When confronted with contradictory rules, I usually go with the negative one as the authority.
So if a paladin tries to strike a non-evil undead creature, his/her smite would indeed be wasted.
By the RAW, all of the undead in the bestary are evil. Thus by the core rules, evil undead is a redundant statement.
That said, if you do come across a non-evil undead, then smite will not effect it.
|
By RAW, undead are evil by definition, so there is no such thing as an 'non-evil undead'.
So I don't think there is a clear, in-the-book answer to the question.
Your GM has house-ruled that zombie's aren't evil. Have him/her decide the question. If you are merely looking for input - I'd ask the GM what provides the motive power for zombies, if not negative energy?
I agree with this. Even if the zombies are neutral due to being mindless, if negative energy created them, then smite evil should work (you are breaking the ties to the negative power).
My guess is that if you smite evil things that by their very nature are evil even if the zombie has made personal life choises where he has given up brains.. hes still an animated corse infused with negatige energy.
Keep in mind that a neutral cleric can channel negative energy per the RAW and not be effected by smite evil. (Well, the paladin smashing your face with his melee weapon withstanding.)
He can channel it, but he isn't 'filled' with it. By RAW, it is negative energy that gives undead whatever power they have, it is an inherent part of their being. Without it, they are corpses.
I can't seem to find anywhere in the RAW where it states that the undead are "filled" with negative energy. It states that undead are:
once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.
I realize that in earlier editions of the game it was stated that undead were fueled by a connection to the Negative Energy plane, but I cannot find this entry. The closest to it is:
Energy Planes: Two energy planes exist—the Positive Energy Plane (from which the animating spark of life hails) and the Negative Energy Plane (from which the sinister taint of undeath hails). Energy from both planes infuses reality, the ebb and flow of this energy running through all creatures to bear them along the journey from birth to death. Clerics utilize power from these planes when they channel energy. Emphasis mine.
It actually states that the energy of both planes flows through all creatures. Therefore I believe that the state of being undead is not strictly evil. After all, any intelligent, sentient creature has free will. Imagine a lich that turns from his evil ways and becomes a force for good. Should people still be able to smite him just because he is undead?
Except negative energy isn't evil, nor is smite evil a positive energy thing that would cancel it out...
Short answer: ask your DM. I do the same thing in my games, and smite evil wouldn't work on them - they're neutral. Yeah, they're "powered" by negative energy, but that doesn't matter for smiting, only for the way they react to cure and inflict spells and the like.
Except negative energy isn't evil, nor is smite evil a positive energy thing that would cancel it out...
Short answer: ask your DM. I do the same thing in my games, and smite evil wouldn't work on them - they're neutral. Yeah, they're "powered" by negative energy, but that doesn't matter for smiting, only for the way they react to cure and inflict spells and the like.
Smite Evil is one way of curing baddies...
In my game (not RAW, but whose is?), I generally have mindless undead be evil alignment wise when not controlled, due purely to the fact they were created with Necromancy. The same is true for non-evil intelligent undead, such as a Chaotic Neutral vampire. Again, this is because Necromancy is tainted by evil in my campaign.
For the undead who are free of this taint, I use Deathless from Ebberon. Those are not affected by a paladin's smite evil, but would be affected by Smite Good.
The question then becomes - how can they be non-evil when filled with negative (evil) energy :)
Negative energy does not have to be evil. Inflict light wounds is not an evil spell. (In fact, it would be problematic if it were, since then Cure X Wounds should be a good spell and evil clerics could not cast it.)
|
well create undead IS an evil spell (right in the discripter) so it makes sense the things made by an evil spell are evil
But why is it an Evil spell? (Because undead are Evil, which makes Create Undead Evil, which creates undead who are Evil because Create Undead is Evil....system error!)
Don't answer, we've had plenty of arguments about if undead and Create Undead should be Evil. It's a fruitless endeavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, undead are evil by definition, so there is no such thing as an 'non-evil undead'.
Not quite. Many and even possibly most undead are evil, but just as one example that deviates from that, ghosts may be of any alignment (by the RAW even). And there's at least one CN lich out there. ;)
Suffice to say it seems pretty clear to me that smite-evil won't do anything to a non-evil undead, or a non-evil outsider, or a non-evil dire cactus. :)
And negative energy in and of itself is not Evil, though many of its applications might in fact be evil (perhaps simply as a consequence of what it is and that most "life" is based on positive energy). It's evil only the sense that fire is destructive and evil to a civilization of ice-based creatures. Dangerous and antithetical in most applications, but it's still a natural, neutral force of nature. But another argument for another time.
Actually one question i hav enow is. How does it do against a creature with the evil subtype that isnt evil? admitedly they are extremely rare. Though my assumpion is smite would work.
Actually one question i hav enow is. How does it do against a creature with the evil subtype that isnt evil? admitedly they are extremely rare. Though my assumpion is smite would work.
Having the evil subtype makes you vulnerable to any effect that triggers off the evil component.
Actually one question i hav enow is. How does it do against a creature with the evil subtype that isnt evil? admitedly they are extremely rare. Though my assumpion is smite would work.
That might not be covered in specific by the RAW. I would argue that if a creature with the Evil subtype changed alignment, it would lose the Evil subtype as a consequence of that sort of massive metaphysical change to itself.
For instance for outsiders, they're literally made of the physical stuff of their alignment, and thus if an archon falls to evil it's no longer made of Good, and thus in my mind would lose the Good subtype (retaining the Law subtype depending on where it ended up landing so to speak). The same strikes me as perfectly applicable to a fiend that rises to some flavor of Good in that when its alignment changes and so does its spiritual substance, so should its applicable alignent subtypes shift to match.
I have to reiterate the question about the lich. What if a lich (undead creature) changes his mind and turns to the side of good? If he's no longer evil, but still undead, is he smite-able? Not with smite evil. Just my 2cp.
I have to reiterate the question about the lich. What if a lich (undead creature) changes his mind and turns to the side of good? If he's no longer evil, but still undead, is he smite-able? Not with smite evil. Just my 2cp.
If he's not evil it stands to reason that something that only works against evil things won't do anything to him. Unlike in the case of an actual fiend, undeath has no intrinsic connection to being evil, despite the fact that most undead are evil. Non-evil lich (by whatever way it happened) wouldn't be harmed by a smite-evil.
FWIW I will say that the CN lich in TGB was not a typo, but was also written up prior to the Bestiary making them evil (though who's to say he didn't shift to CN after he gained his undeath as a lich. But that particular one is erratic but just wants to be left alone, though the sceaduinar might make that difficult since they abhor his status and presence on their plane).
If your DM changes the rules to state that currently-evil undead are no-longer evil, then that DM needs to also house-rule how Smite will work.
IMO: If you are undead you should be smiteable regardless of your alignment. (just like being "Good" doesn't suddenly make cure spells work on you..)
But, its something for you and your DM to discuss. There really isn't a "Raw" answer since by RAW there are no good undead. (and if/when there are I bet they get a sentence stating whether or not it works.. )
-S
(just like being "Good" doesn't suddenly make cure spells work on you..)
Huh? Alignment doesn't have anything to do with how cure spells work on you or not.
There really isn't a "Raw" answer since by RAW there are no good undead. (and if/when there are I bet they get a sentence stating whether or not it works.. )
-S
Again, ghosts by the RAW can be of any alignment.
I have read this thread but I don't understand the original question. The wording of the ability is absolute here and I don't see any ambiguity.
1. The ability is called "Smite Evil". Not "Smite Undead" or "Smite Dragon", but simply "Smite Evil".
2. The first sentence of the effect says that if the target is evil, the paladin gets bonuses:"If this target is evil, the paladin adds...". That is clear as a bell. If evil, add bonus. Period.
3. Later in the text it calls out three special cases for extra bonus (evil dragons, evil outsiders, and undead). Technically, it doesn't even need to say "evil" int any of these cases because we have already established that the bonus only applies "If this target is evil" because it said that explicitly, earlier in this same paragraph.
4. Also note that this bonus damage on the three special cases is not "additional damage" (like adding flaming to a magical sword to cause additional flaming damage). The wording explictly states "the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to...". So we're talking about the ordinary damage (that requires a target to be evil) being increased to do extra damage to certain creature types - in no way does this state or imply that we can now disregard the requirement that the target is evil.
All the above clarifies exactly how to calculate the damage vs. any evil creature, including the three special cases.
Then there is this:
5. Later in the description of Smite Evil it says "If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect". This is also clear as a bell. It doesn't matter if the creature is a unicorn, a dragon, a dwarf, a zombie, a ghost, a vampire, a demon, or Asmodeus himself - if the target is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect. Period.
I must say, with all the rules in the book that actually are ambiguous, this one is refreshingly clear, concise, and explicit. I really don't see where there is room here for any confusion on this.
Final answer, if your DM wants to create non-evil undead, your paladin better use his at-will detect evil before he automatically smites any undead, or he might find that he is wasting some of his smites "with no effect" against these non-evil targets.
Ethical paradox for consideration. A neutral cleric animates a bunch of corpses to protect a group of innocent women and children while the party goes off to deal with the threat. Because of the cleric's efforts, the undead sucessfully beatback a goblin attack that would have otherwise resulted in the abuse and slaughter of the innocent women and children.
My take on this is that the cleric did a good deed by creating the undead for a good purpose. The undead (or summoned critters)are tools of the controller. What is done with them should determine whether their use is good or bad.
A slightly different twist is for an evil wizard to bind an angel and force an angel to massacre an orphanage. Shouldn't you get to use smite evil on the Angel because of what its doing rather than not getting to because "its a good creature"?
I OBJECT! We undead aren't evil. We're just.....nice alignment challenged.
You're not evil. You're just differently-motivated.
Ethical paradox for consideration. A neutral cleric animates a bunch of corpses to protect a group of innocent women and children while the party goes off to deal with the threat. Because of the cleric's efforts, the undead sucessfully beatback a goblin attack that would have otherwise resulted in the abuse and slaughter of the innocent women and children.
My take on this is that the cleric did a good deed by creating the undead for a good purpose. The undead (or summoned critters)are tools of the controller. What is done with them should determine whether their use is good or bad.A slightly different twist is for an evil wizard to bind an angel and force an angel to massacre an orphanage. Shouldn't you get to use smite evil on the Angel because of what its doing rather than not getting to because "its a good creature"?
In the first example, the corpses are animated objects, not undead. If he had turned them into undead, that would be something different than animating bodies. If he had turned them into undead, then as soon as he took his eyes of them, they'd start massacring people themselves, which makes them evil.
I think giving an order like that would give the bound creature a chance to break the binding. More so, creatures that are acting against their will - that are literally being controlled - aren't subject to alignment penalties, I believe.