum - do we burn a gnoll village to the ground (including elderly and children) since we know that the gnoll children are predestined to be evil? This debate soaked up most of the game night.
I believe that, if the morality system has always been clear to you, it's a good indication that your GM doesn't challenge you.
Much of the time I am the GM, but fairly often I am a player as well.
The morality system is fairly clear to me, not perfect but certainly playable. I very much doubt approaching it from a campaign setting point of view would take these problems away, which was my point.
I would be happy to answer your question, but I just do not know the specifics.. specifical I can tell you killing children is not a good act and other options might be preferable, gnolls predestined to be evil is a matter of opinion, but assuming they believe that it will bring greater evil if left alive it would not clearly be an evil act if no other likely option is available.
However, I might well say players fail to live up to their good alignment if they do. Anyone burning down village after village without moral objections would be evil.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
For the people that support "animating the dead body = evil" argument a quick question.
How is animate a body through animate object a less evil process then using animate dead?
My guess would be that, if we presume animating a corpse is an act of desecration, and that desecration of the corpse is Evil, then using animate objects to animate a corpse would be evil. The spell itself doesn't get the Evil tag though because it works on plenty of things besides corpses. Animate dead requires a corpse, and thus requires that you commit that Evil act to work, therefore the whole spell is Evil.
For the people that support "animating the dead body = evil" argument a quick question.
How is animate a body through animate object a less evil process then using animate dead?My guess would be that, if we presume animating a corpse is an act of desecration, and that desecration of the corpse is Evil, then using animate objects to animate a corpse would be evil. The spell itself doesn't get the Evil tag though because it works on plenty of things besides corpses. Animate dead requires a corpse, and thus requires that you commit that Evil act to work, therefore the whole spell is Evil.
At least thats consistent. :)
stuff
No, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
At least thats consistent. :)For the people that support "animating the dead body = evil" argument a quick question.
How is animate a body through animate object a less evil process then using animate dead?My guess would be that, if we presume animating a corpse is an act of desecration, and that desecration of the corpse is Evil, then using animate objects to animate a corpse would be evil. The spell itself doesn't get the Evil tag though because it works on plenty of things besides corpses. Animate dead requires a corpse, and thus requires that you commit that Evil act to work, therefore the whole spell is Evil.
I feel that is only part of it though, afterall a corpse animated by animate objects still wouldnt be evil. A corpse animated by animate dead seems to resemble the actual creature more than an animated construct, it moves and acts in some ways like the creature it used to be.
For the people that support "animating the dead body = evil" argument a quick question.
How is animate a body through animate object a less evil process then using animate dead?My guess would be that, if we presume animating a corpse is an act of desecration, and that desecration of the corpse is Evil, then using animate objects to animate a corpse would be evil. The spell itself doesn't get the Evil tag though because it works on plenty of things besides corpses. Animate dead requires a corpse, and thus requires that you commit that Evil act to work, therefore the whole spell is Evil.
By definition: An animated object is neutral. A zombie or skeleton is evil.
Thus there is something different between the forces animating objects vs what animates a corpse.
Ignoring the good or evils of corpse desecration.
Animating a corpse with "evil spirits" via animate dead is an evil act. Animating a corpse with magical energy via animate objects is not an evil act.
You showed that zombies and skeletons are, as per RAW, always evil (which is begging the question). You did not show that the spiritual or supernatural force which animates them is evil.stuffNo, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
A corpse is an object, and thus has no alignment.
Cast animate dead, a spiritual or supernatural force enters the body and animates it.The corpse is now a neutral evil creature.
Thus the spirit must be evil.
Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
Spoilered to avoid too much additional side tracking (I hope).Prove it.Spoiler:The non relativistic morality answer is "No". As in it is not Ok to kill creatures that will become evil or even ones who are evil but have not done acts that warrant such a punishment.
2) If someone has not done something wrong, no matter their intent, then they have done nothing wrong except having bad intents. Punishing someone for something they may do in the future is pre-emptive and is not admissible because you can use it to justify anything.
Examples: He was going to be evil in the future... so I killed him to stop it. She practices self defensive martial arts and thus she was preparing to be violent in the future... so I killed her and saved the orphans she would have murdered. He drinks... so I killed him to save the person that he would have run over with his wagon while drunk. Etc, etc, etc.
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 doest mean that they have to be violent.
PFsrd & d20srd: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Thus that brings us to the idea that killing someone because you believe they might do evil through violence in the future but have yet to do anything wrong (that you know of and/or can prove) is wrong.
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’.
You showed that zombies and skeletons are, as per RAW, always evil (which is begging the question). You did not show that the spiritual or supernatural force which animates them is evil.stuffNo, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
A corpse is an object, and thus has no alignment.
Cast animate dead, a spiritual or supernatural force enters the body and animates it.
The corpse is now a neutral evil creature.
Thus the spirit must be evil.Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
Logic, yes. Logic/=RAW. You fail to prove what you have asserted.
@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.
None of your assertions hold any water. Heroes in the greek sense, as well as those in a much more modern coloquial sense have nothing to do in particular with virtue. Heroism in fiction has to do with doing fantastical things.
I've heard the law=good argument before, but it just doesn't hold up. Original D&D npcs were often either and it had no bearing on whether they were on the antagonist (villain) or protagonist (hero) side. And again, you and I must have played vastly different modules. Aside from Dragonlance where the pre-made characters are most certainly good and usually noble, the vast majority of published adventures I have played in or run have really either been early generic D&D modules or most certainly ill-defined by morality. The morality and implications of your demon-lords notwithstanding, there is never really enough information to decide for certain whether your benefactor (i.e. the person you are questing for) is on the side of righteousness or not. In something like Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, this becomes even more muddy. Dark Sun especially, which I have a strong affinity for, actively penalizes you for attempting to take the "good" path rather than that of the pragmatist.
If you define "evil" as "whatever is trying to destroy you at the time" then your definitions of heroism hold up. I'm sorry, it's just obvious that we are playing a very different game.
Logic, yes. Logic/=RAW. You fail to prove what you have asserted.You showed that zombies and skeletons are, as per RAW, always evil (which is begging the question). You did not show that the spiritual or supernatural force which animates them is evil.stuffNo, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
A corpse is an object, and thus has no alignment.
Cast animate dead, a spiritual or supernatural force enters the body and animates it.
The corpse is now a neutral evil creature.
Thus the spirit must be evil.Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
If this was purely about RAW, then the evil descriptor on the spell would have been the end of the discussion....
RAW - Most objects have no alignment. This includes corpses.
RAW - Skeletons and Zombies are neutral evil.
RAW - Skeletons and Zombies are animated via spiritual or supernatural forces.
RAW - Animate dead is an evil spell.
Logical conclusion - Animate dead is an evil spell because it animates a corpse with an evil spiritual or supernatural force.
I already admitted that, by the RAW, the force does not have to be connected to the negative energy plane, but in most campaign worlds it is.
But by the RAW, the force must be evil.
|
Animate Dead is Evil so that it cannot be cast by a Good Cleric (or a Neutral Cleric of a Good deity).
That is after all the strongest in-game impact of the descriptor.
Interestingly enough, this means that the people banned from casting Animate Dead are exactly the same who have to channel positive energy (eg, the anti-undead energy). I do not think this a coincidence.
Logic, yes. Logic/=RAW. You fail to prove what you have asserted.You showed that zombies and skeletons are, as per RAW, always evil (which is begging the question). You did not show that the spiritual or supernatural force which animates them is evil.stuffNo, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
A corpse is an object, and thus has no alignment.
Cast animate dead, a spiritual or supernatural force enters the body and animates it.
The corpse is now a neutral evil creature.
Thus the spirit must be evil.Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
If this was purely about RAW, then the evil descriptor on the spell would have been the end of the discussion....
RAW - Most objects have no alignment. This includes corpses.
RAW - Skeletons and Zombies are neutral evil.
RAW - Skeletons and Zombies are animated via spiritual or supernatural forces.
RAW - Animate dead is an evil spell.Logical conclusion - Animate dead is an evil spell because it animates a corpse with an evil spiritual or supernatural force.
I already admitted that, by the RAW, the force does not have to be connected to the negative energy plane, but in most campaign worlds it is.
But by the RAW, the force must be evil.
Maybe I'm just lost, but I haven't seen anyone dispute that casting animate dead should be evil. It's more why are mindless undead evil. Other than saying "they just are, shut up your stupid fat head" over and over, no one has been able to give me an acceptable reason that fits with established D&D lore. Granted, pathfinder is different, but as has also been said, I will bet most people aren't using the pathfinder system for Golarion.
Maybe I'm just lost, but I haven't seen anyone dispute that casting animate dead should be evil. It's more why are mindless undead evil. Other than saying "they just are, shut up your stupid fat head" over and over, no one has been able to give me an acceptable reason that fits with established D&D lore. Granted, pathfinder is different, but as has also been said, I will bet most people aren't using the pathfinder system for Golarion.
Look at the difference between animate dead and animate objects. Level 3 spell vs a level 6 spell. The level 6 spell uses pure magic to get the job done. The level 3 spell is taking some dirty short cuts(using evil spirits) to achieve the same ends.
The use of evil spirits to power the spell is what causes zombies and skeletons to be evil. If undead were powered by sunshine and butterflies, then they would not be evil.
If you animate a corpse with animate objects, then you are not using evil spirits to get the job done. The result would be an animated object rather than an undead creature. This BTW would be a great way to mess with paladins....
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.
Yeah, they make crap up that just happens to be part of the lore of several established fantasy worlds.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
Looks like your logic just tripped, since I already posted an 'alternate theory'.
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.
To jump back into this: good. Glad you agree. Because, apparently given the spell descriptor, the spell *is* evil in the default D&D / PFRPG world. That is a generic western oriented fantasy world. It comes out of a long western tradition of necromancy and mucking about with dead bodies being considered "yucky". It doesn't have to be in yours of course.
You showed that zombies and skeletons are, as per RAW, always evil (which is begging the question). You did not show that the spiritual or supernatural force which animates them is evil.stuffNo, I showed that animate dead animates corpses with evil supernatural or spiritual forces that in most worlds are tied to the negative energy plane.
The spell being tied to the negative energy plane is not strictly required by the RAW, but is consistant with most of the campaign worlds. The spirits being evil is strictly RAW.
Unless you have a copy of the beastary where skeletons and zombies are not evil by definition?
A corpse is an object, and thus has no alignment.
Cast animate dead, a spiritual or supernatural force enters the body and animates it.
The corpse is now a neutral evil creature.
Thus the spirit must be evil.Do you have a alternate theory of where the evil comes from other that the spirit that animated the body?
If not, then my logic stands.
Oh, sure. I can come up with plenty of theories on where evil can come from with an animated body that have nothing to do with evil spirits.
First, however, to list examples of the types of evil spirits you can get and the worlds that use them.
To begin with, you can have the human soul depart the body and the creation of an undead occurs when a demonic spirit animates the corpse and uses the corpse's memories. This is the case with vampires in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and could be used with any other undead. Of interest with the show's mythology: Most demonic spirits are partially human anyway, so it's completely possible for them to become good over time or at least less evil.
There's also the Crawling Darkness theory which is used in Ravenloft in the form of the Dark Powers. The Dark Powers not only animate undead there, but send evil familiars in place of regular ones and all sorts of stuff making it so that it's just about impossible to find something that's not evil.
Now, for why you could possibly have skeletons and zombies be evil while animate ropes, animated plants and assorted animated objects are neutral? Well, as is is already established with Speak with Dead, there are memories in the body which can be consulted apart from summoning back the actual soul. Somehow or other animating the lips to speak is non-evil but animating the hands to use sign language would still be evil, but instead of saying this is irrational, let's just explain how it could be apart from having evil spirit(s) do the deed.
Now, if we go with some of the older real world conceptions of the soul, there's a soul, there's a spirit, and there are assorted other ghostly bits that do various bits of stuff depending on whether you're doing Egyptian, Chinese, or medieval European spirit beliefs. Suffice it to say, if you decide that humans are at their root Eeevil when not brought up from this baser nature by a soul, a mind, and various other ghostly bits, well, stuffing enough ectoplasm in to jumpstart a skeleton or zombie means that the Eeevil baser nature now has a body to run around with without having a soul or mind to get in the way. Oh, it's also interesting to note that freeing up the id in this way also grants sword and weapon proficiency. Apparently the old swordmaster twaddle about "You already KNOW how to use the sword, young one" really isn't claptrap but actually has some metaphysical underpinnings behind it.
This is a pretty simple bit of theology. If you decide that Soul=Conscience, and all beings without a conscience are Evil, well then, that's how it works. And people who sell their souls to the devil automatically become Evil because they are now utterly conscienceless and couldn't repent even if they wanted to. I mean, they might due to enlightened self interest, but they'd still be detecting as Evil the whole time.
But this is defending something which I think is bad design for a core rule. I prefer core rules more neutral, and would rather have it be neutral in the Pathfinder rule book and evil in the Golarion campaign setting.
Punishing someone for something they may do in the future is pre-emptive and is not admissible because you can use it to justify anything.Giant leap of logic there. Sure, punishing someone for something they may do in the future is pre-emptive. Sure, it can be used to justify anything. However, why is that sufficient to make it inadmissable?
Not a giant leap, just a simple step.
Q: "Why is that sufficient to make it inadmissible?"
A: Because they have not done anything. To repeat, this means that you are punishing someone for something you suspect they might do, not anything they have actually done.
Punishing someone for a reason not based in reality is unjust and discriminatory. Killing someone even though you have no real reason to do so is the definition of evil.
SRD:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.