|
people cannot see why tearing someone's soul out of the afterlife and placing it in their decayed, deads body as evil!
Are there any spells that do that, in D&D?
The following spells can 'tear someone's soul out of the afterlife.'
Raise Dead. Reincarnate. Resurrection.
None of them are [Evil], strangely enough.
There are zero spells (other than a properly worded Limited Wish, Miracle or Wish, perhaps) that can put someone's soul into their dead body. You can trap the soul in a gem. You can animate a dead body with mindless non-evil negative energy, to inexplicably create a life-hating evil creature that is utterly incapable of malice or volition, but you can't do whatever straw man thing you have, once again, plunked down like a dead fish, by way of an argument.
There are plenty of valid arguments for why negative energy should be evil, and positive energy should be good, and evil clerics should be unable to cast cure wounds spells, as they would be bringing positive energy into the world, just as good clerics (according to Libris Mortis, but not according to the SRD, which allows good Clerics to Inflict Wounds to their heart's content) shouldn't bring negative energy into the world, but those arguments make sense. Yours does not, since it's nothing to do with what the game allows or is about or has rules for, just stuff you've made up.
|
Yours does not, since it's nothing to do with what the game allows or is about or has rules for, just stuff you've made up.
Plenty I imagine (other than ones you have mentioned). I have not read every spell description in D&D or Pathfinder. We can argue the "evilness" of something until our fingers bleed from typing.
I was always under the impression that playing with dead things in D&D (animating, controlling them, etc) was evil or at best not good. I may be the only one on this thread that sees playing with dead things as not particularly savory thing to do.
The spell descriptor is irrelevant. The action is the important part. I am not arguing that the spell is [Evil]. I am arguing that if you commit an evil act with a spell (such as controlling undead for a purpose other than destroying them), it is still evil. Regardless of the spell descriptor.
My argument is not founded on the game rules Set. I was not arguing rules, I was saying it was morally wrong. Are you suggesting the idea of creating undead is not an evil act? You are aware that some judgments in game are not always based on the roll of the dice or something that is written in the rules?
So, if a player commits mass murder with a fireball, because it is not a [Evil] spell you're fine with it? It would not be evil then, would it?
So, I have made up morality? I have laid the foundation of what is right and wrong? What exactly does not make sense to you? Does Paizo need to write up some rules for you on it?
By the way, which 0-level spell puts a soul back in someone's body? Please do not say stabilise!
In which cultures is it not bad and negative to abuse corpses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_(people)
"Upon the death of an individual, the maternal kin were responsible for the dismemberment of the corpse. The women would remove the arms and feet, strip the limbs of muscle, remove the brain and cut open the chest in order to remove internal organs."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori
"Therefore while for ordinary people cannibalism may be seen as primitive, barbaric as well as unclean, for aghoris it is being both resourceful and subverting the common stereotypes placed on such taboos into a spiritual ascertainment that indeed nothing is profane nor separate from God, who is hailed to be all and in all."
I'm pretty sure there're a few african cultures that require the disembowlment of their dead but don't quote me on that.
You could also make an interesting arguement about autopsies and organ donations in the west if you were so inclined.
|
There are plenty of valid arguments for why negative energy should be evil, and positive energy should be good, and evil clerics should be unable to cast cure wounds spells, as they would be bringing positive energy into the world, just as good clerics (according to Libris Mortis, but not according to the SRD, which allows good Clerics to Inflict Wounds to their heart's content) shouldn't bring negative energy into the world, but those arguments make sense. Yours does not, since it's nothing to do with what the game allows or is about or has rules for, just stuff you've made up.
The rules clearly state that the spell Animate Dead is evil – it has the evil descriptor. The rules also state that skeletons and zombies, undead created by this spell are evil – they have an evil alignment. To ‘control’ undead is not explicitly evil under the rules of the game, but it is by implication – for example, you need to be able to channel negative energy (generally the purview of evil aligned clerics) to take the Command Undead feat. I think the OP generally understands what the rules say – what he has asked for is reasons / justification why controlling undead should be evil.
I guess I can houserule that raising undead isn't evil. Anyway, looking for reasons why it should be evil.
As the rules do not say why these things are evil, just that they generally are, we are very much in the realms of making stuff up, or at the very least giving subjective value and moral judgement to various activities to justify the rules.
Yup, Chubbs made some stuff up there – but it would certainly be a good reason why Animate Dead would be evil. Why is animating a dead body different to animating an object, leaving aside any ethical / cultural issues with the treatment of corpses? Well, it might be if to animate the body actually meant dragging some fragment of its (or another’s) soul from the afterlife to inhabit the corpse. This might also explain why such mindless dead harbour a hatred for the living – some fragment of jealousy for what the living have and they do not.
Now, this idea is certainly not in the RAW, but it would provide a good justification (one of many) for why such things are evil, which is what the OP is looking for. I have played in campaigns where this is the case (as far as I know it was house-ruled rather than being RAW for various past editions of the game and/or campaign settings - but maybe not?) and I suspect Chubbs has too.
You could also make an interesting arguement about autopsies and organ donations in the west if you were so inclined.I'm a donor, skin, bone, and organs. I plan to be cremated upon retrieval of useful tissue and have a wake held on the following weekend.
Good on ya, but consider if you lived in an "opt-out" country like Spain or Belgium and hadn't completed your paperwork. Would the removal and donation of your organs against your will be an evil act? It raises some interesting questions about how we view our bodies.
|
|
Yup, Chubbs made some stuff up there – but it would certainly be a good reason why Animate Dead would be evil.
There has been a lot of information on the undead in the old Forgotten Realms supplements. These were 2e by the way. There was one specifically on undead I am thinking of when I wrote the posts above (not that I had rules specifically in mind). I think it was called Lords of Darkness. REF5 or something like that.
Anyway, whatever it was, it had a lot of detail on what happens when you animate the dead. I am not talking about just creating an automaton, but actually creating undead. So, I am probably using a sourcebook no one has read and ... well, that's kind of like reminiscing with people you do not know!
Alright, I might have to swallow my dice on this one...
|
If somebody dies and you want their corpse to be moving around to help you, you have four options:
1: Use your magic to bring them back from the dead.
2: Use your magic to turn them into sentient undead under your command.
3: Use your magic to turn them into mindless undead under your command.
4: Do something else.
Which option you employ says something about your character, doesn't it?
If you want mindless automatons to help you then construct a golem.
If you want to be shielded from attackers then summon monster or create a wall of force or similar.
If you want to create an evil creature which, should you lose control of it (i.e. if you die) will wander the land killing and eating people then create a skeleton or zombie.
Create Undead is part of a range of options available and it is the only one that:
A: creates an evil creature.
B: Takes control of a corpse away from the individual/family to whom the body belongs (you may argue that most corpses have no control over their bodies but I would dispute that. I know what the normal treatment of my corpse will be before I die and if I want my corpse to be treated differently I can take steps to make that happen).
If you looked at the range of magical options before you and chose the only one that creates an evil creature and messes with somebody else's corpse then you're actively choosing the most evil option.
Even if you have an enemy to kill, you can kill that enemy using fireballs, golems, summoned monsters, reverse gravity, etcetera etcetera... or you can choose to create an evil creature and mess with a corpse.
In which cultures is it not bad and negative to abuse corpses?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_(people)
"Upon the death of an individual, the maternal kin were responsible for the dismemberment of the corpse. The women would remove the arms and feet, strip the limbs of muscle, remove the brain and cut open the chest in order to remove internal organs."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori
"Therefore while for ordinary people cannibalism may be seen as primitive, barbaric as well as unclean, for aghoris it is being both resourceful and subverting the common stereotypes placed on such taboos into a spiritual ascertainment that indeed nothing is profane nor separate from God, who is hailed to be all and in all."I'm pretty sure there're a few african cultures that require the disembowlment of their dead but don't quote me on that.
You could also make an interesting arguement about autopsies and organ donations in the west if you were so inclined.
but would a game like Pathfinder be based on such a culture?
but would a game like Pathfinder be based on such a culture?
The Vudrani, Mwangi and Kellid come to mind pretty readily.
Yup, Chubbs made some stuff up there – but it would certainly be a good reason why Animate Dead would be evil.There has been a lot of information on the undead in the old Forgotten Realms supplements. These were 2e by the way. There was one specifically on undead I am thinking of when I wrote the posts above (not that I had rules specifically in mind). I think it was called Lords of Darkness. REF5 or something like that.
Anyway, whatever it was, it had a lot of detail on what happens when you animate the dead. I am not talking about just creating an automaton, but actually creating undead. So, I am probably using a sourcebook no one has read and ... well, that's kind of like reminiscing with people you do not know!
Alright, I might have to swallow my dice on this one...
I know it's irrelevant to your point, but it is definitely not Lords of Darkness. That's the one on the various evil organizations in Faerûn. Sitting with it right here. Don't see much about undead in it's appendix. Major Organizations, Minor Organizations and Tools of Evil which is magic items, a few artifacts, and some spells and feats. The only spell that has Undead in it's name is Devastate Undead. Of course some of the heads of the organizations in it are undead such as the masters of the Twisted Rune, Arklem Greeth who is head of the Arcane Brotherhood, and the vampire Dukes who control the Night Masks (I especially like The Faceless, who is in fact one of the famous Forgotten Realms villain Manshoon's many clones).
|
|
I know it's irrelevant to your point, but it is definitely not Lords of Darkness.
This is the one I mean: http://www.asgi.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=3322&osCsid=9213bd1f 9cfd2662bcf2b2718d8e12de
From the back cover:
'The Undead. Denied the eternal rest of Death, cursed to wander the many planes and worlds forever, their very existence a mockery of the life they constantly crave yet cannot have. Created by the foulest magics, they have only one thought, one burning goal: revenge against the living. Or do they?
Lords of Darkness is an anthology of short adventures set in various locations in the Forgotten Realms which feature undead of all types and descriptions in all sorts of situations - from skeletons to vampires and worse, from graveyards to haunted houses, and even a few places you may never have expected to find the undead'.
It has been about a decade since I read it.
Based on such a culture as in...
Controlling undead is bad in D&D because it is seen as bad and negative to abuse corpses in the culture that created the game.
In trying to keep the game with a positive public image, they made Undead all [EVIL] (big E) and the controlling of them therefore is also evil.
-S
I know it's irrelevant to your point, but it is definitely not Lords of Darkness.This is the one I mean: http://www.asgi.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=3322&osCsid=9213bd1f 9cfd2662bcf2b2718d8e12de
Ahh I see. I though you meant the 3e one. Didn't know there was an older one with the same name. The one in your link pre-dates my gaming life.
|
|
Ahh I see. I though you meant the 3e one. Didn't know there was an older one with the same name. The one in your link pre-dates my gaming life.
Now I feel like I am undead! Yeah, I started gaming in 1988, around when LoD was released in 1988.
Still not sure it was specifically the one I had in mind. It could have been another one entirely!
If Introduced by Ed Greenwood, 1988 means that is the year it was first published, that means that book is as old as I am. Was it evil to re-animate it?
Ahh I see. I though you meant the 3e one. Didn't know there was an older one with the same name. The one in your link pre-dates my gaming life.Now I feel like I am undead! Yeah, I started gaming in 1988, around when LoD was released in 1988.
Still not sure it was specifically the one I had in mind. It could have been another one entirely!
Maybe a random page in one of the probably many supplement D&D books you have read over time was actually a spell that has transformed you into a lich. I guess you won't know for sure until you're at least 120 years.
Well, I just got through re-animating Ed Greenwood, so while I was at it... I might have to change my alignment!If Introduced by Ed Greenwood, 1988 means that is the year it was first published, that means that book is as old as I am. Was it evil to re-animate it?
"Paladins! Smiting time, guys!"
This has been kicked around a lot.
Try this thread on animate dead and evil.
Or this thread as well.
And try this thread on white necromancy (one of my personal favorites).
|
|
Maybe a random page in one of the probably many supplement D&D books you have read over time was actually a spell that has transformed you into a lich. I guess you won't know for sure until you're at least 120 years.
Well, if I get to live another 85 years, I might see the Sydney Swans score another flag! Well, at least the cricket might pick up...
I order my undead army to build an orphanage, a farm, and to start farming said farm for the orphanage and the town nearby.
Oh, sorry to tell you this Kais, but you have already been smited by the "good" paladins who have also just been by another orphanage to cleanse it of children with demon blood in them, and also they have struck down most of the farmers in the nearby viccinity since they were "evil" heretics who gave praise to a false god, whom they believe is a demon. The town is most likely not going to make it through the next winter. But maybe they will all rise from their graves to avenge themselves on the paladins. Who knows...
|
|
Yup, Chubbs made some stuff up there – but it would certainly be a good reason why Animate Dead would be evil.Alright, I might have to swallow my dice on this one...
Well this is interesting. I know it's not in the PF rule books, so it can be taken with a grain of salt, but James Jacobs wrote this in another thread:
Animate dead steals a fragment of ambient established lifeforce, often from leftover soul in a dead body, to animate a dead thing. That IS evil, because you're stuffing a part of something that's alive into something that's dead.
Pretty much exactly matches what you wrote earlier (I think James is stalking you and stealing your ideas dude).
It is not evil to control undead. (Just selfish, you should destroy them)
It is evil to create undead.
Have fun adventurering to find and control undead rather than find treasure I say.
This is a conversation ultimately to have with your GM, as no one is going to agree on a topic like this.
I can say that it is considered evil in my world because all undead bodies are connected to a restless soul that cannot go to its proper end until it is destroyed. Even with mindless skeletons and zombies, there's a soul out there somewhere that is being prevented from going to its final end.
Therefore, you are keeping someone from moving through their rightful life cycle and putting their soul in an endless tormented limbo just so you can have a few unliving servitors. That's a pretty damned evil thing to do.
If you want an unfeeling shell moving around and doing stuff for you, use unseen servant at low levels, and when you get enough funds together, build a golem.
I would say the tradition of declaring it evil in the RULES goes back to both general fantasy traditions and fear of backlash that something like necromancy would be presented as a possibly positive thing in a game intended for people ages 10 and up. Whether you agree with that or not is up to you; I'm not here to defend or promote it. Just saying.
Trying to put a D&D discussion to bed by claiming Judeo-Christian culture/morality proves a point is fraught with peril.Fraught with peril? This is not an Indiana Jones adventure or the such. How would you define the moral basis of our modern society (from a majority view) and the moral influence (foundation) of Pathfinder? Greco-Roman? Buddhist? Confuscian? Islamic?
I'm not claiming anything about the moral basis of our modern society (not sure what all the Buddhists, Hindus etc would say about your use of "our modern society").
Though as far as moral influence goes, I'd argue that many of the culture/moral aspects Judeo-Christian religions are largely universal aspects of human society that have been given prominence by Christianity becuase Chrisitianity has been the dominant religion in western cultures for much of the past 2000 years. They are certainly not unique to those religions.
In terms of influence on Pathfinder/D&D, the battle of good v. evil that is often plyed out reminds me more of some of the great Hindu epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharatta than of some of the basic tenents of Christianity.
DM: The evil sorcerer casts Lightning Bolt at you.
Brother Albertus the Cleric: I roll a reflex save of 17
DM: You save for..... 17 damage. Ok, it's your turn, what do you do?
Brother Albertus: I turn the other cheek.
;-)
I definitely agree with DQ that it´s something that should be discussed with the GM...
That said, obviously most people are going to see creating undead and USING (controlling) them as signifigantly different, though to what degree depends.
If you (generically, long-term) want un-feeling/thinking servants, then golems make sense.
If you run into undead while seeking out another enemy, (to me) it makes as much sense to control them the short while it takes for them to be destroyed in combat with the enemy... they´ve probably been undead long enough that their souls probably won´t notice the difference.
Also, what I see as the main pro-Creating Undead Is Evil argument, that it is preventing souls from reaching their natural resting place, yada yada... That´s all great, but what if said soul is Evil? What if said soul is REALLY REALLY Evil? That means that ´doing your Good duty´ is simply releasing said Evil Soul to the pits of Hell where they will promptly become an Extraplanar Evil being whose capacity to act against innocent, good material plane souls just increased by alot (well, depends on class abilities they just lost). Now taking this into account, it´s obviously going to matter alot whether a given soul is good or bad (if you want to create undead from it´s remains), but then again if you knew the living creature, you likely had the option to do that (Detect Evil) via Spell/Class Abilities.
...Anyways, my point is: how can preventing/postponing the birth of a devil/demon be a bad thing (as far as a good person is concerned)? I could perhaps see certain ¨Natural Law of the Universe¨ / certain Druids (LG, LN, TN) taking the stance that the individual soul is below the sanctitiy of the Universe, but that doesn´t really have much to do with ¨Good¨ per se. And if one still thinks that is an evil act, is there any other ways to augment the forces of evil that earnest do-gooders should also be doing at any opportunity they can?
What if said soul is REALLY REALLY Evil? That means that ´doing your Good duty´ is simply releasing said Evil Soul to the pits of Hell where they will promptly become an Extraplanar Evil being whose capacity to act against innocent, good material plane souls just increased by alot (well, depends on class abilities they just lost). Now taking this into account, it´s obviously going to matter alot whether a given soul is good or bad (if you want to create undead from it´s remains), but then again if you knew the living creature, you likely had the option to do that (Detect Evil) via Spell/Class Abilities.
...Anyways, my point is: how can preventing/postponing the birth of a devil/demon be a bad thing (as far as a good person is concerned)?
For Good (that's a capital-G) people, the ends don't justify the means.
If you know he's evil, if you know he's guaranteed to become a demon, if you have no doubts on those grounds, then why not just slap him into a torture chamber, send down a professional torturer and a ring of Regeneration, toss in some artifact that prevvents him from aging, and begin torturing him for eternity? He'll never age, never die, never become a demon, and all the while you and your friends can go down there whenever you want and slice off various pieces of him, jab him, stab him, burn him, torture him in any way you want. For all of eternity.
That would be an evil thing to do, right? I mean, you wouldn't expect a paladin to pull a stunt like that, would you?
Killing him and slapping him into eternal torment as a tortured spirit, a wracked shambling undead victim of eternal torture, is really not any different. At least not for me, in my interpretation of the cosmology.
OK, I wasn´t aware that Undead = Torture. Maybe that explain´s Lichs´ tendency to have a bad attitude...
Anyhow, most people (especially most Good people (don´t bring Paladins into this) probably think Hell = Torture, so it´d be a wash.
|
|
Animate dead steals a fragment of ambient established lifeforce, often from leftover soul in a dead body, to animate a dead thing. That IS evil, because you're stuffing a part of something that's alive into something that's dead ... Pretty much exactly matches what you wrote earlier (I think James is stalking you and stealing your ideas dude).
Well, if James says it, then its right! So, may be Set can take the straw man home? Well, he does have a point in that it may not be reflected in the Pathfinder supplements.
Can I demand an apology? No? :D
|
|
I'd like to disagree, as only Lawful Good believes that. Chaotic Good believes the end is all that matters.
For Good (that's a capital-G) people, the ends don't justify the means.
Not necessarily. I can easily see an (ostensibly) LG character buying into ends-justifying-the-means and CG characters absolutely being against it.
Gurren Lagann being one particular GAR-ish example.
Otherwise that slips into that old misperception of LG being "ultimate good" compared to NG or CG. My half-orc barbarians tend to have equal moral outrage against certain things(desecrating the dead*) as my paladin. It's just that they have different ranges of means they think can't be justified.
*Barring cultural differences, which aren't bound to the C-L range of alignment really.**
**Sup Jakandor! Now there's a setting where this debate is going to come up all the time.
Control Undead PFphb p 260 = Does not say spell is evil.
Command Undead PFphb p 257 = Does not say spell is evil.
Animate Dead PFphb p 241 = School necromancy [evil] = This is an evil spell.
Create Undead PFphb p 262 = School necromancy [evil] = This is an evil spell.
Create Greater Undead PFphb p 261 = School necromancy [evil] = this is an evil spell.
----------------------------------------------------------
Command Undead PFphb p 120 = Feat = Prerequisite channel negative energy. While this does not say you have to been evil, only evil or neutral cleric can get the prerequisite. In this case the cleric is using his negative energy to control undead, but the cleric can be evil or netural with neg energy.
Necromancy School Wizards can also receive the Command Undead feat as a bonus feat = In this case the wizard can be good, neutral, or evil.
----------------------------------------------------------
While on the subject = AD&D 1st and 2nd ed = Animate Dead spell was not listed as evil. Then again in 1st & 2nd ed did not list Skeletons and Zombies with ability scores like wisdom 10. They more or less treated them like animated objects.
3rd ed + gave Undead ability scores, like wisdom and Int. Now when you animate dead with the spell, your are creating a mindless skeleton or zombie with the spirit of the dead person. (( skeleton champion, were even there INT returns )). While mindless, you are creating something undead, that is enslaving that creatures soul to that body's remains. This is why i now consider the spell evil, and why i would not let Raise Dead, Resurrection or True Resurrection work unless the skeleton or zombies is destoryed first.
|
|
I order my undead army to build an orphanage, a farm, and to start farming said farm for the orphanage and the town nearby.Oh, sorry to tell you this Kais, but you have already been smited by the "good" paladins who have also just been by another orphanage to cleanse it of children with demon blood in them, and also they have struck down most of the farmers in the nearby viccinity since they were "evil" heretics who gave praise to a false god, whom they believe is a demon. The town is most likely not going to make it through the next winter. But maybe they will all rise from their graves to avenge themselves on the paladins. Who knows...
Oh, dear, you just died.
Now your zombie army is killing and eating all of your lovely orphans.
If only you'd made some golems instead.
Also, just reminded by another thread - if you turn someone into a zombie you make it impossible for them to be raised/ressurected etc. which is pretty cruel.
Incidentally, I can't help but feel that my lengthy answer upthread was completely ignored.[/egopain]
Don't golems cost money to make? A LOT of money?
|
I order my undead army to build an orphanage, a farm, and to start farming said farm for the orphanage and the town nearby.Oh, sorry to tell you this Kais, but you have already been smited by the "good" paladins who have also just been by another orphanage to cleanse it of children with demon blood in them, and also they have struck down most of the farmers in the nearby viccinity since they were "evil" heretics who gave praise to a false god, whom they believe is a demon. The town is most likely not going to make it through the next winter. But maybe they will all rise from their graves to avenge themselves on the paladins. Who knows...
Those were followers of Iomedae! What the crap man?! I think those paladins should lose their powers for smiting first and asking questions never.